This is what happens when I take too long to write a post. My original idea - that Meghan and Harry should consider purchasing one of the "cheap old houses" popular on Instagram and fix it up as part of a reality series - seems to have been overtaken by events.
Page Six is reporting today that Meghan and Harry already have a house in Santa Barbara, near Oprah and Ellen's pads, and in fact have been living there for at least six weeks. (This is not entirely unexpected; Harry's most recent hostage video had a different background than usual.)
"This is the first home either of them has ever owned," writes the couple's PR agent via Page 6. "It has been a very special time for them as a couple and as a family - to have complete privacy for six weeks since they moved in."
They could probably still be having complete privacy if the couple's PR team wasn't leveraging their real estate news in order to promote the new book "Finding Freedom" - which the Sussexes, of course, insist they had nothing to do with.
Bad timing
Meg must be a little peeved that the timing of the house announcement conflicted with bigger news about another biracial Californian; it was announced late yesterday that Kamala Harris would be the Democratic nominee for US Vice President.
You can almost hear Meg's screams in her publicity team's hastily-concocted story headlined Meghan Markle reveals why she's voting in the 2020 election. (Spoiler: it's because she wants her "voice to be heard.")
Roughly 130 million Americans voted in the last election, so I look forward to Page Six's in-depth accounts of why the other 129,999,999 will be voting this time.
Paired with the fact that Megan Thee Stallion is rapidly becoming America's most famous Megan (with Meghan McCain probably in second place) and the news cycle just isn't being kind to the Duchess of Sussex.
Comments
P.S.
I know I'm a crybaby lol. I don't apologize for it because it is who I am. Like a lot of people, I'm also an intuitive, sensitive, so I pick up vibes, energies, and spirits. This is a big part of why I don't like to get too involved with groups of people (IRL and online). I can easily absorb too many energies. I also won't watch violent films etc.
I've learned to call on my ancestors to protect me. I have a spiritual shield around me now that I'm older but it still gets intense if I'm not careful.
Happy posting y'all! I enjoy reading all the great thoughts on this blog :)
Yes, basically anyone in the world can purchase US residential or commercial real estate. Perhaps there is a "terrorist no buy" list somewhere, but because real estate can be titled in corporate, et al names, transactions are easily disguised. Occupancy of residential real estate is another issue.
I am not sure we have ever seen the actual Merchie, I mean Archie.
I have nothing against Archie but simply do not find him an attractive child. Some may find him cute and will want to see him, that is fine, so to a degree he is a PR card for the Harkles.
With Bea and Eugie both married this is just a question of time before they have their own kids and people's attention will switch to them. We may expect followed protocol, pics of the kids released, pics of Cambridges with them as well perhaps, pics of the Queen with them. Royals will play this well and the public will welcome return of tradition and order.
Archie and his scandalous parents will slip down the pole. I can only hope the kid lives a good quiet life in the loving family among friends. However, Harry is deeply disturbed and Megsy is a nutcase, so I wouldn't hold my breath about his cloudless childhood. Pity.
That's true. I was referring to the Duck Rabbit Archie.
A link to the house they bought, supposedly.
I had a brief look at that and it seems that anyone can buy a house in USA but in order to get a mortgage they have to be able to show they can repay it either by proof of income or I guess Guarantor to the satisfaction of the mortgage company. I would have thought Visa status if you plan on living rather than just an investment would come into play but it seems not.
I think it is a 100% probability that they have a private mortgage. Not through a bank, but a private transaction with a sympathetic party. So, Charles or maybe a celeb friend who doesn't mind having the Harkles in their debt.
The fact that there is a mortgage means that the mortgage holder has a financial piece of that house (if the Harkles paid $5 mill and the mortgage paid $7.5, then the mortgage holder actually owns over 60% of the house). The mortgage is registered and kind of acts like a lien against property - if the Harkles go tits up, the mortgagor still owns a percentage of the property and when it is sold, will get their proportionate share of the proceeeds.
My guess is that Charles, through a trust or some other kind of entity, is the mortgage holder. The fact that he registered a mortgage means he means business: this is not a gift!!! You have to pay it back.
in two months: The Harkles will be stunned to learn the following:
that they actually have to pay the mortgage.
that the house costs about $100,000 per month to run, and they are expected to pay for it
that they still need to make those Frogmore payments
narrating documentaries doesn't pay well
@Charade:
Renaissance woman indeed! It made me smile so thank you. I've just got a magpie mind that picks up interesting titbit, plus a good memory - also, of course, I've been cursed with the need to prove myself constantly, thanks to a mother with narc tendencies. Whatever I did, it was never good enough. So I have a ragbag of qualifications but nothing at a high enough level to be worth much. Thank you, Mum.
Perhaps helping to `shine a light' on the horrible people known as narcissists is what I was put on earth for!
So, to the house -
Hardly suitable for a couple of wannabee SJWs, and certainly not for anyone who spouts concerns about the environment. Perhaps their electricity bill isn't a matter for concern (somebody told me yesterday about the amount of solar power that CA garners - is it true? Is it more than the energy used to make the photovoltaic systems? Even so, I wonder what Great would make of it?)
There's much about the garden that I like but though thought of the upkeep leaves me cold. We're on a plot of about a quarter of an acre (the bungalow's a bit sprawling so it's not all cultivated. That's more than enough for us.)The amount of labour, machinery and weedkiller that is probably needed for their `yard' doesn't come cheap - I can't imagine they'd be generous when it comes to paying for help.
I'd like to think that Charles is taking money out of another pocket, not the Duchy one. Perhaps he said H could choose between waiting to inherit a lump-sum as his patrimony or to start cashing it in now? I do hope so.
----------------
Ben & Jerry's interference in UK matters- a few reports:
https://www.ft.com/content/bd848384-52b7-4973-b495-7075dbfe3f07
(Ironically, neither Priti Patel nor James Cleverly, would, I imagine, tick the `white box, on those ethnicity forms)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8619059/Priti-Patel-blasts-virtue-signalling-ice-cream-giant-Ben-Jerrys-overpriced-junk-food.html
I know that the firm is now part of a multinational but, nevertheless, they still seem infected with their original wokery. I do wonder if it's more than a pure coincidence, coming so soon after the Harkles phone campaign?
I still stick with private mortgage, but I don't think its Charles. He probably gave them $5 mill and said that is enought for a very nice house. He would be mortified that they had their sights on something far grander and expensive.
$7.5 mortgage is a sympathetic - yet business savvy - celeb or tycoon. It will not be forgiven. It is a business transaction. The Harkles are about to learn a very expensive lesson: live within your means.
Hardly suitable for a couple of wannabee SJWs, and certainly not for anyone who spouts concerns about the environment. Perhaps their electricity bill isn't a matter for concern (somebody told me yesterday about the amount of solar power that CA garners - is it true? Is it more than the energy used to make the photovoltaic systems? Even so, I wonder what Great would make of it?)
____________________________
I'm no physicist, so can't answer whether the cost-benefit analysis of solar power leans in the direction of benefit -- but I will say this: The amount of energy (and money) required to mine rare-earth minerals (found mostly in China, ugh), used in making computer components, DVDs, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent lighting and yes, solar panels and more, is punitive and earth-destroying. Currently, I know of no metal being recycled from these products except gold.
Add to that the so-called "solar farms" which cover vast hectares of land, blots on the landscape and killers of migratory birds. Sure, the farms generate energy -- but it's hardly "clean," if you ask me, and inconsistent as a reliable, on-demand energy source.
Naturally, the Harkles couldn't care less about such things. Got to keep that manicured garden watered, drought be damned! Ditto cooling of mansion!
The map of the damage is here.
https://sbcopad.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c1df066590034bfc83f6b1d3d0ea94bf
At the bottom of the road, Parra Grande, East Valley west was closed because the bridge on the creek was swept away. As were a whole bunch of houses. I think at least 7 people died in the houses around there.
That area was a mandatory evacuation area a few times last year when big winters storms looked like they might cause fresh mud flows on the Thomas fire burn areas up slope. Its also one one of the mandatory evacuation zones when there are any wild fires on the mountains side behind. Most of the area to the immediate west was burned out during the Sycamore Canyon Fire in 1977 but I dont think that area has burned since at least the 1930's. So long overdue for a wild fire considering how well the Coyote Fire zone burned during the Thomas Fire. The Coyote Fire was in 1964. If the Thomas fire had got through the fire lines on Mountain Drive in 2017 the Riven Rock area was near the top of the list of areas that would have burned given the terrain and vegetation. It was assumed at the time that everything above East Valley Road was going to burn if the fire lines failed.
So they better keep Bug Out bags packed at all times. Because when wildfires or flash floods are in the offing the Go/No Go decision time is only going to be a few minutes at most. Those who hesitate often end up paying a very high price. As was the case in the wild fires in Camp Fire in 2018 and Tubbs Fire in Sonoma / Napa in 2017. The people who died in Paradise were mostly just very unlucky, most of those who died in the Tubbs Fire were incomers who waited too long to flee.
I expect that most of us would be able to buy a nice house with some land for $5 million and have enough left over to support us for 20 years. It would be in an unfashionable place, though, like Alabama or Ohio or Missouri.
La Markle IMO wants only staged shots of her child so she can control the selling of them when she needs to sell. That child is a gravy train.
Well, this was my assumption, too, when he was born. Or 'born'. I think that was absolutely her intention to monetize this baby. I presume she was well-compensated for the incredibly meagre stock of images of Archie which grace us, starting with that presentation photo with TQ and PP, on through to the christening, the SA images, the weird 'holiday' ones. There was the 'H&M baby romper tie-in' in SA, which was promptly shut down . . but she showed no hesitation to try for a cash grab for merching baby clothes in the context of an official Royal tour. Now that she's 'Found Freedom' in Montecito, why are images of her gravy train so scarce?
