According to the New York Times, Harry and Meghan have signed a contract with Netflix to make documentaries, docuseries, feature films, scripted shows and children's programming.
In a statement quoted in the Times, the couple say, "Our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope. As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us."
Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer and co-chief exec, added, "We're incredibly proud they have chosen Netflix as their creative home and are excited about telling stories with them that can help build resilience and increase understanding for audiences everywhere."
What do you make of this development?
Comments
Rebecca TaylorRoyal Correspondent
4 September 2020, 1:48 pm BST
This article, courtesy of Yahoo, quotes YouGov poll revealing the depth of apathy towards the Harkles - Nutties in UK are among the 4% who are really interested. Naturally, it stresses the correlation with our views towards the EU.
Roughly, `they asked /were replied to' by the young - I hope more people do care about the nation state than this.
I've tried to copy the article but computer says `No!.
England’s Aussie rugby foes will be cracking up even harder, what a pillock!
I think Hazzard was so shocked at actually being asked a question that he said the first thing that came to mind. He's useless without a script!
Apathy will kill off Megsy and Harry, they need little else to finish them off. Next to no-one cares about them in the UK.
I believe Archie exists and is with them in CA. I also think he's their son probably via surrogate. We will never know either way it seems. However, the entire world can see that the strap on she was carrying in Canada is a doll. Based on this evidence alone, I don't understand how the case can be legit.
I also think they realize how unpopular they are and that is why they want to get into politics. Without discussing things too political, if she is capable of securing some kind of seat in CA, an extremely majority leftist ideaology state, then she gets a platform ad nauseam a la AOC and company. If she is able to do that, and I think she will be, then we will never be rid of her even if JH divorces her. I am beginning to be resentful of the RF for having foisted this upon our country.
"The case at the High Court in London is brought in the names of Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor and the duchess. Prince Harry and his wife are described as their son’s “litigation friends”.
I thought only M was a "litigation friend" in the case. And I thought there could be only one litigation friend anyway.
The above quote makes it sound like M is also suing on her own behalf.
It was obviously a doll or a very stiff baby getting a wedgie when not wearing a diaper. Does Splash not want to say that because it was sold as a picture of a live Archie?
It took me a couple of seconds to realize he was talking about Meghan and not the German chancellor! He totally blanked on Meghan's first name and couldn't even pronounce her last name properly. I wasn't about to correct him. Let her be Meghan Merkel to my friends for a while longer.
Also I think their main role will be to shepard other peoples projects through Netflix and lending their Royal names to the projects. As in "Produced by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" They will grab production credits while a hired hand will do the hard work of actual production.
It was obviously a doll or a very stiff baby getting a wedgie when not wearing a diaper. Does Splash not want to say that because it was sold as a picture of a live Archie?
September 5, 2020 at 3:36 PM
__________________
Very interesting question! Maybe it's a ploy by both to keep their names front and center.
My sentiments exactly. Sometimes I despair but I am hoping the BRF are waiting until after 1) the court case with the MoS, 2) The US presidential elections and 3) the end of year review as by the end, the Markles should have done more than enough to warrant a proper separation from the BRF 🙏🙏🙏
In the meantime, keep entertaining us and injecting a hefty dose of humour into this ghastly situation 😀
We have no idea if any of this stuff is true. The house purchase, like Archie, is shrouded in mystery. Documents allegedly showing a mortgage to a very dubious Russian have been reported, but were they real? Who knows? Netflix doesn't allow its viewer numbers to be tabulated by an independent agency like Nielsen, but will occasionally claim millions of viewers in its own publicity. Viewers who could well be sitting in click farms in the Philippines. So, iffy, as is much of the stuff we see on the web. Netflix is just as secretive as the RF.
How dimwitted & out of it do the 'men in grey suits' working for the RF have to be to see that an HRH lobbying the US government is not a good look for the RF. If this has been allowed to go this far, one has to conclude that the RF has very bad intelligence as to the Harkles' antics, or the Harkles have the RF's tacit approval, & the RF is complicit, as they might be in the Archie fiasco. Is PC more woke than we realize? Who knows? An HRH US lobbyist seems iffy, but my ever suspicious mind wonders if the RF itself has lobbyists secreted away in various entities in its purview that the public doesn't know about. Of course, the whole royal apparatus itself is a lobbyist agency of sorts, but it tries seem out in the open, & working for the good of Britain. Oops, didn't mean to give a potential Harkle lawyer an argument if they ever go to court with the RF.
I do think if the Harkles have had a big payday, all of their funding from Charles, which indirectly comes from the British public, should be discontinued. I'm American, so it's really not my business, but I have a dislike of our own politicians cashing in after 'public service,' Republican or Democrat.
If anyone has any idea how to stop auto correct on an lg so that it works please let me know. I disabled autocorrect and now after I spell a word correctly it changes it to the incorrect spelling and sometimes I can't even type what I want so have to use an alternative word. This never happened to me on an iPhone or Samsung. Google wasn't much help.
https://twitter.com/Meghanshusband/status/1302169525878693889
Thanks for the link...I could hardly stop looking at the funny Harry impersonations!
I saw something in the news today, which I won't go into in any detail to avoid getting into any political discussions, which made me think of this question. What happens if there is an enormous backlash to what has been happening with BLM and antifa? So far, it's been in the news, but most people didn't feel that involved.
What happens if there is a huge backlash against the movement that Meghan and Harry thought was so safe to join? The "silence is complicency" thing. That slogan has been used by the radicals who believe that all white people are racist even if one doesn't do anything racist. This unconscious bias stuff that Harry has been bleating about.
Well, one can be silent, white and not want to be racist, without being racist. And what has happened in the last 24 hours has awakened a lot of people to the extremes of that movement and what they are doing in the various institutions of the federal government.
I am wondering if Harry and Meghan will now try to backtrack, stop talking about it or double down on their promotion of these extreme viewpoints.
I am wondering if Harry and Meghan will now try to backtrack, stop talking about it or double down on their promotion of these extreme viewpoints.
Good question but I think we can guess the answer. Whatever suits the 'cause du jour', those two turn like a weather vane.
We always buy the DT on Saturdays but thanks for the tip.
The person overspends on credit card, pisses off staff and then complains because ideas presented by this person for marketing and sales, production, and management, completely rebranding the company, are 'not appreciated'.
In my experience of the corporate world and such people, they are eventually run out of town, but not before doing huge damage.
Perhaps the world of entertainment is the only place where such ridiculous self serving behaviour and 'pathalogically high opinion of oneself and one's accomplishments, talents and abilities' may be tolerated.
As for the rest ...
Sussex Royal is history.
MWX Foundation is registered in the UK with only Harry connected to it and is in liquidation.
MWX Limited is mysterious and is only connected to the Sussexes through the now defunct Sussex Royal Foundation.
Travalyst only has Harry connected to it and seems like a lot of trying to capitilize on a lot of unworkable ideas. The idea of Harry lobbying governments to promote commercial ecological travel is absurd but very American and very Megsy.
Archwell (sp?) is a lot of talk and no action.
To date, Megsy has donated a meagre amount for a dog kennel, they have thrown a few hundred at some organization in Mozambique for something to do with swimming pools (a country now facing a real threat of ISIS taking over the country and destabilising the entire region), given away money from wedding gifts, which they were obliged to do, to some woke and perhaps even anti-British organizations, and a supposed donation to Elephants Without Borders (we await those annual statements). Philanthropists they are not and charity is not their game in any way, and I do wish media would stop pandering to these ridiculous lies.
Meanwhile, how many millions have Catherine and William raised and how many organizations have they given direct assistance to? And what about the rest of Harry's family? That is real power.
I thank you for your kind acknowledgement.
Good question...I believe there can be more unrest in the US after the election regardless of who wins (hopefully I won't get in trouble for saying this). The radicals might feel the 'wrong person' won and if their favored candidate wins they may get uneasy if he doesn't cater to their demands and thus get impatient and things get worse.
If what was reported here yesterday is true, that the HAMS want to begin lobbying we all know what they will promote. So they are 'jumping from the frying pan into the fire' with their racism claims and will only stoke the flames of these radicals. If they intend to keep Netflix interested in their message they may have to be careful in what they say in the future. Somehow that doesn't seem to be in Meghan's wheelhouse, being careful about what she says or does. Hapless Harry is just hanging on her coattails but even he has surprised me with his 'unconscious bias' claptrap thrown at us. He is beginning to mimic Meghan in thought. word and deed.
Personally I hope the HAMS are eventually unsuccessful in their association with Netflix save for the instance of it they could produce animal conservation projects without any Meghan narration or even he, who I find his delivery mumbling and stumbling in his recent videos (guess with money he can get coaching and a gazillion retakes to get it right).
Several Nutties suggested they may use royalty in particular the BRF as subject matter for future projects. I wonder if Prince Charles might not be the focus of one of the HAMS first documentaries. The one not long ago that featured PC and the Duchy was quite informative and engaging. I think Charles would just love to have him and his work (and maybe include how Camiila is such a good potential Queen consort) showcased. That would be a plum for the Duo and also doable in the eyes of the Queen. It is conceivable that is why they are not being reined in.
There is no Meghan Dukedom. Harry is the Duke of Sussex (no more HRH so it is a meaningless title). Meghan, by marriage, is the Duchess of Sussex (nothing to do with the actual county) or Meghan, Duchess of Sussex or Rachel, Duchess of Sussex.
There is no Catherine Dukedom. William is HRH The Duke of Cambridge. Catherine, by marriage, is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge and so on.
