It's now been a full week since the official publication of "Finding Freedom," with a great deal of ink spilled about the book and the Sussexes new home in Montecito.
Has the Sussex reputation benefitted from the publicity, or are they worse off now in public opinion than they were a week ago?
Comments
I don’t entirely agree with this because it’s not true. The Queen has her red boxes to go through each day. She may not rule as monarch’s did throughout history, but she does have far more than just a ceremonial role.
I list a few of her royal prerogatives below:
The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.
The Queen plays a constitutional role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom
Very interesting to see that Wikipedia says nothing about the one-year review or that the removal of Harry's military roles is not temporary. The PR from those two is intense but I suppose instead of starting a media war, the Palace is letting time reveal the truth?
There is no precedence for a monarch removing titles, and no rules to follow. Only Parliament has done this in the past, rarely, for treason. As I said, the titles are meaningless and a bit of a joke, so it may seem spiteful to remove them. Diane and Sarah lost the HRH but not their titles after divorce, despite all the scandals. Perhaps too many people are impressed with glamour that has no substance and a new precedence should be set? But what to do about Sarah then, and all the others who keep using a title after a divorce even though it is meaningless (although Sarah has made good use of it in self-promotion)?
WBBM, the Irish memorial to the Choctaws brought tears to my eyes as well. I lived in Oklahoma as a child. I found Native Americans to have such stoic dignity. The Choctaws are one of the Five Civilized Tribes who were forced to relocate to Oklahoma via the Trail of Tears, which I learned about in school. Native Americans were marginalized in Oklahoma at the time, although many of the most prominent (& most attractive), Oklahomans boasted Native American ancestry,&, when I lived there, the Osage tribe was very wealthy by virtue of oil found on their land. Don't know what the situation is now. It was a long time ago.
"Archie" is the key to everything. Meg was kicked out of the family for many reasons, but the biggest storm is about a child or lack thereof. If a child exists he/she/it is not of the body. NOTE TO BRF: WE ALL KNOW THIS. Worse yet, the DNA is in question. Correctly, Harry is the one on the legal hook, though I would imagine the RF has something on Megs, as well.
When she debuted 'Bump' at Eugenie's wedding, my thoughts were:
1. Oh, F*ck, she's pregnant.
2. She is pretending to be showing on purpose for attention. Because her stomach was perfectly flat last week.
I considered the bumps in Australia to be more of same . . padding to look more pregnant than she was, for attention. She rolled up in Fiji looking about 5 months in that blue dress. But then I considered whether doctors would advise a truly pregnant woman to fly to a known Zika region, even if it was very early. Not to mention that the flight to Australia is so long as to be a DVT risk. I concluded, probably not. So from that point on I was suspicious.
Fishy. I really thought during those 7-8 weeks of radio silence that the sh*t had hit the fan and the BRF was either arranging a deportment or a mental health care facility for her. I was stunned beyond belief that "Archie" was produced but I think something other than the Sussexes' desire for 'privacy as a new family' was driving the weirdness. The Queen has mentioned out loud that she's got an 8th great grandchild and Archie is listed by name in the succession. All the more reason, if Archie is the Queen's blood and has a place in the succession that his place is with his Royal family, growing up with his cousins. Seems like the Palace should be actively concerned about the fate of this Royal baby than it appears to be. The Phillips and Tindall children have spent some time living abroad with their parents (who had actual employment abroad and were self-supporting) without a fuss, but it's different for Harry's child--he is in the Wales line as Charles's grandson. But the Crown goes, "See ya, bye?" Does not compute.
Why cannot everyone see how mentally ill and avaricious and vindictive she is? It blows my mind.
HMTQ has publicly acknowledged in speech an 8th great-grandchild. But the RF apparatus acknowledges on its website a child named Archie, seventh in the line of succession????? Is this because HMTQ told her son, PC, I refuse to deal with the mess of your son during my lifetime and I do not have to because for the time being "Archie" does not fall within the close scrutiny of the laws of succession? Perhaps. Maybe she is leaving this mess to HM King Charles? Or the plan is to eventually strip the H$rkles of all titles and claim to the throne?"
That's possible. Or, having sent the Harkles away, is HM, at her great age, being shielded from the worst of the Harkle misbehavior by Charles and the courtiers? Her Majesty still does her Red Boxes and will do until she expires, but Harry and Meg wouldn't feature in them. The Harkles are a public relations disaster but not a governmental one--yet. If they continue on inciting anarchy and getting cozy with Russian money, who knows what will happen? I'm sure there must be a crisis team in BP/Clarence House/Kensington discussing "How Do We Solve a Problem like Harry (and his bint)?" but HM is up in Balmoral and blissfully unaware of what's transpiring in Sussex Court West? Having issued her decrees and bid the Harkles adieu in March, does she think it's sorted? I do not peg HM for a Daily Mail reader. Perhaps she has given up reading the papers at her age. The staff is under strict instructions to on no account let the Duke of Edinburgh see a copy of 'Finding Freedom' for fear of apoplexy.
I'm sure her Maj is prepared for news of a Sussex divorce, but she's probably hoping not in her lifetime. I'm sure she is bone tired at this stage in her life of cleaning up the messes of her children and their children and just wants to be left in peace to enjoy whatever time she has remaining with her husband. The Harkle fiasco is antithetical to serenity, so maybe ER just does not want to know how blatantly her grandson and his wife are disobeying her. I think Harry's a lost cause even if he leaves Meg, but his grandmother would prefer not to confront that with the time she's got left.
Harry and Meg will be Charles's problems. Harry's his kid, and so fairly or not, Charles is responsible for their mess.
My first reaction was," Did he REALLY just say that?" Does he know what he just said?
Yes, Harry and MM, that's exactly what you're doing- trying to profit off of compassion and empathy, although we know that your compassion and empathy is just a con to attain money, power and fame.
AS AGREED AND SET OUT IN JANUARY 2020:
- It is agreed that the commencement of the revised role of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will take effect Spring 2020 and undergo a 12-month review.
- The Royal Family respect and understand the wish of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to live a more independent life as a family, by removing the supposed ‘public interest’ justification for media intrusion into their lives. They remain a valued part of Her Majesty’s family.
- The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will become privately funded members of The Royal Family with permission to earn their own income and the ability to pursue their own private charitable interests.
- The preference of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex was to continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity, while not drawing on the Sovereign Grant.
- While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place.
- Per the agreement The Duke and Duchess of Sussex understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties and not undertake representative duties on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen.
..........
- It was agreed that The Duke and Duchess will no longer be able to formally carry out ‘official duties’ for The Queen or represent The Commonwealth, but they will, however, be allowed to maintain their patronages (including those that are classified as ‘royal’ patronages).
- It is agreed that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son. This is based on The Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into The Royal Family, his military service, the Duchess’ own independent profile, and the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years. No further details can be shared as this is classified information for safety reasons.
It is interesting to see what was written at the time. I've put in bold what is interesting/seems a moot point.
I came late to the party and did not follow the goings on in real time in Australia. I thought the wedding "show", real or not, was a cruel (and unforgivable) gesture towards Eugenie.
What sealed the deal for me was the Mayhew animal shelter video with the huge "bang" of a noise when she stood up from her impossible 4" heel squat. The two-fer on that video was the sweet little rescue dog would not even interact with her and her claw.
Yes indeed, this video :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_XaippuOQc
Re. The yearly review. At least there was something out there, even if only sourced (to date) via the now defunct (?) SussexRoyal site.
Here is the Queen's statement in full:
"Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.
"I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.
"I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family.
"It is my whole family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."
Here is Buckingham Palace's statement in full:
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.
"As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for royal duties.
"With The Queen's blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.
"The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.
"Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.
"This new model will take effect in the spring of 2020."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51164232
The '12-month review' is really sticking in their craw--they mentioned it twice.
Based on their increasingly reckless behavior and investment in Sussex Court West, the 12-month review does not seem to mean "After your gap year, we will welcome you back with open arms to carry on as you were." If they thought they'd be returning to re-join the Firm or even spending half the year in England, would they have taken on such a big house? They effectively left England nearly a year ago, right after the SA disaster for their 'break' and didn't get any property of their own.
If the money is still rolling in for them from Charles' 'private fund', these are pretty sweet terms, even with the loss of 'Sussex Royal'.
They can still call themselves Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
They can publish books and hustle for paying gigs and make speeches.
Charles covers their security.
They can sign a mortgage for a $11 million dollar Montecito sinkhole while still owing their pittance of monthly restitution for Frogmore.
Riddle me this, though. How can they be barred from 'Representative duties on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen or the Commonwealth' while they are still holding the titles of President and Vice-President of the Queen's Commonwealth Trust & Youth Ambassadors Program? They have had at least two virtual events with Commonwealth youth leaders since Covid hit. Maybe more--I lose track of all their Zoom appearances. How is this NOT representing the Queen on behalf of the Commonwealth, even if they spout their woke anarchy-inciting nonsense? They still officially have those titles and offices. HM should have taken those away in January. It's nonsensical.
The Monarch bestows the titles within the RF and the Monarch can remove them. Parliament is not involved. It is done by the Monarch issuing Letters Patent in the London Gazette.
Recent precedents are the removal of HRH from both Diana and Sarah after their divorces. Their titles were also amended. Prior to divorce, Diana was Diana, THE Princess of Wales and Fergie Sarah, THE Duchess of York. After divorce they were Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of Yorkk respectively. The dropping of the definite articles in their titles was most significant. If either Charles or Andrew had married again with their previous spouses still living, their new spouses would have the same titles preceded by the all important 'THE'. All this was done via Letters Patent, nothing to do with Parliament.
There is precedent for the Monarch removing titles from royal born children/grandchildren. HRH Princess Patricia was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Her father was HRH Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, a son of Queen Victoria. Princess Patricia was in the same position as Eugenie and Beatrice today. In 1917, George V removed both her HRH and Princess, again via Letters Patent in the London Gazette. The reason? She wanted to marry a commoner.
Patricia didn't mind and it caused no ill will. At the time it was said she went to her marriage a Princess and emerged a Lady, that being the title George gave her on marriage. Her life was fascinating.
So there is precedent for removing Harry's titles and Parliament's involvement is not required. There is also good reason to do so because he has reneged on the agreement. However, neither HM nor Charles has the will. They will suffer for it. The British people are fast losing their patience.
Thank you for the explanation.