In this digital age, where images from even the distant past are constantly recycled, I don't understand how royalties work, with images being picked up and copied by third parties and individuals. If Meg is getting money each and every time the nearly year-old picture of Tutu baby is recycled, I understand better why they keep trotting that one out. But really, apart from the staged 'Duck Rabbit' video reading for Mother's Day (which is *quite* a different looking tyke than the one we saw the previous fall with Bishop Tutu) . . and discounting the 'dolly in the woods' papp walk or the blurry driveway shot of 'Arch' in the stoller with Doria, there have not been *any* more recent photos taken of Meghan's 'gravy train'.
As a gravy train, Archie is remarkably stalled, don't you think? That gravy train was only a trickle to begin with and has completely dried up. Given Meg's penchant for photographs--having had the presence of mind to hire her own photographer and copyright the photos of Arch with his royal family members for image control & merching purposes, I thought she'd go nuts once she'd escaped her slavery in the RF. But all she's been able to merch with him in a year is a 10+ year old model of a novelty stroller in one German magazine. Unless we are counting the 'Duck Rabbit' board book or the plain white (too small) undershirt and loaded diaper 'Arch' was wearing during the book reading as merching opportunities.
Please. The Hazza we see before us is a man so lost, he doesn't know up from down. He is barely upright or cognizant of what day it is. He gave away any say-so he had in this relationship he had almost before it started. His Mummy substitute pats his back and drags him by the hand where she wants him to go. Meg is not listening to Harry in the matter of Archie. On the occasions when she 'defied orders' not to show the child (Harry being absent in another country or else busy on the polo ground) she did NOT show us a living child but a DOLL.
The Cambridges strictly control access to their children as well, but they manage to preserve the children's privacy *and* release carefully curated photos of their adorable brood by arranging their own photos . .Kate does a fantastic job. It's curious in the extreme that Meg, who regards herself as so artistic after all, what with the professional grade calligraphy (!) and this apparently new zeal for emulating her father-in-law by starting hobby painting wouldn't take the chance to compete with/attempt to upstage Kate in the 'cute kid pics' sweepstakes. As Archie is not Royal, profiting from releasing his pictures should not violate any term of Megxit.
And yet, she hasn't.
Frankly, as a gravy train, Master Archie's usefulness has peaked already. The child we saw in the Duck Rabbit video was well over a year old and very active. Squirrely toddlers are hard to pin down for photos and apt to have temper tantrums. The maximum interest in Arch was immediately after his birth and in his first year of life . .Cute babies, that's what people want to see. The Cambridge kids are growing like weeds and there is still interest in them, but that's because of the solid wholesome family values these photos represent. Even though they are Royal children, we have evidence of them as happy, healthy and growing up to have as normal a childhood as their parents can provide them.
Master Archie is not permitted to be seen outside because his parents are too famous. The future Queen of England manages to do her own grocery shopping at Waitrose or go to the high street unmolested, but apparently she's not as famous or prone to being the victim of a terrorist threat than is Meg, who was 'Royal' for all of 18 months.
Really, the glaringly obvious answer to all this secrecy surrounding Arch, the ghost baby is that he isn't there. Now that she's in L.A. and the studios are opening back up, where's the adorable 'Mommy and Me' interview with her pal Ellen? GMA wants Harry, but not Meg and her photogenic toddler? There is a chance that he is NOT photogenic and has some sort of physical disability that would make him unacceptable in her eyes, since she only likes attractive people. Had a child with physical abnormalities been born to her via a surrogate, I would fully expect a Narc like her to reject the baby and not go through with the adoption. *If* there is a 15-month old with special needs who is of Harry's body if not Meg's, (not my favorite theory but still a consideration) then isn't all the more distressing that the BRF should have let him, this great-grandchild of the Queen go without a peep to live a gypsy life style with two unemployed mentally fragile people who can't retain staff or a stable environment for a child? A special needs child would need stability even more than a typically developing one.
Archie is potentially the greatest mystery of the 21st century. It will be indeed interesting as the years go by how Meg proposes to deal with 'the Archie Question'. Her every action is the exact opposite of craving privacy for her family, and yet she does not show her Merchie even with the freedom to do so. What gives?
The mortgage of 9MM. Damn. Big obligation. $600k a year in payments. Ok so $1mm a year in housing expenses not including staff or house manager. Safe estimate $1.2mm a year payment. 50k month mortgage, not including the expenses of tax and running and upkeep of the place.
Sure Meghan.
It makes me think that she signed up for this obligation assuming they could make an income of about 3 million a year to cover their lifestyle of extravagance. I mean I know some people with serious money like hedge fund managers and they don’t even spend this amount of money on real estate so you have to wonder where her logic is. I also don’t think she realizes how hard it is to earn an income of $3 million a year somewhere like LA.
This leads me to assume she purchased this house with the eyeThat they will blackmail Charles into paying the bills for three years until Harry gets his trust inheritance at 40. I don’t remember who that comes from though.
If we all also remember the royal family said they would give Harry and Megan a full year to sort themselves out and wouldn’t touch the income they’ve been receiving and Megan emphasize Charles had been giving them about 4 to 5,000,000 pounds per year when they were in the royal family to cover their expenses of being a part of the royal family so I’m assuming that payment continued this year as well and perhaps they use that 5 million as a down payment on this house.
I find it very suspect that the home was registered In a trust related to Megan’s business manager and not a trust that’s a part of the royal family structure.
I suppose if the royal family is being serious with cutting the funds next year that the games will truly begin on their ability to earn income in February since they made this massive obligation they have no choice but to go all out trying to earn a ton of money to upkeep their life and not dip into Harry’s reserves whatever that might be.
I’m going to assume Megan’s next steps are to hobnob with her neighbors in Montecito particularly Ashton Kutcher and Scooter Braun
I don’t believe she will associate as much with Oprah and Ellen even if she may try they are extremely PR savvy and Ellen’s going through her own crisis and Oprah doesn’t need the negativity and will probably just latch on to Kamala or Michelle this year
I do believe this move to that neighborhood emphasizes Megan want to still be a famous actor or actress or entertainment conglomerate
I think she did it solely for the people in the area not for the landscape in the quietness at all
Also I’ve read that Harry’s best friend or something lives in that area
So all in all I think it’s a stupid purchase I don’t believe they can maintain that lifestyleWithout ongoing help from Charles I don’t believe William will allow Charles to undermine the royal family by supporting what they consider traitors. I can’t imagine Megan and hairy who stand for everything and nothing will be able to earn $3 million a year in income. And this is perhaps a move where Megan could meet An even richer man ala the woman dating Bezos.
As we have seen Megan really plays up the intrusion of the press and the need for privacy
She doesn’t do this because she believes it, she does this to play up to prince harry. We all know that he’s obsessed with his image in the press. I truly believe she just says and does whatever she can to make Harry think she completely agrees with him. That seems to have been her MO since she met the guy. Find his weakness and exploited in every way be his prime cheerleader and always say he’s correct
This is probably why all we read about is their paranoia and hysteria. It’s just Megan playing Harry once again.
She clearly has her own goals her own outlook and her own contingency plans on how to deal with Harry eventually. And because she has had real world experience with a prior marriage jobs low income divorce she clearly is more intelligent With street smarts than Harry is or ever will be.
I think she quite enjoys having a sugar daddy in prince Charles.
We must be twins. The same for me. I sense things about people that others don't see and think I'm crazy. Much later when the truth comes out they say, how did you know that?
I'm the same with violent anything. Completely can't handle it.
Exactly! :):)
I have nothing against Archie but simply do not find him an attractive child. Some may find him cute and will want to see him, that is fine, so to a degree he is a PR card for the Harkles.
The burning question is . . *which* of the babies we have seen is 'Archie'? Even with incredibly generous suspension of disbelief, the various images we have been given do not represent the same baby.
Presentation Arch looked real, but he was so still, not a twitch to be seen. The Harkles were both *visibly* strained & nervous and barely complied with the journalist's request to give us a better view of his face. Meg immediately blocked the camera's view with her hand. Then of course there was the gaffe Haz made about the 'changing so much in two weeks time'. Presumably this was the same figure in the photo with TQ, though we saw even less of him there.
Father's Day IG 'Arch'--the sepia toned fearful cowering looking infant was widely thought to be a manipulated image of one of Jessica Muroney's twins. Meg pictured with some stock bluebells and oversized 'feet' were inclusive.
Christening Archie in the color group shot seems to be the same child, slightly older, whom we saw in SA. The B&W shot of Meg, Arch and Harry purportedly on christening day does NOT look like that baby, but rather a younger version perhaps of Duck Rabbit Archie. The 'New Year's photo is definitely not either of these babies--that's a little girl, wearing the same clothes Harry's friends' little girl owns . . the hat anyway was last season and discontinued--Oh, but these Turkish friends had the incredible foresight to get an extra pom hat for Harry's as-yet-unborn child at the same time they purchased one for their daughter--how thoughtful! How prescient! I know M and H made a big deal over 'gender neutrality' as a child rearing strategy, which must be why they were comfortable allowing their 7 month old son to be photographed in woolen tights and a skirt for all the Internet to see.
Meg has balls, for sure, but she obviously thinks that we will take her word absolutely over the evidence of our own eyeBALLS every time. I'm not buying it.
As a gravy train, Archie is remarkably stalled, don't you think? That gravy train was only a trickle to begin with and has completely dried up.
I think it's not a matter of if but when. She's extremely calculating and EVERYTHING is
transactional for her. RE: it's about *when* she will roll out pics of her Golden Goose Archie. We don't have privy to what she is doing with Archie and his ability to score cash for her do we? Not yet anyway.
We shall see...
transactional for her. RE: it's about *when* she will roll out pics of her Golden Goose Archie. We don't have privy to what she is doing with Archie and his ability to score cash for her do we? Not yet anyway.
Despite the deluge of articles about this couple (most of which they have paid for themselves), I think general interest in them gets lower by the day. After all, they are not longer Royals, by their choice. The tide has turned; there is real legitimate anger toward this wastrel couple of hypocrites holing up in multi-million dollar celebrity mansions while they lecture people on lowering their carbon footprint and other wokeness.