It is absurd that Meghan and Harry keep using those titles when they are not representing the Crown. Harry is a prince by birthright. Meghan, like, Catherine, does not get made a princess by marrying a prince. Mr and Mrs Henry Mountbatten Windsor or Prince Harry and Ms Mountbatten Windsor, and so on, are correct and true reflections of their status.
Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice do not use the HRH or the princess title in their private lives. Harry and Meghan should not use their royal titles either.
Meghan is on a campaign to make these titles common commodities to be commercialized, but, ironically, in doing so, she decreases their value and makes their titles a joke.
There are so many American women who marry aristocrats in the UK and enrich that level of society hugely by being a part of it, respecting it and invigorating it at the same time. I doubt that Duchess Meghan will ever be welcome in their stately homes.
The distribution of the DT might have been interrupted today but not everywhere. We did get a copy, although the newsagent didn't have the main part of the paper and asked my husband to come back later.
Meghan is on a campaign to make these titles common commodities to be commercialized, but, ironically, in doing so, she decreases their value and makes their titles a joke.
_____________________________________
Very true words. Makes me think of this:
"Polish a turd and give it a title..."
They attack the right of the Press to uphold Free Speech in their case against MoS.
Extinction Rebellion are preventing the distribution of major British newspaper titles this weekend, while spouting that Free Speech is being suppressed.
Pro- and anti- illegal migration demonstrators have been almost eyeball to eyeball in Dover today.
BLM events attract opponents who use their fists to support their arguments.
As has been said, violent backlash may be expected.
Sort of on-topic - I've picked up online hints that the young are specifically being targeted to create an artificial market, following leaders such as Greta, by other cynical profit-making bodies for their own purposes. Has anybody else caught a whiff of this? Or is it yet more tin-hat stuff?
Was there ever a dollar figure stated for the H$rkle's "services" in any OFFICIAL NETFLIX statement?
Or, were all of the various, and mostly escalating, dollar figures provided to us courtesy of Meg's, et al?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/09/03/inside-big-deal-harry-meghan-made-netflix/
@Magatha Mistie,
Cheers @Unknown @LavenderLady
Was feeling ratty, been baking, I’m a messy cook!!
Everyone scarpered come clean up!!
________________________________
I was up reading early (4:00 am my time) or I would have dropped in to help you with your baking :).
I made Scottish shortbread recently and it came out pretty good. Of course it only has three ingredients lol. I always put a bit of lemon in mine. Yummy.
Loved your latest Sod Em Both! Another goody for your book :) Thanks for keeping our spirits up!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/magazine/how-reed-hastings-the-boss-of-netflix-took-on-hollywood-and-won-wgz2jckt6
Netflix,How Reed Hastings boss of Netflix took on Hollywood – and won
He took Netflix from a mail order firm sending out DVDs to a $215 billion giant, and has just signed a multimillion-dollar deal with Harry and Meghan.
Now Reed Hastings has published his book
No Rules Rules Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention
Description
Product Description
Netflix cofounder Reed Hastings reveals for the first time the unorthodox culture behind one of the world's most innovative, imaginative, and successful companies
There has never before been a company like Netflix. It has led nothing short of a revolution in the entertainment industries, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue while capturing the imaginations of hundreds of millions of people in over 190 countries. But to reach these great heights, Netflix, which launched in 1998 as an online DVD rental service, has had to reinvent itself over and over again. This type of unprecedented flexibility would have been impossible without the counterintuitive and radical management principles that cofounder Reed Hastings established from the very beginning. Hastings rejected the conventional wisdom under which other companies operate and defied tradition to instead build a culture focused on freedom and responsibility, one that has allowed Netflix to adapt and innovate as the needs of its members and the world have simultaneously transformed.
Hastings set new standards, valuing people over process, emphasizing innovation over efficiency, and giving employees context, not controls. At Netflix, there are no vacation or expense policies. At Netflix, adequate performance gets a generous severance, and hard work is irrel-evant. At Netflix, you don't try to please your boss, you give candid feedback instead. At Netflix, employees don't need approval, and the company pays top of market. When Hastings and his team first devised these unorthodox principles, the implications were unknown and untested. But in just a short period, their methods led to unparalleled speed and boldness, as Netflix quickly became one of the most loved brands in the world.
Here for the first time, Hastings and Erin Meyer, bestselling author of The Culture Map and one of the world's most influential business thinkers, dive deep into the controversial ideologies at the heart of the Netflix psyche, which have generated results that are the envy of the business world. Drawing on hundreds of interviews with current and past Netflix employees from around the globe and never-before-told stories of trial and error from Hastings's own career, No Rules Rules is the fascinating and untold account of the philosophy behind one of the world's most innovative, imaginative, and successful
pttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/magazine/how-reed-hastings-the-boss-of-netflix-took-on-hollywood-and-won-wgz2jckt6
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/03ac98a5-a492-4823-bc98-36f12383c34a
MENU
Financial Times
Sign In
CORONAVIRUS BUSINESS UPDATE
Lunch with the FT Reed Hastings
Reed Hastings: ‘Netflix is still in challenger status’
The streaming giant’s co-CEO on his ‘no rules’ culture — and why only world domination will do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Hastings
So Handbag will most likely be producing "nature documentaries". I can't wait to see him explain the plight of the Chunga Chunga penguins.
He is such an expert on this subject.
This deal for Netflix is just not a big deal. There are far more actors, directors, and producers they WANT that would actually affect their bottom line. I'm guessing the Netflix deal is apart of Netflix PR overdrive, perhaps in int'l markets. As for the PR, it's not very positive, and bet your dollar the Netflix communications department is
a)in shock, and
b) trying to figure out how to mitigate the negativity.
The best counter to this is a more high profile client they sign an exclusive deal with (as the harkles are one of maaaany) and just slow the Harkles roll a bit until Netflix can start to control the narrative (to limit destruction, it looks VERY bad int'l that Netflix did not know they needed the BRF 'permission' and perhaps a joint statement before basically offending the Queen and the Commonwealth with this contract).
That's the thing with int'l business. American cos go very very wrong when they don't take into account foreign diplomacy. Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last.
This is especially damaging if Netflix, as I guessed, were aiming for the BRF/ Wills and Kate plus the kids long term. Netflix cares about Prince Harry, his projects, and aligning POSITIVELY with the BRF. Not what happened this week.
So, don't be surprised if Netflix takes a break from the Harkles, and maybe we hear from Netflix when Harry's butterfly documentary, ala Steve Erwin, debuts in 18-24 months. lol.
Meghan is going to destroy this opportunity by getting invites to Galas Galore, claiming to have direct contact with Reed. This is her 'hollywood' opportunity, But as we know, once people come across her at these places, word is going to get out once again that she is not a nice person.
So, Netflix made a bad caluclation here and is doing damage control behind the scenes.
Also, for those of you that don't know. International is just not that profitable, in terms of biz. America is where the money is at. Which is another reason Hary and Meghan are in America. Netflix, well they assumed this was an 'in' with Granny. They need something, anything over Disney. Also, Iger rejected the nitwits.
Can't blame Netflix for trying, but we can blame them for not doing their research.
I have always been on Team Pillow but would Markle really pursue a lawsuit on behalf of a doll? How could she go forward with this if there IS NO CHILD?
___________________________________
I had the exact thought in the wee hours of this morning but it meandered into, why in the H would she open up that can of worms (Archie lawsuit) thereby drawing mega attention to the baby conspiracy?
That would be a mighty stupid move even for a Suit Case Girl slash Duchess. Oooff.
It appears the Palace has some sort of control over the content the Sussexes can produce. Does it also mean Netflix has to work with the Palace for everything that involves the Sussexes?
As said above Netflix almost certainly wants to use them in woke programmes that are total no no to the policy of complete royal neutrality. Does Palace retain the veto power?
Or this control will drop after the review year is over?
There is a lot of anger about the deal because people rightly point Sussexes would never be able to land it without their royal status, so it is viewed as using the status for personal gain.
looks like the tide of public opinion has turned against Charles and to some extent the Queen because they see as weak, passive and indecisive.
I just can't believe the Palace doesn't realise the danger of the situation.
It gets Netflix name in all the papers around the world, for the cheap cost of maybe a mill a year for several years.
Hubs says it doesn't damage the Netflix brand at all, and they knew this. He says it's more of the same for M and H.
As many have said, nobody really knows about Netflix's viewers or finances. What they have had is a windfall of sorts with a lot of people signing up for cheap(ish) entertainment due to the pandemic. Will these people stick with them when they can actually go out to movies and other entertainment options? I doubt it. Will they be able to raise prices for their current content? I think not.
I just entered the names of several movies and series that we *used* to watch on Netflix on their search function. (They're gone. Now we watch them on Amazon.) Netflix offered some "replacement" movies that I've never heard of. Husband tried to watch some of them. His reaction was "WHAT IS THIS? This is stupid! Are these people on drugs?" "Yes."
I think Netflix is as desperate in their own way as the Duplicitous Duo.
Good observation about stuff leaving Netflix. New streaming services appear and have a pretty good pulling power. Hulu, Amazon Prime, YouTube films, Popcornflix, HBO Go/HBO Now, Disney +, Crackle, Itunes just to name a few. Their prices get more affordable every day.
I will be dropping Netflix and switching to another streaming hub. Sure I am not alone. Netflix may be big but not exclusive and competitors are not asleep.
Yes Meghan would have to have a live child named Archie who would be involved in the suit. As to the relevancy to the author Rowling's case I thought that was in Great Britain. A law there has no relevancy in another country unless the second country also has such a law. So I don't see how Rowling's case would apply (but I am not privy to all the facts).