A Sussex Staged Charity Photo Op And MM Lectures On Voting
Exactly. I have wondered the same as you in your last paragraph, particularly 'How is this NOT representing the Queen on behalf of the Commonwealth, even if they spout their woke anarchy-inciting nonsense?' and I put that bit in bold. I think they're just past caring and do what they like. I just hope the Queen or Charles have a strong word in their ear and threaten to cut the purse strings.
I started thinking the Queen is not fully informed about the scale of the Sussex disaster and their current behaviour. She is somewhat shielded from the worst of it
Her courtiers have always filtered what eventually reaches her. I am not entirely sure she reads DM the Sun or other newspapers now; she certainly doesn't surf the social media. I seem to remember her private secretary usually provides the summary to her and emphasises what needs her attention.
The 94 years old woman is not the same as the young queen we see on our money, I would expect Charles is better informed about the details than his mother.
Thank you for the cogent explanation. The idea of Parliament interfering in aristocratic titles always sounded nonsensical. If someone in the House of Lords was playing up, they might vote to remove him from the assembly but stripping his titles or lands shouldn't be their purview.
I am thinking that HM and Charles is just going to let the matter of these titles stand. It is the only selling point the Harkles have to market themselves. Weird how they can exploit 'commercial opportunities' as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and that's OK, but using 'Royal' is not.
These distinctions are lost on Americans--'THE'/HRH vs. none. The nuances are too subtle. For palace insiders, they are well and truly outliers . . but to the general public, we just see 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex' continually in our faces, bleating. If they had simply wanted to live quietly in their own American house as 'Harry and Meghan Windsor' and done a few projects with Oprah, nobody would have minded. They are a bigger thorn in the side of the media landscape now that they are 'out' than when they were 'in'. Meg was determined to style herself as 'the American Royal' for cash and fame in Hollywoke, and while she wasn't the immediately feted star she envisioned, she's still getting her face splashed all over the Internet and getting some events among the likes of Michelle Obama. Now she's got a mansion, and they've cadged free luxury housing via other rich dudes based off their royal connections up til now. So she may well think she's 'Winning!'
Harry's got plenty of 'gear' and video games to keep him compliant until she needs to trot him out in front of a camera. They aren't doing so bad. Covid has actually done them a favor because it equalizes their standing/exposure with other celebs, who are all constrained to the video format. There are no huge charity galas or big Hollywood premieres, etc. going on now. But thanks to the power of the Internet, Meg can join virtual roundtables with the former First Lady and other celebs she envies. She wouldn't be getting invites to these same events if they were in person, but it costs nothing for the organizers to beam her in from someone's living room somewhere. Especially if she's 'speaking' for free.
If Meg were forced to drop the Duchess title and be Just Meg, the wife of a guy who used to be a Royal, any residual shine she's got would be further extinguished. She needs that Duchess title . . .and apparently sees no contradiction in using a British title of nobility to promote her ambitions in American politics. Just Harry, of course will forever be ineligible to vote unless he renounces his birthright of Prince and becomes an American citizen. That will require him to live here for seven years and pass a really hard test, so I don't think that will happen. Meg will then have to explain to her critics how she and her deadbeat husband who cannot vote are subsidized by the head of a foreign monarchy and in debt to Russian financiers.
What will be her eventual downfall in America are going to be the taxes. The IRS is very interested in the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and will be keeping a close eye on them. It's how they took down Capone. I think Just Harry will eventually either be deported or just leave. Maybe they will have a bicultural marriage where she stays in one country and he stays in another. I can't see her coming back to England. HM may have quietly revoked the visa for good.
This show is only just starting Act II.
FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2020
Blind Item #3
They could have driven. In the past, the alliterate former actress would have no choice but to drive. Now though? She tried and failed to get a charity to pay for a private jet, but in the end had to get her husband to pay for the 25 minute flight. Nothing like blowing through several thousand dollars each way because you feel too important to drive for two hours.
A future, potential "Slight of Hand"
HMTQ has washed her hands (and rightly so) of PC's second child's (and bint, Love that term you use!) FU/Scheme. HMTQ retains the ability to enjoy the few remaining years of her life with PP in the smaller houses on the great estates. No FF on the bookshelves.
C, the POW, ascends the throne. The first (or tenth?) order of business is to change the law, retroactively, to allow for gestational carriers. Archie, now 6th in line, and glaringly for the British public to see, falls under the day to day jurisdictions of the laws of succession. HMTK grants a title to the "invisible tot." It could happen.
Having said this, if I were their legal counsel, I would ask about the DNA. If the DNA does not line up in its entirety, I would steadfastly advise against this furtherance. TOUCH DNA is something very real and very frightening to me. Even after HMTQ passes away, there will be a large number of people wanting to expose the true origins of "Archie." In the future, it will only get easier to prove this publicly. You can not keep he/she or it locked away forever.
They've got Archies DNA. They know it is PH's.
Very interesting. Thank you!
I have not read LCC's book but read a lifted passage regarding Diana and her title, post divorce. It was related as such:
She was HRH Diana The Princess of Wales. Though she would not be able to retain that title, HMTQ was feeling generous and was going to proffer HRH, Princess Diana, including retention of the Princess moniker and the trappings of the HRH.
Then, as the story goes, Diana pulled a "trick" on Charles and caught him off guard about something. HMTQ was furious.
So what Diana got in the end was simply Princess Diana.
Oh I think they (the family) probably have acquired the DNA of "Archie." But there was a story out there that when asked Harry balked and Harry simply offered to provide a test on his own accord. I do not know what happened with this or if it is true.
What I am saying is that you do not need blood anymore and it is quickly coming that you do not even need saliva. Investigators, outside of the family, could easily use Touch DNA technology to obtain sampling from Harry, Megs and the "invisible" tot. Just "bump" into them or shake their hand.
Here you go:
Become a fake duchess online for just $233. Ha!
https://elitetitles.co.uk/duke_duchess.html
I believe Archie is real, of their DNA, and born via surrogacy. MeMe made a solo trip back to NA to "visit friends" shortly after the marriage. I guess she couldn't visit with them before or during the wedding/receptions? It was also rumoured that "H" and she had visited fertility clinics prior to the marriage. It would be easy to leave a donation on ice there to be used at a later date.
The eye make up doesn't surprise me. Doria was a make up artist in the 80's (?) and since she lives with them now she can do MeMe's makeup to justify her stipend. It looks like 80s make up.
Since when did Victoria Beckham gift freebies for merching (even just a shirt)? It was always said she was adamant about no freebies. She must know MM is not well regarded in the UK but perhaps she's hoping to capitalize on their somewhat attraction in US.
Bringing your own photographer and selling the photos for your own benefit under the guise of doing charity work is tacky. Just plain low class commoner tacky. Any whiff of Royal is gone after that blunder.
Oh and asking a charity to foot the bill for a private jet to ferry you back and forth for a photo op (to benefit you financially not the charity) is ...... crud, I don't even have a word for that. Suggestions?
I thought MM and Victoria Beckham had a huge falling out after MM accused her of selling stories about her. Notice the date that MM tried to mend fences, just when MM was scrambling for any positive PR after the move to LA. This was from The Mirror:
"Meghan Markle has reportedly reached out to Victoria Beckham in a bid to end their feud. The Duchess of Sussex, 38, and former Spice Girls star, 45, were said to have fallen out over allegations Victoria had been selling stories on her friend.Mar 3, 2020"
I have never read that. I did know Philip contributed DNA to finally identify the missing Romanovs. If DNA is collected as you say, they would also have Meghan's on file. Be interesting if there is a child and he is Harry's but not Meghan's.
I realize people think the latest Archie looks like a Markle, but adopted children are often said to look like their adoptive parents by people who don't know about the adoption. So appearance doesn't prove genotype.
They would need, however, to get hold of H&M's DNA in order compare their DNA with Archie's. Not sure how this could be done.
Discarded tissue, or basically anything they've touched?
If it was really needed, simply having a housekeeper bring in a toothbrush, hair brush, etc would do. And probably wouldn't be noticed missing if put back promptly. Or, like the movies, saliva off a teacup or soda can.
Yes! Harry Markle blog hits the nail on the head every time! :)
Then I saw that a sharp-eyed Nuttier noticed that the photos were taken by the Harkles own photographer, & were owned by them. So they probably sold these photos to the Daily Mail themselves. I wonder how long they were actually there. Did they just show up, snap handful of pics & leave? If the story about taking a private plane to LA is true, & trying to get the charity pay for it, then they are despicable.
This just might be the grey men of the BRF pranking for some summertime giggles. They put out this fake private jet story to have fun watching Megs/Hapless squirming, trying to deny it.
"No, we did not take a private jet to go 100 miles ! ! !" "And if we did we would never make a charity pay for this" --- Denying this makes the situation worse for The Duke and Duchess of Montecito.
I mean, if Megs and her PR flunkies can put out fake stories all the time, why can't the BRF do this occasionally? All in good fun of course.
Clothing, towels, hair, nail clippings, silverware, drinking glasses, etc. And, as Jdubya said, from DNA transfer. Although, I think they have their DNA registered as a security measure.
Thanks... but it wasn't me doing the wondering. It was @Maneki :)
ACT II, Indeed
Our current POTUS loves HMTQ. Though speculation, it might mean he loathes the H$arkles. Though he is not suppose to interfere in the "dealings" of the IRS, he does oversee The Department of Treasury and Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Secretary Mnuchin oversees the IRS and its Commissioner. The IRS is a division of The Department of the Treasury.
Maybe that is one reason Megs will vote for Biden. But Megs' vote really does not count, because we all know that California always votes for the Democrat POTUS candidate. Her vote might matter for local California and Santa Barbara County elections.
On the other hand, as a Florida resident, might POTUS vote might actually matter.
You can buy yer Royale Title right here> You too can be the Duchess of Grand Fenwick. Or Duke as the case may be for others.
___________
Nobility titles ⋆ Buy nobility titles
https://www.nobility-titles.net
You can buy a genuine nobility title right here. Through this website, you’ll be able to buy or acquire a title of nobility. Quite simply and with only a few mouse clicks, we offer you the opportunity for the purchase of a nobility title. All our offered titles are legally sanctioned to carry.
What You Get · Our Titles · Shop · Lord and Lady · Lord of Kerry · Laird of Glencairn
Well then, I guess Vicki has given up on her husband being knighted because enabling the Sussexes isn't going to endear her to BRF I should think.
