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
I think that there was no renovation to Frogmore. I think that the money was spent on something else, most likely Meghan's wardrobe.
I think that they are using the Frogmore cottage renovation money reimbursement to fix their image. Along with Prince Charles and the Queen who don't want them dragging down the BRF. No money was reimbursed. And the BRF isn't going to expose them.
Most likely answer. If Netflix is just randomly going to give away money in $100,000,000 increments before seeing the finished product, I'm going to be standing over here jumping up and down, waving my hands, while yelling the movie equivalent of "Yoohoo, SAILOR!" for some of that cash.
There were so many red flags for Harry's alcohol/drug use.
https://www.ibtimes.com/prince-harry-shocked-charles-running-around-naked-heirs-50th-birthday-party-2876403
@unknown
Actually, I was just suggesting that the hypocrisy of the Sussexes suing over their childs privacy while simultaneously
using other children for their PR is outrageous and should be part of Splash's defense strategy. But yes, they could be working together. I would love it if something like that came out. Every case they have brewing would be brought into question, wouldnt it?
Part 1
Who also lived in Frogmore Cottage?
By Michael Race
BBC News
04 April 2019 Berkshire
Frogmore Cottage sits within the larger Frogmore estate
Frogmore Cottage, the new home of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, is nestled in a quiet corner in the grounds of the grand Frogmore House in Windsor. The cottage has a rich history - and Meghan and Harry are far from its first notable residents.
Queen Charlotte had the cottage built as a rural retreat
If Meghan and Harry are seeking a home hidden from the public gaze, then Frogmore Cottage is an ideal spot.
From the very beginning it was intended as a secluded refuge from the pressures of royal life, with records of its occupants scarce.
Queen Charlotte, wife of King George III, had it built in 1792 as a place for her and her daughters to escape the court.
At the time it was fashionable for the wealthy to build large homes disguised as idyllic rural cottages.
However, the queen also wanted somewhere for her daughters to "go off and escape George's madness ", according to the writer and historian Helen Rappaport.
"It was like a large retreat on the Windsor estate where she could go off and hunker down," said Dr Rappaport.
"The king had bouts of madness. He was probably quite difficult to live with and she probably used Frogmore Cottage as a King George III reigned for almost 60 years, but suffered from periods of mental illness
The 'hated' teacher
Abdul Karim
Abdul Karim was one of Queen Victoria's closest confidants but was hated by many members of the royal circle
Abdul Karim, an Indian Muslim, arrived in England in 1887 to serve at Queen Victoria's table during her golden jubilee celebrations.
The 24-year-old made such a big impact on the aging monarch that within the year he had become an established figure at court.
The queen made him her teacher - or munshi - instructing her in Urdu and Indian affairs. She lavished honours, titles and gifts on him, one of which was the use of Frogmore Cottage.
She visited him at the cottage "every second day" and "never missed a lesson" from Karim, according to the writer Shrabani Basu.
Ms Basu, who discovered diaries detailing their relationship , said Victoria developed an almost maternal relationship with Karim and would sign letters to him as "your loving mother" and "your closest friend".
Karim refurbished the house and lived there with his wives from 1893.
However, his close relationship with the Queen angered her family and courtiers and her death in 1901 brought his life at Frogmore - and in the UK - to an abrupt end.
Within hours of her funeral, the new king Edward VII, who "hated" Karim, had his residences raided and his papers destroyed. He ordered him to return to India, where he died a few years later, aged 46.
"She was his protector," Ms Basu said. "It was curtains for him. They just cast him off."
Shrabani Basu
Shrabani Basu discovered diaries detailing Karim's close relationship with Queen Victoria
Presentational grey line
Impoverished Russians
Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna
Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna with her daughter Irina in 1897
When Tsar Nicholas II and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918, his surviving relatives fled to the UK in a warship sent by their close relative, King George V.
Among them was the tsar's sister - and the king's cousin - Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna.
On arrival in the UK, the grand duchess and her children lived independently for a while but soon ran out of money.
In 1925, the king put them up in Frogmore Cottage, along with several of her sons and their families. When it became too crowded, the king made the nearby Home Park Cottage available as well.
I read this, and it was interesting. Her husband was a piece of work.
One thing mentioned about Charles: if he got measles or something at school holiday, because the Queen was never vaccinated he had to go stay with somebody til he recovered. No mention of where Anne would go in such a case.
And Lady Anne's mother would get letters from him moaning about the misery and harassment of life at Gordounston.
So that is my contribution today. Thanks to the Nutties who have shared their experiences with illnesses, sorrow and travail to let the rest of us see what real trouble is. I wish you better times ahead, and soon.
Thought tbis story might be if intetest
Who also lived in Frogmore Cottage?
Part 2
Marlene Eilers Koenig, an expert on British and European royalty, said the grand duchess was "nearly destitute" by the point she moved in.
Tsar Nicholas II and King George V
Tsar Nicholas II and King George V were first cousins
The royal refugees' poverty meant the cottage soon fell into disrepair. Residents of grace-and-favour homes were required to pay for all internal changes but the grand duchess's "dire" financial situation meant she could not afford to maintain the house.
A Ministry of Works official in 1929 found the cottage was in a "deplorable condition".
"Wallpaper was tearing off the walls, the ceilings were dirty and the plaster was breaking off from the walls," added Ms Koenig. "The house needed more than a mere lick of paint."
Dr Rappaport said the cottage had been "extremely neglected", was lit with "oil lamps and candles" and did not have a toilet that flushed.
The refurbishment was paid for by the king, who also provided his cousin with a £2,400 annual pension.
After the king's death in 1936, his son, King Edward VIII, offered Xenia and her family Wilderness House, in the grounds of Hampton Court, and they left Frogmore.
Since World War Two, the cottage is believed to have been used as a home for members of royal household staff, although mystery surrounds its occupants.
Perhaps this helps explain why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex see Windsor as their "very special place".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-berkshire-46348857
More on this story
Prince Harry and Meghan to move to Windsor Castle
24 November ???
I think that they are using the Frogmore cottage renovation money reimbursement to fix their image. Along with Prince Charles and the Queen who don't want them dragging down the BRF. No money was reimbursed. And the BRF isn't going to expose them.
Yes, my first thought was, gee, that was fast. Followed by: bet they didn't. A little TOO fast off the mark.
And I think GWAH is right, they count on BRF not to expose them if they did not really pay it back.
"Did they not look at Frogmore before agreeing to move in there?"
@lizzie
"But I agree with @xxxxx , didn't H&M look at it first to notice the negative aspects?"
-------------
Quite but I'm not sure they had a choice, maybe it was Frogmore or nothing. Megs can't always get what Megs wants.
CLASSIC!!!!! Delightfully rude, and deserved.
The words of her Majesty "she gets what I give her" come to mind. I do believe Her Maj was dropping a very large hint to the cronic complainers by putting them in Frog Cottage and instead of mending their ways they just doubled down on their madness.
When I heard about FrogCott (aka Toad Hall) and its history, I was incredulous that Her Maj had actually sent the troublesome duo to *the staff quarters*. Worse, even--staff quarters that had become so decrepit, they were not even good enough for the staff to live there.
A decaying collection of staff cottages in a swamp, next to Wallis Simpson's grave and over the Heathrow flight path seemed pretty extreme even for a Royal joke. It was indicative of the severe doghouse the couple was already in, at that point only half a year into their marriage that this was publicized as their family home for their impending bambino. Any normal-ish people would have taken this stinging rebuke to heart and straightened up their act. H & M's failure to straighten up and in fact just brazenly continue to flip two fingers up to Her Majesty amid all these stories of extravagant spending and the money they owe, to the howls of the taxpayers is almost as head-scratching as the origins of Archie. Why would HM give Harry & his wife a property whose renovations were so extensive just to make structurally habitable, never mind about vegan paint--reno that had barely begun in December and yet a expectant couple was expected to be resident there by April? I don't know much about buildings, but it certainly sounded as though the necessary refurbishment to FrogCott, with the kind of massive rewiring, reflooring, reroofing, what have you, could have been expected to take at 9 months, not 4. Also bearing in mind that bulk of that period was during the Christmas-New Years' holidays and winter weather which could be expected to have uncooperative weather for part of the time.
I think that there was no renovation to Frogmore. I think that the money was spent on something else, most likely Meghan's wardrobe.
For the cottage to have been move-in ready by April, crews would have had to have been working round-the-clock. Yet residents of Windsor never reported hearing or seeing the noises and detritus of construction on such a scale, nor any sign of the traffic coming and going with supply vans and such that one would expect to see. We had a poster, sadly no longer here, who identified herself as a resident of Windsor and said she walked her dog in the area regularly. She saw exactly nada going on outside of Frogmore Cottage--said it was deserted every day. One of the royal reporters tried to counter that the HAMS' residency was legit, based on the sight of one or two vehicles parked there on one day, and an open window.