Personally I do not see the merits of Archie/Meghan's case since it's not apparent there is a law in Canada shielding celebrity's cloaked baby-like bundles from photos in a public place. Definitely if she called the 'paps' and it can be proven then there is no case (or if she directed someone else to call and it can be proven).
It is beginning to look like she is what some would call 'hyperlitigious' and if she loses a few suits she might be labeled by the court as a vexatious litigant and that could potentially slow her roll by such means as sanctions or even the refusal to take her cases. Interesting the concept of vexatious litigation arose in England as follows:
"The concept of vexatious litigation entered into law in 1896 with the Vexatious Actions Act, enacted in England and soon extended to Scotland and Ireland."
"In England and Wales there are two methods to control vexatious litigants:
Civil restraint orders (made by the courts themselves on the application or their own initiative); and Vexatious litigants orders (made by the High Court under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the application of HM Attorney-General).
Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service maintains a list of vexatious litigants and those subject to a civil restraint order."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
But some states in America also allows the court to address vexatious litigants and California is one of them. However, this usually means the plaintiff, say Meghan is filing her own cases by herself. Since she is hiring law firms she can probably get away with her numerous nuisance lawsuits.
Also, for those of you that don't know. International is just not that profitable, in terms of biz. America is where the money is at. Which is another reason Harry and Meghan are in America. Netflix, well they assumed this was an 'in' with Granny. They need something, anything over Disney. Also, Iger rejected the nitwits.
Can't blame Netflix for trying, but we can blame them for not doing their research.
Yes, I was reading where Netflix is planning to make lots of money in Asia and Africa while charging just a little less than they do here. Their monthly subscription here in the USA is the equivalent of a modest lunch at McDonald's for a couple of adults and a child (and is actually more costly than the Disney channel). Almost everybody can afford to watch it. There are places there where it may be the equivalent of a week's wages for the average worker every month. Hopefully they will have better programming available than they do here, but Netflix is going to have to put out $$$$ for that, too.
@Portcitygirl
I so agree with you regarding MM and politics. With all the money-making ideas they have been throwing out at us I think politics is the one she is most interested in. I've been saying for months now that I think with certain people backing her and with the current climate she could get a start in California and launch her woke-world-damage from there.
I feel bad as I've always been fond of the Queen but I also agree with you about the resentment towards the RF. Although they didn't plan this, they unknowingly weaponized both of them and I no longer accept the myriad of excuses made on their behalf. There are many diplomatic and facesaving ways they could have and can put a stop to much of this Harkle nonsense. They are a powerful family and a 1000-year-old monarchy.
************
Unknown
I agree. I won't say anything further due to blog rules.
The Harkles are free publicity for Netflix, but I suspect that their business model may crash and burn (after making shareholders very wealthy) when content offerings do not meet the expectations of the hype, especially when there are other competitors.
Netflix did not sign on the Harkles for the projects that they may deliver but for their free publicity value.
The Harkles are the Kardashians of the royal family. William and Catherine will be the King and Queen who will leave a lasting legacy, as will Charles in his lifetime's work as Prince of Wales. Charles also has the benefit of two wives who made a real impact, albeit in different ways.
Harry and Meghan will make it into the history books as an example of the epitome of all that is selfish and shallow and inauthentic of our culture.
Perhaps I am being unkind and they have trapped themselves in reaction mode, which has led them deeper into the lands of quicksand and illusions (shades of Tolkien) and now they have to chase the money instead of pursuing a path of honour and decency and authenticity and truth.
My ideal final chapter? Meghan settles into the life of an influencer and hustler that fills online sites and gossip pages with entertainment (perhaps with some bucks from endorsement/brand ambassador deals). Harry, with Archie, goes back to the UK and his family, reconciles and fades into obscurity (no official royal role but invited to all family gatherings and gets a job as some sort of estate manager somewhere, in charge of all practical things ... he earns enough to allow for a trip to some wilderness area every year and, in later life, will make a docu series about his travels).
There are THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION AMERICANS.
There are about 100 (perhaps) programmes that are watchable. That is being charitable.
Let's say the Chinese have a marketable audience. Not going to last forever.
Bottom line -- The MARKLES ARE MARKLED.
Nobody watches Netflix. Look at the numbers.
There are THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION AMERICANS.
__________________________________
Seems to me Netflix is on the down turn specifically with Covid on the wane (in many states) mine included. And fresh options from other streaming services.
I'm not a TV watcher, I'd rather read. I used to love NF a good while back, but now it's meh for me. To much gratuitous sax and violins: too much of what they show is what we called porno back in the 70's lol... so yeah, I'll pass.
I do make an exception for Rickey Gervais' After Life. Viewers were begging for another season and rightly so. It's meaningful content.
I highly doubt anyone will be begging for H&M content. Rather, begging for them to shut their pie holes for a change...
JMHO.
Good night y'all.
Wouldn't this be a part of their official news releases by Netflix investor relations, at a minimum, if it were true? Nothing released by Netflix on their website.
https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases
_______________________________
The Tide is correct. The latest Netflix press release is dated September 4 and there is nothing posted about the Harkles. Interesting...
Also, people in Africa don't sign up for streaming services. There are ways to get around stuff like Kodi, and pirating stuff online or just going out to buy a burned DVD for a fraction of the price that a subscription would cost. Same with Asia.
Off topic. But tiaragate, wasn't the tiara MM originally asked for supposedly from Russian provenance. Then runs off to Canada to stay in a Russian billionaires mansion. Then skips to LA and purchases a mansion from a Russian billionaire in Montecito. Meanwhile, H gets phone pranked by Russians and publicly humiliated after the tapes were released. Does anyone else think this is just a strange coincidence? Besides the fact the Sussexs are dumb, why are the Russians so interested in these two idiots?
It is a good question. Most of us go for years without having as many interactions with people from the Soviet Union as they have had in months.
I have noticed that a lot of children's programming is language free, such as Masha and the Bear and Shaun the Sheep.
Totally OT (apologies everyone) - A few weeks ago, maybe even a month ago? You made a funny post about putting some sort of hot cayenne in your coffee. I’ve been meaning to tell you that if you can consume sucralose there’s a product called “Jordan’s Skinny Syrups” with a lot of flavors intended for coffee. You can buy it at TJ Maxx and Ross for Less, usually for $3.99 a bottle. During the lockdown when TJ Maxx was closed I ended up ordering a case online from Jordan’s, and their price was $5.99 a bottle, so the store prices are a good deal. I’m currently using Brown Sugar Cinnamon and Salted Dark Chocolate Espresso. Some of their flavors don’t thrill me (not a fan of their Mocha or Pecan flavors) but some of their Pumpkin flavors are good. The also sell fruity flavors like Mango (ha!) and Lemon Elder Flower that are tasty added to iced tea or carbonated water.
Thanks Nutty and Charade for letting me post this.
Caveat: I am not a paid shill . I just like flavored coffee.
“There is a lot of anger about the deal because people rightly point Sussexes would never be able to land it without their royal status, so it is viewed as using the status for personal gain.
looks like the tide of public opinion has turned against Charles and to some extent the Queen because they see as weak, passive and indecisive.
I just can't believe the Palace doesn't realise the danger of the situation. “
I agree with everything you’ve written. I just can’t figure out if Charles and the Queen are too timid or flatfooted to respond in a forceful manner to the Harkles’ exploitation of their ties to the RF, or they are working quietly behind the scenes up in Scotland on a master plan that will be put in place once everyone returns to London? Their passiveness makes them look weak, IMO.
Based on my observations (and experience - not my own - Thank God) I believe Harry suffers from MDD (Major Depressive Disorder), a recalcitrant form of clinical depression, and some sort of anxiety issue. I know some say that it is PTSD, but there are other causes of anxiety and some research indicates it could be an inherited problem, though some experts do not agree with this. Who knows? I remember a Charlie Rose 2015 episode (pre-Me Too debacle) with a round table of about six mental health experts. One said, and most agreed, it would be 100 years more before we truly understood the detailed workings of the human brain.
RAGE. MENIS. ANGER. Just like that of Achillieus. Not ordinary anger, but pent up anger over decades now manifest in a "destructive wrath." And not because of Diana's death, a woman he barley remembers as some say. (The nit-wit can not even "google" what a Forget-Me-Not looks like.) No, Harry's rage is leveled at William, because he is the brother who will inherit ALL.
And, this rage is continually fed by Megs, and further JACKED up by The Others. Who are The Others? They are not the Obamas, or Oprah or Ellen. That is all too complicated. No, this is a much more simple situation: Occam's Razor. This is about money, plain and simple. Money is Harry's "simpleton" currency to beat William. To get back at William. Some kind of perceived salve for his rage. The Others are Meg's business team (attorney, manager, pr), because the way they make money is as a percentage of the deals. They were the ones that wound up Megs with "candy-cane" numbers spinning in her head. And they wound up Harry, too. Because they knew that the royal imprimatur of Harry was the only thing that could be leveraged. Megs by herself had never made much money for herself, or them.
Harry pranced into HW with the belief that he was solid gold just for being. Disney/Apple said "no, thank you." Everyone in HW knows that Bob Iger got badly nicked by his run in with the H$rkles. The Disney board did not like Bob's resolution to that problem. Megs simply has little talent. So know we have Netflix. Whatever that means? It probably only means $1M to $2M to start, doled out like draws on a construction loan by Netflix minders and accountants. Not money in their pockets, but seed money to pay writers, scouts, directors and real producers. In other words Haz, no mortgage money here. Not until you prove to us you are a draw. In my opinion, that will be a hard row to hoe for the duo. Rage.