Yes but Cathrine is actually working to promote, not be promoted by, the charity.
The article went on to say that when Megs found out about these future plans she RAGED. She wants Dorito to be gifted the same.
True stuff? IDNK?
OOPS! Sorry to both of you!
Haha... no worries. It's easy to confuse the quotes on here at times. :)
Our current POTUS loves HMTQ. Though speculation, it might mean he loathes the H$arkles.
Our POTUS is a Narc like Meghan, which means that he really is only capable of loving himself, but he does seem to respect HMTQ more than he does other human beings. He feels equally warmly toward Vladimir Putin, who he seems to regard as a sort of fraternity bro in the select cadre of world leaders. So I'm not sure that his 'love' is anything the Queen particularly wants. His gaffe-tastic and cringeworthy visit to London last year really was him on his best behavior, despite the fact that he kept HM waiting and was gauche enough to invite all of his children and their spouses--even poor neglected Tiffany, daughter of Wife #2 Marla, who he does not normally chuck a rock at--as part of the official delegation. Incredibly tacky, treating the Queen's state banquet like it's 'Kids Eat Free' night down at the Golden Corral.
An invitation to Buckingham Palace signifies that one is really hot cheese on the world stage, and DT was positively beaming. Yes, his feelings toward the little old lady in the jewels are benign. He may not even have realized that his reception from the Royals was decidedly lukewarm & he did not get taken to the Houses of Parliament or for a carriage ride on the Mall. Nor was he received by Prince George of Cambridge like his predecessor. :)
He was not calling *her* nasty, but rather her epithet. Which is was. Now that she's insulted him and awoken the sleeping beast, he's not going to forget it, but I really think he's got other things on his mind right now. The Harkles' future in America is rather contingent on what happens in November. A Biden Administration will be a lot more conducive to continuing their SJW crusade from their luxury mansion in Montecito. If Trump gets a second term, and COVID-19 recedes, Trumpie may remember that the woman who called him Syphilis and who swore she'd never darken the threshold of this country so long as he was President is installed in a Russian mob mansion in a hotbed of liberalism and is being nasty to the Queen.
If Lilibet really wanted to make Meg's life difficult from afar, she should call the White House and have a chat with Donnie. He would be tickled. She could drop hints that Harry and Meg have really broken her heart, and the Duke of Edinburgh is so beside himself with upset that he's had to be sedated. She could ask Donnie to 'check on them' because they are just not returning her calls, and as a grandmother, she's worried, and most especially about young Master Archie.
The Tweets emanating from that conversation would roast the Harkles good .. and their tax status and Harry's immigration status would also become items of interest.
On a related note, Harry still occupies his seat as Councillor of State for the United Kingdom, which is beyond droll in my eyes. Why should he get to retain that if he hates England and is residing in America married to someone who treats the Queen like dirt and who has potentially made noises about abolishing the monarchy? Harry's loyalties are worse than divided--he's thrown his lot in with Meg and the Hollywood wokerati.
Apparently the line of succession is sacrosanct and a spot in it, no matter how distant, is preferable to an HRH or any title. Peter Phillips, #15, who's never had a title or worked for the Firm made his Catholic wife convert to CoE before marriage so he wouldn't lose his place, even though nothing sort of a Game of Thrones-style royal genocide would get him close to the throne. Likewise, Harry can tell his Queen to f*ck off in so many words and flee England, but he still gets to be #6. So after everything he has done, in the event the Cambridge family were all wiped out, Harry would get to be King. That would be a turn up, wouldn't it? Then Archie would be in line to be Prince of Wales and we'd definitely have to see him then.
I wish everyone in front of Hapless #6 a very long, happy and fruitful life.
PP has been poltically incorrect and full of incorrect humor himself over the years.
also, HM & PP are from the era of the Greatest Generation, They got thru WW2, Bombing of London, etc, with Winston Churchill’s leadership and the determination of the Allies. Churchill was no shrinking violet and very colorful himself. Trump put Churchill back in the Oval Office after Obama shipped him off to gather dust somewhere.
But I think most /all of the younger attendees, Cambridges, PC, probably Cam, and most definitely the Sussexs, can’t stand him and had to hold their noses. PH could barely manage to be in the same room with a Trump , any Trump LOL. and that is the surest sign, he’s not cut out to be a Senior Royal attending State dinners. HM has had to be gracious to all her guests. it’s part of the job and PC and the Cambridges know that, PH is too emotional, wears his heart on his sleeve and can’t manage that, he wants to lecture every one and tell them how to live their lives from his multi million pound mansions.
I do think that if Trump is reelected there might be a bit more pain inflicted upon the H$rkles than a Biden Administration. Maybe, it is not a given. But strictly on the QT. Just like Obama promised there was not a "smidgeon" of corruption (by Lois Lerner or anyone else) at the IRS with regard to the processing of conservative political non-profits prior to the 2012 election. Interestingly, a now deceased Democratic operative admitted the opposite. Apparently, it was Obama's first WH counsel, Bob Bauer, who instructed the IRS to slow walk these applications. Moreover, apparently everyone within the Beltway knew this, both the fact and the name. So it goes.
More interestingly, and I just remembered this owing to your comment about the BP State dinner. We all remember Megs refused to come. Did she? Or was she told not to come? Anyway, I remember see a quick photo of Harry seated at the very large table configuration and guess who was seated to his left, next to him? A woman of course, but guess who? Rose Hanbury, The Marchioness of Cholmondeley. The Marquess was seated elsewhere as all couples were separated. I truly hope that made Haz very uncomfortable.
OT?
I hope nobody minds me posting a a link to a recent BBC report - I hope this is seen as non-confrontational, especially as I am an outsider. if you think I shouldn't have done so, please scroll past.
When I visited Arizona a decade ago, on a geology field trip, I saw a little of how the Navajo live their lives, out in the desert, and I thought how hard it must be for them, at the best of times.
Then came the virus-
Arizona is a wonderful place for a geology field trip! I was checking out taking a horseback tour when a tourist asked one of the Navajos why so many Navajos liked to live out all alone in the desert. "Because we don't like Indians!" was the answer. "Oh!" they said, confused, walking off. I was laughing my butt off. He said "Some people just don't have a sense of humor!" I bet he used that joke a LOT. Monument Valley, Utah, by horseback: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4RN_O2FmI
The harsh life is a choice. The traditional Navajos choose to follow the old ways and old religion and walk in beauty; the younger ones may choose to leave for an easier life. It is a harsh and beautiful land. (In the event of a Carrington event that knocks out electricity throughout CONUS, I have an idea as to who would be more likely to be survivors.)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8652443/Finding-Freedom-reveals-largesse-royal-couple-received-jets-luxury-hotel-stays.html
I have spent a great deal of time in the non-urban areas of the West, including New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, etc. The starkness of the desert landscape is breathtakingly beautiful and spiritual. It is a hard life, but a life well lived, organically. More intense and perhaps more worthwhile in the long run.
A massive permanent power outage. My bet is on all of those who truly know how to live on the land, off the land and with the land. And with little in the way of technological "aid."
'Our current POTUS loves HMTQ. Though speculation, it might mean he loathes the H$arkles. Though he is not suppose to interfere in the "dealings" of the IRS, he does oversee The Department of Treasury and Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Secretary Mnuchin oversees the IRS and its Commissioner. The IRS is a division of The Department of the Treasury.'
----------------------
Don't forget that Steve Mnuchin was, allegedly one of MM's yachting clients.
@Miggy and Maneki,
OOPS! Sorry to both of you!
____________________
Ha Ha! Easily done. Don't worry but thanks anyway :)
I have spent a great deal of time in the non-urban areas of the West, including New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, etc. The starkness of the desert landscape is breathtakingly beautiful and spiritual. It is a hard life, but a life well lived, organically. More intense and perhaps more worthwhile in the long run.
And the beautiful nights with nothing interfering with the stars! And nothing like the glory of the electrical storms! You hear and see strange things out around some of the ruins at night. Just the wind and my imagination, I'm sure.
Royalty and the nobility in general have typically been fairly blase about such things, once the succession is secured and a few spares have been produced. The obvious exception being Victoria and Albert ( that bourgeois sense of morality, don't you know), but I think during the Regency and earlier, much care was taken not to notice how extraordinarily Lord So-and-So's youngest son favored Lord What's-his-Name.
As much as I'd like to see the Harkles tossed out on their arses, I don't see it happening. They've not done anything worse than Andrew, and I think it was the Epstein crap that got him in trouble, not his dodgy finances. He'd have been free to keep his grifting up if not for that, so I am not sure why Cringe and Ginge would be reined in.
I am worried for the Monarchy. Wouldn't be surprised William says to hell with it once Charles passes on, and if it even makes it that far.
Oh why, oh why can not Catherine have two more beautiful babies. Bless her heart.
They could have their own basketball team in the Royal league!
/But I don't think that argument is going to sway the Duchess of Cambridge, fond of athletics though she may be.
Re. Trump visit to BP
There are the media enjoyed whipping up a frenzy of “Meg Refuses to Meet Trump!!” And I got recycled over and over like she actually had freedom to diss the American president in that way, The fact is that neither she nor Harry were invited to the state dinner. Markle was not invited to any events involving the President’s delegation. She was at the time “heavily expectant with Archie”. She would not have been invited in any case. Of course she would not have been able to restrain her mouth and would have set off an incident, but that was not an issue because she simply was not senior enough. Catherine was married for five years before she was permitted to attend a state function—-She still had to prove that she could handle the deportment, even though she’s married to the heir
Harry participated in a private lunch and tour of BP With the Trumps, Which he sulked through with a face like a smacked bum. His wife was not invited. The Cambridge snd Prince Charles were no-shows at these events also. I thought that was a really bad look. Trump is a polarizing and unpopular figure abroad, with cause, And his predecessor was very popular, Even though Michelle Obama Breached protocol spectacularly by pawing the Queen’s person and Barack gifted HM With an iPod preloaded with his speeches as a royal sleep aid. I think Trump gave her better present than that. Irrespective of private views, the Royals are supposed to be civil and neutral to all. On your home turf they should be magnanimous. The Queen was but her heirs were not nearly so gracious.
For Harry’s part, his attitudes were certainly infected by Meghan. Diplomacy is the art of being nice to people you do not like. There isn’t any skill involved in being nice to people who think and act just like you.