But why were there no external signs of this massive renovation project ever witnessed by the public? Releasing pictures of the ongoing work being covered by the Sovereign Grant would have just been good PR for the family, to show the taxpayers that work was in progress on this listed building. We have never seen any pictures of FroggCott at all, apart from the two stock photos that have been circulating since 2018--the shot of the overgrown and dilapidated-looking back garden and the shot of the chimneys of the house across the expanse of the field from the public footpath. I still don't know what the front of the property looks like.
This does not pass the smell test to me.
I think that they are using the Frogmore cottage renovation money reimbursement to fix their image. Along with Prince Charles and the Queen who don't want them dragging down the BRF. No money was reimbursed. And the BRF isn't going to expose them.
I'd say not, because to expose H & M would be to expose themselves--if this property was only given to the HAMS in pretense, and not only were they never expected to live there, but no work was ever finished on the house to even make that possible. So what's with this 2.4 million pounds? Such a specific figure--for what? As to where the couple was actually living for the year or so between being kicked out of KP and fleeing for North America is anyone's guess. It was *not* a rotting staff building next to Great-Great-X-Granny Victoria's mausoleum. What of the tales of M being stashed in a Kensington flat and H being seen coming and going from NottCott during this period?
Here's what I'm thinking--Perhaps if Meg's shenanigans with the faux pregnancy had already been established, the Queen said, "Fine, if you insist on pretending for public consumption that you are going to present me with another great-grandchild, I will pretend for public consumption that I am giving you a venerable property on my Windsor estate, once a favorite retreat of Queen Charlotte, and birthplace of Earl Mountbatten, for your family home. My gift is as real as the one you say you are giving me."
If this is true, then HM and the Palace have been deeply complicit on two frauds and have doubled down on those frauds for nearly two years now. It does not reflect well on the Queen, regardless of what it says about the HAMS. Meg is guilty of extravagantly wasting money and lots of creative bookkeeping with her merching, etc. But if Frogmore Cottage was never going to be habitable in all the time they were allegedly living there, and it was really just an elaborate practical joke all along, this public show of 'making them pay for the renovations' is quizzical. I don't doubt Meg can easily waste 2.4 million pounds but what if she never bought a stick of anything for Frogmore because they were never going to move in, ever, even before Megxit? Was TQ aware even before 'the birth' that they were going to be out of the Firm? Hence, she gave them a phantom house for their UK address on paper, but they've never darkened the doors.
My head literally hurts.
Blogger CatEyes said...
@Unknown said...
"You're forgetting the potential damage the Harkles can cause here in America with their calls for anarchy, political machinations and ultra woke sensitivities."
********************************************************************************
I have not read they are calling for anarchy. Please elaborate or can you provide a quote(s) as we would be interested to hear. I will use it in a letter to my congressman and the President and the Queen (already wrote her a letter last December).
Our freedoms here guarantee they are allowed to have ultra woke sensibilities. Political machinations also allowed as long as it is not criminal. I am turned off by their hypocrisy and 'woke' sensitivities but view them as mostly impotent loons.
___________________________________________
HAMS came out in public support of BLM. Do they look impotent?
"Bootsy said, 'Regarding the stories that they have paid back the debt for Frogmore cottage and no longer recieve income from Charles, I have just one thing to say.'
"Prove it.
I'm not a conspiracy type at all. But the finances of the RF are dodgy as hell. And then you add the extra dodginess of these two shysters. I want to see proof because this doesn't fit with what we know about them."
I totally agree, it’s just spin on spin.
I am also totally in agreement with Bootsy. Let's see the receipt.
The Frogmore scenario might have been that The Queen was running out of possible properties for them to live at. Frogmore was described to them. H/M knew it was far away from The Cambridges so it fit the bill. Told that Frogmore was a "bit noisy outside" due to air traffic. The Harkles reply was,"This place needs a few million pounds in renovations anyway. So install lots of soundproofing". H/M seem to be indoors types to avoid random paparazzi, so this could all work out.
I think they spent 10 days at Frogmore. Mostly to receive guests. A few have described visiting them there.
Apparently thinking is overrated. I feel like Mongo from Blazing Saddles "Mongo only pawn in game of life". Or, to put it another way, we are not privy to the games currently being played.
Ah, yes . . I believe this is where Ellen insisted that she cuddled the Arch With Tufts of Red Hair whilst discussing feminist issues with the 'glowing' Mum, killing time prior to boarding a flight at Heathrow. Portia was there also, but has remained silent on this subject.
Also HM and the Cambridges are purported to have visited--twice--and let us not forget about Priyanka Chopra, who was also amongst the stream of well-wishers beating a path to Windsor to behold the blessed babe. According to Meg's PR. Priyanka took the unprecedented step of issuing a press statement flatly denying that she'd been in Windsor since the wedding a year prior and had never met Archie.
So, if two of the 'visitors' are fraudulent, why not all?
The Queen spends her every weekend at Windsor, when she is not in residence at Sandringham or Balmoral. William and Harry both attended Eton, which is practically in view of Windsor Castle. There are constant Royal family events happening there. So are we to accept that Harry had never, in his 33 years of frequenting the area, passed Frogmore Cottage to know what it looked like? It would have been staff quarters for all of his life, so perhaps not. But it's so close to Granny's favorite house. Harry would have been extremely familiar with all of Windsor Great Park, I assume. It's probably where he and Wills learned to drive. I think Haz would have been aware of the Cottage without needed a description. He would have known it was basically Coventry they were being sent to.
But Coventry in a figurative sense--not actual. I don't think the Queen expected that they would ever live there.
Puds...your point about mm thought she had a foot in the door and would just stay there sounds about right. Wonder if she tried that with T.Perry and eventually he said nope, not staying for free any longer, here's the rental price. Thus the I move.
I thought it seemed a little bold of them to put up those stupid privacy screens if they were only going to be there a short time after that. Anyone know if the screens have been removed yet?
Hikari...quite right that surely H must have known what Frogmore Cottage was about, and its condition. Although by that time he must have known that the Queen was beyond unhappy with their behavior and demands.
Considering that the place was in such poor shape supposedly, I'm surprised that mm would receive visitors there, let alone take a baby there.
Does it seem odd that mm would receive visitors in a place that she wasn't living in, and was in the midst of extensive renovations?
Oh, yes . . I had forgotten about Hillary. In the UK at the time to be made a provost of an Irish? university? Bit out of the way to dip down to Windsor for a meet-and-greet with Meg's baby as she could have departed straight from Shannon airport. ?
Really shocked that Michelle Obama didn't also drop by while on her UK book tour, and it was rather negligent of PM Boris Johnson to not come personally to offer his congratulations on the blessed arrival.
Considering that the place was in such poor shape supposedly, I'm surprised that mm would receive visitors there, let alone take a baby there.
Does it seem odd that mm would receive visitors in a place that she wasn't living in, and was in the midst of extensive renovations?
If the place was really in such a state, with abestos removal and floors and wiring that were deemed unsafe and needed to be completely redone . . would the 93-year-old monarch really just 'drop by'to a construction site? I find that highly unlikely. Surely she'd welcome the new family to the castle for tea if she really wanted to see them. Had Wills and Harry and Kate and Meg had warm relations, it would be more plausible that the Cambridges might have dropped by . . even though Meg is on record as pooh-pooing Catherines's floral gifts . . . Catherine made efforts when she was obliged to be with Meg for official events or family functions, taking her to Wimbledon . . three times . . but I think a private visit between the two couples, when the animosity between the brothers is so oft mentioned and so visible . . Never happened. The Cambs probably sent a nice gift, if only for show (if they knew there was no Archie) . . but I really doubt very much that William would have agreed to tea and a house tour chez Froggy Hall.
Eugenie and Jack are residing in the even more bijou Ivy Cottage on the KP grounds since their marriage. I have not read anything about them getting an upgrade. If they have children (Eugenie's been on Womb Watch now for a couple of years; now it's Beatrice's turn) I would suppose they would want more space. Beatrice should be settled fine; she's got her apartment at Royal Lodge for when she's in Windsor, a London apartment & an Italian castle she is now the contessa of. Presently she and Edo are quarantining with Edo's mum, presumably with Wolfie too, and she must have quite a few spare bedrooms to choose from.
