Prince Harry is 36 years old today, roughly halfway through his time on this mortal coil, if you go by the average life expectancy for a British male.
99-year-old Prince Philip is really an outlier; most of the men in Elizabeth's family didn't make it past their mid-70s, and Diana's father died at 68.
Thirty-six has a special poignancy for Harry, of course, because it is also the age at which his mother died.
The cult of celebrity
Diana helped create the turn-of-the-century cult of celebrity and the media to support it. Harry, ironically, has exposed its emptiness.
Once-respected establishment media names like Vanity Fair and USA Today are coo-ing over Harry's fabulous new Hollywood mansion, generous Netflix producing deal, satisfying marriage to an intelligent and glamorous woman, and proud fatherhood to a red-haired baby boy.
Does anyone really believe this? And even if they do, do they care?
In a time of pandemic, mass demonstrations, and violence, the problems of two little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
And while Diana was constantly pursued by the media, Harry has to pay PR people to pay establishment media outlets to run news about him and Meghan.
(You can see some of those pay-to-play outlets in today's run of Prince Harry birthday stories, like Yahoo Entertainment and Tulsa World.)
The role of social media
Another difference between Diana at 36 and Harry at 36 is the role of social media. In 1997, social media wasn't much more than a few AOL chatrooms and a few random message boards.
Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit were all almost a decade away, and the Daily Mail existed only on paper.
Before her death, Diana was experiencing a dip in popularity. The public was tired of her drama, and didn't particularly like her boyfriend of the moment, Dodi Fayed.
But if you were around at that time and followed Diana, there were not many people you could talk with about it. There were your friends and family, maybe your barber or beautician.
You could choose to buy or not buy magazine or newspapers with Di's face on them, which was a way for the media industry to gauge her popularity.
(I don't even want to think about what Twitter trolls would have done with Di's many romances with married men, or how they would have handled her gruesome death.)
Transparency changes the world
Today, of course, we can all share our opinions of Meghan and Harry through this blog and many other outlets.
We can find many other people out there who share our opinion of the Sussexes, and amplify it. We can can share information and speculate together about things that are hidden.
Diana felt that she was not in control of the media intrusion into her life, but at least there were a limited number of outlets that could publish gossip about her or photos.
Harry has no such control. Almost everyone in the Western world has access to platforms that reach an international audience.
Bad news about him travels fast, and it's easy to point out his hypocrisies and broken promises by linking to earlier stories.
The transparency and access to information that has developed over the past twenty years has changed society in many ways - who would have imagined that we would all be watching the deaths of individuals on police bodycams or from multiple cellphone angles? - but it has also taken much of the awe and mystery away from celebrities and royals.
Celebrity and royal glamour are what Harry and Meghan need to sell in order to support their lavish living.
It's not a hot product at the moment the way it was in 1997, when Diana was 36 years old.
Comments
I hope, for JH, it is a year of reflection.
Reading this makes me feel grateful I didn't grow up in the age of social media tracking your every move, voluntarily and involuntarily.
Other media also wondered how a Princess of Wales could get involved with someone with such as sleazy reputation. I can only imagine what a hot-button topic the relationship would have been if Twitter and other social media had been around at the time. Of course, when she was killed, all the criticism was forgotten, and the myth of Saint Diana was born.
As for Diana being pursued by the paps - it's been established that Diana often called the paps herself and had certain favorite journalists on speed dial. I read recently (sorry, I don't remember where) that the pap photos of Diana, William and Harry on Mohammed Al Fayed's yacht came about because Diana called the paps with the aim of making Hasnat Khan jealous, and that William was furious at her for invading his and his brother's privacy. I have the feeling that while Harry idolizes his mother and sees her as a victim, William has a more nuanced and realistic memory of her, simply because of incidents like that and the fact that he's older and more intelligent than Harry. Just my feeling.
Harry has to bear the negative brunt of the invention of social media, but it’s key and lifeline to his new life. Diana did try and manipulate the press to her advantage towards the latter years of her life and this is one the worst traits Harry has inherited from her. You cannot control the uncontrollable.
As far as the media is concerned it’s anything that sells, good or bad. The Kardashian’s has taken the cult of celebrity to a super tacky and salacious low point. The era of celebritdom now is dirt cheap, it’s hard to find good quality media where it doesn’t want to have some centring on reality and vacuous celebrities somewhere etc., is this the level of celebritidom where the Duo will eventually end up?
Blind item # 2
Not only did dad have to have to kick in money for the new home on the coast, apparently grandma also had to kick in money. So much for being financially independent. Oh, and there were promises made they would pay back dad and grandma. Ha. The alliterate one is going to hoard it for the inevitable divorce.
So how can you be financially independent if your dad and granny have to subsidize your lifestyle?
The most poignant images marking Harry’s birthday today were posted on the Cambridges’ and the Queen’s Instagram accounts. As another Nutty remarked in the previous thread, both photos were taken BM (Before Meghan), and Harry looks genuinely happy and alive in them. I wonder if they were chosen to send a message to him?