,
I like Will Rogers' definition better: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."
Well, DeBlasio's wife (Chirlane?), an unelected individual, doled out $890M to NYC organizations WITH NO ACCOUNTING!
It is all a scam.
But...if Megs thinks she can just waltz into a US Senate Seat, she is really far more deluded than even I imagined. Ponder this. America's own princess, Caroline Kennedy, wanted an open seat several years ago, and even with her pedigree and coming from a legendary politically powerful family, she was found wanting, when she tried to first obtain an ambassadorship as a first step. Seems she was so sophomoric in her language skills (like, ya know, ya know) that she was found wanting. Megggie's woke speech and faux accent won't matter at all to the power players. A US Senate seat is not for the dilettantes. That won't do. Her title won't been diddly to the politically powerful
Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the US House of Representatives) is the most powerful woman in US politics. Her nephew, Gavin Newsome, is the governor of California. The next Senator from Cali will be someone in their orbit, not some Z-rate Hollywood actress. Even Angelina Jolie, with HER humanitarian creds, won't do. Meg Whitman, former CEO of E-Bay, could not win a California Senate seat, with her credentials, because she ran against the power structure (Pelosi et. al.).
Alas, another of the Demented Duchess's pipe dreams goes down in flames. Is it wrong that I'm laughing?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8652443/Finding-Freedom-reveals-largesse-royal-couple-received-jets-luxury-hotel-stays.html
Just read it. It is mind-numbing repugnant. It is astonishing this has been allowed to occur.
Just read it too, but unfortunately can't Meghan accept gifts but can Harry as a member of the Royal Family? I believe there will be IRS tax implications on gifts to Meghan.
Although I’m a regular reader, I seldom post. There are some very powerful writers here, and in the main, I don’t feel I have more to offer.
When I do, I can’t always recall who said what and so I don’t credit each and every remark although I certainly feel like doing so when I read!
I hadn’t realized it was an insult to not give feedback.
When I have an opposing view, I give it. Why not?
I watched enough of yesterday’s video to be sickened, as usual. I could slap her smug face. I’m very deaf, so couldn’t hear everything. It seemed to me that Harry listended to the two women and then commented. It seemed as though he contributed to what they were saying? Whereas Meghan, of course, cooled her heels until she could jump in with her soliloquy.
I’ve only just read about today’s misssion of mercy...when will we be putnoutnofmour misery?
"I hadn’t realized it was an insult to not give feedback."
Martha feel free to do what you are inclined to and what makes me feel comfortable. As a long time poster here, new people are very welcome, or those who may mostly lurk and just occasionally comment. It is NOT an insult to not give feedback as many don't. You seem like an astute person so your insight or commentary would be appreciated I believe.
But some people post and not get acknowledged by others responding but it doesn't mean the person's comment wasn't appreciated or considered in the dialogue. More often than not, people post without expecting feedback IMO. Some with egos bigger than their brain (lol) may want everyone to hang on their every word but that's not the way it works here. Most Nutties are down-to-earth and accepting of others here, at least that's what I have experienced save for a few.
So I look forward to your future observations, info, opinions, etc ...when you're ready :)
I am also at the point where I (sadly) believe that HM and PC pretty much deserve what they get. It’s, quite frankly, truly unfathomable to me that after decades of faithful service, HM would potentially risk having her reign end under these circumstances. And PC, who has never been seen as a strong leader, is sitting by doing who knows what. In the current environment, ‘never complain, never explain’ just doesn’t cut it. I will always believe that this marriage was coerced and that MM & JH do not have custody of a child named ‘Archie.’ As I’ve previously expressed, my interest in this topic is based on truth and justice. And I do believe that the truth will be brought to light, I just don’t know when. Sometimes it takes decades, as we are seeing now with the Epstein case, and which, unfortunately, I’ve seen in my own life. That’s why my faith in justice is so strong—I’ve witnessed the outcome first-hand.
As I’ve expressed here recently, it’s very disappointing to me that many of my comments do not seem to be read, as I put a lot of time and effort into what I post. But my posts seem to be lost amongst some of the utter drivel that has recently become the hallmark of this blog. I am not referring to the tried and true posters, whose comments I consistently enjoy. I am speaking about the chaos that the recent new arrivals have inflicted here. I had hoped that after the utter shit show last night, something would be done, but that’s clearly not happening, for whatever reason. So, as Megsy would say, I’ve decided to step back. I may read here and perhaps comment occasionally, but l do not plan to be here on any type of consistent basis going forward. It’s become way too toxic.
@Aquagirl: Don’t fret, I think most of us who take our time to comment in this blog also read most off the comments by the others. The problem is that I think most of us don’t always have the time to formulate a decent reply.
During my workday, I pop in and out of this blog to see what everyone is discussing, but I often need to jump on a call or get back to the projects I’m juggling, so a reply is not often possible or maybe a short reply is often the most some of us can do before we have to go.
One other factor that affects the number of replies is the time zones where we’re all scattered about on this planet. The blog activity seems more active during daytime in Europe, which makes sense because Nutty is based in Europe and many of the commenters and readers are in the UK. If I comment or reply from here in the US after work, many of the european-based nutties are fast asleep.
Yes, there is some drivel, but overall the comments to Nutty’s posts and the threads that evolve from her posts are astute and well thought out. And you are one of the nutties who contributes thoughtful comments. For what it’s worth, I always read your comments, even on busy days. It’s just difficult to always reply.
I appreciate how vibrant this community is!
Sometimes I don't always pipe up myself, because I see another conversation happening simultaneously too and try to keep it simple.
The Duchess of Sussex was a surprise guest on Michelle Obama's When All Women Vote online event on Thursday, saying "we all know what's at stake" in the upcoming US election.
Many interpreted it as a breach in royal protocol that prohibts British royals from commenting on politics.
"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," Piers tweeted on Friday night.
"They can't remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections in such a brazenly partisan way."
He added: "Last time I checked she's still calling herself the Duchess of Sussex."
I wish BP took note... As for "The Duchess of Sussex was a surprise guest on Michelle Obama's When All Women Vote online event on Thursday", did she barge in uninvited as usual? (sorry, I didn't follow this event).
@WulliesBucket We gotta deal with our *sisters*. Ugh. No "sister" speaks for me.
Hell, no, my friend. Sorry if it seemed so.
Still steaming, me, when I contribute something, and it is ignored. NOT ONLY THAT, but off topic stuff seems to take over. AND!!! I discover that other posters are saying things that I have posted long ago.
As far as I am concerned, your takes on the Harkles are spot on the money. AND --
As far as I am concerned, you are a good one :)
And you're a good one too! 😍
I always enjoy your posts. You are an astute and a very friendly Nutty.
Comments are indeed getting lost. The old format with the nested comments worked better IMO.
Yes, there is too much blog-clog lately. I agree with AquaGirl that newer people have been causing chaos. And the feline-one is howling at the moon again.
Over the past few days, I have been accused of being racist because I liked an old Cher song. New poster Pink Peony has turned out to be quite a problem. She's been libeling me with defamatory statements and has attacked others as well. She and another "new" person who I think may be an "old" poster in yet another alternate identity, also accused me of trying to start a new blog to damage Nutty in some way. I'm not sure how that would be accomplished but since I thought I made it clear that I was setting up a data collection blog to go along with this one, the accusations were very puzzling and hurtful.
I think we need a moderator who actually interacts with posters to settle any commotion and put a stop to random trails of endless off-topic posts. We keep losing more people...now I think we've lost Aquagirl.
The book says Harry and Chelsy reconnected briefly before Megan decided to leak their relationship. No doubt on purpose. Harry could have happily LIVED HIS DREAM with with Chelsy in South Africa. There they could have lived out of the limelight as they BOTH wished and spent their days devoted to good causes. It is a country that would have deeply benefited from what Harry could offer. SUCH a shame. SUCH a waste. To now see him wasting his days in the US feeding Megans GREED and political ambitions. Wake up Harry!
I thought I couldn't despise Markle more than I already do... but if this is true it shows how contrived, (by her) their courtship truly was.
@Lt Uhura
did you get the subscribed emails for this thread?
Subscribed emails??? No, I guess not, ???
Firstly, apologies for not replying sooner. I went to bed and have only just read your email.
In theory there are a number of things people can do. 1. Write to their MP and/or the Prime Minister and/or HM and/or the newspapers. 2. Start a petition. If enough people do it the establishment DO take notice. Frances Donaldson, in her book on the Abdication (still the best I have read), showed how that worked. On the first Friday of December 1936 MRS went back their constituencies and were inundated with complaints about Edward VIII with people saying he had to go. This was reported back when they returned to Parliament on the Monday. By Thursday he had gone.
Oh for a Stanley Baldwin today. And for that matter a Queen Mary.
The difference today is that in my experience, based on talking to relatives, friends, colleagues, is that the Harkles simply do not register on their radar. They do not consider them to be of any importance and most people simply do not know what they are up to. For example, the many articles about them daily on the DM website are not in the hard copy of the newspaper.
Within the establishment the voices that would be listened to are silent. We need a hard hitter ie Charles Moore, Max Hastings, Andrew Neil, speaking out, but theycare not.
By the way Wullie, I enjoy your posts. Keep posting and apologies again.
Yes, I was surprised too. Not having read the book, I'm left wondering if this, (Chelsy) was indeed before Meghan leaked their relationship OR before she crashed the Inskip wedding because Harry was apparently over her, as has been suggested?
If anyone on here has the book - could you please elaborate on this? TIA
@Rut,
I don't blame you. She's vile.
Also Harry and Meghans positions in the royal family becomes stronger when Charles is King. Thats why I hope the Queen stays healthy for a long long time. I love Charles and I understand he has been waiting to be King for a loooong time. But because of Meghan... that would make her thr daughter in law to a King, I just hope that never happens.
I've only read what others have said about it here (and seen a couple of pics on Harry Markle) - I was wondering if anyone heard him speak at that event? It's been speculated that MM is into BDSM; could she have made him wear a gag under his mask in case he lets another howler like the "cashing in on compassion"* slip? lol it could be one explanation for possible drooling, although admittedly I think the other theories already spoken about are more likely.
*Just checked and it was actually "Why not profit off compassion and empathy?", but decided to leave the original as it is.
Many women with bossy and dominant personalities likes to be little and submissive at home, behind close doors. Also..it is a way for some women to manipulate men. Their boyfriends feel they know the REAL woman. Yes she is bossy and dominant and AWFUL but in bed she really is sweet.