Even though Wills and a number of other royals have spent time in NottCott, it has become so associated with Harry . . and the infamous chicken proposal dinner . . would anyone else want to partake of the bad juju and move in? I really wonder if it is not being kept in reserve for Harry for when he's in town. Let's just proceed with the assumption that FrogCott is not habitable nor habited at this time. This might be acceptable to William so long as Meg does not set foot behind KP gates at any time and Harry stays well out of his way so he doesn't have to actually see him.
I would like to sit out but read what Nutties think on the subject.
Some sources are on a paywall so I use DM to get headlines. Maybe the story was scrubbed by the palace?
Thanks!!
IF Frogmore were being extensively gutted and renovated, were I Medusa, I'd have been there with my hard hat, steel-toed boots, protective ear and eyewear (or whatever safety regulations require in England) and sledgehammer in hand. Who knows what objects of historical significance may have been lost there?
Grifting Megsie is always on the lookout for freebies and anything she can sell, but this scenario reeks of 'too much work' to suit her. She wouldn't have any interest either in making eyes at cute workmen because they wouldn't have any money she could get her hands on.
It is very sad what has become of Frogmore Cottage. The place has a long and interesting history. Built by Queen Charlotte as a respite place for herself and her ladies when they were doing work in the greenhouses, it later housed Queen Victoria's Indian 'mushi'/guru despised by the rest of the court. Lord 'Dickie' Mountbatten, Philip's uncle was born there in 1901. The property has indeed had a sad decline, and being offered to the wastrel HAMS only the latest insult in a whole line of them. I guess the conversion to staff quarters seemed like a good proposition at the time it was done to make use of one of the lesser buildings and give castle staff a close home to work, but the cottage seems to have been ill-used by time and just about forgotten by its Royal overseers. It deserved better.
Now this flap about the wasted reno money the Harkles owe has tainted the well. If the Queen had never involved them, but had proposed restoring Queen Charlotte's retreat into a museum of Royal artifacts open to the public, or as guest house for Royal business, I don't think the public would have been up at arms about the waste. It was that money being lavished on the HAMS that rankled.
You're right and I saw it this morn although I didn't read it. Here it is:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8579677/Queens-elite-bodyguard-arrested-having-nine-bags-cocaine-ketamine.html
Wasn't MM supposed to show us the interior of Frogmore Cottage last year? Only, we never saw any photos. The interior designer was supposed to be the one who did SoHo House. All I've ever seen are photos fo SoHo House, Frogmore having been decorated in the same style (apparently).
Thirteen soldiers who guard Windsor Castle and protect the Queen have been jailed for breaking lockdown rules.
They were among a group of 16 guardsmen who attended a booze and cocaine-fuelled 'mini-rave' at a riverside park.
They partied with members of the public which meant they had broken a 'bubble' put in place as the Queen and Prince Philip were shielding inside.
The first 13 troops from the Welsh Guards were sentenced last week. Their punishments ranged from 14 to 28 days at the military's Glasshouse prison in Colchester.
As soldiers, they should have obeyed orders and their behaviour is disgraceful.
Chatting with Lady C - Sussex book hangs them with piffle, false claims & damning truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEoYENbxyuw
The Ellen visit was concocted as a result of she and MM both having a Sunshine Sucks connection. I am not a fan of Mrs. Clinton and never have been, but I do credit her with not putting up with the kind of BS that Meg is always spinning. Hillary may have hitched her wagon to a charismatic guy who was going places and gotten famous and powerful out of riding Bill's coattails to the White House, but I think she's actually the brains behind the throne in that marriage. She and Meg have that in common, but unfortunately for Meg, Harry is no Bill.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's UK home:
Frogmore Cottage in Windsor
The royal couple moved into the Windsor property in April 2019.
BY OLIVIA HEATH AND NATALIE CORNISH SEP 8, 2020
'Not only did the Queen gift Frogmore Cottage to Harry and Meghan, but as a housewarming gift, Her Majesty reportedly offered the couple their pick from the Royal Art Collection to make their Windsor cottage feel more homely.
One of the largest private art collections in the world, drawings by Leonardo de Vinci, along with works by Canaletto and Michelangelo all feature. In fact, there's thousands of sculptures, paintings, sketches and textiles, some dating back as far as the Restoration in 1660, in the royal vaults. To make picking the perfect piece that much easier, the Queen reportedly drew up a list of paintings for Harry and Meghan to choose from!'
https://www.housebeautiful.com/uk/lifestyle/property/a25294855/prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage/
"HAMS came out in public support of BLM. Do they look impotent?"
I have been keeping up with the news across the country concerning the BLM movement and I have not seen the group mention the words the dastardly duo said to support them. Words, not money, not in person support walking in a protest, not going and making press releases just a few words thrown out in a zoom? call or video. I am willing to bet the BLM protesters don't give a flying fig what a british white boy and his sometimes(when she chooses to look like) mixed race wife says. If 'whitey/wifey' get a front spot in a protest maybe they might get one iota of recognition but they would still be impotent because those two have no power, no significant popularity among the rabble-rousers or the establishment...the Harkles have no voice except on unimportant zoom calls of their own making. They are not making headline news except for landing an alleged Netflix deal and that is questionable.
Now if the HAMS take their money and get out there during a BLM protest with cameras and make an instant documentary maybe some people would watch but it, but still I think it would be nothing more than an oddity and not accomplish much.
Impotency is the opposite of power and the Harkles have no power (for change) at this point.
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton enjoyed a cuddle with baby Archie after 'fan girl' Meghan Markle invited the former First Lady over for 'very warm, sweet' meeting at her Frogmore Cottage home earlier this week
By Rebecca English Royal Correspondent For The Daily Mail
21:30 14 Nov 2019, updated 01:23 15 Nov 2019
I imagine there are special provisions within the Act.
-------
Frogmore: There are some short videos about the Mausoleum at:
https://www.royal.uk/royal-mausoleum-frogmore
If you're into High Victoriana it'll be your thing (think Albert Memorial on steroids!)
There are plenty of pics. of the Royal burial ground on line - well-kept, not spooky.
Duchess of Windsor interred here, next to Edward VIII's grave. If only the RF was sending the message `We shall bury you too...', albeit metaphorically.
--------
Low-flying aircraft:
According to Google Earth,Toad Hall is 4.7 miles from the end of the nearest runway at LHR.
In the late 1960s to the late 1970s, I used to visit people who lived just over 2 miles miles from the same spot, in the same direction as TH, almost the first house directly under the takeoff path. It was hell sitting in the garden, conversation was impossible.
Forget every 90 seconds - we timed the Boeing 747s/Jumbos. They came overhead, low, every 45 seconds. I was told, though, that the noise wasn't as loud as the earlier Boeing Stratocruisers had been (they'd shattered cut-glass dressing-table trinket bowls!).
When the last member of the family died, their Executor had a long tussle with HMRC who, I gather, refused to believe that a 4-bedroom house, with large garden, stables and paddock, in such a `desirable'location (ie, near Windsor, with excellent rail links to London) could only be sold at a knockdown price. They assumed that they were being done out of Inheritance Tax by way of a gross under-valuation.
'Whats up at Frogmore ''September 15th 2019'
September 15, 2019 at 5:38 PM
Blogger Mrs Trestle said...
Thanks for another thread Nutty. I love this blog and enjoy hearing others' take on this situation.
I know Frogmore very well. It is located inside Windsor Great Park which covers miles much of which is open to the public. We lived quite near (we've moved away since we retired 6 years ago) and I often walked my dog there. At the time Frogmore was empty (had been for years) and was quite dilapidated, but you could just push open the gate and walk around. So being nosy I did.
The windows are small and peering through on the ground floor, the rooms were all poky and dark. I wouldn't live there if they gave it me for nothing.
You're right, Nutty, about the garden. It's a bog because there are streams running under the ground so when you walk on it it's spongy. Horrible in the winter months. And that's why there are so many frogs there hence it's name. You can hear them quite clearly in the early evenings. The garden isn't that big either so I don't know where this BBQ area would go, to be honest.
You can easily see Victoria and Albert's mausoleum from the garden which I wouldn't like because that is quite a creepy
building. Perhaps that's why I see they have applied to have a screen of trees put in. They have also been granted retrospective planning permission by the local council for the work they had done without planning permission. Surprise, surprise!
I have a friend who still lives in the area and dog walks there. She has told me it's empty. She's never seen sight nor sound of anyone. Although the electric bars/gate has been erected she has never seen it manned which it should
Found this after I posted my comment above, Article deals with Hollywood elite who support BLM movement. Beware folks, some quotes will make you sick. Of note the article was generated in June when the HAMS were living in the area and nary a mention of them.
https://rodlampard.com/2020/06/29/hollywood-double-standard-beverly-hills-officials-ban-public-gatherings-due-to-violent-protests
Thanks for being my eyes today :)
Puds - your explanation of their moving around makes a lot of sense.