As for "Archie": definitely a gestational carrier possibly with a legal harangue HMTQ had to sort out. An earlier birth date than stated publicly. Not both of their DNA. Either Harry's or Meg's, or neither. I am guessing Meg's DNA and someone else's. No "Royal Blood."
It seems strange that he would be publicly acknowledged as an heir, though. Perhaps one day when more information is released, we will say "Oh, NOW it makes sense!" As it is, I'm not sure whether the rest of the world is crazy, or I am. (She says as she types to invisible people.)
Like William once said to the effect of "quiet on the surface, furious duck feet paddling away under the water". I can see that if hints about what they are planning to do leak, it will be immediately met with cries of racism, Catherine is a big mean bully, they never liked me or asked me how I was, and counter strategies to negate the RF strategies will be put into place. They (Sussexes) seem to like surprises a LOT. Perhaps HM and PC are going to surprise them.
Crazy, hunh? I am of the opinion as well that they did not voluntarily decamp. More like escorted to the egress.
That's my suspicion also. I also think it had something to do with the baby or lack thereof.
There was a doll brought out more than once, also more than one baby. One or two of the seen babies were possibly female.
Things that still aren't clear....was she pregnant, pregnant plus moon bumps, surrogate, more than one surrogate, baby born earlier than May 6th?
Their DNA, or only one or none of their DNA? The queen recognizing baby in a general way suggests a baby exists that is legally theirs, but perhaps not H's DNA. Which would also explain lack of title.
Do they have custody of said baby? My suspicion is no, since they present varying babies or dolls, and live babies appear not to recognize either of them in any way, suggesting rental babies for a fixed period of time, like 2 hours.
Also, she would merch baby like crazy, or pap him, if she had custody.
Now that baby is older, it's harder to explain varying sizes and differences in looks. He's old enough that he should be looking more or less the same each time, not like a whole different kid.
It'll be interesting to see what emerges as time goes on.
"I am of the opinion as well that they did not voluntarily decamp. More like escorted to the egress."
Maybe. I bet the sudden "6-weeks off" last fall wasn't voluntary. I think they were strongly advised/ordered to take time off to get their sh** together after the SA trip, the televised docudrama, and their self-reported "stress." I also suspect there probably was fit-throwing by the two of them with members of the RF. But the rest...I don't know.
Mostly I think H&M got their underwear in a twist due to the required "vacation" and decided "ok we want 6 months off every year to do what we want where we want. As stars we deserve it." And then they were surprised that demand wasn't accepted with humble gratitude.
Meghan is a terrible actress but Harry is an even worse actor. I think his boo-hooing farewell speech at the Sentebal event suggested it didn't work out quite how HE intended. I do think an early exit was planned by M and maybe even by H but not quite that early.
Totally agree with you, but that would have taken wisdom and patience. Meg has neither and Haz is too emotionally destitute to understand any of this. (For the record, I think Meg is a basic sociopath with some sort of bi-polar complication thrown in the mix for good measure. I would love to see the variety of pill bottles on their individual bathroom counters. There's a photo op for some enterprising snoop.)
@SwampWoman
I believe HMTQ has told Charles that he will have to clean up the mess when the time comes, meaning of course after her death. And in the meantime, they have made the calculation it just does not matter because neither Harry nor his issue will ever get close to the Throne. I am not saying this is how I would have handled it, but that is my best guess.
Or, Harry's DNA, not Meg's (Hoo-rah!!) Harry threw a fit with his family. Same story for the rest of us.
Totally agree with you, but that would have taken wisdom and patience. Meg has neither and Haz is too emotionally destitute to understand any of this. (For the record, I think Meg is a basic sociopath with some sort of bi-polar complication thrown in the mix for good measure. I would love to see the variety of pill bottles on their individual bathroom counters. There's a photo op for some enterprising snoop.)
@SwampWoman
I believe HMTQ has told Charles that he will have to clean up the mess when the time comes, meaning of course after her death. And in the meantime, they have made the calculation it just does not matter because neither Harry nor his issue will ever get close to the Throne. I am not saying this is how I would have handled it, but that is my best guess.
Or, Harry's DNA, not Meg's (Hoo-rah!!) Harry threw a fit with his family. Same story for the rest of us.
What era of Bollywood films do you watch? The fifties and sixties have some great films with strong women characters and social themes all wrapped up with wonderful songs and dances.
AnyaAmasova. agree about Harry's rage being entirely due to jealousy. He thinks he is better than William and was cheated of the throne. I'm always conflicted about Archie. Is he real? Is he theirs? Why did the RF acknowledge him as the seventh heir? The last is the most perplexing.
`If the brain were simple enough for us to understand it, we wouldn't have the brain to do it...'
Exclusive: Harry and Meghan urged to use Netflix cash to pay back £2.4m Frogmore Cottage bill by MPs
The couple, who bought an £11m home in Santa Barbara with a £7.5m mortgage, are paying back the £2.4m at a rate of £18,000 a month
By Camilla Tominey
MPs are calling for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to “quickly” pay back the £2.4 million of public money spent renovating their Windsor home, after they signed a multi-million pound deal with Netflix.
Harry and Meghan are coming under pressure to “give up” Frogmore Cottage, their UK bolthole, after they agreed to make films and television programmes for the subscription network for a rumoured £100 million.
The couple, who recently bought an £11 million home in Santa Barbara with a £7.5 million mortgage, are in the process of paying back the £2.4 million at a rate of £18,000 a month, meaning it will take them 11 years to repay the British taxpayer.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, deputy chair of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, said that agreement should be “modified to pay the money back earlier”.
“I’ve read all the facts of the case and clearly anyone who has borrowed taxpayers’ cash needs to pay it back as quickly as possible.
“£2.4 million is a lot of money and even if you paid back £250,000 a year it would still take a decade."
The Tory MP for the Cotswolds added: “If the figures associated with the Netflix deal are correct then there is a case for it being paid back over five years rather than more than 10.
“These sorts of sums are out of the reach of the vast majority of people in this country who have been trying to make ends meet during the coronavirus crisis.
“While they may be sympathetic to Harry and Meghan’s situation, which is a delicate one, they will think that if the couple aren’t carrying out royal duties - and are making a lot of money in America, then they should start paying it back sooner.”
Fellow Conservative Bim Afolami, a former member of the Committee, which scrutinises public spending, agreed, saying: “If the Royal Family wants to subsidise Harry and Meghan that’s fine but the state should not pay for that. Now they are no longer working Royals and living in California, there’s no justification for it. They need to pay the money back now.”
The couple’s move to the US has also prompted questions over the future of Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor estate, where they lived for just eight months before announcing they were stepping down as senior Royals in January.
Situated in front of a lake, Frogmore House, where the couple hosted their wedding reception in May 2018, the Grade-II five-bedroom property underwent extensive remodelling to turn five properties back into a single mansion before the couple moved there in April 2019.
Following a summit at Sandringham to work out the terms of their so-called “Megxit’ deal, it was decided that they would keep the Berkshire bolthole as their UK home by continuing to rent it from its owner, the Queen.
On Saturday night, royal commentator Phil Dampier questioned why Harry and Meghan could not stay at Highgrove House, Prince Charles’s Gloucestershire home, when visiting the UK, freeing up Frogmore Cottage for another Royal or their staff.
“The place has been done up to a very high standard. If they are not going to be spending very much time back in the UK, it seems ridiculous for it to lay empty,” he said.
He suggested Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie, who have both recently married and whose parents the Duke and Duchess of York, live nearby at Royal Lodge, Windsor, could be interested in renting the property.
Eugenie and her husband are currently living with Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson but have a small cottage at Kensington Palace, while Beatrice and her husband Edoardo are understood to be living with his mother, as well as spending time at Beatrice's St James’s Palace apartment.
Sir Geoffrey said Frogmore Cottage may have been left available to the Sussexes so they would “feel welcome back in the UK” but added: “Clearly a conversation needs to take place to determine whether they will use it enough. If they can stay with other members of the family, then they should and allow the property to be rented to someone else.”
A spokesman for the Sussexes was approached for comment.
The deal struck by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex with Netflix is designed to deliver Meghan’s ultimate dream – an Oscar.
...
As well as securing millions of pounds to fund their lavish lifestyle, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that former Suits actress Meghan hopes the deal will land her an Academy Award, her childhood dream.
‘An Oscar is all Meg has ever wanted,’ said one long-time friend. ‘She used to practise her acceptance speech in the mirror with a hairbrush when she was a kid of seven. She would also practise her signature in preparation for all the autographs she would give.
‘Her absolute dream was to achieve the EGOT – the grand slam of showbusiness – which is winning an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony award.
‘Her acceptance speech has been ready for 30 years. Perhaps now she will get to use it.’
There's deluded and then there's Megsy.
From the Sun:
HARRY’S DI DOC Meghan Markle and Prince Harry ‘in talks to make Princess Diana documentary as part of £112m Netflix
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12593772/meghan-markle-prince-harry-talks-princess-diana-documentary-netflix/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8702907/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-pull-plug-glittering-Invictus-Games-fundraiser.html
Yes, and it is revolting. Harry is now no different to paparazzi he so hates. Both used Diana's fragile image for money.
Well I guess you could see this coming:
From the Sun:
HARRY’S DI DOC Meghan Markle and Prince Harry ‘in talks to make Princess Diana documentary as part of £112m Netflix
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12593772/meghan-markle-prince-harry-talks-princess-diana-documentary-netflix/
_______________________________________
Yup. Called it a couple of days ago. I'm beginning to think the journos from DM are perusing this blog for inspiration.