Harry is not wearing gags.
Some posters are reading and will be deterred from participating in future discussions.
Fixt it for you.
So many lies, so much twisting of the truth.
To say nothing of the the huge injustice she has heaped on all of us in Britain, a great pile of merde dumped on the entire population.
Then she tries to stop us when we call her out. I know we have individual racists but the vast majority, who don't look too closely, wish Harry and his bint no harm.
Their supporters don't care about the stability of the realm, any more than they seem to care about other people in general.
-------------------
On the subject of titles - buying one of those on offer commercially wouldn't get you very far as those with genuine inherited titles, as featured in Debrett, know full well who is genuine and who is not.
Being a member of the House of Lords isn't what it was.
There are about 90 hereditary peers left in the Lords (accounts vary) - the rest are Life Peers, awarded their titles for their lifetime only. Too often, it seems to me, they are dished out in return for political favours.
The number of these barons and baronesses increases relentlessly - there's hardly room for them all. The advantage of the old system was that it was `one out, then one in' as the old passed away.
It's quite difficult to ascertain which titles can be removed. Jeffrey Archer, awarded a life peerage, may have lost his seat in the Lords but is able to retain his handle `of Weston-Super-Mare'.
Apparently, it takes an Act of Parliament to be passed (which involves the Royal Assent) to remove a peer's title but so far I haven't found a statement as to whether this applies to all 3 types of titles (Royal, hereditary peerages and life peerages).
George V was able to strip some of his German relatives of their British titles in 1917. He also changed the family surname to `Windsor', which also became the name of the Royal House.
Incidentally, `Saxe Coburg Gotha' used to be the name of the House but not the family surname. I was once asked if I knew what the Hanoverian surname was before it was Windsor. I dug deep into my memory and recalled my mother had mentioned it - she could recall it from 1917.
Going back in history, royals didn't need surnames. These were forced on the plebs by royal authorities who needed to be able to identify individual tax payers. After all, it was the king who was doing the taxing.
The only commercial title on offer that may bring financial advantage is Lord of the Manor. This may confer rights regarding access to `Common Land' which, in England, is not what you might think!
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_strip#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20Kingdom%2C%20a,be%20located%20between%20two%20properties.
or just Google `ransome strip' - a pain to those in houses built on the edge of a Common.
Better not tell Megsie about this, or she'll hoover up every Lordship and screw English householders directly!
Hi Megsie! It'd be really bad publicity - but you don't care about that, do you? As long as you're OK!
I just want them to go away and shut up, although, IMO, the sooner the truth, whatever it may be, about `Archie' is revealed, the better. We'll know where we stand then.
That is correct the Dukedom and or HRH can be taken away by the Queen without any explanation or legal reasons as Harry’s ‘Royal Dukedom’ is a considered a personal gift of the Queen, she bestowed it with ‘letters patent’ and she can revoke with new ‘letters patent’.
Other types of Dukedom (i.e inherited) cannot be taken away even by parliament without just cause (treason/ gross criminal misconduct). Normally it is the parliament who is in the business of striping titles by using ‘ The Titles Depravation Act’ but since that was only done to strip Peers who supported and fought against the British in World War I and II, I highly doubt they’d do it for anything less than high treason.
However the chief point for Harry is that it is the Monarchs sole prerogative to strip titles and honours from anyone who bares the title of HRH.
Indeed the Queen could issue letters patent on anyone who holds the distinction of Royal Highness. As Wild Boar said above just as George V did in 1917, which also stripped the title of Prince and Princess from some members of the family. Just last year Swedish King Carl XVI Gustav stripped the style of Royal Highness from all of his grandchildren, except for those born to Crown Princess Victoria. The Queen could do the same.
The Queen could take away all Harry and Meghan’s titles relatively easily if she wished , no questions asked , but that is unlikely as it would seem too petty unless she did the same to Andrew who’s crimes against the crown are far worse than Harry’s and also because if she did it means Harry would legally be a commoner and could stand for a seat in the House of Commons (with Megs urging) and still be a thorn in the side of the UK. When Edward the VIII abdicated he had no titles apart from Prince (an honorary style - not a title) and even though he was HRH he was legally a commoner, the government was very worried that he would form his own party and stand for parliament , he did have quite a few supporters at the time and was very sympathetic to Hitler and the German Reich , so they made him Duke of Windsor to cut him off at the pass.
So there is nothing stopping the Queen from taking all Harry’s titles away from him even the style Prince, Meghan would not even be mentioned in the legalities as her titles only come via Harry.
If Meghan Markle is into BDSM she is the submissive one. Not Harry. I can imagine her acting as a little submissive girl. Thats what she did with Trevor anyway...calling him Trevtrev with a babyvoice. She also got that bracelet from Trevor ( yes...and one from Harry ) I also think Harry is dominant, I read he loves blowjobs. That is reciving something. He went to stripclubs in Vegas. He likes to be dominant.
Many women with bossy and dominant personalities likes to be little and submissive at home, behind close doors. Also..it is a way for some women to manipulate men. Their boyfriends feel they know the REAL woman. Yes she is bossy and dominant and AWFUL but in bed she really is sweet.
Well done Rut! With due respect you are wrong about who/what is the real woman-- She is both, both are the real woman.
Mousy, nice and submissive domestically allows her to relax and receive love etc. otherwise disaster for both at home. Importantly, this relaxation phase allows her to recharge her batteries in order to be dominant at work and a bitch at times. At work and other outside the home situations. Such as being a demanding arse-hole to waiters (You! are my rent a slave for the next 90 minutes) and much put upon retail workers.
For some, being dominant outside allows her (Megsy?) to blow off enough steam to be very very nice at home to her husband, etc. A well written book or thesis can not do justice this two sides of the same coin dynamic. Neither can unburdening on the (psychiatrist's) couch for ten years. Well maybe it can.
Of course we cannot be sure that this is the Haps/Megs relationship, but it looks like it might be.
We all probably reflect at times on why this is such a hobbyhorse for us. I know that I have to keep it a secret from friends & family who would make fun of me; but I do have an idea why the Harkles irritate me so much. I'm very tired of being preached to & told how to feel & act by clueless little know-nothings like Megs & Hegs. They have a lot of company. What really disgusts me, is that these people are often using their crack-brained ideas as both bullying cudgels. & as a way to line their own pockets.
It is beyond ridiculous that someone like Megs, who's ghosted her own family, viciously attacked critics, wreaked havoc in her new in-laws' circle, reportedly abused subordinates & slept her way into jobs, should lecture anyone on being 'kind.' Plus, she wants to enrich herself while doing it. It smacks of Hillary Clinton lecturing us on how to treat women. Has she met her own husband?
I wouldn't dream of being unkind to anyone because of their natural appearance, race, ethnicity, religion, or their personal decisions on gender & sexual orientation, but I draw the line at making those traits a reason for admiration. They're irrelevant. I'm also puzzled by all of uproar about body dysmorphism, when 'leaders' like Megs, & her little attachment, Scobie, are so obviously doing drastic things to achieve a desired look. What people do to their own appearance is their business, Megs & her scab can stuff their faces with filler till the cows come home, for all I care, but don't ask me to look up to them for it.
Was reading a bit about J B S Haldane today. He was a true genius, & made many contributions in several fields. He also was a very difficult man, who, if he were living today, would likely have been destroyed by the PC police. Among his many accomplishments was this little limerick which he wrote when dying of cancer:
I wish I had the voice of Homer
To sing of rectal carcinoma,
This kills a lot more chaps, in fact,
Than were bumped off when Troy was sacked ...
... I know that cancer often kills,
But so do cars and sleeping pills;
And it can hurt one till one sweats,
So can bad teeth and unpaid debts.
A spot of laughter, I am sure,
Often accelerates one's cure;
So let us patients do our bit
To help the surgeons make us fit.
To the limerick writers who have made us smile. I concur. We need humor. My upbringing was too repressed to really appreciate scatology, but it still makes me laugh at times. I hope you won't be bullied into silence. Sorry for the long rant. No one needs to read it or comment, just letting off steam.
Remember when he became angry at her at the balcony at Trooping the colour? And how she turned around and sulked like a little girl. That was not a dynamic between a dominante woman and a submissive man.
Of course we can not be sure :)
But one thing I am sure of is that Harry is not submissive. He is not wearing no gags.
That's been known for decades. What I learned just a couple years ago was that Queen Mary had herself put down (she had terminal lung cancer) so her death wouldn't interfere with Elizabeth's coronation a few weeks later.
I read it was Wettin. No idea about the Hanoverians, but Wikipedia says this: The formal name of the house was the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Hanover line. The House of Hanover is now the only surviving branch of the House of Welf, which is the senior branch of the House of Este.
I don't see how easing someone's death is a bad thing. I was there when my grandmother died and she was obviously suffering but the doctor didn't want to even give her a little codeine because it might hasten her death. It's not like these people are going to recover, is it? And watching your loved one die in agony is one of the worst things you can experience in this world, apart from being the one who is dying in agony.
That's been known for decades.
It’s absolutely been known for decades all because they wanted his death to be in the morning news and not the evening newspapers. There’s a documentary on tonight in the UK called, George V: The Tyrant King and that’s why it’s made headlines I suppose.
The Queen could take away all Harry and Meghan’s titles relatively easily if she wished , no questions asked , but that is unlikely as it would seem too petty unless she did the same to Andrew who’s crimes against the crown are far worse than Harry’s...
However, nothing has been proven against Andrew. We're all watching Harry's stupidity play out in real time.
I wish I had the voice of Homer
To sing of rectal carcinoma,
This kills a lot more chaps, in fact,
Than were bumped off when Troy was sacked ...
... I know that cancer often kills,
But so do cars and sleeping pills;
And it can hurt one till one sweats,
So can bad teeth and unpaid debts.
A spot of laughter, I am sure,
Often accelerates one's cure;
So let us patients do our bit
To help the surgeons make us fit.
Loved the limerick! Agree the PC brigade would have killed it off these days, and it would have been resigned to history forever more.
( and she would be even smaller without the title )
Interesting fact about Queen Mary being helped along. Ambulance attendants gave my mother morphine to hasten her death. She just had to be able to establish her identity.
@neutralobserver...absolutely agree, “beyond ridiculous”.