I don't know that I agree that HM would allow them to move in physically that close to her (especially as it would allow MM to potentially set up her own court).
I could see MM looking at having meetings and so on there as a way to work her way in first and claim that it would make sense for them to just have a bed, a closet (just a small thing in a place filled with so many unused rooms) so they don't have to make a drive after a long day which then would allow HM to tell them they are fee to move into FC.
CatEyes - I think your explanation of the BLM and their place within it makes sense.
I think they said something about wanting to study it in depth which translates to me as a number of things (treading water to decide if this is something which will be important enough next week/month so might be something we could ride this wave to makes me wonder how much study does she really need about something which is part of her and her heritage).
HRC supposedly did visit:
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a29803999/hillary-clinton-meghan-markle-archie-visit/
@Hikari
Pleased to help. I was sure I'd included the link to the story. Here it is:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8707495/Thirteen-Queens-guardsmen-jailed-attending-cocaine-fuelled-rave-coronavirus-lockdown.html#comments
Impotency is the opposite of power and the Harkles have no power (for change) at this point.
__________
I disagree. From where I can see they have a world platform to blather on about their leftest woke views everywhere and they are trying pretty hard to sway an election with their rhetoric. No one, including the RF, is willing to call out this inflammatory dangerous ideology and it would seem maybe that they have become impotent or should I say by their silence, complicit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_University_Belfast
Sorry our posts crossed ie: Queen's Uni in Belfast :)
Hugs! Some days my vision is worse. Too much morning coffee does it.
Cheers :)
We did :) :)
https://rodlampard.com/2020/06/29/hollywood-double-standard-beverly-hills-officials-ban-public-gatherings-due-to-violent-protests
_______________
Is this surprising?
Re. Frogmore PR
If there is *one* thing I have taken away from this whole sordid Harkle saga it is this:
We cannot trust anything we read in the press because evidently 'the truth' on any given day can be purchased via powerful public relations firms if the subjects of these news stories have enough money.
Hearst Magazines is in Meg's pocket via her Sunshine Sachs PR shills; at least, that's who she was using at the time these stories were published. House Beautiful, Harper's Bazaar, Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Town & Country, Elle . . along with People, Meg's own personal Kneepads, and Vogue will print anything Meg's PR firms direct them to print--after all, the space has been purchased by Meg's paid representatives.
Profit and truth are generally mutually exclusive. Meg has spent the last decade at least systematically building a facade that sells, or that she thinks will, in today's glossy Instagram celeb influencer culture. The actual truth of what is happening behind the scenes doesn't sell 'cause it's not sexy.
Ask yourself if you really think it plausible that the Queen would have invited the HAMS to select *anything they wanted out of her collection of priceless art. How much do we suppose an original Leonardo da Vinci pencil sketch would go for at auction? And we are going to entrust "Meg" to take care of this priceless, irreplaceable artifact of Western culture as it hangs in the foyer of a ramshackle cottage on swampland?
HM has barred Meg from any access to any royal jewels, opening the very legitimate line of inquiry as to whether the headpiece MM wore at her wedding was the genuine Queen Mary bandeau or a replica. Her Majesty has dozens, if not hundreds of tiaras of varying value; how much more precious might an original Leonardo da Vinci or other Old Master be? Many of the Queen's tiaras came to the collection in the 20th century even, proving that it's always possible to make new tiaras. All the existed Da Vincis are irreplaceable because there will never be any more. The thought that a priceless artwork would be bestowed on the likes of Harry and Meghan is absurd. It's got the hallmarks of Meg's grandiosity all over it, always trying so strenuously to prove how favored she is by HM . . so much so that I feel the reverse has got to be the truth.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7687095/Hilary-Clinton-visited-Meghan-Markle-Frogmore-Cottage-Tuesday.html
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton enjoyed a cuddle with baby Archie after 'fan girl' Meghan Markle invited the former First Lady over for 'very warm, sweet' meeting at her Frogmore Cottage home earlier this week
By Rebecca English Royal Correspondent For The Daily Mail
1. Hillary Clinton is about as 'cuddly, warm and sweet' as a pit viper. I have a really hard time imagining Hillary cuddling her own grandchildren, never mind the potentially phantom baby of a 'fangirl' whom she had never met. I'm sorry but I just do not buy this. It's too much, always too much with Meg. She's always gilding the lily too much. Perhaps if she'd stopped at a phone call from HRC or a note of good wishes on the new baby . .but no, she's got to go way OTT.
2. Rebecca English is a well-known Royal sycophant, if I didn't already disbelieve it.
Repeat after me: JUST BECAUSE I READ SOMETHING IN PRINT, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Particularly if it's in the Daily Mail or a Hearst publication, all comprised of paid shills for Meghan. Or the byline says 'Omid Scobie'. He has just put his name to a whole packet of Meg-puffery between hard covers. Hardcover doesn't mean 'reliable', though.
H. Clinton: 11th Chancellor of Queen's University Belfast As of January 2020. I am still courious abbout tbst appointment. Why was she chosen?
@Hikari
Aha. My gut recall said 'Ireland'. Belfast makes sense, rather than the Republic. Given the historically fragile political dynamics up there, appointing such a polarizing figure as Mrs. Clinton seems rather a risky move. Why was she chosen, indeed. Has she moved from Chappaqua to Belfast in the last year? Because she could only be an absentee Chancellor. Wouldn't the requirements of the post require . . residency and regular access to the university? Being Chancellor is kind of a full-time gig, not like being a visiting lecturer.
Hillary has no personal ties to Belfast; she's not a dual citizen, not an alumna. What the H do I know? Can't understand it at all--why the job was offered, or frankly, why she'd want to take it. I don't get the sense that her political ambitions within the Democratic party are done and dusted. How does this appointment to an Irish university aid this?
And more to the point, why does Queen's College think HRC is worthy of this post? Why not give the Chancellorship to a, oh, I don't know, female intellectual/public servant *who is from Belfast* or at least, from Northern Ireland? I get that an Englishwoman might not have been a popular appointment, but what does a former American First Lady and failed Presidential candidate have to offer this institution of higher learning to which she is completely foreign? A poor choice on the part of the College, for the simple fact that it should have gone to one of their countrymen/women as a most basic consideration.
@ Hilari
're Hilary Clinton
NewsBBC News Navigation
Sections
N. Ireland
N. Ireland Politics
Local News
Hillary Clinton's connections to NI peace process
9 November 2016
Hillary Clinton is to be the new chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast (QUB).
The former US secretary of state is the university's 11th chancellor and first woman to take up the post
.
While the role of chancellor is mainly a ceremonial one, securing Mrs Clinton will be seen as a coup for Queen's.
The chancellor often presides at graduation ceremonies and is also an ambassador for the university abroad.
In a statement, Mrs Clinton said it was a "great privilege" to become the chancellor of QUB.
She takes up her role immediately and will serve for a period of five years, succeeding
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-50970400
Found some more info 're HC connection to Queens Uni Belfast
'While the role of chancellor is mainly a ceremonial one, securing Mrs Clinton will be seen as a coup for Queen's.
The chancellor often presides at graduation ceremonies and is also an ambassador for Clinton visited Stormont when she was US secretary of state in 2012Hillary Clinton visited Stormont when she was US secretary of state in 2012
Mrs Clinton will also act as an advisor to the vice-chancellor Prof Ian Greer and senior management.
The former Democratic presidential nominee previously received an honorary degree from Queen's in 2018 .
However, her connection to Northern Ireland stretches back over three decades.
She first visited Northern Ireland as First Lady in November 1995 with her husband, President Bill Clinton.
They spent a day meeting representatives from across the community then switched in tbe Christmas lights
What are your thoughts on MM JH Stanford visit in February ?
What became of this visit? Was the sole purpose ideas fir building their foundation or maybe for donations? Was MM hoping to follow HC ?
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry reportedly paid a secret visit to Stanford University
Mikhaila Friel Insider
Feb 14, 2020, 6:12 AM
Meghan and harry Stanford
Harry and Meghan reportedly visited Stanford University in California earlier this week.
Melia Robinsen/Business Insider
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry reportedly traveled from Canada to California on Tuesday to meet with staff at Stanford University.
The duke and duchess held a "brainstorming session" with professors and academics to help develop their upcoming charitable foundation, a palace source told Hello! Magazine.
Buckingham Palace and Stanford University did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex reportedly made a secret trip to Stanford University on Tuesday to discuss plans for their new charitable foundation, Sussex Royal.