I’m not sure if any credence can be given to the CDAN blind of a few days ago, which described a couple many assumed to be the Sussexes having a 30-minute, knock-down-drag-out fight that was broken up by the police after an employee called them. If the Royal Family heard anything about it, wouldn’t they have intervened? And then we have the CDAN blind today, claiming that their Montecito McMansion was paid for by PC and the Queen. The Sussex saga just keeps going from bad to worse.
If there is a crumb of truth to this rumor, that the Queen and Charles are still subsidizing these two grifters who have sh*t all over the institution of the monarchy and its in-person representative, Harry's 94-year-old grandmother--I throw up my hands in despair. Harry and Meghan don't even deserve to have Granny buy them a double-wide in a trailer park, never mind a grandiose and storied mansion on an earthquake fault. Which, if this is true, makes the Royal family complicit in financial dealings with Russian underworld figures.
Whatever's coming, rumblings of a Republic, whatever, it is deserved, based on their handling of this Harry situation, not to mention Andrew. Unfortunately, William and his family will be the ones to pay.
I can't wait to read the books which will be forthcoming over this sorry saga once this Queen and her consort are gone.
Putting Harry's life in parallel to Diana's would make Meghan the unpopular Dodi Al Fayed!
But I think it's Prince William who is really continuing his mother's legacy of compassion -- and finding a way to do it within The Firm.
Carry over from last post:
I’d like to add here that what Yankee Wally posted from some corn grits person is untrue. We never are a source as we only speculate and we NEVER said anything about the obamas and net neutrality lol. We may be smart and authentically posting coherent thoughts, but we never said anything about the clintons, Obamas and net neutrality lol . Give me a break!,
**********************
I'd actually welcome an update from the Sussexes right now. Meghan would try to steal the spotlight from the birthday boy, of course, but it's actually an appropriate time. Maybe tomorrow we'll get a press release about everything she did to make today special.
In the meantime, I humbly offer the following:
"In a display of culinary skills that would be no surprise to the readers of her phenomenally successful blog The Tig, the Duchess of Sussex whipped together a four-course dinner for her husband in honor of his birthday. "H," as she affectionately calls him, had surprised her on her own birthday with a three-course meal."
Agree. However if everything the Harkles did was not shrouded in secrecy, or the information that does come out not so contradictory, there would be no need to speculate.
Markle's PR team places endless absurd stories in the media. The BRF puts out what they want known, using different channels. Every day there is a new storyline. The truth, however, is never told. All by design.
I think this birthday dinner was like the one in the movie Hook. Imaginary. I don’t think she’s ever roasted a chicken in her life. For Harry or anyone. She did steal Corey’s recipe and pass it off as her own though. I wonder if it was his cookbook she was using for this imaginary birthday dinner.
H doesn't matter at all to mm. Zero.
Interesting that his birth family tried to make it a nice day for him via their happy pictures. Especially in light of the fact that this is his first bday since breaking away from them, and it's a somewhat significant bday because of the age.
What did we seem from his supposedly loving wife and the invisible baby?
Nothing.
According to The Sun, the Duke of Edinburgh, 98, advised Harry when he noticed the relationship was heading towards marriage. Prince Philip was said to have told him: “One steps out with actresses, one doesn’t marry them.”. In the report, it was also added that the Duke wasn’t the only one who had problems with Harry and Meghan’s relationship. Harry’s brother, Prince William also shared in the sentiment and this reportedly led to a feud between Harry and William.
'One Steps Out With Actresses, One Doesn't Marry Them ...
koko.ng/one-steps-out-with-actresses-one-doesnt-marry-them-prince-philip-reportedly-warned-prince-harry-not-to-marry-meghan/
koko.ng/one-steps-out-with-actresses-one-doesnt-marry-them-prince-philip-repor…
Was this helpful?
Prince Philip reportedly advised Harry not to marry Meghan ...
https://pagesix.com/2019/06/17/prince-philip...
Jun 17, 2019 · Prince Philip, Harry’s grandfather, is said to have told his grandson, “one steps out with actresses, one doesn’t marry them,” according to a report from the UK’s Sunday Times.
'One Steps Out With Actresses, One Doesn't Marry Them ...
https://koko.ng/one-steps-out-with-actresses-one...
Jun 17, 2019 · According to The Sun, the Duke of Edinburgh, 98, advised Harry when he noticed the relationship was heading towards marriage. Prince Philip was said to have told him: ,“One steps out with actresses, one doesn’t marry them.”. In the report, it was also added that the Duke wasn’t the only one who had problems with Harry and Meghan’s relationship. Harry’s brother, Prince William also shared in …
Losing & gaining royal titles/lawsuits/need for unsullied petition/portrait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LOq6V1Tcyc
That is my lame comment to get me onto email list ๐
We may be smart and authentically posting coherent thoughts, but we never said anything about the clintons, Obamas and net neutrality lol "
I have seen a number of comments where the Clintons and Obamas are mentioned on this site in the past. Thankfully it doesn't usually amount to much as most honor Nutty's request to not go into political discussions.