Most people are unaware that Prince is not a title, it is an honorific, a style, like Mr or Mrs. There are only a few people who are legally allowed to be called Prince or Princess of Great Britain but that doesn't mean they can claim the title as a right, it has to be confirmed upon them by the Sovereign usually by just announcing it via the palace machinery. The style Prince/Princess can be removed from any of them by the reigning Monarch at any time. King George V removed the titles from quite a few in 1917 and then issued a reduced list (letters patent again) of those who could legally be allowed the name Prince/Princess of GB.
It's unlikely that the titles would be removed from Harry but the mechanism is there if the need arose. Maybe kept as a gentle reminder to toe the line or else. Even Andrew could be stripped of Prince and HRH (and should be).
The Monarchy has hundreds of statutes that apply only to itself and the RF. "The Grand Opinion of 1818" is a glaring example where the Monarch is automatically the legal guardian of all his/her minor grandchildren in British Law, it made perfect sense at the time when the POW planned to take his children to Germany to be educated (and influenced), it's well outdated now but is still on the books.
Many others relate to the Monarchs rights and jurisdictions, such as owning half the Swans in the country. All the dolphins, whales, sturgeons and porpoises when they are caught or captured within three miles of the UK (since 1324) The seabed for 200ft and high tide to low tide of half of the coastline around England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (including ship wrecks). The jurisdiction of the Royal Peculiars (such as Westminster Abbey). Most are ignored or looked upon as quirky traditions but none the less they are still legal.
The RF have managed to pretty much legally tie up any eventuality that might affect them over the past 900years.
If the monarchy should ever come to an end in the UK the legal wrangling over who owns what would drag on for decades. Legally speaking when Charles becomes King he is in full possession of the Crown Estates and has to sign them over to the government anew for the 'Sovereign Grant' to kick in as per the agreement made with George III in 1760, but he could just keep the lot as his own private property. Unfortunately he would then be liable to foot the bill for the entire UK military, so that's not likely to ever happen while he is King. However if the Monarchy ceases to exist then the ownership of the Crown Estates is very uncertain as it is the Monarch who signs them over to the Government in exchange for a % of the profits. No monarch, no signatory to the agreement. Who then owns the estate?
The good news is she has only had limited-scope/little publicity events. Are these events set up by Obamas/Clintons/Oprah to appease her, while keeping her away from the big events, like the convention? THere were many people videoed in that 4 day convention and if DNC had thought she would be useful, they would have at least given her SOMETHING to do - even it was only clapping. Unlike our relationships, the polico-celeb circles are based on "you rub my back, I rub yours" so you never want to diss anyone because they may be useful later.
I hope she wears out her welcome quickly. She seems to be doing a fine job of making demands and cravenly merching at the very events where she SHOULD be playing nice with other volunteers in order to score a playdate for Archie.
I'm feeling frustrated at the BRF's inability or unwillingness to slap the Harkles down.
Please bear with me while I think this through.
Part One
I started trying to look at it another way. Starting from tge premise that everything the Harkles say is a lie (which I believe), what if Megxit is just another one? There has been some discussion on here that what the Harkles really wanted was 1/2 in and 1/2 out. I certainly agree with that, but for discussion consider:
- After a disastrous year, the Sussexes capped off their only positive press (the SA tour) with the announcement of lawsuits and the "poor me" video.
-This follows months of failing to follow even basic protocol with their appearances, often appearing wasted, rumpled, and with the ridiculous PDA. They came late, and left early. They were tossed from their first engagement by Harrys father. We had obscene spending, overt hypocrisy, the entire pregnancy nonsense, the embarrassment of a wedding, the disrespect to their hosts on Royal Tours, Megs dragging Harry around like her handbag (and barging in front of him) the competing announcements, the leaks, the fighting with the Cambridges, and the treatment of staff. And Wimbledon.
- Add to that the insane secrecy, the Archie affair, the merching, the freebies, the celebrity pandering and the Lion King debacle. (Plus Megs inability to keep her stupid tongue in her mouth). Her family and the way Meg handled them was humiliating. And the lies. So many lies. Starting from the "Wild about Harry" interview to the wedding veil to the rumours of book notes, the photographs and bizarre behavior at the polo match.
In short, It. Was. Not. Working. Out. The Harkles had demonstrated they could not be trusted on any level.
Here is a definite Megsy two sides of the same coin dynamic.
Some ask why did Megsy blow it after a Royal marriage that most eligible women in UK would kill for? Why did she blow off the BRF which is only an ultra prestigious institution that has been around for almost 1000 years. Not just in England/UK is it respected. In all Commonwealth nations and around the world BRF gets some awe and respect.
ANSWER: The same jet propelled mania (she is bi-polar) got her a Markus-Nonoo SoHo style date with Hapless. Same mania-ambition got her on a jet over to Inskips Island wedding. Semi- uninvited.
The Mirror claims-----
Meghan flew by private jet
Prince Harry flies economy while Meghan takes a private jet
Meghan jetted into the island on Thursday after borrowing a friend’s private jet to fly from her home in Toronto, Canada.
Meanwhile, because the royals don’t use private planes for personal engagements, he took a Virgin Atlantic flight from Gatwick to Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay.
The prince did splash out on a premium economy seat though, costing upwards of £2,000 for a return. ------>>> https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inside-jamaican-wedding-prince-harry-9973331
More Answer:
The same mania got Megsy to crash Invictus (Monday 25 September 2017) after Harry dropped her for 7 months. Harry was in shock to see her and Doria.
FINALLY ---
The same mania that hooked Harry, this mania could not be calmed down to settle in with Harry at Frogmore. Could not be calmed down to settle in with the BRF which was more important. Because she was really marrying into a super-prestigious family, more so than a mere marriage to Harry.
So jet propelled in, then jet propelled out AND
into Hollywood where Megsy was was going to conquer all who dissed her at auditions. All who never gave her the time of day. To make the hundreds of millions that her amped up Hollywood PR agents told H/M is their Sussex Royal due.
Bonus Blast from the past. Markus-Nonoo photo
http://prnet_production.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/images/000/005/235/large/Misha_Nonoo_Markus_Anderson.jpg?1497499917
This concerns me. Is there some sort of base camp being formed by MM's friends there, and, if so, what is it's purpose? Oprah, Ellen, The Harkles and, now, Nonoo? Hmmm. Combined, they represent a lot of money that could be used in various ways, including a run for a political office or to set up MM as a leader of some kind. But what kind of leader?
I think one difference is the level of public display.
For all intents and purposes Prince Andrew has completely been sidelined and may in fact spend the rest of his days at Windsor Lodge and on other royal properties, close to HMTQ and eventually HMTK (Charles). I believe I read somewhere that only the Monarch has absolute immunity from prosecution, no other family member. However, if one is "in the presence" of the Monarch they can not be arrested. IDNK if this is accurate. Regardless, PA will not be jetting around the world on business or pleasure or making inane Zoom presentations about woke nonsense and interfering in foreign politics.
PA and Fergie are both two peas in a pod. Obviously the two felt that the riches bestowed upon them by virtue of PA's birthright were not enough. Until now, their "disrespect" of the institution has been mostly on the QT. I am not condoning the actions, I am just saying that in the late 20th century/very early years if the 21st century, it was possible to keep most of their grifting and bad behavior fairly well hidden, toe-sucking, half a million here, half a million there, not withstanding. Fergie's horrendous trouble with money is not a singular personality flaw. Many in this world have her issue, albeit at different levels of spent funds one does not have. As someone else said on this blog, Fergie has never directly criticized the Monarchy in public. She just sticks to her weight loss scheme and children's books. She never "got" political and never spoke about the end of the Monarchy. Even Fergie is not that stupid.
Regarding the Epstein saga, as an American, I believe that the DOJ (regardless of Administration) will go no further than prosecuting the older women who helped Jeffrey procure the girls. Much public fuss will be made about going after the "powerful men", but it will come to nothing, PA included. The powers that be, above the AGOTUS (President, VP, Intelligence Community) will make sure of this. WJClinton will be spared (no further embarrassment for HRC.) And, they will justify this is their own minds because JE's brother, his heir, has agreed to establish a victim's fund. So, settlements will be made rather easily. No nasty tort litigation going to court.
Regarding the two nit-wits in California. The rub is that all they want is publicity. It is Megs life blood. She can not live with out it. For Haz it is a short sighted passive aggressive tantrum against the family that has provided him everything. He is just so stupid, dumb as a sack of rocks. Plus, Megs is an American. Since when does the BRF owe a title of nobility to a foreign commoner? Particularly one with deep psychological issues?
So I say, take away the titles (and the HRHs) all in one. No more QCT, no more nothing. And do it soon. I think HMTQ can justify the distinction between PA and the H$rkles.
You bring up an interesting point - if you go by Victoria herself and her Hanoverian ancestry, from George I, her `maiden name', if I can call it that, would have been Welf/Guelph, as remembered by my mother. Prince Albert's family went by the name of Wettin, the house being titled Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Presumably, Albert's name trumped Victoria's, him being male.
I'm intrigued by the Italian overtones of both Este & Guelph - any ideas?
-------------
Doctor Dawson & passing of George V:
It seems that Dawson took it upon himself to hasten the king's death so it'd be reported in the morning papers, rather then the evening`rags' - so much more dignified, don'cha know?
There's a story that somebody tried to contact Geo. via occult means (not sure without looking it up if was via a medium or ouija board) but the late king supposedly made reference to that `fool Dawson' and that he would have lived without Dr D's intervention. Whether he would have come out the coma is not known.
I certainly remember that Queen Mary was reported as expressing the wish that the Coronation (June 2nd) shouldn't be delayed by her death (March 24th) but I didn't know that she had control over that event.
I've mixed emotions about killing people that are ill. Too often I fear that it is heirs that wish to hurry the process along when the patient may not be terminal. We have had cases here where psychopath medical people have been responsible for multiple deaths of the elderly and disabled that were not ill. I think it absolutely should be the person that is (terminally) ill that makes the decision. Hopefully the king had input into the decision process, not the heir.
Hs actions may be morally repugnant and an embarrassment to the monarchy but I'm blowed if it I can see that it can construed as treasonous. Unlike the H$Ms.
I do wish all Nutties would judge him by English law, not by law as it may be elsewhere nor by what they think ought to be.
-And then came the SA tour. There were some problems. The introduction of Archie outside of the country, the Mosque hair, the cultural issues that could have been avoided (forcing the ladies to sit on the floor) plus the rumours of charging for lunch with Megs.