While there, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle met with professors, academics, and even the university's president, Marc Tesser-Lavigne, according to the Mail Online.
Although Harry and Markle's visit to the California university had not been announced beforehand, a Buckingham Palace source confirmed the visit to Hello! Magazine.
"As part of their ongoing work to develop and build their new charitable organization, they had a brainstorming session and meetings with academics and professors," the source told the publication
https://www.insider.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-visited-stanford-university-sussex-royal-charity-2020-2
*Sussex Royal has ceased to be of course maybe thsts why nothing mire was heard
Cateyes said
Impotency is the opposite of power and the Harkles have no power (for change) at this point.
__________
I disagree. From where I can see they have a world platform to blather on about their leftest woke views everywhere and they are trying pretty hard to sway an election with their rhetoric. No one, including the RF, is willing to call out this inflammatory dangerous ideology and it would seem maybe that they have become impotent or should I say by their silence, complicit.
I agree that the RF's complete silence on the HAMS is worrying. Impotent at best and complicit at worst . . especially if they are continuing to fund the Harkles amid all this talk of them being bedfellows with potential Russian underworld types and selling out Invictus for this murky Netflix deal.
Apparently from the Palace's view, the antics of HAMS are more like two teenage lovers who run away from home, who just need to be taught a lesson and will come back, contrite, after their oats-sowing period. Kind of like the wayward young couple in the (Sir) Rod Stewart song "Young Turks"--they defied their parents, ran off to live their bohemian dream, he got her pregnant in short order and the boy writes to 'Patty's' parents explaining that they just had to do what they did for love . .and now that they are the parents of an '8-pound baby boy' . . .can they please send money?
Except Meg and Harry are 39 and 36 years old, respectively. In one week, Harry will mark the same age as his Mum was when she died. They are not young. Just congenitally immature, toxic and immune to personal growth.
BP has assured us that they will NOT comment on the Harkles, and anything to do with them. So far they have been true to their word. It remains to be seen whether this 'Keep Silent' and Carry On stance will pay dividends. People are increasingly angry over the perceived inaction and silence from BP. It's feeling so very similar to that fraught week 23 years ago exactly, when the Queen, for personal reasons that seemed more than adequate enough to her took refuge in the Never complain, never explain MO and remained resolutely deaf to the rumblings of her people, buried up in Scotland, until her media-savvy Prime Minister forced her into a public apologia. My sympathies were with the Queen then; I understood how people where feeling, but I also understood the Queen's view. I had no desire to put Diana's grieving boys through a public spectacle of their grief. Here we are again, 23 years later, only now, the issue is not a family trying to grieve a sudden and traumatic loss privately. The antics of the Harkles speak directly to the public trust--the massive amounts of spending on their wedding, Meg's wardrobe; the Royal tours, Frogmore Cottage . . all wasted from the point of view that the recipients have thumbed their noses at the monarch and taken a dump all over the British people. Now the dimmest scion of the Royal house has aligned himself with dodgy Russian types and is dabbling in foreign politics. He has very publicly shamed his grandmother, his father, his brother and called into question the validity of the monarchial system, if he is the result of such a life of privilege lived on the backs of the British taxpayers.
I don't actually attribute any real power to the Disastrous Duo, though. Meg knows how to make the right kind of noises and suck up to the right kind of 'influencers' at the moment, but her politicized word salad is *expressly* to garner attention for herself. People realize this. The only thing genuine about her is how genuinely she lives to promote herself and herself only. She'd never campaign for Joe Biden or any other Democratic candidate without making it all about herself. Probably 85% of Americans don't know or care who she is. For the casual observer (ie, not members of the bloggersphere such as this one), if Meg is recognized at all, it's as the actress wife of the dim red-headed son of Princess Diana. Two unemployed 30 somethings who just got a mansion in Cali and who might show up in a Netflix documentary. This is their hot minute of pop culture recognition. I give it a year, or less, before they are yesterday's old, stale news. Maybe by that time, Harry will go crawling back to Granny, having found enough Freedom to know that without his family, he's less than nothing.
Meghan is a braying gong and a clanging cymbal. There's no there there. She makes Miley Cyrus look like a brain trust, and when one is eyeballing 40 instead of say, 25, it's really not a good look. They are not going to sway an election, this year or any year. They just do not have the clout or recognition with average voters. Where they are living, in a perennial Blue zone, people are going to vote ultra-liberal and be anarchic irrespective of the Harkles. They are a complete joke.
I doubt that they accepted the Queen's offer, if the story is true. Just not Megsy's style. Maybe they picked a small obscure and somewhat tacky piece to hang in the guest loo!
Actually, I have just done some research on the Royal Collection. No, they were not offered or given anything from that collection! No way! I wonder why Megsy did not list that article in her lawsuit? Maybe she only objects to stories that make her look bad or foolish?!
He was actually suspected of giving secret information to the Nazis which caused the death of many allies. That was when he was shipped off the Bahamas.
Prior to his abdication, he was meddling in politics to the point where most politicians were relieved when he abdicated because they thought he was going to cause another revolution.
By the way, he was also enamoured of a lady of the night, much like Harry, and wanted to marry her. That alone could have caused irreparable damage to the monarchy.
Meghan the yacht girl and her entitled ways are nothing compared to what the country has gone through with the spoiled, entitled king Edward VIII.
I agree that the RF's complete silence on the HAMS is worrying. Impotent at best and complicit at worst . . especially if they are continuing to fund the Harkles amid all this talk of them being bedfellows with potential Russian underworld types and selling out Invictus for this murky Netflix deal.
________
When you are able to come forward and say in addition I agree that their support of BLM is traitorous to our country as well, then we will be on the same page.
Thank you for your support. This game being played is not for the faint of heart. This is war plain and simple and if ppl following the HAMS dont understand their words "call to action" then they do not know their history or the meaning behind their words.
Quite frankly, it makes me sad that all these intelligent ladies on here are duped into thinking these ppl and their followers are just ppl to be made fun of and gossiped about and hopefully they will fade away. Those on here are too fragile to discuss the truth at hand.
History repeating itself right before I very eyes and we are too afraid of offending anyone to discuss the truth.
@unknown
Is this a standard form for the industry? I'm looking at it and thinking, uh no I'll just have someone less difficult give a speech.
But that's just me.
The former Democratic presidential nominee previously received an honorary degree from Queen's in 2018 .
However, her connection to Northern Ireland stretches back over three decades.
She first visited Northern Ireland as First Lady in November 1995 with her husband, President Bill Clinton.
They spent a day meeting representatives from across the community then switched on the Christmas lights
Wow, sounds like the same kind of soft-soap Meg pays for. Just as Meg transformed a rote class project on a dish soap ad into proof her her nascent feminism, tagging along on one state visit with her husband the POTUS and *flipping a switch on a Christmas tree* translates into a 'connection with Northern Ireland stretching back three decades."
Meaning, she hadn't been back to Northern Ireland in 33 years, until she got an honorary doctorate? That's a stretch, all right. I do not presently have receipts about whether she visited there in an official capacity as Obama's Sec'y of State. But that's a 'stretch', all right.
So, from the description of her title which you provided, it does indeed sound like the chancellor's job is just a ceremonial sinecure she won't have to turn up for more than a few times a year. I was contrasting that with the job of "University President" (the term more often employed in the States)--who is the chief executive leader of the institution. Reporting to the board of trustees, he (or she) oversees the daily operations of the university, or rather, oversees the staff who oversees the daily operations, factors heavily in fund-raising and community engagement efforts, and is the 'face' of the university, welcoming new students to campus, addressing assemblies, works with the 'Town' portion of the community on University relations issues . . is basically the CEO of the school. I can't speak for all American universities and colleges, but most presidents (sometimes referred to as Deans) reside in the university town and often have a house on the campus itself, which belongs to the college and is opened up for receptions for big-wig donors, various student groups, etc.
You asked about Meg and Harry visiting Stanford. Based on the description of what they did there, I'd say it's possible that they did visit. Sounds like she made some phone calls and set up an informational interview where she picked brains of some people versed in foundations. This is likely a service the university provides to any charitable organization that avails themselves of this service, not some special attention extended to the HAMS because of their titles. There were no photos of this event, and the Sussex Foundation for which this meeting took place is defunct and was defunct by edict of the Queen according to the exit terms. So they didn't really have any business setting up meetings about how to push SF through anyway.
No pictures means that either Meg was denied permission to bring a photographer or else the entire meeting was illusory, take your pick. In any case, the HAMS didn't seem to learn anything that ultimately went anywhere. Typical.