@Nutties
Regarding the 'secrecy' surrounding the financial aspect of the Harkles mansion purchase, I do not see anything wrong with that. Why should their finances be an open book to us? Why should any of us have our personal finances open to public view if we aren't getting money from the government (US or the UK)?
I know someone else who is turning 36 today and he is exactly like Harry - spoiled, petulant, self-destructive, self-pitying, lazy, under achieving, destructive, envious and not very bright. In fact, every time I see Harry, I just place this person in his place and try to imagine what he would do and how he would think of things, and I understand a little better.
To repeat:
Why should any of us have our personal finances open to public view if we aren't getting money from the government (US or the UK)?
Meghan and Harry shouldn't have to explain their finances if they aren't getting funds from the government. Moreover, Charles and the Queen can gift them money from their personal private wealth and that would not be public money.
Diana helped create the turn-of-the-century cult of celebrity and the media to support it. Harry, ironically, has exposed its emptiness.
@ Nutty: You hit the nail on the head with both parts of this statement, especially the irony or Harry choosing a treacherous woman who in her pursuit of celebrity and all the trimmings that go with it will do anything to move her selfish, greedy, and shallow agenda forward.
The irony of Harry being ensnared into the celebrity lifestyle is, as you noted, incredibly ironic, but at the same time, it is incredibly sad.
And as with his mother, Harry could also follow the celebrity route to his own early demise. Not in an auto accident, but from an overdose. I suspect part of his change in personality is due to bring married to a profound narcissist. But he likely can acquire any sort of substances he wants to use to escape the private hell that often comes with marriage to a narcissist. Unfortunately, too often people cut their life short trying to self-medicate their way out of their problems.
Interestingly, they used “Prince Harry” as the name and “Duke of Sussex” as his position/job title. For MM, it said “Meghan Markle, Actress” and I found that distinction interesting
Hmmmm . . . Perhaps Lou Dobbs or someone on his staff is a secret Nutty!
The genius of it is that by calling Meghan an actress, the show was recognizing her achievements as an individual in her chosen field. Harry's title was just given to him -- and for any wife of his, it would be doubly unearned. A true feminist in her position would prefer to be known as an actress rather than as the Duchess of Sussex.
Of course she tried to upstage Kate again.
Apparently Megs and H gave 130k to girl education charity, but looks like it was not their own money. Things are normal.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle donate $130,000 to African girls' education charity and say there's 'no better way to celebrate what really matters' - after fans launched a fundraiser in honour of both their birthdays.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8738751/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-make-130-000-donation-CAMFED-celebrate-birthdays.html
Sorry, didn't realise you had already posted about the donation to charity.
Obama & Britain
There were reports, way back in 2010 that Obama's father, Barack Obama I, had been ill-treated by the British in Kenya and that there was a lingering dislike of us on the part of Barack Jun. This was subsequently denied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Sr.
His grandfather, however, was allegedly arrested and maltreated by the British back in '48 but no records survive to confirm or deny this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama#Hussein_Onyango_Obama
Barack Obama jun. recounted the story as it was told in the family:
"Onyango worked as a mission cook and as a local herbalist.[104] He joined the King's African Rifles during World War I.[106]
In 1949, Onyango spent at least six months in Kamiti Prison. He was probably tried in a magistrates' court on charges of sedition or being a member of a banned organization. Records do not survive; all such documentation was routinely destroyed after six years by the British colonial administration. He was tortured to extract information about the growing insurgency seeking the independence of Kenya.[107] In his memoir, Obama recounted family descriptions of his grandfather's shocking physical state when released from prison:
"When he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice." For some time, he was too traumatized to speak about his experiences. His wife told his grandson Obama: "From that day on, I saw that he was now an old man."[105]
Onyango was permanently scarred, suffering pain and requiring assistance in moving until his death. Although previously he had worked closely with British colonists, Onyango became bitterly anti-British after his abuse."
I haven't been able to get much further than this. The `growing emergency' presumably refers to the Mau Mau (freedom fighters/terrorists, depending on your viewpoint) 1952-60, but this involved the Kikuyu people, rather than the Luo, Obama's tribe (see Britannica)..
So it's yet another mystery.
I have wondered long and hard about whether Megsy had backers, if so who are they? We've thrashed this out and have come to no firm conclusions that I am aware of. It's all been speculation and hypothesis.
Is it an individual effort? A joint enterprise get-rich-quick-scheme by habitues of Soho House? Or something altogether more sinister? I honestly don't know.
Destruction of Nation States
Somebody mentioned the destruction of a respected institution as a means to bring down a nation state. National libraries are frequent targets as they are the repositories for the `foundation documents' of the nation and its cultural heritage.
For example: Library of the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, 3 weeks after the start of World War I. by German troops. `The Germans set the library on fire as part of the burning of the entire city in an attempt to use terror to quell Belgian resistance to occupation.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
Similarly, the University Library in Bucharest was destroyed in '89 under Ceauศescu.
I mention yesterday someone, of whom MM approves, who's involved with the British Library. The new building would probably resist physical attack but it seems that internal forces are now bringing about a `decolonisation' of its contents.
I am very disturbed by this
Of course she tried to upstage Kate again.