- And then they announce the lawsuits. Harrys treatment of the press and the fact that Megs suit is nothing short of a suppression of free speech was bad enough. They also announced them without clearing through BP, IIRC.
-And then...the "poor me" video. Arguably their greatest PR disaster (along with Wimbledon and the private jet debacle). Tone-deaf, self-pitying to the extreme, and juxtaposed with the SA setting a spoiled childs whining, it had to be humiliating for the Queen personally and politically.
-And just as she did decades before with Diana and Charles, the Queen said "enough".
-She sent them on sabbatical for six months, telling them to come back with a plan for the rest of their lives.
-They came back with the Manifesto.
-Having been told that an in-out, Royal Court West was off the table when they first broached it, they hoped to force the issue by dropping the Manifesto with no warning. It didnt work.
-But the Queen, being a fond grandmother, offered a few concessions to help them save face:
- Their titles, without the HRH a la Diana and Fergie.
- A few of their patronages, although not the military ones Harry wanted.
- A vague announcement saying the Harkles were loved and making it appear to be their idea.
- Security
- And importantly, control of the narrative.
- As well as a promise to support them while they found their feet (the first year)Charles must have been manipulated through guilt into making this very generous, including a home.
- The Harkles promised to "uphold the values of the Queen".
To solidify the idea and the narrative, the Harkles were given a victory lap in London with a few last engagements.
Misha Nonoo and her husband are looking to buy a house in Montecito, and have already toured two mansions there, about three miles away from The Harkles, according to the DM.
This concerns me. Is there some sort of base camp being formed by MM's friends there, and, if so, what is it's purpose? Oprah, Ellen, The Harkles and, now, Nonoo? Hmmm. Combined, they represent a lot of money that could be used in various ways, including a run for a political office or to set up MM as a leader of some kind. But what kind of leader?
JB, I saw that too and did not know what to think of it. It could be just more fake publicity. (I think if I were Nonoo, I'd be worried that I was the only one left Unmarkled and worrying whether she has plans to toss me under the bus with all the others.) Maybe it is a case of "keep your friends close, keep your (fr)enemies closer."
I do wish all Nutties would judge him by English law, not by law as it may be elsewhere nor by what they think ought to be.
I do agree. The sticking point for me is that he had to have known what Epstein was about, it appears he and his ex wife also took money off him. I think it’s his continued association with Epstein that’s so questionable (after his prison term), why didn’t anyone at BP simply say no, you have to cease all contact etc. This is what’s also morally repugnant and indefensible.
Even if Andrew did bed a 17 year-old, it ain't automatically a crime in the UK unless he was in a position of trust eg school-, scout-, or choirmaster, priest or sports coach, or other situation covered by the Children's Act. It may extend to brothels under certain circumstances but that would first have to be established in court.
Hs actions may be morally repugnant and an embarrassment to the monarchy but I'm blowed if it I can see that it can construed as treasonous. Unlike the H$Ms.
I do wish all Nutties would judge him by English law, not by law as it may be elsewhere nor by what they think ought to be.
That's the way I've always seen it, too. Until such time as the FBI starts rounding up and questioning EVERYBODY that was associated with JE including BC, I see no reason for PA to submit himself for questioning. They may be looking for a high-profile person to take the heat off of their non-investigation of the principals involved.
They stayed together in the same suite at the Inskip wedding and they were both pissed because they were told the island was “sealed” and there were no paps there. They canoodled on the balcony and she wore an itsy bitsy bikini on the beach and then they spotted paps taking photos of them. To me, this is sort of proven with the long range pap pics we see of them looking thoroughly disgusted at the wedding. Harry had the palace pay to buy all the photos or squash them or whatever, so we have never seen the balcony or beach photo. You know how Harry HATES this, especially paps with long range cameras (case in point, all the lawsuits recently)...
After the inskip wedding, I believe they went to the artic circle to see the northern lights. Etc.
In other words, we didn’t see them together because they were off on various jaunts.
The book goes into great detail about all of this, including the Invictus games.
I realize, this is all if you believe the book, but why would they discuss all the vacations and places they went and open themselves up for criticism of that if those things never happened? 🤷🏼♀️
I realize, this is all if you believe the book, but why would they discuss all the vacations and places they went and open themselves up for criticism of that if those things never happened?
Because Markle is a pathological liar and literally cannot help herself? Not saying all these "jaunts" are a lie, necessarily, but I sure don't believe them just because she says they happened, either.
As I understand it , it isn't the fact that he had sex with a 17 year old that is at issue. As WBBM rightly says that is not illegal in the UK.
The issue is that she is saying she was trafficked, by Epstein, for sex and it is illegal under UK law to have sex with a trafficked individual irrespective of their age.
I also find it hard to believe the narrative only discovered by online sleuthers of the Harry broke up with her and she barbed into the inskip wedding uninvited, barged into the invictus games uninvited and forced him to marry her through coercion for some unknown reason that is so nefarious that the queen can’t even stop it. I mean, talk about hard to believe.
Look at them together yesterday. They very clearly are married and have settled in California. They are very much together, and no, there isn’t a “fake Harry”.
So, yeah, lots of unbelievable things floating around.
That's why I think there was more going on with Prince Andrew's involvement than sex. That 'loan' from Epstein may have in fact been a payment for...what? Steering wealthy clients his way? Information? Whatever it was, I do believe that the RF know about it.
@WulliesBucket, @Lt Uhura and others too many to name
You guys are a great read 😊
I very rarely post, but read 90% of the blogg. I’m always far too late to comment.
- Everything we have seen since then is the Harkles fury made manifest at being made redundant:
-The endless PR "proving" they are missed, loved,and wanted back.
-The blatant FU of the political speeches.
-The "we had to leave" narrative regarding racism and mistreatment by the BRF.
-The Scobie book
-The "we are in danger" lawsuits and claims to prey on Charles' guilt.
-The insane spending. If they only have a year, they better get what they can, including "medical" procedures and the down payment on Versailles West.
-The couch surfing was embarrassing enough to Charles that they got the down payment from him.
-The threats of a political career is proof they were silenced, a threat to embarrass the BRF, and a FU on the "Queens Values"
- Continuing to use their titles (even HRH on occasion) as well as their letterhead is a FU.
- The sketchy finances and taxes are to guilt Charles into resolving for them.
-The Commonwealth calls and politics are to embarrass the Queen, "prove" their popularity, and keep their global voice.
-Ditto meddling in UK politics.
I think we are seeing narcissistic rage expressed as revenge.
The guilt and regret TQ and PC feel (for failing to act soober, to allow this to happen, and in raising a brat) are keeping them silent, hoping the Harkles find a purpose and the cash they are so desperate for.
If I look at it all this way, it seems to make more sense to me. One thing I think has to happen though is the loss of the Commonwealth titles. That has to end now.
If I have to wait for the security,and support to end, I can give it the year.
Regarding the titles: if they lose the D/D, Harry will simply use Prince Harry, and she will start with Princess Harry. Gag. Which will become Princess Meghan in no time.
No. Just No.
wtte that the Monarch has `absolute immunity from prosecution':
---
Yes, that's because the law is enacted in her name. Criminal cases are called ` Regina versus X'. She cannot take action against herself.
This was the difficulty when Charles I was put on trial for treason in January 1649. It was decided that he could be tried for treason against the people. The case was proved to the satisfaction of the court and he lost his head at the end of the month.
In my unqualified view, I reckon that she has committed a treason against the Queen and people of the UK and her Commonwealth realms. I'm sure they can find a way around her American citizenship, even if it means that a new ruling is made that extends the law to those who are not British subjects but who owe loyalty by marriage.
English law is a strange blend of Statutory Law, as ruled by Parliament, and case law in which a judge can create a precedent by reinterpreting existing law. Even if it means going back to a precedent set in 1649.
I know that it technically doesn't mean anything (or do those beneath her on the social scale still curtsy to Sarah?) but they still used/use it.
The Sussex name was a gift, but if it's their legal name, and the title gets stripped, are they back to Prince and Princess (which sounds posh, but is really just a fancy Mr and Mrs.) or would they simply be Harry and Meghan Sussex?
Thank you for checking on me, you are very kind! Just needed a break from the insanity of the Harkles world.
https://twitter.com/Murky__Meg/status/1297190281062887427/photo/1
Epstein was a blackmailer, a scammer. a provider of young women for favors. Eps was very good at grey and black financial dealings that made him worth half a billion. I am convinced that Eps tutored Prince Andrew on how to set up his pitch@palace (mosty scam) which brought Andrew millions and enough to buy/with mortgage his Verbier ski chalet.
Andrew continued to visit Epstein in NYC for ongoing financial advice Re: pitch@palace. As in how to better shear the sheep. Also for sexual hijinx. A visit to Epstein was incomplete without this.
___________________
Pitch@Palace
https://pitchatpalace.com
Pitch@Palace was established to provide a platform for UK Entrepreneurs to make transformational connections that could accelerate their businesses. Over the last few years, Pitch@Palace has surpassed expectations and grown not only in the UK but internationally, Pitch@Palace Global was formed to connect this community supporting Entrepreneurs.
***A UK version of shark tank. The Lite Royal edition held literally at Buckingham Palace. Prince Andrew traded on his Royal title 20x times more than Megsy has had a chance to do. At least Andrew was a loyalist and always kept up his Royal Duties. He never disrespected The Queen, except indirectly via the sex he had at Epstein's. Bringing disgrace on the entire BRF for a few weeks. No one thinks about Andrew now, while the Megs/Hapless situation is ongoing, never rests. Their PR people are ready for Meg's product placements 24/7/365. The Dubious Duo are in the DM every day and often multiple times each day. They zoom in and out of charities and more.
It immediately conjured up an image of a hideous deep-sea Angler Fish, the large female with tiny attached parasitic male which has become nothing more that a set of gonads, ready to fertilise whatever she drops into the abyss.
Presumably, the animals use their little lights to find each other in the darkness. The male attaches himself and is gradually absorbed into her body, overcoming various immune rejection reactions in the process. I'm sure we can push the analogy further-
She has absorbed 2 males like that, Scabies and Harry. It's debatable whose gonads have been retained.
"I think the point is that it cannot be proven what Andrew knew. "Here's a pretty girl, go ahead, take her to bed." "Okay!"