Which is why I suspect the Palace is taking a fairly soft line with them. My point was whether this seemingly benign attitude from the Palace would prove to bite them in the posteriors in the long run. After the war, Edward and his Wallis faded into obscurity. We can only hope the same is true of Harry and Meg. Unlike a world war, though, the Internet news cycle never sleeps and is never going to be 'over'.
I think Meg is milking her moment, and this moment can't last forever. People get bored so easily nowadays. It's frustrating to stand by and watch the relentless spin, though. Harry seems to be getting a lot more of a pass for misbehavior than his mother did, but he's the blood royal, not just the brood mare that birthed him . . blood covers over all sins in this system. I think it's far more likely that Harry will die prematurely through the excesses of his lifestyle before the Palace will ever fully cut him off. He's always got a safety net and he seems to know this.
Portcitygirl,
When you are able to come forward and say in addition I agree that their support of BLM is traitorous to our country as well, then we will be on the same page.
I don't really need to be hectored into it, but I'm no fan of the BLM movement and its thuggish methods. It is a destructive force, not something that will build the country up. However, in the current climate, it does not seem to rise to the level of 'treason' when the standard bearer for the Democratic party and the man aspiring to be President is condoning it, tacitly if not overtly. BLM is the trend du jour for political hay-making.
I think you are overestimating Meghan's personal ability to influence supporters to this cause; she is the lamest sort of self-promoting bandwagon jumper. The movement itself is dangerous, yes. Her political power is mostly imagined in her own mind. She wants to be AOC or Kamala Harris, but her sad little attempts to garner recognition by crashing daycares and passing out backpacks are pathetic small potatoes. Meg is not capable of being a team player, so she is an outlier even in movements she's verbally identifying with.
Now, that is something that Netflix would jump at. And, millions of people around the world would want to watch.
That would be incendiary. Particularly since the villain in most of those theories is Prince Philip on behalf of the BRF.
Harry would find himself beyond the pale, never to return.
Agree. The Harkles have been deployed in the US. The question for me is by whom and how does the BRF factor in.
Sorry to be late in responding but had to leave and take a long trip to med appt.
I agree with you that the Harkles blather on and I certaintly can't stomach that they seem to be trying to insert themselves in the political arena but I guess where we differ is that I don't think up to this point the two of them have power (if one gauges by the media covering their "blathering"). Of course if they really start raking in the millions and spending it on their political causes it could be very dangerous!! I don't give them credit for much (but then again landing a $100+ mil deal with Netflix seemed unbelievable and maybe they really did do it.
I used to think the Queen had the upper-hand but I agree she can't do much against them with that kind of wealth unless she can get Parliament to take away their titles. But by then, if it even happens (which I doubt) they may have the money to spread around on their 'pet causes'. Even if they try bankrolling Meg for a small political office I don't think she could win no matter how woke they are in a liberal enclave.
We will see if they start putting money where their mouth is (as the old saying goes).
1.https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/exhibits/show/northern-ireland/getting-involved
2.https://center-forward.org/us-involvement-in-the-northern-irish-peace-process-and-the-good-friday-agreement/
Word out on the streets of Belfast Town is Bill is a god there.
With the Clintons, everything they do is political. Their reach expands to anything and everything that will give them more leverage and power.
Sound familiar?
Of course. The Clinton's and the Obama's are the blueprint.
Blogger CatEyes said...
@Unknown said...
"You're forgetting the potential damage the Harkles can cause here in America with their calls for anarchy, political machinations and ultra woke sensitivities."
********************************************************************************
I have not read they are calling for anarchy. Please elaborate or can you provide a quote(s) as we would be interested to hear. I will use it in a letter to my congressman and the President and the Queen (already wrote her a letter last December
Hmm wasnt this the Girls up thing, maybe it wasnt called that but ithink Michelle Obama was announced as a speaker and next thing you know, so was MM. In the video of her speech she stood in front of a blank wall and talked and talked, and she had such long straight black hair she reminded people of Cher...light blue sleeveless dress...she was talking about people in the halls of power...was that it?
So in the top 10 comments is this post:
It will be replaced by Keeping up with Harry and Meghan Markle.
(grateful I was not trying to drink water when I was reading that).
In February 1940, the German ambassador in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the Duke had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium,[94] which the Duke later denied.[95
Most significantly, the sitting Royals hated David and Wallis because it appeared that they had attempted to cut a deal with the Third freaking Reich to put them back on the Throne.
The Duke of Windsor, who is widely regarded as a Nazi sympathiser, once argued that bombing England could bring peace by ending WWII, it has emerged.
Father Odo told the FBI that Wallis had a long romantic affair with von Ribbentrop when the latter was ambassador to Britain in 1936, and that she was constantly passing on information from British sources to von Ribbentrop.
What will they eschew
At their rear end review
Give up their titles
And their politics too?
Like wokeists, or syphilis
Their year will be known as this
Annus Tosserilis Saladilis
@Unknown
@Portcitygirl
I listened to Meghan's 'Girl Up' speech that you referenced then read the speech in its entirety and see no mention of anything remotely sounding like anarchy. Here is the link;
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a33309986/meghan-markle-girl-up-speech/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20not%20meant%20to,And%20hope.
Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. ... The word anarchy was first used in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".
Also have read that perhaps Chuck gave them a lump sum in January and so he is "no longer supporting them (this year)".....and that they were kind of forced to "repay" FrogCottage because of the public outcry re Invictus Games.
Another interesting theory is that the debt was actually never repaid but that it was announced by the Palace that it was thereby forcing them to be separated from the Royals.
Who the H-E-double toothpicks knows? I sure don't!!!
I have been unable to find the name of the individual nor anything about her credentials or her leanings.
Also, the Windsor file compiled by the FBI USA can be viewed on the following website.
https://archive.org/details/DukeAndDuchessOfWindsor/page/n45/mode/2up
"....civil disobedience, chaos, mobs, lawlessness, overthrowing governments, disorder."
Isn't that how the US came into existence? Overthrowing Great Britain but not before we had civil disobedience, lawlessness, disorder, mobs, and I dare say maybe some chaos (certainly a war).
But I get what you mean and no doubt I am not in favor of anything harmful to our present government and do fear what is going on now in some of our cities and more importantly in the minds of even more who may not be taking it to the streets yet. However I think it is dangerous to try to squelch young people from thinking on their own as often the 20's is a time when you question things, are idealistic and you begin to solidify your values and principles which you will live by. On the face of it Meghan's statements in her speech are on their face more or less harmless (at least they would of been to me when I was young). Some was just meaningless word salad phrases. What I think is more harmful is that young ladies may emulate Meghan's actions in how she lives her life rather than her drivel.
Thank you for that link...I would have never found such a source from the FBI on the Duke/Duchess of Windsor.
You are most welcome :)
Harry and Meghan are naive to think Netflix will want TV to ‘give hope’ and not royal shows
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12618866/harry-and-meghan-are-naive-to-think-netflix-will-want-tv-to-give-hope-and-not-royal-shows/
A Condemnation Of The Marriage Of Prince Harry To Meghan Markle
__________________
Could this be the malinization of the BRF sometimes touted by followers of David Icke?
Weird...
In theory, they believes everyone should rule themselves according to what is best for society.
At least, that's the theory...
Wikipedia's entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor%27s_1937_tour_of_Germany
has the longest list of references I've ever seen in Wikipedia, so presumably it's well backed up by the evidence.
I did watch the BBC documentary a little while ago, at the time that Anna Pasternak's biography of Wallis was published - I gather it was based on what AP had written.
Wallis was suspected of spying for Germany during the war when they were in the Bahamas but it was reported that nothing definite had emerged at the time of the programme.
Shall look more closely at it later - I've had a bad night and I may not be awake yet!
In hindsight, the tour was ridiculous - kind of like the Sussexes still 'royalling' when they are no longer working royals or representatives of the Monarchy or government. Strange how history repeats itself!
One can learn one thing from history ... the Windsors did no harm as they had no power. True power was shown when, under Churchill, war was declared and an alliance was formed to stop the Nazis.
Chaos serves people like Meghan. We have a politician like that in my country. Him and his sidekick stir up the people (the poor and marginalized) to cause destruction while he sits safely in his mansion with his armed guards protecting him. Someone like Meghan does not want anarchy - she is all about control and domination - but she would enjoy the sense of power inciting chaos would give her. Although she has very little influence or power anywhere, and thus is not a danger on a large scale, her kind of word salad and manipulation from any platform where she can gatecrash (note that she does not have a platform of her own) will result in some people getting hurt.
I don't know what the `correct' answer is but I'd say something like `The enemy is any person, organisation, or state whose activities threaten the unwritten Constitution and/or peace and security of the UK and her people'.