Tried and failed! At least that's my impression from where I sit. Yesterday BRF coverage was all about the Hold Still digital exhibition. And today we have those candid shots of Catherine and Prince Louis.
If it weren't for you and @Miggy, I wouldn't even have learned about Harry and Meghan's donation!
What happened to Harry's supposedly wonderful photography skills? Releasing new artsy shots of the back of Archie's head and saying that Harry took them (whether or not he did) would have been a decent way to honor him on his birthday and ride the Hold Still wave somewhat. (That might be very palatable to Meghan, but she doesn't generate much hype on her own these days. Riding on Catherine's coattails would have been her best bet.) Oh, it's sad when I can brainstorm better ideas for the Harkles than their presumably expensive publicity team can.
I also read Obama had Churchill’s bust removed from the Oval Office, (or where ever it was in the Whitehouse), which the British press also used as further evidence to endorse his dislike of the British.
I still don’t think he or his wife would be in the slightest bit interested in Megsy enough to be perceived as backers.
Re Hotel California, I look at it as a cost/benefit situation. My opinion was and is that if it is financially worth it to the BRF to finance/provide a down payment on a house to get rid of a giant PITA, then they probably did. Swim free, little froggies, swim free. (On the other hand, we all know that they'll keep threatening to come back unless more cash is liberally given whenever they need it.) The BRF knows far more about Harry's mental situation than we do. Perhaps he really does need to be wrapped in bubble wrap for his own protection. He's made and continues to make some (what appears to me to be) detrimental decisions. Perhaps he'll become a huge Netflix star on his own merits and I'm just not visionary enough to grasp the wonderfulness of the both of them.
Disclaimer: I haven't been to CDAN in quite awhile because I think that it is mostly fiction with the occasional release of real information. Releases of information about royals, probably mostly fiction. Releases of information regarding the business side of the entertainment business, probably some factual information.
Sympathies to those along the Alabama coast into the panhandle of Florida; it looks like Sally has been and continues to be a devastating storm (I was sporadically watching storm chaser video live streamed through the night).
Harry does not have that same depth of emotional connect and marrying Meghan eroded whatever pull he had. To make it worse he is desperately trying to regain his popularity with paid media. in today's world he also has to compete with a legion of stars all vying for a stake at global celebrity status. Agree with you Nutty, it is sad to see Harry clawing to hang on to his famous mother's aura.
I'd forgotten about the Epstein bust of Churchill, so thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bust_of_Winston_Churchill_(Epstein)
Our Press tends to use it as an indicator for the health, or otherwise, of the `special relationship'.
@Wullie's Bucket,
I suppose since you are American and as far as I know don't have any family in the UK this topic need not concern you.
_____________________
Any poster on this blog has a right to state opinions on any subject ***regardless of their nationality***. It is a human right. It is the moderator's role to decide whether the post is cut or not.
As someone said a few days ago, no one can control another's opinion (outside of censorship that is).
@WBBM,
RE: National Libraries
Very true, valued art works and works of literature as well as histories are targets during war, as we all know. In *certain situations*, when discussing historical details, truth gets garbled-as the decades and centuries pass. Unfortunately, the "new truth" is what goes into the history books as I know you are well aware of.
Example is the Great Library of Alexandria. It is often quoted that it was burned into oblivion due to political nefariousness. In actuality, it's demise was of a more organic process. It deteriorated from within as it became more and more under-utilized over time.
I love libraries, as many, many, people do (those of us who enjoy being armchair history buffs). Just as many, many people who garden love peonies...
This is not in reference to your points on the libraries in your post up thread. Just expounding a bit, respectfully so.
@Swampwoman,
(On the other hand, we all know that they'll keep threatening to come back unless more cash is liberally given whenever they need it.)
______________________
Yes! I agree 100%. A while back I mentioned how Megsy Baby will be the cockroach who survives an Apocalypse and will continue to stick around the RF forever and ever (post Harry) by the means of money, lots and lots of money being thrown her way. They will never be rid of her completely is what I stated.
You also said,
For those of you that do not think that we had discussions about whether or not the Obama deal with Netflix was a payoff for net neutrality, yes, we did. There were several blinds on CDAN about it. We discussed them, just like we're discussing/have discussed whether PC and QE financed the down payment on Hotel California.
and,
Disclaimer: I haven't been to CDAN in quite awhile because I think that it is mostly fiction with the occasional release of real information. Releases of information about royals, probably mostly fiction. Releases of information regarding the business side of the entertainment business, probably some factual information.
______________
Hotel California LOL. Perfect! Thank you for this. I remember too that it was discussed re: Obamas, but I wasn't about to join in (since I never know when I will be suspected of being a double agent, a sugar or Megsy Baby herself). Disclaimers work great to put things back on track when the slip from reality turns into magical thinking.
Here's my latest disclaimer:
I am not a supporter of Barack Obama nor of his family. With that said, I do feel he and Michelle Obama are very astute as opposed to other less careful politicos; they happen to be pretty careful with their tongues, however ** they like all politicians of today are in it to line their pockets**. JMHO.