I don't mind them using my intuitive radar for new stories. Whatever it takes to get the Narkles out on their bums.
I'll take one for the team lol.
Harry and Meghan have canceled a key fundraising event for the Invictus Games, after signing a new deal with streaming giant Netflix.
According to a Sunday Times report, the lawyer cited a “conflict” of plans with another streaming service.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle pull the plug on glittering Invictus Games fundraiser for wounded soldiers due to be shown on Amazon after signing £112million deal with rivals Netflix.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8702907/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-pull-plug-glittering-Invictus-Games-fundraiser.html
O. M. G. This is HUGE. Invictus Games was literally the *only* thing he had going for him to show that he had any content of character whatsoever. Instead, he's pimping out his dead mother.
If there was *any* relationship left between H and M, this should completely destroy it, as well as any relationship with his father.
Oh, is a "conflict of plans" what they call it when the person holding the leash yanks it and orders him to heel, and he whines and heels because he now has no other option?
Hey Harry, you weren't Diana's only child. What about your brother, who also went through the pain and trauma of losing his mother? You ever give a damn about how William feels? How do you think this is going to affect him?
How low can H go?
I'm afraid to think what's next.
I would say that both of them should probably avoid being on a balcony with William at any events lest they end up tossed over the side.
Hey Harry, you weren't Diana's only child. What about your brother, who also went through the pain and trauma of losing his mother? You ever give a damn about how William feels? How do you think this is going to affect him?
Not only lost his mother, but was now responsible for a younger brother and his grief.
Makes me mad how H trashes W after W took care of H. Embraced him into his own family.
And now isn't good enough for the great and wonderful Harry.
"According to an Invictus spokesperson, the event was 'shelved' due to the Covid-19 pandemic and was a decision independent of the Netflix deal being signed."
"The event was shelved because the primary revenue generator was ticket sales from a live concert in Los Angeles in the spring of 2021."
But if all that were true (and a "live aid" concert probably can't be done in spring with an in-person audience), why in the world wouldn't H&M's PR people have gotten ahead of the story? Why does it seem like those folks are more concerned about stories about M's hair, Archie's baby food and vegan paint, and M's makeup than stuff like this? More throwing Harry under the bus? But if so, why didn't Harry handle delivering the cancellation news to the organization along with a promise of support in another way? We all know he can Zoom. (Well, sort of anyway.)
Could it be possible that this agreement about ditching the Invictus Games was made behind his back/without his knowledge by MM? I'm pretty sure that she and her people are the evil fairies behind all of this.
Officials at the foundation were reportedly 'stunned' after a lawyer for the Sussexes informed them they would not be going ahead with the event last week, shortly before the Netflix deal was announced.
According to a report in the Sunday Times, the lawyer cited a 'conflict' of plans with another streaming service.
A source involved in the planning of the event told the publication: 'It's very bad form and everyone at Invictus is gutted.
"A conflict of plans" means something more lucrative turned up. This is very selfish on Harry's part and reminds me of the service for the Marines in Deal when the premiere of the Lion King was deemed more important. No wonder officials are "stunned" and "everyone at Invictus is gutted". This is a betrayal. On the plus side, this will add to the list of 'charges' to be examined at the review (one can live in hope).
He’s been pimping out his poor dead Mother for some time now, at every opportunity he’s bought her up and blaming her death on his issues . He sold his soul to the Devil some time ago...nothing to lose now.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/9335531/coronavirus-quarantine-music-events-online-streams
I suspect (as I wrote yesterday) that Harry is not going to be able to manage much with the Netflix deal, and the first thing to go is his lackluster commitment to Invictus. I imagine Meghan also told him to drop it since it does not line their pockets with money. Maybe it's good for Harry to drop it since it s one of the few things he did that was genuinely humanitarian and he received positive accolades for. He needs to show the world his true authentic self so we can judge him on what he thinks is important; sorry to say, I am not expecting anything good from him as he has already shown his true colors. Sure maybe he can get a animal conservation project completed but at what cost did he pay to get there. He sold his soul to the devil beside him.
Apparently this cancelled event was to raise badly-needed funds for the Invictus Games, whose coffers are running low. I feel really bad for the disabled veterans who are looking forward to taking part, because this feels like a slap to the face to them.
I'm still undecided about whether Harry is a dim dupe that she is playing like a Stradivarius, or whether he is a willing evil, though junior, henchman.
I have to admit that Harry doesn't exactly come across as a Mensa candidate in any of the Zoom videos. (He doesn't even come across as being not under the influence of any pharmaceuticals.) I wonder how under the influence he may have been when signing legal papers and how much understanding he has of them. Can he be held to a contract if he does not have the mental capacity for understanding or whether his mental illness could be considered incapacitating? I wonder if he had an attorney present representing HIM? I think probably not.
There may be a reason, other than titles, that the BRF said something about reviewing any business that they may be involved in first.
There was a post a little further up thread saying their lawyers cited a conflict of interest with another streaming service. So yes, that seems to be the reason. If Harry cared, you’d think he’d hold off singing the Netflix deal due to this. However, as so much is vague about this deal...we don’t know if any of this was done behind his back or whether he sees money as his new God and dropped The Invictus Games fund raiser.
"There was a post a little further up thread saying their lawyers cited a conflict of interest with another streaming service. So yes, that seems to be the reason. If Harry cared, you’d think he’d hold off singing the Netflix deal due to this. However, as so much is vague about this deal...we don’t know if any of this was done behind his back or whether he sees money as his new God and dropped The Invictus Games fund raiser."
Or why couldn't Harry have gotten a legal release so he could legally have Netflix handle the event. When you have good attorneys and enough money you can probably pretty much do anything. It's not like the Invictus Concert/Games are a multimillion dollar movie deal to be fought over. I have the feeling as you said, "money as his new god" is the reason. Meghan is probably the decisionmaker on anything HAMS related. I bet she is gloating, taking credit for the Netflix deal and has secured her role in the relationship as the one who knows best since it is a Hollywood megadeal. Yet we all know that it is probably Harry who is the draw.
I know it is shameful of me to hope that they are unsuccessful but it is because I think they need to atone for the myriad bad things they have done starting with how Meghan's father/family has been treated, the atrocious scheming against the BRF and the claims of racism of the UK/American public, it just goes on and on ad nauseum. I also resent Meghan speaking for me as a woman with her empowerment claptrap. IMO She is not some independent woman; just an empty shell of a person that vomits word salad.
I gave Charade my word that I would scroll on by no matter how tempting it is to engage. I truly have learned that is the only way to avoid the traps. BUT when the other Nutties are so shrewdly impersonated its easy to fall into the new trap
I will be more cautious from here on out.
Back on topic,
I think Meglamaniac does not want Harry to succeed with Invictus Games. If he has something of his own then she sees it as an escape from the Stockholm Syndrome spell she has him under and with a UK success of his own, he could find his way home back to GB. Not that she cares so deeply for him but Harry comes with a title that she could possibly (and hopefully, probably) lose.
Her only concern is for her own "glorious" optics.
Absolutely yes, it could have been sorted out, but it seems it wasn’t. I do very much think Harry is complicit in all this now, Megsy can be blamed for showing him the way, but he’s very much a key player now even if she is pulling the strings on his back.
I hope it all goes pear shaped for them too (you aren’t alone with that thought). As Fairy Crocodile said, this deal could also mean its given them their financial independence, but I think the pair are too greedy and will always be a couple of sofa surfing freeloaders !
So sorry to read that some of the most enjoyable posters are again being harassed. Obviously their insights annoy someone who isn't very nice, or even very stable. Hope this doesn't cause anyone any harm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=122&v=AFZhwfysfKI&feature=emb_title
It's quite funny
OT- I am so disgusted with these two- they need to be set adrift.
I'll just say it, the Invictus thing makes Harry, nominally a British prince, look like Netflix's little bitch. Not very regal. I know Hollywood likes its exclusivity clauses, but it usually seems as if your lawyers are good enough, you can get around them. Netflix doesn't look good either. They look like they're depriving wounded veterans. Not exactly a pr bonanza.
Yes. It is a HUGE "Eff you!" to all the UK veterans, not just the wounded, and I take it as meant the same way toward US vets.
@Lavender Lady...I hadn’t considered that Meghag quite possibly undermined The Invictus Games for Harry. I agree. Unless she is the figurehead, it’s rubbish. She does t want to be the sidekick. She must be the star.
___________________________________
Typical abuser methodology. Isolate the victim, remove everything which gives them their own identity apart from said abuser.
I want to like Harry. I want to sympathize with him BUT how can a grown man be so colossally stupid? We know he's c$#t struck, but surely that can't last forever...
My biggest question in reference to Harry is if he's complicit in the skulduggery or is he truly a befuddled victim?
@Hikari:
"Right. And the Vatican is getting ready to launch Pope Francis as the first Pontiff to celebrate Mass from Mars."
@Teasmade:
"Captain Wails", more like.
lol lol One forgets that many expressions aren’t universal, in the very least not used in America. ;o) Going pear shaped or gone pear shaped means gone or going wrong in the worst possible way.
This Netflix PR debacle that they don't even know happened is what occurs when a company has people in charge that have no concept of "honor" and "duty" except as something to be scorned and laughed at.
You hit the nail on the head!
I want to like Harry. I want to sympathize with him BUT how can a grown man be so colossally stupid? We know he's c$#t struck, but surely that can't last forever...