Meg could have made a lot of money from Archie, but she's waited too long . .and we can thank COVID for further foiling her plans for world domination. The kind of money she's fantasizing about is just not going to materialize now. It will be interesting to see what she tries, though.
I'm no physicist, so can't answer whether the cost-benefit analysis of solar power leans in the direction of benefit -- but I will say this: The amount of energy (and money) required to mine rare-earth minerals (found mostly in China, ugh), used in making computer components, DVDs, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent lighting and yes, solar panels and more, is punitive and earth-destroying. Currently, I know of no metal being recycled from these products except gold.
True. Gold is not readily looked at as a recyclable byproduct of electronics by the general public. Coltan is mined in several African countries using child labor/slavery as are diamonds, as well as Lithium used for batteries for electric cars. Many ethics questions surrounding those industries, as it should be.
I agree with some of your points. I do feel if she decided to bring out unseen pics of Archie (regardless of when they were taken) today and they were splashed all over, picked up by Daily Mail, UK Sun etc. she would make bank. The longer she waits, the more mystery she builds up. These types of sociopaths play the game with expertise. Trust me, she understands well the law of supply and demand especially in our clicks for cash society. IMO.
Wow. Great research on the history and hazards re the Harkle sanctuary. Perhaps, the threat of landslides, fires, earthquakes is not an issue for a couple who get their in laws to pay for their mortgage. Or, in the event of future disasters, it gives them an excuse to move into an even bigger house in the future. But, as we all know, there is no hint of long term planning and stability with this couple.
Ice cream wokery. I would say the only good news about this PR push, is that it has highlighted the issue of migrants crossing the Channel and the lack of government will power to really do anything about it. There is also an interesting piece in The Spectator UK too.
Thanks for the insider’s knowledge about that area of Montecito. Sounds like they’re hoping their Royal fairy dust will protect them from the catastrophes of fire and rain.
Thank you also for your insider scoop on Santa Barbara.
Thanks for the Wiki Narc list which I reproduce here:
Unprincipled narcissist:
Deficient conscience; unscrupulous, amoral, disloyal, fraudulent, deceptive, arrogant, exploitive; a con artist and charlatan; dominating, contemptuous, vindictive.
Amorous narcissist
Sexually seductive, enticing, beguiling, tantalizing; glib and clever; disinclined to real intimacy; indulges hedonistic desires; bewitches and inveigles others; pathological lying and swindling. Tends to have many affairs, often with exotic partners.
Compensatory narcissist:
Seeks to counteract or cancel out deep feelings of inferiority and lack of self-esteem; offsets deficits by creating illusions of being superior, exceptional, admirable, noteworthy; self-worth results from self-enhancement.
Elitist narcissist:
Feels privileged and empowered by virtue of special childhood status and pseudo-achievements; entitled façade bears little relation to reality; seeks favored and good life; is upwardly mobile; cultivates special status and advantages by association.
Normal narcissist: (Can there really be such a thing?)
Least severe and most interpersonally concerned and empathetic, still entitled and deficient in reciprocity; bold in environments, self-confident, competitive, seeks high targets, feels unique; talent in leadership positions; expecting of recognition from others.
************
Meg ticks all these boxes for me! Harry is an example of the Elitist Narc by virtue of childhood circumstances; Meg only developed this type full-blown after becoming 'the Duchess' by dint of her marriage, but it did start after she'd achieved some success on Suits. That's when she started pulling the 'Do you know who I am?" crap.
I dispute that any Narc is capable of true empathy or interpersonal concern, but the more intelligent/less damaged ones will be able to 'front' better and display a convincing facsimile of being caring and interpersonally warm for longer. Perhaps with everyone but their very innermost circle.
HG Tudor of the Narcsite has identified Meghan as a "Mid-Range" Narc and says this means that she has no interior awareness of her condition and thus no ability to recognize or change her behavior, that she is entirely reactive and impulsive, struggles with anything approaching a 'Master Plan' and really and truly believes her own PR. Hence, her cries of victim feel very real *to her*. Although she is manipulative and vindictive, she does not see her behavior in those terms. Everything is very immediate and is her responses of the immediate moment. She may not even possess any memory of former strategies and ploys which didn't work out. She really and truly thinks she's a good person who has pure motives and is being unfairly attacked.
Mr. Tudor is a higher-level kind of Narc (if he is truthful about his condition-and really, why should be trust a self-acknowledged Master Narcissist NOT to lie to us? They are the epitome of the Unreliable Narrator. But according to him, Meg might very well not even recognize herself in the diagnostic list of Narcissists. She's entitled to everything she wants and any end justifies the means, not because she's got a mental illness but because she's awesome.
I get the sense that Mr. Tudor dismisses this Mid-Ranger as a childish and pathetic example of the type, though that would make Harry even weaker and more pathetic.
"he mortgage is registered and kind of acts like a lien against property - if the Harkles go tits up, the mortgagor still owns a percentage of the property and when it is sold, will get their proportionate share of the proceeds."
The mortgagor (the Harkles) may not get back their investment in the property if they default on the loan. It depends on how the terms of the mortgage is written. I had a private mortgage I just paid off and would have lost my substantial down to the mortgagee (the holder of the mortgage) if I had defaulted. The mortgagee can claim all kinds of expenses (e.g. that the parties caused deterioration of the property or otherwise caused its value to decrease) in the event of a default. Additionally, private mortgages have usually higher interest rates which can considerably add to the cost of the monthly payment (I personally paid about twice the interest rate as a conventional loan). This being the price you pay when don't go through a bank or credit union which has more stringent qualifying factors. In addition, some private mortgages have balloon payments down the road that can be catastrophic if not planned for by the mortgagor(s).
If Charles is the mortgagee then he can do what he wants, either make the Harkles strictly adhere to the terms of the loan or he can let things slide even letting them skip payments. In my case, the private lender let me defer a couple of payments and then later shockingly knocked 5 payments off the term of my loan and I was paid in full.
@Swamp Woman
I would say the cheapest place to get a mansion is in Mississippi as I have been looking across the US to perhaps move to. Texas remains a good place to buy and many Californians are moving here and we have no state income tax. But Texas certainly wouldn't be Meghan's cup of tea although Dallas has a Polo club for Harry.
I work in a high end retail store a couple days a week. Many of my customers live in the Montecito area. They talk. It will be interesting to see what they have to say about the new arrivals.
@Beachgal58: Will be interesting what any of the locals who are customers have to say about their new neighbors and if any of them have been following this psychological train wreck and realize it is a marriage between two very damaged people that could limp along for years.
I have not read the book but have read excerpts and reviews. More than one review pointed out a meanness toward Kate. As for William who knows what the issue is, he may be a snob or just cautious. I do have to say that William and Kate haven't whined to the press like Meghan. The woman loves seeing her name in print.
On your page about Archie, save for one thing. The Royal Family website mentions him by name under The Duke of Sussex entry and lists him as 7th in line. Also, HMTQ mentioned that she and Phillip welcomed their eight great grandchild. Not grandson, not grand daughter, no name.
Check, she had a gestational carrier. DNA? A) Harry yes, Megs yes; B) Harry yes, Megs no; C) Harry no, Megs yes, D) Harry no, Megs no? I just don't know? Birth defects? Problems with surrogate? Was Archie born in the UK or did Amal Clooney arrange something in the US and the baby shower was also the "pick-up"? Whatever it is, I think it is one of the main reasons they were kicked out.
Will write bit later.
Indeed. SwampMan and I are looking at properties in NE Texas, but I have said that I want to travel around for a year before I make any decisions.
I’m sorry I cannot imagine Meghan crashing highland park. Lol. The families in HP are pretty traditional. And the home they’d want would be out of their price point.
Just sayin. She wouldn’t be a big enough fish in that crowd.
She’s still leveraging Prince Harry’s old image , a la, a playboy she got to settle down and is still fawned after. No one is fawning over Harry anymore.
If NE Texas and you want more affordable acreage, then go NE from Dallas, Hunt, Fannin, Lamar, Hopkins and Delta (itty bitty) counties are your best best. I personally prefer east Texas.
If outside of Ft. Worth then go west and south.
You're right about Highland Park, heck all the Park cities...old money in general. But most of us are sure friendly here (that's one reason why I moved back). Meghan's hair couldn't stand the humidity here, oh wait, she wears a Himalayan Yak hair wig! I bet she would love shopping at Neiman's though.
Girl with a Hat said...
I read a good comment over at DM. It's that the reporters call JH "Stockholm Harry" amongst themselves.
****The man is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Identifying and sympathizing with his captor's cause.
Agree with both of your thinking on this one.
The baby issue was probably the biggest reason, but I also wonder if there weren't one or two lesser reasons. I really wonder about the drug thing...and maybe one other nefarious reason. Maybe between all the reasons it added up to one big mess.
Whatever it was, she couldn't get out of England fast enough. Bolted right after their last engagement. Leaving H to face the music alone for what they both had started.
That manifesto was clearly written by her. Look at how smarmy it was, and how very similar in style to FF it is.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8624433/Running-costs-Prince-Harry-Meghans-14-7m-mansion-reach-4-4million-year.html
*Harry and Meghan's new nine-bedroom and 16-bathroom mansion could cost as much as $4.4million a year
*The 'palatial' 14,563-square-foot home, located in upscale Montecito, was bought for $14.65million on June 18
*Its mortgage is estimated at around $480,000 a year, with property tax at $68,000, staff at $300,000, utilities at $24,000 and security at $3.3million
On your page about Archie, save for one thing. The Royal Family website mentions him by name under The Duke of Sussex entry and lists him as 7th in line. Also, HMTQ mentioned that she and Phillip welcomed their eight great grandchild. Not grandson, not grand daughter, no name.