Thanks for the point about the library at Alexandria. It's so often referenced uncritically as `how the West lost touch with Classical Greek learning' - implying that its destruction was as abrupt as that of the Temple in Jerusalem.
@Lavender Lady -
Thanks for the point about the library at Alexandria. It's so often referenced uncritically as `how the West lost touch with Classical Greek learning' - implying that its destruction was as abrupt as that of the Temple in Jerusalem.
_______
Absolutely! Have a wonderful day :)
I'm in Ohio and often have fantasies of moving somewhere without harsh winters, but I am reminded every single hurricane season how high a price is paid for living in places without snow. Everyone in the path of this latest storm who is still cleaning up after the last ones are in my prayers right now.
A former co-worker and her family picked *this week* to move to Alabama on the border close to Ft. Walton Beach & Destin. They were to leave Ohio on Monday and so presumably have arrived at their new home, if it's still there. Welcome to Alabama!
Looks as if our post crossed. Blessings :)
@SwampWoman,
Forgot to say glad you are ok -with the storms and such! Sending out SOS prayers for everyone dealing with extreme weather.
https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/16/americas/barbados-queen-elizabeth-scli-intl-gbr/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2020%2F09%2F16%2Famericas%2Fbarbados-queen-elizabeth-scli-intl-gbr%2Findex.html
Re Hotel California, I look at it as a cost/benefit situation. My opinion was and is that if it is financially worth it to the BRF to finance/provide a down payment on a house to get rid of a giant PITA, then they probably did. Swim free, little froggies, swim free. (On the other hand, we all know that they'll keep threatening to come back unless more cash is liberally given whenever they need it.) The BRF knows far more about Harry's mental situation than we do. Perhaps he really does need to be wrapped in bubble wrap for his own protection. He's made and continues to make some (what appears to me to be) detrimental decisions. Perhaps he'll become a huge Netflix star on his own merits and I'm just not visionary enough to grasp the wonderfulness of the both of them.
I think we all know that the giant PITA x2 won't be going away. Meghan is going to milk this cash train for as long as she can . . which likely will be throughout a reign of King Charles III. Charles may have a brief reign but I'd say, minimum, we are looking at MM being a carbuncle on the arse of the Royal Family for at least 10 years into the future. No question. Even if she and Harry split up before then, she will squeeze every last farthing out of them she can and will continue to get toxic stories about their mistreatment of her published. She will continue to milk that grifted title by marriage, too, whether she is 'allowed' to or not. The worst-case scenario of course would be if Harry does not survive until the divorce; if Markle becomes his widow, rather than just the ex that dumped him (less likely that Harry would leave her, because that would require him to come to his senses and admit that he was wrong (again); William was right (again) and he is in fact the colossal jackarse he has always feared he is)--can you imagine? She'll get to be Jackie Kennedy Onassis for the 21st century. Imagine the stories: "Heartless Royal Family snubs Harry's Grieving Widow". Any way you slice it, the BRF has admitted a pernicious virus into its ranks. Like shingles, Meg will always be with them, even when she is not seen. After all, she's borne an heir to the British throne. Allegedly.
Harry is not well. Given his mental fragility which the family was aware of all his life, I think giving him absolute freedom to do what he liked and screw who he liked has been the worst possible outcome for Harry. He needed more structure, not less. Of course he railed against all the 'rules' of being Royal, but those rules were the only thing keeping him functional. By allowing him to Find Freedom with Markle, his family has to also know that they are allowing Haz to destroy himself. It's really only a matter of time. If shelling out millions of dollars to give him a soft landing into an early grave, or a perpetual psychiatric unit is a price they are willing to pay, I guess I've got no dog in the fight, as a non-Briton. But it is *not* their own personal money they are wasting on these two grifters--but the taxpayers of the UK. All of the Duchy of Cornwall monies and whatever constitutes Charles's personal wealth comes off the backs of the 'peasants' who work his lands. They are supporting Harry and Meg in style in Montecito--those same tenant farmers who have seen their rents go up this year.
As an American, I can only observe that H & M and Andrew and the whole current situation over there demonstrates precisely why my country waged a war for independence from monarchy. What Meg and Harry deserve, on their own personal merits is to be living in a trailer park and working cashier jobs at Walmart. Meg is displaying for the whole world watching that the Queen of England has no control over her own family, there are no consequences for bad behavior and they will pretend everything is hunky dory while her people foot the bill for a traitor prince and his showgirl. That is the message which ER is sending at the twilight of an extraordinary reign.
Meh, I'm not going to throw rocks at HRM. We have a lot of politicians for life in congress and the senate who have made fortunes while in office, and it wasn't from their salaries.
Other than a tennis match when she ambushed Serena (leaving a newborn on another continent) and that grandiose display of a baby shower (but still not papped with an A-lister at that occasion), I cannot think of one occasion where her and/or Harry have been seen out and about with any of the A-listers from Hollywood, or anyone else purely for social get-togethers. Surely she has not changed?
There were A-listers who called Diane a friend, but when she was seen socialising as a private individual, her friends were upper class but not celebrities.