My biggest question in reference to Harry is if he's complicit in the skulduggery or is he truly a befuddled victim?
I'm not sure that he is, as far as mental age goes, a grown man. While he may be chronologically almost 36, he may be mentally aged 15, quite impulsive, and not able to clearly see the future consequences of his actions.
lol lol One forgets that many expressions aren’t universal, in the very least not used in America. ;o) Going pear shaped or gone pear shaped means gone or going wrong in the worst possible way.
_______________________
I've wondered about that :)
It appears La Markle is pear shaped literally and figuratively. Lol...
I'm not sure that he is, as far as mental age goes, a grown man. While he may be chronologically almost 36, he may be mentally aged 15, quite impulsive, and not able to clearly see the future consequences of his actions.
_____________________________
Great point. It recalls us discussing this before on this blog ie: individuals remaining at the stage they experienced a certain traumatic event.
He certainly shows signs of arrested development. No impulse control started early in the relationship re: the letter he had published defending his "girlfriend". Her victimization started immediately- I'm sure at her wheedling...
Much like his mother.
Much like his mother.
________________
True. Diana was most certainly traumatized by her dysfunctional upbringing, which was compounded by her traumatic "marriage" to Charles.
It stands to reason she (emotionally) remained the shrewd but demure teen she was when she concocted the plan to get Charles into her scope.
She continued the public drama into her adulthood, no doubt.
Thank you for your explanation regarding "pear-shaped'. I think I will start using it here in Texas!
"It stands to reason she (emotionally) remained the shrewd but demure teen she was when she concocted the plan to get Charles into her scope.
She continued the public drama into her adulthood, no doubt."
I don't think Diana was responsible for snagging Charles from what I read. Charles was sneaky with his 'Camilla drama' from the very beginning of the marriage. His friends (who loaned their bedrooms) also kept the sneaky drama on the down low. Personally, I would never have put up with an unfaithful husband; I would have applied for an annulment.
Lady C says in her newest vid, Harry may have had a rough time growing up Royal but MegaNasty has no such excuse. She was spoiled, privileged, and told from day one she is "special". Such is the formation of the "Golden Child", the narcissist. Of course, I'm paraphrasing.
Loving Lady C. She's a tough B with an itch when she needs to be (like in the jungle on the reality show. Yikes!) but also is very fair and super smart.
Her new vid eviscerates La Markle. :D
I'm out Nutties. Good Sunday to you all.
Good points! Bye-
Personally, I would never have put up with an unfaithful husband; I would have applied for an annulment
_____________________________
Cat, agreed, at this stage in my life (old lady) I would have chewed Charles a new one but in my young girl days I took more than anyone should take. It's life under my belt so to say.
Thanks for your thoughts :)
Here is a link from the DM. Lady and pensioner are said to be racist and I thought lady, hmmm. So maybe they will also discuss "rank" being racist as well. Where does that leave the BRF?
Personally I liked a lot about Princess Diana, more so than Prince Charles. Maybe she was right he doesn't have what it takes to be King. Look at how he has handled Harry and Meghan.
Her outer beauty and good deeds and her inner mental illness and bad deeds were too much for some to process when "good" and "beautiful" are regarded as the same thing. Had she been less beautiful, I don't believe that her instability would have been overlooked or as hidden in the press as it was.
Re the Doria driveway pic, I do a lot of PS for one client and the child's head is too small for that to be a genuine pic. Baby "Archie"'s head is, if anything, large. One of the mistakes Photoshoppers and new artists make is to not understand that, compared with the body, a human head does not change much in size. This is clearly another example of p**s poor Photoshopping and more proof that Archie, assuming he exists, is nowhere near his parents.
Loving Lady C. She's a tough B with an itch when she needs to be (like in the jungle on the reality show. Yikes!) but also is very fair and super smart.
Her new vid eviscerates La Markle. :D
Didn't she just! She goes through the first hundred pages of MM's book, exposes outright lies, and calls Harry a "lazy bugger".
I cancelled my direct debit for my NF subscription today too. I am still trying to find polite words to let them know why. I guess it is not a god idea to write when I am so angry.
Goodness! Maybe they are hiding that he has microcephaly?
Didn't she just! She goes through the first hundred pages of MM's book, exposes outright lies, and calls Harry a "lazy bugger".
_______________________
Just popping back in to say Lady Colin Campbell wrote the Arse Kicker's bible... lol.
Later, gators.
Re the Doria driveway pic, I do a lot of PS for one client and the child's head is too small for that to be a genuine pic. Baby "Archie"'s head is, if anything, large. One of the mistakes Photoshoppers and new artists make is to not understand that, compared with the body, a human head does not change much in size. This is clearly another example of p**s poor Photoshopping and more proof that Archie, assuming he exists, is nowhere near his parents.
____________________________________
@Lighthealer Astrid
If you have the time and are so inclined I would LOVE for you to do a PS analysis of some of the Markle's photos.
I don't have a good eye for this sort of thing and often don't notice details but like in the case of the Vancouver walk in the woods photo, once it was pointed out that she was carrying a doll I could not un-see it! And she's carrying "Archie" with her arm around his neck with his face smashed to her chest, instead of supporting him by putting her arm under his arm and across his back.
Maybe it's just me but if i were taking a walk with my infant strapped to my chest, I wouldn't also walk two dogs because I would be afraid of them tangling leashes around my legs or making a sudden dash for a rabbit and pulling me down to the ground. But dodo bird had to go for the photo op, with that trademarked Markle smirk (a smirkle?) on her face. She had no worries about her baby being injured because she wasn't carrying one.
Lol, I wouldn't say Markle is pear shaped- she's more of an upside down bottle of Tignanello.
Sponge Bob up top, then those teeny legs. ;)
Tig-shaped. heehee
She said, based on what she personally knows about the man, he would find the position very restrictive and too much of a curtailment of his freedom. Her implication was that it would make him personally very unhappy.
Please note that this was said more than two decades ago. Diana would probably have a different view of the Charles of today.
This push to leapfrog Charles and make William King (being pushed in tabloids again today) is shallow and ignorant. William has a young family. George is nowhere near being ready to take on all the responsibilities of being Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall.
The Queen had to take on a huge burden, and with a young family, but she did have a consort who could manage estates for her and I suppose she relied heavily on courtiers. I doubt that her or Charles would want to hand such a heavy burden to the Cambridges before their time. William is being groomed to be Prince of Wales. He is probably hoping his father will be on the throne for a good 15 years or more (assuming the Queen will make it to over 100)!
Bad karma is building up!
Living with Meghan must be a constant state of severe cognitive dissonance for him. I think he is too far gone to be rehabilitated. Or is some of his more despicable behaviour an unconscious cry for help?
and he has officially "pooped" on both.
Nice man that Harry
Would you hire someone like that?
Might it have been possible to delay the start of the Netflix contract until after H had discharged his obligation to the Invictus/Amazon arrangement?
Or did Somebody take care to fix it this way, as part of the `disregard' process?
Blogger SwampWoman said...
I wonder how the Spencer family is going to take this?
My guess is that the documentary on Diana wouldn’t bother them in the least. In fact, Charles Spencer might like it because it will publicize the family estate, Althorp and draw more visitors there. $$$. And I don’t sense any ill will toward Harry from the Spencer family. Quite the opposite, in fact, because he and M had Diana’s sisters attend Archie’s christening (and at least one of them is likely a godparent to Archie.)
As much as we would welcome stripping of the titles I don't think it will happen for three reasons.
- Andrew will never lose his title and it means Harry will never lose his either. Well I can just about see Charles doing something about Andrew if he is convicted as paedo but not the Queen and not if he remains innocent by law.
- Stripping of the titles will pour fuel into the fire of hysterics and give weapon to various dubious vocal persons
- Charles and the Queen want Harry back. The nation doesn't but they do and they hope he can be rehabilitated and pushed down our throats again.
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/blog-posts/
Has she read and understood the job description?
Ans: No idea if she's read it, let alone digested it.
Has she understood it?
Ans: If she has read it, she's ignoring it.
What fundamentals has she misunderstood, wilfully or unwittingly?
Ans: She thinks she's being interviewed for the CEO's job!
The one she's really been interviewed for is `loving support for husband in his role in RF Inc.', with a small public role to start with... She's like an Army fiancee thinking she'll become a General upon marriage, if one can even imagine that ...
Also, that bit about `hit the ground running' - wtf? Don't even think of it girl. Doesn't she realise that that is the last thing she should do. Should've said something like `need to learn the finer details of the ropes first...'
Is she a team player?
Ans: Doubt it
Not even a candidate for the long list, let alone the shortlist -
What do we do in the absence of other candidates? Short-term temporary contract, as live-in g/f, to be be reviewed after 6 months, or do we re-advertise the job?
If only...
That papwalk wasn't Photoshopped but it was planned. Unused and possibly "unreleased" shots show her waiting for something or someone with the doll dangling straight down, face buried in her chest, and with the "security" men wearing hats and then not. The baby was clearly a doll as it had no weight and its legs were flapping around weightlessly as she walked, grinning at the camera. Have you noticed how, when she has a doll, it never moves position (think the polo match images) and how there is no flexing in her hand as she "holds" it? Even when a baby is supported in a harness, there is tension in the holder's hands as she or he supports the head or neck. Her hands are simply raised in a position to suggest she is supporting the baby somehow. There was also no tension in her calf muscles when she stood after squatting at Mayhew, or as she trotted around in high heels on Commonwealth Day when she was "pregnant." Just my opinion of course. I believe there is a baby, born of a surrogate, and that this baby has remained consistent. He is just trekked out whenever needed for publicity reasons.