Yes, that was rather noticeable, wasn't it? Kind of goes hand in hand with the very sparse birth announcement outside of BP. In all the other Royal birth announcements, there is a short, firm declarative statement that "the Princess/Duchess was safely delivered of a son/daughter at x time and mother and baby are both doing well." This statement is then backed up with multiple doctors' signatures, and never less than three.
Meghan's is subtly but starkly different if one knows the protocol: "The Queen and the Royal family are delighted at the news that the Duchess of Sussex was delivered of a son at 5:26am.' ie, "We heard a baby was born this morning, although we have no official proof of this" vs. "A baby was born today and we have received this word from these here aforesigned medical witnesses who saw it happen." One is just a bit more definitive than the other, n'est pas?
The Queen and the Palace have subtly distanced themselves from the whole Harkle mess vis. this baby by appearing to be present and supportive while at the same time, being quite vague about the specifics. The presentation photo with Arch and TQ and PP looks incredibly stilted and unnatural to my eye. The Royals--great-grandparents and Dad are a far ways off from the blessed infant, arranged in a very stiff tableau, while Doria and Meg are off in their own little corner cooing at the baby. If there is an actual infant in that picture, Meg and Doria are really the only ones who can see him. The other smiling figures are just too far away. Wouldn't the Queen have been invited to stand closer to the baby? Hold him, even? That would've been a coup. Unless there is some very compelling reason why she either could not or would not approach closer.
In the immortal words of Wild Boar, the Queen appears to be peering at a hand-knitted tea cosy at a WI fete rather than her living, breathing 7th great-grand. It's an amiable-looking picture but it's decidedly NOT in the tradition of usual Royal baby with Gan Gan photos. I still lean toward it being entirely faked by Meg's own hired gun 'Chris Allerton--Sussex Royal (tm)' .. and I was content in that theory. And then the Queen went and featured it in her Christmas speech, throwing me for a loop. If she has knowingly propogated a false image of herself meeting a potentially false infant, she is complicit in a huge cover-up. Huge. Bigger than what the family did to shield the public from knowledge of the depth of Uncle David's involvement with the Nazis. Which does not sound like the ER we have come to know, but I have wondered during all of this if the Queen is truly fully in charge of her faculties. She slammed down hard on any of this sort of crap when Diana tried it--why does her grandson's wife get a pass to do whatever she likes?
The Park Cities are lovely as is Preston Hollow. NM is a bit sad now. Prefer Highland Park Village. I was born and raised in Houston many moons ago. I spent my school years in the NE and then moved to various places in Northern California and Southern California when it was a much more sane place (and more beautiful when the state budgets were not so constrained) to live, work and enjoy life. Megs could not "do" Texas because we Texans, though very nice and charming, do not put up with much BS.
I'll brave the town centre tomorrow and see if WHS still has a copy - kept behind the counter as if it's a shameful secret.
I think HMG knows it's difficult to do anything - anything less than acting to get them out of danger is illegal - shipping has an obligation in international law to rescue those in peril on the sea.
Imagine the uproar if they were shot at, bombed, or just left there. My husband points out that by the time they're approaching British waters, they have somehow `lost' their outboard motors so they can't be turned round and sent chugging back to France. It's too dangerous to push them back into French waters.
We're supposed to be sending a few plane loads of migrants back to France shortly but the French are only prepared to stop them put to sea if we pay them, handsomely. They escort them out of French waters, even further it seems, to cover themselves in case they drown and the French get the blame. It's anyone's guess what might happen when we try to dump them back in France.
The migrants often destroy their ID papers so there is no evidence of their country of origin, therefore no chance of them be re-admitted to their homelands, even if they would go.
Technically, these are people whose `refugee status has yet to be confirmed' so best called migrants. There was an almighty stink when William Hague called them `bogus asylum seekers' a few years ago.
I'd now be in favour of ID cards, even `May I see your papers?' but, given the latest rows about `profiling', the authorities would have to waste time stopping people like me, just to prove they weren't picking on PoCs. The other possibilities would be to start speaking a different language (!) or praying for bad weather in the Channel.
Whether our parlous economic future changes things remains to be seen.
Then staff, the PR people, the lawyers’ bills....
Enjoy the money launderer's palace, which Harry's father paid for with wealth plundered from colonialism.
They expose the fact the entire lot of them have enormous wealth and live lives far remote from the rest of us.
It's all a facade, but at least the first bunch has the common sense to live more unassuming lives. The dimwitted prince and his showgirl are lifting the curtain.
Makes you long for 1789 and 1917!
I am still curious about why they asked or were asked to refund the Frogmore 3 Million. Last March as they were skedaddling, Megs and Harry agreed to pay back the 3.2 million in taxpayers money spent on a house they never really lived in. M/H agreed in order to show some contrition. To make the British public feel better about the Gruesomes. This was pure PR and propaganda. They will never pay back much or any. In my book it was a flat out lie. A porky, as the British call them.
Do you think that HMTQ has washed her hands of the H$rkle mess? If "Archie" or whatever is 7th in line, there is not much to do. But once HMTQ passes away, then "Archie" or whatever moves up to 6th in line. Now their is specific jurisdiction. Maybe HMTQ told Charles, "you spawned the nit-wit, you deal with it." One way Charles could deal with it is change the laws/ to only provide jurisdiction for the first four or five in line. Check mate.
I concur with that . . add to it insurmountable tensions between the Harkles and the Cambridges plus evidence of financial shenanigans with the Royal Foundation, possibly. Frogmore Cottage at this point, and the massive expenditures on wardrobe, are just add-ons. Wasteful spending, but nothing the Duchy can't cover. In the matter of Archie, there may well be issues of high treason in play. Along with other criminality like potential embezzlement and/or drug use.
If there was a gestational carrier, it seems most likely that MM's ovum was used, since she had a fertility clinic in Toronto were anecdotally, she had her eggs harvested as insurance for the future after the divorce from Trevor. Who knows if MM thought she'd ever become a mother at that point; human eggs bring big money for sale and I wouldn't put it past her to have thought about hers for cash. Then along comes Harry and the prospect of a quick anchor baby was too tempting. Actually being pregnant herself and getting fat and stretched out would have insulted her Narcissism. She wanted the attention and perks of being seen to be expecting without any of the actual physical toll. If 'arry is the bio-dad, and this can be/has been genetically proven--that Arch is the product of both legally married Royal parents--it does not seem so likely that the BRF would have completely marginalized Archie the way they have or permitted MM to take a Royal great grandchild out of the country permanently. The risk is far greater without the protections of the Palace and the RPOs. I say the BRF let Archie go with no fuss at all. He's never been mentioned or acknowledged by any of them except for those couple of vague references by the Queen and a few (ambushed) words by the Cambridges and the Cornwalls on the day of the 'birth'. Nothing since then. Weird.
I also have always maintained that 'Archie Harrison' has the ring of a shell company/inside joke more than the moniker of an actual child. 'Archie/Archwell' as a brand name rather than a real baby. Maybe that's why the Queen doesn't speak his name.
Blind Item #7
The alliterate former actress is being offered about 10% what she thinks she deserves. Apparently she thinks she deserves former First Lady money and is being offered television host money which is still more she would have received if not for marriage. This was someone who was lucky to get $2K for an appearance of four hours.
POSTED BY ENT LAWYER AT 8:30 AM 39 COMMENTS
I live in Santa Barbara and this estate's 5.4 manicured acres could EASILY cost around $500,000 a year in JUST water. Water is very expensive here and the more you use the higher rates they charge you per tier. Even if Prince Charles paid cash for the home (VERY LIKELY), the carry costs of this home combined with Meghan, Harry, and Archie's carrying cost will deplete all of Harry's $30+ million in 5 years. The monarchy will not be able to give Meghan this house in the divorce. It is just too expensive to maintain without a $5+ million dollar a year income after taxes.
BURN!
Yes, Meg and Harry are international jokes by this point. Nobody is going to give her millions for an interview or photos of Merchie.
If Merchie were unmasked as an elaborate hoax . . THAT would garner Meg all the attention she craves . . .
I like your way of thinking. So "Archie" or whatever might be Meg's and not Harry's and HMTQ has told Charles that he must dispense with this farce in expeditious fashion, albeit carefully. Get on it with it Charles. Do not let HMTQ go to her grave with this insult. I have at times beloved that it is MA's baby owing to all the joyous smiles from both Megs and MA during their NYC baby shower jaunt.
Love it. :)
Thanks for info! Used to live in the UK for awhile (well, Belfast). Now back in the states. Not sure which is better, to be honest! Thought about putting a fiver down on one of those houses you see being raffled off in the DM (there is one in the arse end of Wales near Snowdonia), but then I would have to put up with lots of rain and learning to drive on the wrong side of the road! I would think the Chanel islands would be lovely (never been) or perhaps the Isle of Man. Really would love to live on the Med, but never met my prince who could support me in the desire I wish to be supported!
You can see 3 free articles per month at the Spectator website (or you can sign up for free for one month) and I think some of the more blogger type articles are just online--so don't rush down to the shop just yet (unless you want some ice cream)!
"Megs could not "do" Texas because we Texans, though very nice and charming, do not put up with much BS."
OT warning Nutties:
Well said, we can literally step in bull poo on a ranch but we 'don't cotton to it' coming from humans. Meghan would probably have a 'conniption fit' if she was expected to say 'yes ma'am' and 'no ma'am'. Neimans just filed for bankruptcy reorganization I believe. I hadn't been there in years since its not in my budget.
I too spent my life in Calif, Central and Southern Calif. areas. But I am glad I returned to Texas, but it's beginning to look a bit like So. Calif in some NE TX cities. Can't see as many people wearing cowboy hats and boots unless you're outside the big cities. However I enjoy taking little day trips across the area on back roads, going up and down past ranches and farms everywhere. Love to look at the cattle, occasional longhorns and seasonal crops with cotton growing right now.