Harry, however did seem to hang around with celebrities (actresses and singers), until he got together with Meghan. Before coronavirus, there was nothing stopping them going to a restaurant with the Clooneys or some of Harry's A-lister friends. They were papped or there were reports of them going to the theatre or eating out, but always just the two of them. Who wouldn't want to have a meal at a fabulous restaurant with friends, but they never did.
Is this part of isolating Harry so she can dominate and control? Is it because they actually do not have friends? Is it because the only friends Meghan could socialise with were not big enough celebrities for her?
The Clooneys were supposedly friends. They supposedly had dinner with Jennifer Lopez. These are people who are always papped and never hide away from cameras.
It just seems odd that two very sociable people, albeit for different reasons, just stopped going out with friends. Diane never stopped meeting friends for lunch at a restaurant and in other places.
Diane actually had friends, but I do not think the Sussexes do.
My memory of the late 90s is that nobody liked Diana with Dodi. And though it's not nice to say these days, there was likely some racism (or at least xenophobia) in the mix. The idea of the vulgar Al Fayeds as a stepfamily to the future King wasn't very palatable. But I also had the sense that Dodi and his father Mohamed wanted to be accepted in Britain and that the connection to Diana was, in part, a means to that end.
Contrast that with Meghan, who also came in as an outsider but chose to play it up. Not just by emphasizing her Americanness and digging up her long-lost race card, but also by repeated instances of refusing to play by the rules. I don't think she ever wanted to be accepted, though she did want to be adored.
is it just the changing times that let us be more generous to Meghan at the beginning? (Let's think back to those innocent golden days before we learned she was a narcissist.) If Diana and Dodi started dating in today's media environment, would the public say that they "just want her to be happy at last" and embrace Dodi the way they initially did Meghan?
Meh, I'm not going to throw rocks at HRM. We have a lot of politicians for life in congress and the senate who have made fortunes while in office, and it wasn't from their salaries.
Absolutely . . I refrained from going into that due to not wishing to get too political. No political system is perfect. But legitimate criticisms of one system or personage should not be quashed simply because another system or person has flaws. The sugars love to dodge any critique of Meghan's behavior by throwing rocks at Andrew. The two situations can't be compared apples to apples and neither can two divergent political systems.
I have affection for the Queen and great respect for the longevity of her reign. Unfortunately for her, her own impeccable deportment and lifetime of service has not trickled down equally to all her heirs. I don't consider it throwing rocks at her to observe that her personal management style over the decades of laissez faire, which is largely her own personal distaste of confrontation, has tended to exacerbate situations rather than be an effective strategy for dealing with them. I empathize, because I don't like confrontation myself and I try to avoid conflict and hope for the best from people too. But many of the same problems with Diana, which were allowed to fester, culminating in that terrible week in 1997, are being played out *again* with Diana's younger son & his wife like nothing was learned from the prior events.
ER and Philip represent the last of their era, of deference, and the mystique of the Crown. These have eroded and so I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that Elizabeth will be the last sovereign of Great Britain according to the old model. Monarchy, if it survives is going to look very different when she is gone.
My memory of the late 90s is that nobody liked Diana with Dodi. And though it's not nice to say these days, there was likely some racism (or at least xenophobia) in the mix. The idea of the vulgar Al Fayeds as a stepfamily to the future King wasn't very palatable. But I also had the sense that Dodi and his father Mohamed wanted to be accepted in Britain and that the connection to Diana was, in part, a means to that end.
I don't recall that anybody objected to Dr. Haznat Khan the way that they did to Dodi. People can object to the character of a person without it having anything to do with race. Of course, the people with poor/low morals and other questionable personal attributes being castigated usually WANT to change it to being all about race or sex to change the subject.
Is this part of isolating Harry so she can dominate and control? Is it because they actually do not have friends? Is it because the only friends Meghan could socialise with were not big enough celebrities for her?
My answers are Yes, Yes and Yes to all three.
The Clooneys were supposedly friends. They supposedly had dinner with Jennifer Lopez. These are people who are always papped and never hide away from cameras.
George was friendly with the princes from when he was a bachelor. He attended Willam's wedding solo, prior to his marriage. I am not sure how they would have been introduced, really . . perhaps George is a fan of the polo? Eugenie's Jack works with the company that promotes George and Rande Gerber's tequila brand, as I understand it, so George has had an in with the Royals for some time. Then he chooses for a wife a British barrister and they reside in Oxfordshire when they aren't at the Italian villa or the house in L.A. The 'friendship' with the Clooneys was transactional, and I think has been truncated owing to the Clooneys' possible involvement in a surrogacy scandal surrounding Archie. Possibly. Amal herself had her twins via surrogate, though I think she too likes to pretend she was actually pregnant. Whatever favors were exchanged (Wedding invitation for .. .?) the debt appears to have been paid, because the Clooneys have been very silent about the Sussex matter for the better part of a year now.) As for J. Lo and A-Rod hanging for din-dins . .that is more of Meg's PR spin. Never happened. There would definitely be pictures of that event, if it happened, or what use to MM would it be? We certainly have pictures of J.Lo and A-Rod's other social outings in every issue of People . . so why not this one?