For the US, delete `unwritten' and insert `USA' for `UK'.
That just about covers the Harkles, I think. If the persons involved are citizens of these nations, I'd call it `treason'.
Yes, I believe they are certainly dangerous politically - too often in recent years the divisions within the country have become acute, whether it's about illegal immigrants, BLM or Brexit v. Remaining. A deeply thoughtful friend has mentioned that she fears civil war, stirred up by Marxists and remarkably illiberal `liberals'. They've already trashed the name of Britain internationally, much as states `which are not friends of Britain' do.
I wouldn't put it past the the Harkles to bring up the accusations of `murder' again with regard to Diana - pure propaganda which those `non-friends' would love. If Charles is no longer supporting them, what have they got to lose?
The week before Diana's funeral was dreadful, it felt as if we were on a knife edge. God help us if we go there again.
I listen to a lot of American podcasts a mixture of topics and none of them have ever mentioned her when talking about influence and/or politics and a lot of these people are quite to very woke (yes, I listen for my sins!).
Whilst she still has her title and is attached to Harry these two things a lone will prevent her from gaining any kind of serious political traction IMHO. If she cuts loose the latter one could say well who knows what traction she’d gain, I still think she’d be viewed as a oddity, a joke, someone who needs to keep reinventing herself to remain relevant.
In her shallowness and grasping greediness, she never takes the time to build solid foundations. All that wealth and influence that they could have built connections to in the UK, but she rushed everything and kept throwing petulant tantrums and acting with astounding hubris. Harry happily followed and burned bridges behind him as well.
The Queen, the Cornwalls and the Cambridges have those deep connections and know how to open doors and wallets to get things done, and they know how to surround themselves with loyal and highly competent people.
The Sussexes aren't even as well groomed and focused as the trashy Kardashians, and only have a fraction of the influence, but they are so in love with themselves and so reckless in their hubris and so cut off from anyone who could actually help them that they just keep blundering ahead.
Ultimately, the Crown cannot protect people from their own stupidity, and Andrew is a prime example of that. However, with both Andrew and the Sussexes, the Crown acted quickly and decisively, but with the latter making a lot of allowances for learning from mistakes, as did the Cambridges, Cornwalls and Wessexes. I do believe the story that Meghan was offered a more gentle introduction to royal life (the Cambridges lived in Wales and in Nottingham Cottage for the early years of their marriage and did very little 'royal work') but refused it. They even could have been offered a model where Harry continued as a working royal and Meghan could pursue her acting career, only appearing at family occasions and perhaps accompanying Harry to some glittering evening events.
Overall, I am still perplexed that Americans would be so impressed by those titles. They are meaningless. They were not earned, have no property attached to them, nor any privileges or positions or wealth, and now have no attachment to the Monarchy in the UK (they spurn family get-togethers and only seek to appear at public events where they can act royal, but I suspect that those occasions will have disappeared). They also have no special talents other than astounding narcissism, and even with that, make a lot of noise but have not achieved even a tenth of the wealth and influence that the Kardashians have. Their greatest and most fawning supporter and public mouthpiece is Scobie. That is actually quite embarrassing.
It may momentarily sound impressive -- Duke this or Princess that -- and certainly the pretty clothes and jewelry can momentarily bedazzle. I think that's the remains of early childhood fairytale impressions on us. But when you stop to think at what price they were gained and for what little labor they are retained, it is truly a head-shaking mirage.
These people are no better than we are and, as we are shown daily, are in many aspects a lot worse.
Nope, not impressed by titles.
Snagglepussy and Bagpuss
Brings together the UK, and US
Their veritabububble
Has caused so much trouble
Their wish is the RF destroyed
Their hopes to break even
Give us more of a reason
To shout “ Heavens to Murgatroyd”
@Disgusted
So we go from Monarchy to Anarchy
Scary.
These people are no better than we are and, as we are shown daily, are in many aspects a lot worse.
and Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells said to Teas made. I endorse everything you said. The UK furlough scheme, which has paid people unable to work in their usual jobs, ends in October. I think there will be huge number of redundancies at that time, which could provoke genuine anger here if Britons see that the Royals are doing very little to justify the sums of money spent on their upkeep. Superfluous in a Covid-19 world??
I can’t say I disagree with any of the above. I read only the other day how many middle sized businesses are set to make masses of redundancies due to the virus. Money being spent on the royal family and their lifestyle is being seen by so many Brits as widely out of touch with the times. They really are no better than Average Joe on (not that I ever thought they were) on the street, Harry has shown us that, infact he’s far worse.
To highlight the impact of the virus on the royals and their household...a new DM headline....
Up to HALF of the Queen's 600 household staff are facing the axe as workers stage protest outside Windsor Castle after pandemic left black hole in royal finances...
It does seem there’s growing resentment of the royals by the day now and for different reasons. I used to been a firm monarchist, but I’m extremely weary of them all now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8713451/Up-HALF-Queens-600-household-staff-facing-axe-workers-stage-protest-Windsor-Castle.html
Each to their own
God save the Queen
Now we know why Froggy House was paid off. For the positive publicity as The BRF is about to fire, layoff, axe, etc 600 household staff.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8713451/Up-HALF-Queens-600-household-staff-facing-axe-workers-stage-protest-Windsor-Castle.html
I am baffled by Meghan's pride in being a feminist. Is she a time traveler who spun out of 1972? who even talks about that in 2020? Why in the world does she think she is uniquely qualified to help women find their voice? She is at the bottom of any list of women to admire. She can't even strong together a coherent sentence and blatantly copies other people.
As each day ticks by, I am losing faith in the BRF for allowing these two to keep their Duchy.
Could be! It’s all just good PR fluff to (to try and) bury more bad news.
It is also a well known fact that von Ribbentrop kept sending her 17 flowers because that was the number of times they slept together.
You might remember the name von Ribbentrop from the Ribbontrop-Molotov Pact that divvied up Poland between the Germans and the Soviets on August 24 1939, 7 days before the start of WW2 when the Nazis invaded Poland on a pretext on September 1 1939. Von Ribbentrop had become the Foreign Minister of Nazi Germany by then. This was Wallis Simpson's lover.
I love how certain people here have an agenda to refute even the most well accepted facts about history, among other things.
@Sandie: Oh fear not, speaking as an American, we (I) are/am NOT impressed by titles.
________________________________________
A peerage system does nothing for this Yank either (Ha! I just gave meself a title) personally, but I understand the history, the ritual, the ceremony, the importance of it to the British people. It's very tribal at it's core but on an much, much, grander scale.
The complexity of the British peerage system is what makes it fascinating to me however. Unfortunately, I'm a bit ethnocentric in my view of it...
The other side of the coin is I feel it's outdated, unfair, and rigid. I can't get my arms around how it can survive in this modern new era.
I have hope for William and Co. Once the smudge of Andrew and the Narcs is soundly dealt with, perhaps the uniqueness of the British peerage system, going forward, can withstand the sands of time.
@LavendarLady
With due respect, its nothing to do with you.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8713755/Finding-Freedom-author-films-Netflix-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-150million-deal.html
For example, the local schools have had to dismiss several teachers and bus drivers because a lot of parents decided to school the children from home over the internet rather than send them to school. There has been a lot of uproar against parents being foolish for an overblown virus scare. (There has also been a lot of community resentment against wearing masks in stores.) There are parents with underlying health concerns such as undergoing treatment for cancer, diabetes, or heart disease, or those who have had transplants and are taking immunosuppressants as well as some children with immune system disorders, asthma, diabetes, and a not trivial amount of kids living with grandparents. I do not think that it would be in the childrens' best interests to be orphaned and at the mercy of the child protective system.
Airlines, cruise lines, theme parks, professional sports, all of these places have had to lay off tens of thousands of people to remain financially viable. Even hospitals and medical practices had to lay off people.
"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."
We can certainly take issue with `imperial' as being an out-of-date concept, and probably offensive to quite a few, but the gist remains.
It was a promise to me, as a small child, and to everyone else in her Realms, who existed then and who exists now, they she would serve us all until death took her. She also once said that not only did she have to be seen but that she had to be seen to be believed.
I want to believe that HM keeps her promises but perhaps the time has come for her to be seen to be serving us again, rather than her grandson and his wife? The national situation is pretty dire and likely to become worse before it becomes better.
I say that with a very heavy heart.
Thank you @WildBoar
I believe the Queen will serve us, still.
God save the Queen
There are jobs going overhere too and it’s set to get much worse. A guess it could be due to the fact the royals still live exactly the same life with no hardship and their lifestyle is courtesy of the British tax payer where many are suffering hardships of their own. That’s the key difference between the royals and the majority of the British public. :o/
If they did take a huge advance from NF, what happens when they don't deliver?