Montecito is a different water district from Santa Barbara and the biggest number I've heard in the last few years was $120K p.a for 40 acres plus grounds and $30K a month for water tankers during the worst of the drought. Hard to tell just how many of the 6 acres of the subdivsion are landscaped but after the huge push to reduce consumption during the drought I'd guess the annual water bill would be in the $40K/$50K range. Which would be one of the smaller bills.
In fact when you start adding up all the basic running costs, nothing fancy, mortgage plus taxes plus basic utilities and maintenance and a skeleton indoor and outdoor staff you start getting to a number of around $1M per year. This is the cost of keeping the place from falling down. Nothing more.
What is becoming obvious is that the place is way out of their league, financially. The people who buy mega-mansions like that one (and keep them without getting foreclosed) are the very seriously wealthy. Which the Harkles most definitely are not. To support a place like that ($15M) you would need a very healthy multi million $ p.a net income and a net worth getting into the hundreds of millions. These mega-mansions are rarely primary residences, the people who own these places generally have other homes dotted around the world. In this world the Harkles are little more than peasants.
I think Mrs Harkle is in for a big shock when she discovers that not only is Montecito not LA but the quickest way of annoying the locals is to act like its LA. Apart from hanging out with LA people I really cannot think of anyone socially important in Montecito wanting to socialize with someone like Mrs Harkle. Apart from complete loons and pariahs like Wendy McCaw and Nipper that is. But even the thought of those people meeting socially is really funny. For so many reasons. In fact I'd pay good money to watch it. For pure entertainment value.
Someone earlier mention Mrs Harkle running for the School District. Montecito has its own separate one. Just grade school. The highs school students have to slum it across the border in Santa Barbara. Just had a look at the current board members. Montecito is a small town so it turns out I know one of them quite well. Mrs Harkles probability of ever getting elected to the school board, less than zero. Knowing how Montecito works.
Thank you so much for that reply.
As a Brit, it's great to have someone who really knows the district, (as you so obviously do) give us the facts.
Much obliged :)
Well, maybe. But I'm assuming people won't be "c***struck the way Harry was.
Where I live someone who sends their children to private school would have a very hard time getting elected to a school board that governs the public system. (I too have public school experience in my family and in my work with training school counselors.) If a person had multiple children and one had idiosyncratic needs that couldn't be satisfied in a public school setting, fine. But a wholesale "not for my children" rejection? No way. But where I live (in the south) Catholic schools aren't really a big thing. I suspect those could be a more acceptable choice to voters than secular private schools, especially if the parent is Catholic.)
You are correct we don't know where Archie-- "he who cannot go outside because his parents are too famous"-- will go to school. Maybe it will be public school but I sincerely doubt it. I've read M used to ask people she met from LA where they went to high school...
For me, it's the totality of her unfavorables that would rule her out. Not one particular thing. But if she runs (personally I think she'd consider it beneath her) and the citizens elect her, I guess they deserve what they get. I don't know how the school system is structured there (One county system? Multiple municipal or partial county systems?) Given that Montecito has relatively few families with children, it's also possible the BOE races aren't that competitive. On the other hand, Montecito may be more "closed" to new folks taking over than we know.
So the locals in Montecito wouldn’t take too kindly to Meghan rolling in to a business and making them clear everyone out so she can shop by herself? She pulled that one in London.
She is also known to go into restaurants and pull the “Do you know who I am?” line to butt in front of others or get a good table or otherwise special attention.
This woman thinks her shit doesn’t stink.
Instead of keeping their digs on the down low, those two morons allowed it to be broadcast to the entire world. Any well trained tactical team could get into that place in no time. Ellen, Oprah are meh, who would bother? But the BRF, wow, I don't even want to say it.
@Pink Peony...
There wasn’t a chance in hell that Meghan would keep the info about finally buying a house from being broadcast around the world. As a narcissist, she is driven to derive her sense of self from her possessions.
She can’t develop a true sense of self any other way because she is basically an ugly, empty shell of a human being without genuine empathy, no capacity to love, and a total disregard for others that’s wrapped up in a ball of rage concealed by a carefully crafted and fine-tuned facade. The problem with narcs like her is that their facade, also called a mask, eventually falls away, revealing their true nature to all who possess clear vision. Their victims, like Harry, often are so codependent they are either unable to see or do not want to admit the person they are involved with is a toxic waste dump, so they stew away for years or a lifetime in the toxicity with the narc.
Charles is also a problem in that he, like many parents who have a son or daughter in a marriage to a narcissist, keep funding the narc’s greed and materialism, which essentially feeds the narcissist and enables the marriage to continue. Cut off the money and Meghan will probably leave to look for her next prey to feed upon.
Narcissists have certainly earned their nickname of “emotional vampires.” They suck the life force out of anyone who crosses their path.
You're welcome.
What's even funnier is that I'm originally a Brit, before I went completely native. Hence my interest in what the LA grifter is doing to The Firm.
I seem to intersect this story in so many places. I knew very well the LA of the 1980's and 1990's that Markle was born into. Where the whole local universe revolved around The Biz'. I've have decades of experience dealing with abusive NPD's and sociopaths, and NPD's who have done EST/Landmark training like Markle seems to have. So the first time I saw video of Markle I knew immediately exactly who and what she was. Amply confirmed by subsequent events.
I find the Harry Markle blog very informative because in a previous life I knew people from the same social class and background as the people behind that blog. So I know they are legit and what their motivation is. Which is both honourable and totally understandable. They have my greatest respect.
And now the Wreckin' Crew pop up in Montecito, of all places. My home turf so to speak. So glad to be the local man on the ground. To fill in the local colour.
I do wonder, if this is the place, how much of the furishings go with it.
These pics do have a bit of a streamlined look, less of the furniture
------------------------
I found a cached page that has some different photos of the house
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EO91ECncrTYJ:www.vaughanvilla.com/idx/765-Rockbridge-Rd-MONTECITO-CA-93108-mls_19-1401?City=MONTECITO&StandardStatus=Active&pg=1&OrderBy=-ModificationTimestamp&p=y&n=y+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
The former owner of the house was Sergy Grishin, who owns a private lending company, Rockridge LLC (among other private lending and real estate companies that he owns), which is where I think The Harkles got funding for the house- through one of Grishin's companies.
It was a long trail to find this info, but here are some sites to visit to follow the money trail:
765 Rockridge Road, Santa Barbara, CA
Residential Real Estate Trust
Jun. 12, 2020
PAST OWNER
Rockbridge Llc
May. 21, 2009 - Jun. 9, 2020
PAST OWNER
Cunningham Miller Family Trust
Mar. 17, 2008
PAST OWNER
Cunningham Miller Trust
May. 20, 2005
***************************************************************************
https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/santa-barbara/profile/financial-services/sg-private-lending-group-inc-1236-92011226/details
****************************************************************************************
This one shows you all of the real estate financial services that Grishin is involved with:
https://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Santa-Barbara/rockbridge-llc/47550464.aspx
*******************************************************************************************
It looks to me that they were financed through one of Grishin's private lending companies.
You can try that stuff in LA but you wont get very far in Montecito. Saying that there are only two small commercial areas in Montecito. The Lower Village and the Upper Village. The Lower Village is basically Coast Village Road. The Upper Village is the San Ysidro and East Valley intersection. Shops will sometimes do after-hours shopping for certain customers, big spenders, but given just how many very famous and very rich people live in the place who do not make a song and dance about who they are its considered tacky in the extreme to try the "do you know who I am" routine as more than likely there is going to be at least one person in the immediately vicinity of the tantrum who is going to be a damn sight more famous than the person throwing the tantrum. In the Montecito fame pecking order Harkles is a nothing. And as Oprah discovered the hard way, you cannot buy your way in. You got to earn it. Which she never has.
Because of that Montecito, and the Upper Village especially, is probably one of the most relaxed least snobbish not standing on ceremony places I know. If anyone pulls an attitude you know immediately they are not locals. Because the locals just dont do that. Ever. The locals are chatty and friendly if you are and because of the very easygoing atmosphere one gets to know lots of very interesting people. Some of them even famous. In their own field. But the local etiquette is that everyone is equal socially, in a very neighborly small town way. Very hard to describe but if you are easygoing and relaxed you fit right in immediately. Old money places tend to be like that. But if you act all LA you will be ever so politely ignored.
So I take it people are not happy that they are moving in?
Having read your reply, I'm even more appreciative of you joining us on this blog.
I agree with you that HarryMarkle does a great job. The information there is top notch.
It's great to have a (former) fellow Brit out there on the scene and you appear to have Markle well sussed out.
Hope you'll keep posting here too, as your input is not only interesting but invaluable.
Thanks once again. :)
I love your elderly aunt already! Bless her heart. :)
Thank you for taking all the time you have imparting knowledge about the area and the people in Montecito! It sounds like Harry may be more at home there than Meghan.
It was quite interesting to hear about the physical problems the area has had which may have been a factor in no one buying the property for quite some time (besides what seemed to be an inflated price for some years). I suppose they can get fire/mudslide insurance though it may be high? I know when I lived in California I had to pay extra for earthquake insurance with a pretty high deductible.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12397766/jobless-harry-meghan-mortgage-new-home/
The reason why all the mega-mansions were unsold for so many years is because there was no market for them. They might sell in LA or the Valley but until the early 2000's, when they started building lots of them in the Montecito area, there had been never been a market for those kind of houses in Montecito. And as it turned out, never was going to be either. Before the early 2000's the market was many small / medium sized houses, with a few large houses usually older with architectural merit. Some new big houses were built on large lots which had been agricultural. But very few knock downs, huge renovations, and no McMansions. That was more of a Hope Ranch thing. On the other side of Santa Barbara.
Then from the early 2000's until the crash in 2008 maybe two or three dozen at least of these mega-mansions were built. Mostly up in the hills. Some rebuilds like the Riven Rock house but a lot fresh builds on not very large lots, by local standards. And the mega-mansion builder were asking stupid prices. Like asking $20M or $30M for some house that might even raise eyebrows in Bel Air as to good taste when you could get a fabulous old estate with acres of grounds designed by architects like George Washington Smith for $6M or $7M. So very very few of the mega-mansions sold and mostly remain unsold to this day. The great old estates all sold. And quickly.