It just seems odd that two very sociable people, albeit for different reasons, just stopped going out with friends.
Doesn't it. Though, for most of their stay in North America, Corona virus restrictions have been on. Regardless of what Meg has published, she didn't have any friends in Vancouver, the opposite side of the continent to Toronto, and had to import her Pilates instructor for a photo op. Neither does Harry have any friends in B.C. or L.A. because, why would he? At least, not sufficiently close friends that would be willing to go out with him while a global pandemic is on. He wouldn't know a soul in Montecito besides Oprah, and a woman so paranoid of Covid that she's banished her dogs to an outbuilding isn't seeing anyone socially, I'm guessing.
Diane actually had friends, but I do not think the Sussexes do.
Nor do I, but the old adage is true: In order to have friends, you've got to be a friend.
Meghan is a Narcissist and they are intrinsically not capable of friendship, only the manufactured appearance of it. I think their daily life at Mudslide Towers is very empty myself. Between awkwardly painful Zoom chats, they are more reclusive than Greta Garbo and J.P. Salinger.
As for Dr. Khan, my impression was that his relationship with Diana was a relative secret until after her death. And in any case, he didn't embrace the notoriety of dating her the way Dodi did. I think part of the reason people respect him now is that he didn't pursue the relationship.
Having said all that, I think people these days are both more open-minded and more worried about being considered racists than they were in 1997. Which is why I wonder how Dodi would fare, if his relationship with Diana were transplanted to our current media environment. With a decent PR push at the beginning (like the kind the equally sleazy Meghan got), would the public have actually embraced him?
Hard to say. In this post 9/11 world, being of Muslim heritage is even more suspect now than in 1997 in certain quarters. The racism more people are sensitive to nowadays is primarily where the black community is concerned. Racism toward other ethnic groups doesn't get scrutinized near as much.
In the 1980s, Dodi dated Brooke Shields, 10 years his junior, for a while. Brooke was famously a Catholic girl who was saving herself for marriage, so I always thought the liaison with a Muslim playboy so much her senior was a bizarre development. I did not find Dodi an attractive man at all, regardless of his ethnicity, and I always wondered about that relationship. Diana was younger than Dodi by 6 years, but she was no longer a young girl at that time so they were peers. He also seemed like a bizarre choice for the Princess. The relationship was really quite new, only a few months' duration. I lost respect for her during that last summer, not just because she was dating a Muslim man with a hedonistic reputation and questionable motives but because she dragged her young boys into their affair. Can you imagine how uncomfortable it would have been for William in particular to be witness to PDA aboard the yacht bewtween his mum and this new boyfriend? Regardless of whom Diana was dating, even if he'd been a pink-cheeked Viscount from her own circle . . she should have kept that separate from her children at that very early stage.
I think she wanted to show off for Charles and the Royal family that she, the cast-off, could provide her boys with more glamorous entertainment than soggy old Balmoral, as well as posing for the papps she hired as Looking Well: the Best Revenge, as well as to make Hasnat Khan jealous. Sadly indeed, her precious last visit with her boys was spent in tension and arguments over Dodi and she'd never see them again, nor they her. They went straight from their mother's holiday to their father's in Scotland and that was the end. This is the final memories that William and to a lesser extent Harry, have of their mum--acrimony and yelling.
The tragedy of Diana's last summer is still being felt in the lasting effects her loss and instability have had on Harry. Sins of the fathers (and mothers) just keep on giving . . .
Revisiting Chariots of Fire (1980) recently, I was shocked to see Dodi's name listed as Executive Producer. He would have only been 25 years old.
This is so so true and especially so today, and this is the perfect forum in which to bring it up. It's so true it belongs on a T-shirt.
(Just wanted to make sure everyone noticed it!)
My reading of Dodi's actions is that he was eager to impress Diana and the boys (and the rest of Britain) because he wanted to be popular and welcomed in more circles. But everything he did just marked him as someone who wasn't of their circle. I wonder if he ever got feedback to this effect, or if he thought the whole time that he was making progress. As Nutty pointed out in her post, celebrities didn't get the instant reactions they do via social media today. Had Twitter been around, would Dodi have realized he had an image problem and worked on it? Or would he, like Meghan, have insisted on having everything on his own terms?
from Dodi's Wiki:
In July 1997, Fayed became romantically involved with Diana, Princess of Wales. Earlier that summer, Fayed had become engaged to an American model, Kelly Fisher, and had bought a house in Malibu, California, for himself and Fisher with money from his father.[8][9] Fisher subsequently claimed Fayed had jilted her for Diana and announced that she was filing a breach of contract suit against him, claiming that he had "led her emotionally all the way up to the altar and abandoned her when they were almost there. He threw her love away in a callous way with no regard for her whatsoever".[10] She dropped the lawsuit shortly after Fayed's death.[11]
The timeline given here in this article is even more specific. It dates the start of Diana's first holiday with Dodi, to which she invited her boys and had all the infamous papp shots taken as July 17, 1997, and relates that 'Diana grew close to Dodi here' at his vacation home in the South of France.