Right. We can't know what PA thought. But do we really think he thought women had to be trafficked to have sex with him? I doubt it.
To remove tgem from the Commonwealth Trust
https://www.change.org/p/government-removal-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-as-president-and-vice-president-of-the-cwt
To remove alk titles and funding:
https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-stop-uk-funding-and-remove-all-titles-for-meghan-markle-prince-harry
So if I say something in a DM comment, that makes it true? I’ll have to try that at some point, and see if it shows up on here as a fact.
If so, that proves the comment an Murky Meg wrong (again). They had contact with the charity before this back to school event.
The Sussex’s involvement with baby2baby goes back to when Archie was born, May 2019.
https://www.royal.uk/duke-and-duchess-sussexs-baby-gifts-and-charitable-donations
Ok back outside to garden...
Oh, and I agree with everything said here about Andrew, his ego, and trafficked sex slave women.
WBBM, Raspberry Ruffle, and SwampWoman.
As I understand it , it isn't the fact that he had sex with a 17 year old that is at issue. As WBBM rightly says that is not illegal in the UK.
The issue is that she is saying she was trafficked, by Epstein, for sex and it is illegal under UK law to have sex with a trafficked individual irrespective of their age.
Wouldn't the "actress" yacht women fall under the trafficking regulations as well? They are traveling for sex for a price and somebody is profiting just from their being on board, not just the women who are selling their services. The women are benefitting from protection and higher pay than they would get on the street. Their clients are benefitting from not having to pay for a long-term relationship. The intermediary who in less lofty circles would be called the pimp (or trafficker) must be profiting.
Why are people always bringing up Andrew when we are talking about Meghan Markle?
Because PA also exhibited behavior that may have been borderline criminal, or actually criminal. The Harkles may be guilty of financial fraud against the RF, England as well as America. It is relevant when discussing the behavior of the Harkles.
Blogger JocelynsBellinis said...
Misha Nonoo and her husband are looking to buy a house in Montecito, and have already toured two mansions there, about three miles away from The Harkles, according to the DM.
This concerns me. Is there some sort of base camp being formed by MM's friends there, and, if so, what is it's purpose? Oprah, Ellen, The Harkles and, now, Nonoo? Hmmm. Combined, they represent a lot of money that could be used in various ways, including a run for a political office or to set up MM as a leader of some kind. But what kind of leader?
JB
Have missed your contributions to the blog. Keep digging. Oprah, Obamas, and Clintons arent going to waste their time on anyone unless there is something in it for themselves. Harry will always be the son of the future King. My guess is they arent the only vultures eyeing the throne once HM dies. Imo, Charles is just another woke lib very much like the California and Davos woke elites. Maybe we should ask ourselves what is his role in supporting all of this. From my vantage point, he looks like their biggest fan.
I loved Neutral Observer's phrase `Megs, & her little attachment, Scobie'
It immediately conjured up an image of a hideous deep-sea Angler Fish, the large female with tiny attached parasitic male which has become nothing more that a set of gonads, ready to fertilise whatever she drops into the abyss.
Presumably, the animals use their little lights to find each other in the darkness. The male attaches himself and is gradually absorbed into her body, overcoming various immune rejection reactions in the process. I'm sure we can push the analogy further-
She has absorbed 2 males like that, Scabies and Harry. It's debatable whose gonads have been retained.
Screeeeeech! My mind's eye is ruined forever. Now, whenever I see MM, I shall mentally see shriveled gonads attached to her. Poor Harry. Poor Scabies.
Appreciate that you have taken the time to do a bit of research.
“However the chief point for Harry is that it is the Monarchs sole prerogative to strip titles and honours from anyone who bares the title of HRH.”
Hasn’t this already been said quite a few times by others?
Just because Harry is the son of the future King does not mean that his child will become a prince. Those days are gone.
“it would seem too petty unless she did the same to Andrew who’s crimes against the crown are far worse than Harry’s”
What is it that Andrew has done?
I have never liked him, but as far as I can see his only crime is he knew a so called “paedo”
Please do not take offence in anything I have said
Regards
D1
Did VG have her passport taken away?
Did they steal her mobile phone?
Was she forcibly removed from US or wherever?
Was she promised a fabulous job in the UK to help her out of grinding poverty in some third world country, or a state that had been festering behind the Iron Curtain?
Was it a way of escaping a totalitarian regime in East Asia?
Was she an unloved child in care in a miserable northern English town who was promised affection, alcohol and drugs?
Did some social worker label her a prostitute before she met Maxwell?
Did the authorities know what was going on but hesitated to act in case they offended someone else's cultural norms, even though they were in Britain?
Was she kept under lock and key?
Was she starved and beaten up?
Those questions have be answered before we conclude she was, or was not, a trafficked sex slave.
We've seen all that happen here, as well as a fruitless investigation into completely fake claims against innocent people. Moreover, the police were too ready to believe the real perpetrator. Here's what the Crown prosecution Service had to say about it:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-how-cps-proved-case-against-serial-liar-nick-over-false-claims-vip-child-abuse
When I did Jury Service in a child abuse case, other members of the Jury assumed that a child making allegations is not lying and you have to believe them. No, you have to take them seriously in the first instance - the function of the trial is to ascertain the truth of the allegation, not to accept them as Gospel. That experience, with other instances of just how shallow my fellow jurors' thought processes were, shook my faith in jury trials.
Maybe the FF book will of try to portray a very different positive recall.alla romantic hsppy perfect story of events they maybe alter the timeline for the book one or both could have visited places or tsken a holiday but not necessarily together ?
Harry Markle blog however has a different version timeline of events
the 2 FF or Harry Markle blog is the more plausible version in my opinion with reliable sources receipts and also very thorough in her researching
Stop making unproved allegations?
Beyond the fact that he is keeping quiet/being kept quiet, he doesn't deserve our time. This is a blog about the H$Ms, not what PA may or may not have done.
We can see enough of what the H$Ms have done to draw our conclusions or at least try to. It may be valid to mention that what HM has done with her son seems different from how Charles treats his son but that's enough. I doubt if it would have been possible to sequester the H$Ms anywhere at all. Andrew is widely disliked but the H$Ms have a large, if despicable, following and there are even more people who refuse to see there is anything to make a fuss about.
Just for the record, I don't like Andrew but I don't agree that he should be condemned in an internet kangaroo court. We should be above that.
Blogger Rut said...
Why are people always bringing up Andrew when we are talking about Meghan Markle?
Because PA also exhibited behavior that may have been borderline criminal, or actually criminal. The Harkles may be guilty of financial fraud against the RF, England as well as America. It is relevant when discussing the behavior of the Harkles.
Adding to this: It wouldn't be a good look for the BRF to be selective about which royals get disciplined for criminal behavior. Especially when The Girl Who Cried Racism is involved, and sex trafficking is much, much graver than merching.
Someone has brought up the possibility that Andrew really had no idea the pretty young women he met through Epstein were underage. While I can agree it's possible, for me the issue then becomes why he didn't eventually smell a rat. I keep thinking of Taylor Swift saying of Harvey Weinstein: "I would get a vibe" -- the implication being that she wouldn't have needed to know the allegations against him to have sensed that he was creepy. That Prince Andrew might have been friends with Epstein for years without "getting a vibe" is bad enough. That he might have "got a vibe" and yet remained friends with him is probably the only worse thing.
As a New Yorker at the time, I have to correct you about Caroline Kennedy. The reason Ms. Kennedy did not become the Senator from New York was due solely and completely to Chuck Schumer NOT her speaking skills or political abilities.
Schumer was tired of being upstaged by the junior Senator Hillary Clinton and made sure his powerful Wall Street allies insisted on the little known but obedient Kirsten Gillibrand won the seat. The voters did not have the chance to make the decision in the primary. Senator Gildenbrand changed her political positions to completely follow Chuck Schumer. Same with Kamala Harris, she has served the powerful to ascend the ladder, most certainly her personal relationship as a 29 year old woman to the married 59 year old Willie Brown, a very influential Dem, was key to her becoming Atty General.
The problem for Megsy, she can't serve the powerful to achieve her goals, and she cannot keep a secret or follow a strategy. Politicians may lack a moral compass, but they do need an ability to "follow the leader" until they make thier own power grab, especially in Democratic strongholds.
What aggravates me about Murky Meg is that she is lazy. She posted an unverified and clearly incorrect comment from daily mail as a fact, got accolades from her sycophant followers and didn’t do 6 second of research to find out what the truth is.
I’m willing to bet she won’t go back and delete that post or make a new one saying she was wrong and that HAMS actually made a lot of money for baby2baby over the last 1.5 years. That would show she has integrity and is willing to say she jumped the gun because it sounded like something she wanted to hear and that she will be more careful next time.
I mean, It probably took me 30 seconds to find that link from royal.uk. I googled Archie + Baby2baby and it came right up.
Rant over. I’m cooled off and am going back outside. It’s so hot, it’s in and out for me.
I 100% agree with what you said.
I am so sick of being preached to.
I am at the point where I want to “Stop the world- I want to get off”
At the end of the day, Harry and Meghan living in California doesn’t seem to be a big deal to the queen. I mean, ask her if she cares because the longer all of this goes on, the more sympathetic she appears to HAMS. Charles too. So if they don’t care, why should we (aside from the fact that we are likely all obsessive, probably intuitive people who like figuring out puzzles).
Maybe there are threads and blogs about prince Andrew on the internet were you can discuss him?
Just for the record, I don't like Andrew but I don't agree that he should be condemned in an internet kangaroo court. We should be above that.
You make a really good point here -- one that I agree with in general. I confess that when it comes to Prince Andrew in particular, I have a hard time holding back the wave of "Whataboutism?" from Meghan's defenders.
For me, the real problem with both of them is not their questionable activities, but their character. But it's true that being long-time friends with an accused sex trafficker, though a sign of either low intelligence or poor character, isn't actually a crime. I'll rein it in when it comes to Prince Andrew in the future.
Oh, and I’ll shut up about Andrew for the time being once he speaks to the FBI. Ha!!
Sick if this, he does not need to speak to the FBI.
The Sussex name was a gift, but if it's their legal name, and the title gets stripped, are they back to Prince and Princess (which sounds posh, but is really just a fancy Mr and Mrs.) or would they simply be Harry and Meghan Sussex?
----------------
Harry's name in the army was Harry Wales. Couldn't then MM be Mrs Wales?