The Rockbridge house seem to have a typical murky history for these mega-mansions. "Sold" in 2009 but no reassessment of property tax valuation. Due to Prop 13 the only time properties get reassessed to market value is when it is sold. So you can have a big houses that pay $600 p.a property tax right beside a house that pay $26K. Because the first house was last sold in 1937. The one next door 10 years ago. The guy who sold the house to the Russian, a tech guy who does not look like he would have the income to support such an expensive house, then bought a house over towards Torro Canyon which he paid far too much for. So much over the market price that more than ten years later and one huge property bubble in between the new house is still worth less than he paid for it in 2009.
In Montecito you need fire and flood insurance. Now very expensive due to recent disasters. Earthquake insurance has a $10K plus deductable and given that all the faults are over in the Riviera, Mission Canyon and the Mesa is less of an issue for Montecito. Although if the Channel faults pop like they did about 200 years ago then it will be 1925 all over again. When downtown Santa Barbara was flattened and the original house in Riven Rock fell down.
She spent millions$ on expanding and remodeling primary and secondary homes, grand settings in her mind that reflected her magnificence. Their home is a gated and fenced multi-acre property. My partner often mused if the fencing was to keep the public out or the inmates in?
I am very delighted that the dubious duo has purchased such a grand estate which gives them lots of room to roam and fencing to keep them in. ;)
The Upper Classes have never been particularly keen on the Middles -some of them are a bit too close for comfort and are seen as pretentious `climbers'. The tend to approve of the working classes as they `know their place', although it's better now than it used to be .
Catherine's father seems to have a background that is solidly professional Middle Class (sufficiently comfortable for there to have money in trust for the education of Catherine and her siblings) although his occupation in aviation doesn't sound particularly `Upper'.
As for her mother being an `air hostess' as they used to be called... (says she whose forebears appear were the `lowest of low` according to Dickens!)
Apparently, when Catherine was at Marlborough, it was something of a joke that all her Middleton-family stuff, such as car-rugs and picnic sets were all aggressively new. No idea of blending in by going for `shabby chic'. (one of the great put-downs from the Uppers is that a self-made man `buys his own silver/furniture', ie hasn't inherited anything). Venerable age is valued.
Does anyone remember Hardy Kruger in `Bachelor of Hearts'(1958) about a German student at one of our ancient universities? He went to buy himself the compulsory gown and was offered a choice of 2 - one pristine, the other looking somewhat worse for wear which he was informed had been `hand-torn in our own workshop' - and was more expensive than the perfect one.
All new stuff makes one out as a `new boy' in the (higher social) class.
I love the talk about the social distinctions between LA & SB - near here, there are 3 towns in a row along the coast, I'll call them X, Y. & Z. The resident in Y look down on X & Z, and a friend at a lunch party in Y once asked why should this be?
The answer?
`Don't you know? X is Trade and nobody lives in Z.'
The comments about M in the article about the running costs are ... on point. She is called "Princess Peewoods" and "Moocher Meg".
About not fitting into Dallas society - "All hat and no cattle".
"All hat and no cattle". Lol, that's a good one. Just the other day I am ashamed to admit, I used the phrase about someone here.
needs updating
ugly games room, ugly movie room
the garden's need a facelift
low ceilings
this purchase is baffling
Personally, I would not buy this home if I could. It's not my style. Surprised Harry liked this.
The bank may hold the mortgage, but their down payment could have been funded by the previous owner (the real estate private funder). The previous owner was desperate to sell the house, which nobody wanted to buy, so he could have also loaned them money to place into an account to show the mortgage lenders that they have plenty of funds readily available to make the monthly payments.
Then, after the mortgage went through, they paid the funds back to the previous owner. Just a thought on creative financing for a couple who don't have the money to afford that kind of home. They get the house, the bank gets the mortgage, the owner (finally)sells the property, and he gets he money back that he loaned to them to show the bank that they have enough cash to make the payments.
It's just too convenient that the person they bought the house from just happens to privately fund real estate transactions, especially on a mansion that is so far out of
The Harkle's price range. Judging from the chart of companies that he is a part of, that I posted above, he seems to have many ways of moving money around.
Just a thought...
Porne's site with complete chain here ~ https://twitter.com/PorneMichaels
Anyone else find it interesting Vancouver house was leant by Russian and now this house more Russian? How can they even afford this? The upkeep expenses alone will be incredible . Everything is so shady with them
That would be mortgage fraud which almost always results in a lengthy prison term.
The Russian connection is paramount. Journalists need to dig there.
this purchase is baffling
Personally, I would not buy this home if I could. It's not my style. Surprised Harry liked this.
As someone else put it in the DM comments, allegedly, What Meghan wants, Meghan gets (but I have been wrong before).
@Jessica I agree. Very sketchy. Not one but two houses? What are the odds?
Obviously, that would be mortgage fraud, but in those circles, unusually "creative financing" happens at certain times under certain circumstances. The private real estate loan business can be a very shady venture. That's all I feel comfortable saying about that.
Understood. Thanks for elaborating.
Strange, isn't it? I have managed to spend my entire life without being involved in real estate dealings with ordinary Russians, let alone shady billionaires. We need an unofficial poll and show of hands to see how many people have been involved in one real estate deal with Russian billionaires and how many people have been involved in MORE than one deal with same. Put me down as having zero involvement with shady Russian billionaires.
H.G. Tudor says there are some narcs with self-awareness; he calls them "Greater narcissists." They understand that they use other people for fuel, but it doesn't make them feel guilty, because they really don't have any empathy.
If Oprah were a Greater narcissist, she'd have Meghan pegged as a Mid-range immediately. And she might simply want to exploit her for fuel. Playing her cards right, Oprah could extract from Meghan more respect, deference and even fear than Elizabeth Regina herself ever got.
The same law firm set up Rocket Records for Elton John. Small world, huh.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7922195/Oligarchs-lawyer-knows-Meghan-Harrys-Canadian-homes-SECRET-owner-revealed.html
No Russian billionaires, but I got involved with a Chinese billionaire who wanted to buy a property from me. My attorney and I dropped the deal when we were informed that the Chinese government would have to get involved monetarily as part of the deal. We just backed away fast.
Glad you got my drift, without my saying too much. Read the article that I just posted about the London law firm to get an idea of what goes on in big league real estate circles which are not quite on the up and up. :)
From the DM article on the Russian oligarch who sold the house to The Harkles. You're in Estonia, right? Do you know anything about this?
"The special ink could then be made to vanish, allowing him to rewrite the cheque for $250million, he claimed.
This scam was earlier blamed on the Chechen mafia, he claimed.
The larger alleged robbery involved financial manipulations via Estonia at the time when the Soviet Union was collapsing into chaos, he said.'
Wullie's Bucket posted the link a few posts above.
However, I wouldn’t worry about ‘Archie.’ These two do not have custody of a child. The only one who might be using that swing set is JH.
"Why does one couple with a baby need 16 bathrooms???"
Because after Meg had to pee in the Botswana bush, she vowed that she would always have the comfort of a real bathroom close at hand in the future! I bet she installs one outside in the the Tea House and one in the kiddies play area too.
He was brash, extravagant, and wanted everyone to know he was wealthy. This guy left the room when his assistant approached and exclaimed his jet was ready and he had to dash off to Monaco.
His one table story? How upset the class teacher is that his daughter prefers caviar for breakfast.
That’s my only experience with Russians, and billionaires.
The Sussex Suers are at it again.
It looks like images and videos of the property are going down all over the internet. Even pinterest images are starting to be removed , most of the links above no longer work and it seems many independant bloggers on real estate are being told to take down any images of the property they have up even if the blog post was 5years ago, the images have to be removed or they will be sued and they are not happy about it.
https://looneylisting.com/2015/07/08/something-for-everyone/
PS : To late HAMS I have a blueprint of the property. If I have it you can bet your life undesirables have it
Wallis told someone that he wasn't heir-conditioned.
I doubt that not seeing Archie is truly the Harkles desire for privacy for their son. If they really wanted privacy, they could have lived a far more private life in the UK on the estate Charles offered them.
Because Meghan is such a control freak, keeping Archie out of public view could be Meghan attempting to assert control of the Hollywood business machine, the media, the royal family (especially her arch-nemesis the Queen), the public and media, that before she hooked up with Harry, paid little to no attention to her.
After all, narcissists view ALL people, especially their children, as objects to be used to advance the agenda of the narcissist. Archie has already been used as a weapon against the Queen and Philip by her refusing to bring him to the UK during their farewell in early March. Meghan no doubt uses Archie as a bargaining chip/weapon with Harry by holding Archie over Harry’s head to keep Harry in Cali. Even if Harry and Meghan eventually split, Archie will be used a weapon for as long as Meghan walks this earth.
Something interesting was pointed out to me recently by a colleague. They observed that her wedding was a twisted form of narcissistic control and rage.
Think of it. She got a group of Hollywood luminaries and other movers and shakers, many who had never even met her or Harry, to show up at the wedding. Before Meghan bagged Harry, these people wouldn’t have given Meghan the time of day, much less fly across the ocean to attend her wedding. Harry would not have invited these people. He didn’t know most of them. So Meghan was in effect asserting her newfound power and control over these people. She was basically telling them, “Ok assholes, you blew me off as a nobody, but now I have power. I’m a SOMEBODY! I am IMPORTANT! I can MAKE you show up in London for MY wedding.” And, for the most part, they DID show up for Meghan’s command performance. Although it wasn’t so much for her as it was to attend a global British Royal Family event.
Getting back to Archie....
There was a news story a couple months ago that Meghan didn’t take Archie to playgroups because she was “too famous.” It also mentioned she was concerned that having no playmates could hinder the development of Archie’s social skills.