@ Lighthealer Astrid
I cancelled my direct debit for my NF subscription today too. I am still trying to find polite words to let them know why. I guess it is not a god idea to write when I am so angry.
_________________________
Good for you!
@ Swampwoman
I think it is a pic of Meghan actually. She was roaming around in Zika country but I don't believe she was actually pregnant.
Blind Item #3
Unless someone steps in soon, the sports charity for wounded military is going to disappear. Now that they have their bag, the alliterate one and her ginger play toy have left the charity in their rear window.
Let's hope this isn't true
"This push to leapfrog Charles and make William King (being pushed in tabloids again today) is shallow and ignorant. William has a young family. George is nowhere near being ready to take on all the responsibilities of being Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall."
When you said about William having a young family, I immediately flashed upon President John F. Kennedy who had a young family yet he had more responsibilities being head of the one of the most powerful countries on earth (1960) which involved decision making not ceremonial duties. I think William is up to the task. Prince Charles became Prince of Wales at age nine (9). So George can be a young POW too. Anyway, I thought a Letters Patent could be enacted to cover needed royal possibilities if William became King and George was quite young.
Btw, I guess it is an often repeated mistake about what Diana allegedly said about Charles being King. Sure Charles can handle ceremonial duties.
"The Queen created Prince Charles The Prince of Wales on July 26, 1958, when Princes William and Harry’s father was only nine years old, before investing the title 11 years later in a televised event. The title of Prince of Wales is created for male heirs of the British Throne. While there is no automatic succession to the title, it is normally passed on when the existing Prince of Wales accedes the throne. The title becomes merged in the Crown and is renewed only by the Sovereign's pleasure."
I read sometime last year that Invictus had approx. $1 million in the bank, not much to put on large games and to provide other services to wounded vets. Harry, who was the face of the Invictus Games, has put them in a serious financial situation by dropping them. I'm not sure that they can continue. Hopefully, another person of better character will take his place.
Blogger Jocelyn'sBellinis said...
@Jdubya,
I read sometime last year that Invictus had approx. $1 million in the bank, not much to put on large games and to provide other services to wounded vets. Harry, who was the face of the Invictus Games, has put them in a serious financial situation by dropping them. I'm not sure that they can continue. Hopefully, another person of better character will take his place.
Somebody that can put their complete attention to fund raising to provide assistance for the wounded and that knows of the mental and financial struggles of the wounded. A REAL soldier, not somebody like Harry.
Of all Harry's betrayals the Invictus is the worst. If the info is accurate. I think it is. Covid is just an excuse. The real reason is conflict between NF and Amazon, as confirmed by the "legal representative".
I have never thought I could be disgusted so much. But what else can I expect from somebody who already ditched the memory of 11 murdered marines in favour of flouting his wife before Disney.
I also think there is an axe to grind between Disney and NF and that is partly the reason why NF jumped for Dumbartons after Disney ditched them.
But there are other differences between JFK and William. JFK sought the presidency, perhaps because of his father's blind ambition but he did seek it nonetheless. Second, he had his brother, Robert, as his "wingman" as AG. (Looking back that was a bit weird.)
And finally, at best JFK would have been president for 8 years and then would have been essentially "retired" for the rest of his life. If William became king today, he very well might not be king for the rest of his life (as he may have different ideas about abdication than the older generation) but he wouldn't be retiring at 51 as JFK would have had he not been assassinated.
You make a good point about Charles being young when he became the POW. But it seems to me, there's more to that job and being Duke of Cornwall than there used to be, mostly because of what Charles has done with the Duchy and the Prince's Trust. So I don't know about George in that role any time soon. And William's been a fulltime working royal for only 3 years this fall. I think he's doing a good job (although I do think he benefits from comparisons to Harry.) But it wasn't that long ago when he'd brag about not reading his briefings (said for sure during second tour to Canada in 2016.) He's also said some fairly unfortunate things off-the-cuff (for example about destroying the ivory in art belonging to the Crown, saying Africans needed to have fewer children to protect endangered animals [think Kate was pregnant with Louis at the time], telling the Bollywood stars at the banquet in India in 2016 that he'd never watched a Bollywood film...) So he may need a bit more time before being on the throne.
I know. It just sickens me that Harry would do this to a group of wounded vets who desperately need his help. He started Invictus with the help of Lord G. Now, this Netflix news tells me that he had no interest from the beginning for Invictus, but was pushed to do it to clean up his reputation. This also shows us how he felt about all of his Army buddies-nothing. He didn't care about his military service or those he worked with in the Army. It was just another place to get pap shots of 'Harry In Action,' with his bodyguards just out of sight of the photos. Hero Harry-what a joke!
Harry is lazy, petulant and a con artist. We just didn't know it because he had been protected by the BRF. I give him no sympathy. He's used his own mother's death for his own gain, and it looks like he will continue to do so. As for his lack of intelligence, it's simply a matter of knowing what is right or wrong in your actions and how your actions will impact others. Most teens know the difference, but Harry simply does not care.
I also don't give him any leeway for being led by MM. He's a grown man who should not be led around like a beaten puppy on a leash. His "suicidal thoughts" are also beginning to be suspect to me. He pushed that scenario too far by saying that every time a flashbulb goes off, he's emotionally destroyed. Yes, just destroyed enough to sign up with Netflix for even more publicity. :/
It's far past time time to man up, Harry. I know many, many women who have bigger b*lls than you.
OK, I got that out of my system. LOL.
***********************************
I'm going to drop my Netflix account and let them know why. What is the best choice for another streaming service, Nutties? I already have Amazon with my Prime account, but want another as Amazon is impossible to wade through to find a decent movie.
She will not have considered its just one more way the Sussexes have proven their hypocrisy. The selling out of Diana, by using her the same way Harry has railed against the way press used her is so obvious.
Their resume as "humanitarians" has also taken a big hit. Every time they try to claim that adjective, someone will remind them they chose cash over the charity so "close to Harrys heart".
All of the PR they have spent a fortune on the past few months has been negated with one move. They will have a hard time convincing anyone their motives are pure, or that they care about anyone and anything outside of themselves. The good news is that her political aspirations will also take a hit.
Harry will be hurt more than Meg, but aside from the sugars nobody believes Harry is thinking or operating on his own.
I really, really hope this Netflix thing bombs for them. After they pay off Frogmore.
I suspect that this comes from the time when a peerage would have given the bearer a place in the House of Lords, part of the Parliamentary system. For the Monarch to remove a peer from the House of Lords by royal fiat would have been an abuse of royal privilege; it has to be done by Act of Parliament. It's not like stripping someone of a knighthood.
My guess is that were an attempt made to divest H of the Sussex Dukedom there would be an almighty row demanding that she remove the Dukedom of York from Andrew.
As I understand it, Meghan's position is different as she is literally `Duchess in name only', by way of being married to H. It is `just a title', a courtesy one no different from Mrs/Ms/Miss, so her `airmine is oan on a shoogly peg'.
A duchess is usually still able to use the handle after divorce (remember the 3 simultaneous Duchesses of Argyll?) but HM can remove her title at a stroke, more or less, as it doesn't have constitutional significance.
Whether she will or nor remains to be seen.
Were this to happen, the odds are that the H$Ms would spin it as more evidence of how nasty and racist the UK in general and HM in particular are.
I agree with everything you said except that I think it's time for the BRF to finally tell Harry that he is not welcome back. He has gone too far against the family. I think any family would feel the same.
Harry is holding them hostage with the threat of worsening mental illness or possibly suicide. He's been repeatedly offered help from his family, but he doesn't want their help. It's time to cut the strings and let him decide whether he wants to get well or end it all. Nobody but Harry can help him now, and if he doesn't want to help himself, then so be it.
Harry has Invictus and Commonwealth Youth trust as two big ones; Megsy has the National Theatre, Commonwealth Trust and animal charity where she spent all of 10 min. These are royal charities that were given during the duo's short fling with the royal duties.
Unless royal family approaches their royal charities and suggests alternatives for the Harkles,the charities will be reluctant to drop the Harkles as even at this moment they might hope for some help from them.
My heart breaks for the veterans and for the animal shelter. The two ex-royal lowlives betrayed the most vulnerable and noble cases. Eternal shame on them.
@Jdubya,
I read sometime last year that Invictus had approx. $1 million in the bank, not much to put on large games and to provide other services to wounded vets. Harry, who was the face of the Invictus Games, has put them in a serious financial situation by dropping them. I'm not sure that they can continue. Hopefully, another person of better character will take his place.
------------------------------
99.99 % of the planet has "better character." Let's hope one of them steps up fast.
This is the final nail in Harry's coffin as far as I am concerned. I've been lax on him, hoping he's come back with his tail between his legs and admitting he married an evil woman. That obviously isn't happening and Madam will keep him on a tight leash as she knows she is nothing without his name. He knows full well what their plan has been since Day One. They are revolting people and I feel similarly awful for those brave men and women who have lost the person they believed actually held their interests at heart.
Someone over at BP should do something fast. The DM comments are saying enough is enough. JUST. UTTERLY. SICKENING.
Yes, that's what Lady C said on one of her last few videos. Only Parliament can remove the title of Duke from Harry, as he was born into the BRF and is in the line of succession.
The title of Earl was given to him by HMTQ, so she can take that away, but only parliament can remove the Duke title. MM is a duchess by marriage, so her title really means nothing, but it can be taken away when Harry's is removed by parliament.