And by Frogmore being paid off I don't necessarily believe the story that H/M paid it off. It could have been done via some fancy bookkeeping. The Royal books never get a real inspection. Maybe Charles paid off Frogmore with H/M promising to reimburse him and even singing papers on this.
Anyway very suspicious that notoriously spendthrift Gruesome Royal Duo suddenly pays back 2.5 million on Frogmore just as the BRF has to "axe" and "sack" 600 employees. (Axe and sack are not used in the USA)
@LavendarLady
With due respect, its nothing to do with you.
______________________
Not sure how to interpret this. As a poster, I feel free to share my thoughts on any subject raised on this blog.
As I said, unfortunately my view is a bit skewed as I'm not British but I believe we can all share in each other's experiences. It's the neighborhly think to do.
Didn't mean to offend. I happen to know a bit about your country and history and enjoy discussing it.
Some here *may view me as an interloper however I can't concern myself with that.
Thanks for your thoughts :)
Lol.... Idiots! The horse is out of the barn. H/M will not be handing you anything, any books to examine. As if anything the BRF says will make the Harkles drop this Netflix deal. PLUS you at BRF are too gutless to strip their titles. No wonder Megs ran circles around you fools including the Grey Men she complained about.
A palace insider claimed that despite ditching official duties any profit-oriented plans would be 'subject to discussion'.
Harry and Meghan got the green light to broker commercial deals in January - but the moneymaking projects will be scrutinised by the Queen after a year.
The historic agreement ruled the couple will drop their HRH titles, pay back £2.4million of taxpayer cash and no longer receive public funds.
In exchange, they were allowed to quit frontline duties and given licence to expand their brand.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8713755/Finding-Freedom-author-films-Netflix-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-150million-deal.html
the Sussexes seem to me to be very poor representatives of American values.
Yes, they are poor representatives of American values and that's why they have been given a platform here. They are part of the current movement against American values.
re Anarchy: I recall a lecturer pointing out that once Anarchists start issuing membership cards and having committees, they're no longer anarchists.
In theory, they believes everyone should rule themselves according to what is best for society. At least, that's the theory...
Your lecturer was funny and correct. Anarchy does not work because everyone can't do their own thing irrespective of others who want to do their own thing. No rules, no societal structure, no governance; it has never worked and never will. The only thing so-called anarchists accomplish is scary words and scary words to us more civilized people but they are impotent to achieve their goals of true anarchy. That is why it is a theory because it never comes true (except maybe rarely in the brief beginning days of a revolution). However revolutionaries usually have a common vision, structure, leaders etc...
Enough talk of anarchy for me. Lol. Meghan is no true anarchist as anyone who understands the political concept of anarchy knows.
@Unknown
Meghan in a 8 minute video is not capable of influencing a group young person in my estimation. She has not even lived her own life according to the words she spouted the other day. For 38+ years she just rode the coattails of men, irrespective of one act of writing a letter about dish soap. What young lady who heard that speech is going to be influenced rather than just look at her fake hair, her make-up her clothes, etc.. Maybe I was unique and independent-minded for my age but her words would not have stuck to my soul and changed my perspective one bit on life and how I was going to live it. Also in that same speech she talked about "compassion" and "building each other up" and righting wrongs and other acts which sound good. So do we overlook the good she said just because she said to not listen "to noise" (negativity). I think by and large the young are going to be who they are instead of following a two-bit former actress who hasn't done anything significant except snag a prince and well now an alleged big Netflix deal. Of course that could change if she starts spreading that money around toward causes that catch on and she makes a significant contribution to our society. She as a celebrity has nothing on the really interesting celebrities to the young now days. I respect the author of HarkleMarkle but feel the piece you cited (I read) is not indicative of her usual incise commentary. She ascribed more influence to Meghan than I think she has. Again, Meghan never said what is classically considered 'anarchy'; being advised to not 'listen' is a far cry than urging anarchy. It's impertinence not to listen to elders but it is not a evil political act.
Unknown, I can't waste my time anymore about 'the Bore' and her speech. So this will probably be my last comment on the subject. I think I hear a big "Amen" from Nutties here. Sorry folks.
I don't mean to single out nor insult my fellow readers here and what they've grown up with. I mean the institution as a concept, not any specific personages. Not for me to have an opinion on the job performance of any of them
Should have made that clear earlier, but it was very early in the morning for me!
Well I was out of town for Labor Day, then came home to utter busy, busy, busy.
What to say? Here's one thing.
It's clear that Meghan and Harry have NO advisors. They are steering their own ship. They seem so totally clueless about their own popularity and relevance. They also cannot judge the public's pulse. For them to believe the way to difuse the public's rage over them signing a $112 million dollar Netflix deal was to release that they've paid back for Frogmore is proof that Meghan is a mega narcissist and Harry is a complete dumbass. In fact, this was probably his advice this time.
Meghan- "Harry, the public just doesn't understand. But soon they will, soon they will see our relevance and our desire to create meaningful content and to tell our stories through a lens of compassion. The money we are getting, we deserve for our willingness to share our impactful vision. Why can't they understand this?!"
Harry- "Well, maybe we can wire some funds to Pa and pay back Frogmore and tell the public we did it??? Then they'll be really happy and congratulate us on the good job we did?"
Meghan- "Umm. okay....usually I, as an empowered woman, appreciate how you push my views to the forefront of our decision making, but okay H, this time, we will do it this way. Release the funds and release the story"
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2020
Blind Item #8
Still no takers for the alliterate one and her ginger boy toy to speak at an event. They were already over priced, but apparently even for virtual speaking they wanted the same fee as in person. Oh, and you have to double their fee for in person if there is any form of meet and greet.
I had a feeling the Harkles have had no customers since signing up with Harry Walker. If they had, Meghan would make sure Sunshine Sachs or Omid make sure word got out about it. Besides, who wants to pay $1 million for what amounts to a glorified Zoom meeting?
There might be some idiots out there who will pay those kinds of fees for them, but not many.
After all, it’s not as if these two still have the connections to the REAL royal family to get an invitation to one of Her Majesty’s garden parties when they eventually resume or to the royal box at Wimbledon when it returns to normal, is it?
After all their antics, I doubt Harry or Meghan has enough influence within the RF to get one of their business associates invited to scoop the poop from Her Majesty’s remaining dogs.
Oh dear, Scooobie doo is doing a Netflix piece,boy he really is feeding off the Royals. All quiet from Megs how come? Someone said there would be a big reveal around 10 or 12 Sept, I thought it was the Netflix deal but maybe a project will be announced. When Megs goes quiet she is normally planning one of her secrets. Oh dear.
@Puds: As long as they don’t reveal she (or her surrogate) are pregnant again. They will do enough emotional/psychological damage to Archie. They don’t need to damage a second child.
The 59-year-old, who is also the co-CEO of the streaming company, praised the 'smart' couple for considering all their options before signing a contract with his site, explaining that he believes they ultimately did a deal with Netflix because 'we put together the best complete package'.
'I'm so excited about that deal,' Hastings said during an appearance on CNBC on Wednesday. 'They're smart, they were shopping it around across all the major companies and I think we really put together the best complete package.'
...
...he predicts their content will be 'the most exciting' and 'most viewed' on the site next year.
I'm afraid I don't share his excitement and enthusiasm. I suppose if they were shopping their deal "across all the major companies", these companies turned them down or else H&M would have a deal with one of them, not Netflix. They have no skills and/or experience so it's hard to imagine how they could be successful.
I assumed you meant all royalty in general. That came through to me loud and clear.
I narrowed it down to British royalty ie: this blog.
No worries :)
@ Mary StoneHouse,
Awww shucks...you made my day. Thank you so kindly...hugs!
That was the essay choice I chose on an important `Use of English' exam paper I once had to tackle.
Actually, I did say `seen to'; I agree that HM is probably not only tired but sick and tired of their antics.
Nevertheless, from the war on, wise Royals have taken care not to be egregiously ostentatious, those that are can expect severe public criticism. Yes, they flash the bling when a State Occasion requires it but otherwise they don't rub our noses in it. We like a bit of humility, like Tuppaware on the breakfast table, or George VI letting us know that he'd had the 5" line painted on his bath during the war, so as not to waste water and fuel.
For all the privilege, the duties imposed on them are not something I'd care for.
@JocelynsBellinis
BTW, it's Wullie here! I'm laying low as an unknown for a while although I'm still being hounded by everyone's favorite poster.
September 11, 2020 at 5:38 AM