Someone here brought up the possibility of Archie being kept kept hidden if he did not meet Meghan’s standards for looks, which is very possible.
What popped into my mind is “Does Archie have a developmental disorder, such as autism spectrum disorder? “
At 15 months old, he is old enough to display shortcomings in speech, motor skills, or early indicators of autism spectrum disorder. He would be checked by his pediatrician for hitting certain developmental as well as physical milestones. Checks for autism are usually done at the 9-month well child checkup, following through the well child visits at the 18-, 24- and 30-month exams, but a physician would also consider any concerns brought up by the parents.
If he’s lagging or totally missing milestones, and being a male child of an older mother, his chances for autism are increased.
And sadly, if any child of Meghan is less than her definition of perfect, it could be a reason to hide him.
She was basically telling them, “Ok assholes, you blew me off as a nobody, but now I have power. I’m a SOMEBODY! I am IMPORTANT! I can MAKE you show up in London for MY wedding.”
And they probably never even "blew her off" -- and might have even been pleasant to her, had they met even before she was on Suits. It was all butthurt perception and projection from a narc.
@Golden
Blazing Saddles ‘ Beans Scene’ hahaha
@Jocelyn
Good to see you back, I missed Hyacinth!!
They’ve named the house
‘Shady Pines’ 😉
JANET STREET-PORTER: I give it a year before Harry is sick of his gilded cage in American’s dullest city. Somebody needs to draft him an exit plan
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8625361/JANET-STREET-PORTER-Somebody-needs-draft-Harry-exit-plan.html
I read "Shady Pines" and instantly remembered The Golden Girls! Though I doubt that was what you were going for. ;-)
@Hunter has consistently had the opinion that the ‘real’ Archie is being raised elsewhere by the BRF and I value her POV. But I’ve always wondered why (besides the apparent mental health and substance abuse issues of the Harkles.) But what if the child does have some type of physical or mental health issue? Could he/she actually be living in some type of facility in the UK? That would explain the rumors that JH supposedly visits and ‘bonds’ with this child. And MM insists on pretending that there’s a ‘real Archie’ that lives with them? It’s hard to imagine that ‘Archie’ could live with a family member (at one point I heard it was Sophie) without it being discovered. Unless it’s a very distant family member. But the idea that the child might have some type of birth defect and is living elsewhere would explain a great deal, especially why HM acknowledged her ‘grandchild’ but hasn’t said much more. Perhaps MM refused to tell the truth and that’s why she was asked to leave the country? Idk, but it’s food for thought.
Even if she wasn't married to a prince people would not notice her. She is too short, to old and with a boyish figure to make any "impression" I am not saying she isn't pretty, because she is but a lot of women are pretty. You would just not notice her if she walked around in any town. There is no need for all this security and hiding, people don't care.
Its like she is trying to make people think she and Archie are special, brainwashing us with all this "ooooh we can't go here or there and there are drones everywhere and paparazzis are hiding in the bushes because I am the most famous woman in the world"
If they were able to buy and move to a new home and live in it for weeks without the press writing about it, if you have to leak the news to the press yourself, that means people don't care.
I just dislike Meghan Markle so much.
LOL @ ‘A Giant Hoover from Hell.’
She is such an idiot ... The Irish Times still has 8 pics up in their article and Variety has click on Gallery that takes you to Dirt w/ 22 ~ what does she think she can scrub Variety and Irish Times articles?
https://variety.com/2020/dirt/heirs-heiresses/meghan-markle-prince-harry-buy-14-7-million-montecito-compound-1234733871/
or straight to Dirt ~
https://www.dirt.com/gallery/more-dirt/heirs-heiresses/prince-harry-meghan-markle-house-montecito-1203333115/
Irish Times ~
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/inside-meghan-and-harry-s-new-14-7m-nine-bed-16-bath-california-home-1.4329424
And with all the links to the Russian's, her interview with the 19th Represents Virtual Summit is tomorrow. One of the Keynote Speakera is Kamala Harris. MM's lack of timing is impeccable, idiot braggart she is. To see Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, you have to click on the see all speakers arrow. I believe it said it will be 24 hrs. after the summit to view but I cannot bring myself to register and the only reason will watch is to lmao. And of course the day it is available for viewing will be Princess Anne's birthday.
https://summit.19thnews.org/
@Enbrethiliel
Hahaha, Yes you’re right, I’m watching Golden Girls,
couldn’t resist ‘Shady Pines’
@Wullie
I love LVPs house, and I love her humour,
dry, droll.
Night night.
Couple more house names
Santa Barbaric
Montecito Mew(l)s
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8625361/JANET-STREET-PORTER-Somebody-needs-draft-Harry-exit-plan.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
Cold Comfort Barn
Low Down Manner
Megs Mausoleum
Harrys Hades
Riven Hard 90210
Megsinsky
Raches Rocky Rouble Retreat
Markleov Manor
MegDom
Arches Dacha
It was all in the title, Finding Freedom.
Dom is Russian for house
hence Finding Freehouse
At the bottom of the hill
Lies the Heartbreak Hotel
Secluded atop a crevasse
Harry’s not looking swell
He’s living in hell
All due to Megsies morrass
Cheers @Unknown
I’m different time zone so I often amuse myself!! 😉
Thanks! Good to be back with so much going on right now. The Harkle Show never disappoints, does it?
I've been loving your quips. They really give me a good chuckle.
Thank you for the laughs!!!!
All this reminds me of the Prince Andrew scam, when an oligarch from Kazakhstan bought the PA house named "SouthYork" for a stunning amount--way over the value of the house.
I was thinking of that, too. Lots of Russian house deals, a good way to move money. One way over-priced, the other way under-priced. Then we have the Canadian Connection house. Oh, yes, Megs for president- with Putin as VP?
One again, MM shoots herself in the foot. If she even attempts to run for a school board or dog catcher, these Russian connections will be brought up. My guess is that it goes deeper than just housing.
I'd love to see that London lawyer's client list.
Dorias Digs
South York, ahhh!!
Speaking of stunning...
They really have so many fronts
A pair of despicable runts
We know they’re not nice
Sold their souls for a price
Yet they still want for more
Him and her grasping claw
They truly are cunning stunts!
(In honor of Meghan’s exquisite word salads)
Dasha Disappointment?
The Santa Barbara Squat House- she can even pee outside there! That should impress H.
They seek them here
They seek them there
Our Megs and her redundant spare
She thinks were daft, that we can’t see
It’s all set up by me me me
Good one!
All part of the golden rain chain...
Maison Ghetto
Tig Towers
JAN MOIR: If this is finding freedom, count me in Harry!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8625867/JAN-MOIR-finding-freedom-count-Harry.html
I particularly liked wee baby Meghan asking her mother 'what can we do about the homeless?' before returning to her plate of rusks.
Not to mention the heart-rending factoid that Harry 'worries what others think of him' and that his favourite film is The Lion King.
Of course it is! One can see that the prince identifies with Simba the lion cub; another dopey ginger who is initially denied his birthright and gets blamed for stuff he did not do.
Finding Freedom drags the royal biography—and the Royal family—into the show business gutter
This vacuous piece of work degrades one of Britain’s great institutions, and raises suspicions about where the authors’ “facts” came from
By Simon Heffer
Part I
It strains belief that, well within living memory, a member of the Royal household was sent to outer darkness for the crime of publishing a book that was unfailingly loyal, charming and civilised about the royal personages described in it. But that was the fate, in 1950, of Marion Crawford – ‘Crawfie’ to her charges – ex-governess to the Queen when she was Princess Elizabeth, and to her sister, Princess Margaret.
Her book, The Little Princesses, was a highly anodyne account of her life with two little girls, one of whom, by an accident of fate, became at the age of 10 heir presumptive to the Throne.
Crawfie had retired from royal service in 1948, when Princess Margaret was 18 and Princess Elizabeth had married. Such was her devotion to her employers, King George VI and the late Queen Elizabeth, that she had delayed her own marriage for 16 years to fulfil her duties.
When Princess Elizabeth heard she was writing the book (which began as a series of magazine articles, and was an enterprise in which she was encouraged by the Attlee administration for public relations reasons) she pleaded with her ex-governess not to do so, as the principle of confidentiality among courtiers was deemed inviolable: and it was courtiers who, understanding the need to protect the institution, urged a hard line against Crawfie.
For Crawfie, the lure of money and pressure from her new husband was too much; and she transgressed the Unwritten Law by disclosing that Queen Elizabeth didn’t get on with Wallis Simpson – a little like saying that the Chief Rabbi isn’t wild about bacon sandwiches. Crawfie was ostracised by the Royal family and by the Court, and they never spoke to her again.
What the Royal family and Court of 1950 would make of the preposterous "biography" of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Finding Freedom, published this week, hardly bears imagining: a fleet of ambulances would doubtless have been required to take them to the nearest hospital. I put "biography" in quotation marks because this self-serving tripe is really nothing of the sort: it is a cynical and apparently orchestrated snapshot of a period in the lives of two thirtysomethings, which aggrandises and justifies them in the eyes of the world.
It is a monumental public relations job, and a pretty disastrous one at that. The authors are a pair of American journalists who write about the Royal family for American glossy magazines. For them, the Royal family is a commodity, an institution in which their only interest is how loudly it can make their personal cash registers ring. It is a branch of show business; which is why they were the perfect couple to write a book about the Duchess of Sussex.
Even by the standards of recent royal biographies – most of which, when written about living members of the family, are little more than an extended gossip-column rather than reflecting the serious research normally associated with such a work – this one is an offence against even a moderate standard of intelligence and good taste. It is the perfect present for someone you wish to insult.
Serious biographies do not include effluent such as "the rising sun washed over her makeshift yoga garden, while an exotic flock of birds that looked as if they had just had their tails dipped in pots of colourful paints serenaded her". Nor would they include drivel such as this description of the Duchess meeting Misha Nonoo, a fashion designer: "Meghan was instantly intrigued by Misha’s effortless glamour, and Misha felt similarly about the actress’s fresh-faced interest."