Unfortunately, they would always be known as Harry and Meghan, the FORMER Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and I'm sure that they would use that to the hilt for fame and monetary gain.
I agree that in the short run this is a huge win for MM in that it further distances him from his family and GB. However, if she has plans for a career in politics, this Netflix deal with the accompanying dumping of Invictus will be brought up every time by the opposition, and that will not look good for a career in politics.
In the long run, I think she's shot herself in the foot yet again. She just doesn't know it yet.
This has been picked over several times before. :o)
You are correct in stating only an act of Parliament can remove a title, but an act of Parliament that has received royal assent can revoke a peerage permanently. So it can be done. If it means removing Andrew’s too, then so be it. There shouldn’t be any justifiable reason not to remove Harry’s because Andrew deserves to have his removed too.
Stripping of the titles will pour fuel into the fire of hysterics and give weapon to various dubious vocal persons.
With all due respect, that is proof that the RF are cowards.
Right now, Harry and MM are actively showing blatant disregard for the BRF and the British people, including Invictus and their other patronages. MM has expressed an interest in the politics of another country while she is still a duchess of another. Harry is a duke in line to the throne, and telling is the world how they should politically think and act, prodded by MM. That is extremely dangerous territory for a representative of the BRF, and Harry has gone along with all of this.
The Harkles should be stripped immediately of all titles and patronages, and the BRF should ask Parliament to step in now. This has gone on long enough and is getting worse by the day. Most thinking human beings will understand exactly why they would do so. As for the sugars who will wail and try to fight back, well, bless their hearts, they aren't known for rational thought.
I'm so sorry to hear of your depression, and I hope that you can find/have found the help that you need.
I think Harry has multiple mental illnesses, and they are being worsened by MM. He is self-destructing before our eyes. Even if the BRF was able to bring Harry back to the family, what role would he play? He is so far gone right now, that the only thing they could do would be to have him committed for intense therapy, but they can't do that while he is married. They can't pull him away from MM, as she knows he is the key to her own success right now, so she won't let him go. It's a stalemate.
If they brought him back to little Nott Cott or Frogmore and had round-the-clock medical and psychological supervision, that might work, but in his present condition, he should not have a role in front of the public. He could have the best care in the world, but right now, he is bringing down the monarchy, his family and his patronages, and that has to be stopped.
While I think Andrew is the scum of the earth, he hasn't been convicted yet of any wrongdoing. I think the BRF and Parliament should keep Harry's and Andrew's situations separate. Andrew's time will come.
Right now, Harry and MM are actively showing blatant disregard for the BRF and the British people, including Invictus and their other patronages. MM has expressed an interest in the politics of another country while she is still a duchess of another. Harry is a duke in line to the throne, and telling is the world how they should politically think and act, prodded by MM. That is extremely dangerous territory for a representative of the BRF, and Harry has gone along with all of this.
The Harkles should be stripped immediately of all titles and patronages, and the BRF should ask Parliament to step in now. This has gone on long enough and is getting worse by the day. Most thinking human beings will understand exactly why they would do so. As for the sugars who will wail and try to fight back, well, bless their hearts, they aren't known for rational thought.
___________________________________________
I agree with everything you've stated. However, due to the current circumstances, Parliament's hands are tied. They won't do it. HAMS knows this as well.
A duchess is usually still able to use the handle after divorce (remember the 3 simultaneous Duchesses of Argyll?) but HM can remove her title at a stroke, more or less, as it doesn't have constitutional significance.
Whether she will or nor remains to be seen.
@WBBM: I know that Diana remained a Diana, Princess of Wales, after the divorce from Charles, but lost the style HRH. As for Sarah, she remains Sarah, Duchess of York, also without the HRH style.
But both Diana and Sarah are citizens of the UK. In terms of immigration status, Meghan only did what was legally necessary to be able to marry Harry and reside in the UK for a relatively short time until she could manipulate Harry into leaving, with the final destination California. It’s obvious she never seriously considered becoming a British citizen because she was in the midst of executing the biggest snatch and run of a royal title in recent history.
I view it as a type of theft because her intentions were always to triumphantly return with Harry and a baby to maintain a thread of a tie to the royal family to help justify her having the courtesy title she holds purely via being married to Harry. She dishonestly entered into a marriage contract only to serve herself.
I am thinking that Meghan not being a citizen of the UK or of a Commonwealth country would likely disqualify her from being able to maintain the title of Duchess of Sussex as an ex-spouse as Diana and Fergie were able to do following their divorces.
Meghan’s entire reason to exist is tied to that title. She can get along as a former wife of Harry without Harry, Archie, and whatever child she or her surrogate spews out in 2021 or 2022, but without that title, POOF! She reverts to being a has-been and the formerly open doors and friendly faces in Hollywood would disappear in a heartbeat.
QUESTION: Does anyone know if my theory is accurate that from the viewpoint of the UK, Meghan would lose her titles in any form after a divorce because she is not a citizen of the UK or the Commonwealth? Meghan can’t follow in the footsteps of Diana or Fergie and maintain at least SOME sort of a royal title if she and Harry eventually divorce?
1. I saw a AMA on reddit from a few years back (Palace guard, he had to wear the big black fur hat) that Harry had to have a minder and at least a couple times a week carried him dead drunk through the palace gates.
2. I was on the Daily Mail this morning (trashy, I know) and someone had commented on the Invectus Games article about a friend of theirs who worked the Toronto games. They had nothing good to say, citing that he was a lazy, whiny, petulant asshole who barely showed up for anything and threw a hissy fit every time he was asked to do something. There were some mornings he didn't even bother to show up and they had to send someone to find him, most likely in Meghan's bed. He was totally "cuntstruck" by her (to coin Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall's rumored take on the matter).
Harry looks bad as in too many drugs and alcohol bad. If he doesn't break free of MM, I doubt that he will see his 37th birthday. I suppose that would be problem solved.
@SwampWoman: Lord, no! If Harry takes the eternal celestial dirt nap while still married to Meghan, then she becomes impervious to the Royal Family being able to place any limits on her. She has a free pass to do as she wishes.
Meghan would fully embrace being a professional widow as the biggest victim on the planet and a suffering single mother struggling to get through each day without her “beloved Harry.”
Widowhood would allow her to blame everyone but herself for Harry’s demise while reaping a bounty of goodies and special exceptions for life.
She and Harry likely have easy access to any illicit drugs they want, possibly even delivered to the mudslide mansion like Instacart delivers groceries. If he’s not careful, Harry could be the second Prince formerly known as Prince to OD from a bad batch of drugs.
William wouldn’t be able to look cross-eyed at her without Meghan hurling charges of Wills being the meanie brother-in-law.
- Meghan can't be blamed for the decisions he makes. She may have influenced him but in the end he says yeah or nay to an idea or course of action for his life.
- Harry may have what I call a 'functional depression' whereby maybe he doesn't feel happiness but he is going through the motions to stay married, have a child and parent, move across continents, buy a mansion, act well enough to impress a fabulously wealthy Corp, to give him a $100+ million dollar deal. I've known several people who had a bad depression (one was my employee) but forced themselves to go to work, take care of their children and meet their everyday obligations.
- Edward Lane Fox, Harry's staff may have bolstered the Invictus Games but Harry was already losing his interest in the charity prior to 2018 when Fox left his employ. I doubt Meghan is the main reason as I think Harry decided he would rather pursue millions than be a humanitarian.
- People keep saying Harry is a big drug addict but I highly doubt it or he would not be functioning as he does (likely he would chose to stay indoors constantly smoking and/or injecting his drug of choice and ignore his responsibilities). I would more apt to believe he drinks alcohol to excess.
- No doubt Harry is still 'c*nt-struck' with Meghan even though he looks unhappy in videos and in public at times. I think he may be uncomfortable in those settings which she has directed and dominated in the zoom calls and otherwise pushed him and told him to how to behave. One can still be in agreement to do something but feel uncomfortable. As much as Meghan constantly has a maniacal smile the opposite is true of Harry now days, who seems to naturally scowl on most occasions.
Meghan would fully embrace being a professional widow as the biggest victim on the planet and a suffering single mother struggling to get through each day without her “beloved Harry.”
Widowhood would allow her to blame everyone but herself for Harry’s demise while reaping a bounty of goodies and special exceptions for life.
She and Harry likely have easy access to any illicit drugs they want, possibly even delivered to the mudslide mansion like Instacart delivers groceries. If he’s not careful, Harry could be the second Prince formerly known as Prince to OD from a bad batch of drugs.
William wouldn’t be able to look cross-eyed at her without Meghan hurling charges of Wills being the meanie brother-in-law.
She's not a citizen of the UK, she's an American citizen. I don't see how it would be a UK problem. She can say whatever she wants, but people could just look down their noses and say "Poor, dear, MENTALLY ILL AND DELUSIONAL Meghan..." If she cannot prove that the child was both borne of her body and is a son of both of them, then the child is not a legitimate heir to the throne and of no concern to the BRF. I believe that if she could have proved it, she'd not be in California now. But perhaps that is the Chilean Pink Moscato talking. In vino veritas.
but we have people like the Markles, showing up as a “effing” SURPRISE to places they are not invited. Is there not ONE.....just ONE person to tell them NO......you are. nobody’s, you are nothings............how dare you show up unexpectedly and exposure my child to what might end up in their death,,,,,,,,
As things stand right now I need straight whiskey, or vodka or any drink that will knock me off my ass until I wake up to tomorrow’s hell!
cat Eyes, Sunset blush vino will work....if I drink even of of it.🥴