Leaving aside the atrociousness of the prose, which any respectable editor would keep only in a book destined to be read by the vacuous, insights such as these raise the question of whether the Sussexes collaborated: a key point, because one needs to know with any biography how credible the information contained within it is.
To those of us who have written biographies – and even, I don’t doubt, to scores of millions of others who haven’t – it is blindingly obvious that much of the information in this book can have only one of two origins: either it is made up, in which case the book is worthless trash, or it was written after some sort of briefing or assistance from the Sussexes or those they may have instructed to speak for them.
How, otherwise, do the authors knows that "Meghan was instantly intrigued by Misha’s effortless glamour"? Are they psychic? As with so many books, royal or otherwise, about living people, sources are usually anonymous. That doesn’t mean that what they say is invention; but without attribution, anything goes, and the notoriously unreliable narrative tradition of this history gets off to a flying start in the case of the Sussexes.
If the book were invention the Sussexes, who are not slow to go to law, would be so outraged that a blizzard of writs would have been issued by now: so let us give the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume the contents are true. The book is still pretty much trash.
The Sussexes have made themselves people of no consequence in the British royal family. They are unconcerned, in both senses of the word, with great matters of state. The book is an unwitting tribute to what appears to be the Duchess's titanic self-obsession and the tragic ease with which the Duke has apparently decided to let himself be swallowed up by his wife's narrative.
What also lowers an already dismal, muck-raking standard is the book’s breathtaking lack of objectivity, with its accounts of people marvelling at the wonder of the Duchess as she condescends to pat a three-year old child on the head, or the magnificence of Harry’s manners when he asks his future wife to go through a door in front of him. That’s Eton for you.
There was an era of royal biography that was considered unduly fawning – Sir Sidney Lee’s authorised life of Edward VII, for example, or Harold Nicolson’s of George V – but that changed with James Pope-Hennessy’s subtle and entertaining life of Queen Mary, as amplified by Hugo Vickers’s superb edition of Pope-Hennessy’s notes, The Quest for Queen Mary, published in 2018.
The finest royal biography was not an authorised one, but Kenneth Rose’s peerless life of George V, written using Harold Nicolson’s notes and published in 1983. Once the Diana industry in all its repulsiveness got under way, standards fell. Royal biography became not a historical record, but a vehicle for settling scores.
That standards have fallen so low as this is something that does more damage to the Sussexes, embodying as it does their non-stop, self-righteous whine, than it does to the biographer’s craft.
In 50 years’ time, will serious scholars refer to this book? Perhaps: it might get a footnote or two as a contrast to more serious studies of the British royal family in the early 21st century. Would anyone, on the basis of what this biography promises, want then to read a book solely about these two future nonentities? I doubt it.
The Jan Moir piece has some zingers! One of my faves:
Here, amid their sweeping lawns, tiered rose gardens, Italian cypress trees, lavender bushes, 100-year-old olive trees, tennis court, tea house, children's cottage, swimming pool, guest house and the five-car garage that surround their nine-bed, 16 bathroom villa on their eight-acre estate, let up hope Harry and Meghan have found the simplicity and peace they crave.Ouch!
@Golden
Thanks. The gloves are peeling off slowly,
finger by finger!
We need more Simon Heffers.
@Jocelyn
Slyther Inn, Yes!!
@Jocelyn
Abandon hope all ye who enter her...!!
Jan Moir certainly made me chuckle this morning! :)
Thank you also for the Telegraph article.
Their book is getting slammed by almost everyone and it's no more than they deserve.
Casa Cucaracha
You’re welcome!
Yes, you’re right, the gloves do appear to be peeling off slowly. A little too slowly for my taste, but Simon Heffer’s commentary gives me hope.
Tungsten Haven
Please, if you have time - write some new lyrics for "Busy Doing Nothing." :))
Whilst shacked up in their Ponderosa
With ties to Russian mafiosa
They are stupid to think
This won’t cause a big stink?
I’m hoping they’re told
Begone from the fold
Good bye, Dasvidaniya, Adios(a)
Interesting what has been found out by ordinary (or is it extraordinary?) digging by bloggers and tweeters. Doubtless the RF have been apprised of the links, and that there are official people who know a lot more about the situation than we do - could this account for the kid-glove treatment?
Just because an explanation looks like conspiracy theory, it doesn't mean that it's not a conspiracy.
Their approach to existence reminds me of the pigs in `Animal Farm: `All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others'
"The ultimate example of the pigs’ systematic abuse of logic and language to control their underlings, this final reduction of the Seven Commandments, which appears in Chapter X, clothes utterly senseless content in a seemingly plausible linguistic form. Although the first clause implies that all animals are equal to one another, it does not state this claim overtly. Thus, it is possible to misread the word “equal” as a relative term rather than an absolute one, meaning that there can be different degrees of “equal”-ness, just as there can be different degrees of colorfulness, for example (more colorful, less colorful). Once such a misreading has taken place, it becomes no more absurd to say “more equal” than to say “more colorful.” By small, almost imperceptible steps like these, the core ideals of Animal Farm—and any human nation—gradually become corrupted."
at https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/animalfarm/quotes/page/4/
------------------------
`Flawed' children are a challenge to narcissistic parents - as when it was more important to my mother that I didn't wear specs, because she said `they spoil your looks', than it was that I should be able to see properly. I concealed my difficulties because I believed she's see it as an affront.
Don't worry. It made me smile. :)
@Miggy
Megsies doing nothing
Plotting the whole day through
Trying to find more people she can screw
She’s busy paying PR
Hoping that they’ll come through
Oh Megsie Markle
All of its untrue!
LA LA LA LA LA LA
@Unknown
Finding Reliefdom, hahaha
Love the “exotic flock of racist birds”
Ha ha... brilliant! Thank you. :)
@SwampWoman
Cheers!
@Miggy
You’re welcome
@Sandie
Yes, she is impossible.
Nothing, and no one will ever be enough.
I should feel sorry for her, but I’m not.
She disgusts me.
The hurt she has caused the Queen, and country,
is beyond despicable.
God Save the Queen
I try to behave with decorum
Whilst speaking of Megs and her forum
There’s much I could say
About Harrys cheap lay...
But I’ll keep it quite clean
And not too obscene
As Megs makes me sick
Ad Nauseam
Wullie'sBucket said..
Lt. Nyota Uhura said...
It's my opinion Oprah is every bit as NPD as Markle, but with more sense and self-discipline. She knows how to carry through her plans and ambitions, unlike Markle, who flits and floats with each prevailing wind. Oprah is also much more ruthless, and a much better actress. Explains how she's been able to show "empathy" to others all these years, in furtherance to her private ambitions.
.................
What's your opinion on her relationship with MM? Although I don't know much about her I have a feeling Oprah is involved more than she is letting on. Do you think she would back Markle as some kind of victim of racism / symbol of BLM / fauxmanatarian candidate in politics?
--------------------------
Bearing in mind I believe Oprah is a narc herself, albeit much more high-functioning than Markle (Oprah tends to pay attention to details that may derail her, a real talent, and she's been remarkably successful at it) -- she has definitely recognized a "kindred spirit" in Markle, whom she intends to use for her (Oprah's) own ends. What those ends may be are hidden in the fog of obfuscation, "weasel" words, projection and the smoke and mirrors that all narcissists have a talent for employing in abundance. Oprah will allow Markle to think she's a "favored one" until she, Oprah, finds a use for her. Markle may know this, waaaay deep down, but will accept it and convince herself she's "valued."
___________________________________________
Re: Archie -- Seems to me something similar happened to Prince John, son of George V and Queen Mary. In their case, it may not have been so much a narcissist thing as a fear thing, a peculiarly royal fear thing, of appearing somehow "flawed" to have produced such a child.
Markle probably feels the same way. Perhaps it IS a narcissist thing. Dunno, I'm no psychologist. But the similarities did strike me.
____________________________________________
Re: Russian oligarchs/Harkle connection -- THIS is going to be the key that lets the genie well and truly out of the bottle -- IF, and only if, the specters in the background are not successful at hiding EVERYTHING. Now more than ever do we need strong and determined journalists (mm, jury's out on most of my so-called brethren), bloggers, Tweeters and above all commenters, to bring everything out in the open.
Nutty Flavor Blog is one of the linchpins -- maybe THE linchpin -- in this brave new world of exorcising the evil that, for now, has the Harkles as its poster children.
Okay, /hyperbole off :)
The idea of Markle in politics is laughable, for two reasons -- 1) She would not lower herself to run at a local level, IMO. Of course, she very well could surprise me; and 2) She would be mercilessly mocked on a scale not seen even for Pres. Trump. Again, tho, she could surprise me. At this point, NOTHING she does surprises me.
But I don't think that's where Oprah is going with her. As I say, Oprah's motives are obscure, but I'm convinced she does, indeed, have some kind of plan for using Markle.
even the playground looks suspious to me. looks like astroturf over concrete, not very soft, instead of lawn/dirt base.
very strange, or very noveau-riche MeghanMansion.
who is going to clean those 16 toilets?
who is going to care for the Roses and the century old Oive trees?
i thought FF said JCMPH didn’t like having staff (or maybe live-in staff) they wanted something cozy , PH didnt want to live like that. Weren’t they disparaging the cambridges for their live-in staff?
'I'll cut you up piece by piece until I reach your head': How Harry and Meghan snapped up $14.7m dream home from Russian tycoon whose ex-wife claims he threatened to kill her - but he says it's a lie and she defrauded HIM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8625319/How-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-snapped-14-7m-dream-home-monster-Russian-tycoon.html
'I'll cut you up piece by piece until I reach your head': How Harry and Meghan snapped up $14.7m dream home from Russian tycoon whose ex-wife claims he threatened to kill her - but he says it's a lie and she defrauded HIM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8625319/How-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-snapped-14-7m-dream-home-monster-Russian-tycoon.html