So, less than 6 weeks before her death, she introduced her sons to a man she had only just met. There was no mention of Dodi being involved in celebrations for her birthday on 1 July, just two weeks prior. She was basically Dodi's yacht girl for the brief time of their acquaintance because she didn't even date him for two months, and he was in fact, engaged to someone else at the time. Was Diana only ever going to be his summer fling; a bit of amusement on the side? Yacht girls are selected for their beauty and also for their status as models or actresses that have some fame. Elizabeth Hurley, still bangin' at 54 seems to be really popular on the yacht circuit because never a week goes by it seems without pictures of La Hurley in my feed, trumpeting how hot she looks in a bikini at 54. She does . . but what else is she promoting, is what I want to know.
Dodi and Di seem to have had a transactional relationship going on whereby she, no longer Royal but adjacent enough to still have that patina--she was still Diana, the most photographed woman in the world--could have a luxurious holiday in the South of France, stick two fingers up at her ex-in laws AND potentially make Dr. Khan jealous, while Dodi got an image boost and additional cachet in 'society' by bagging the People's Princess, the world's most eligible bachelorette & one of the world's most beautiful women? The frisson of controversy must have appealed to them both, because both were risk-takers who loved flying on the high wire. Sadly that high wire came down in a tunnel in Paris, but if either or both of them had been less recklessly inclined, they would have survived. Diana staged this pursuit by paparazzi, but it was Dodi who compelled an inebriated employee behind the wheel and far too fast for the conditions.
Diana was only recently out of the relationship with Dr. Khan, that had lasted for two years, or before she was formerly divorced. I don't think she would have switched her affections to Dodi in the space of 6 weeks.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/g4401/princess-diana-summer-1997-timeline/
The frisson of controversy must have appealed to them both, because both were risk-takers who loved flying on the high wire.
I'm guessing this was also part of the appeal for Prince Harry and Meghan at the beginning. His wife would be the first biracial woman in his high-profile family -- and she came with a seedy past that the courtiers would have to scramble to hide! Marrying her was an act of defiance.
Meanwhile, Meghan snagged herself one of the most eligible bachelors in the world. That would show those Oscar-winning A listers with their LA mansions and million-dollar endorsements!
It seems that their own high wire is coming down slowly. Sometimes I watch with popcorn. Other times, I feel deeply sorry for them. My birthday wish for Prince Harry is healing and maturity. And if the birthday fairies are feeling generous, then for Meghan I'd wish for self-awareness and remorse. We don't need another trainwreck cautionary tale. If they're so passionate about showing the world inspirational stories, they ought to start with themselves.
I think you're right that one reason those relationships appealed to Diana was that she could rub them in the BRF's faces.
Plus an additional human element blown up to grandiose proportions: After you've been married to the Prince of Wales, with an internationally televised wedding in St. Paul's Cathedral, how can you date again without seeming "to lose the breakup"?
She may have also been wanting "to win the breakup" with Dr. Khan.
I think it would be more embarrassing for her family and friends, actually, and for the boys to be teased mercilessly about their mother AGAIN. It could possibly have led to a complete breakdown in the relationship between mother and sons.
The difficulties regarding Dodi were not all about him. His father was a concern, as he had previous business ties with Papa Doc Duvalier and Dodi's uncle, Adrian Kashoggi, a Middle Eastern arms dealer. I think these connections were few of the many that kept Mr. Fayed from achieving his ambition of British citizenship.
Chelsy Davy's multimillionaire father's business dealings might have caused some concern in the UK as well. Charles Davy did 'business' with the corrupt dictator Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who died a year ago this month in Gleneagles Hospital, Singapore.
Look what happened to Netflix.
Serena handled it well. Everyone else they may or may not be friends with isn't about to put their earnings on the line to support Meghan, the Ex-Royal with a bad past and seedy reputation. Disney were the first to point out the Duo wasn't for them 'too controversial' ....
A former co-worker and her family picked *this week* to move to Alabama on the border close to Ft. Walton Beach & Destin. They were to leave Ohio on Monday and so presumably have arrived at their new home, if it's still there. Welcome to Alabama!
Oh, snap. They're in the high winds and torrential rainfall zone, then. (Pensacola got 25" of rain the last time I checked, and they're expecting another 20".) I hope they have flood insurance. On the plus side, our electrical grid gets replaced every couple years!
Didn't' realize we are looking at 20 more inches, it's been raining three days straight and we are stuck in the hotel!
I'm actually on vacation in Destin right now. On the beachfront. It's wild out here.
Didn't' realize we are looking at 20 more inches, it's been raining three days straight and we are stuck in the hotel!
I hope my friend and her family are safe. They have three little girls. Their home is a fixer-upper in a rural area. I can't remember the name of the little town but she said it was only a 40-minute drive to Destin. This move has been in the works for a year. They had their going-away party Saturday and said they were going to leave on Monday. Maybe they were monitoring the storm and decided to wait, but the movers had come for all their stuff and they don't have the funds to stay indefinitely in a hotel. Their stuff might not even make it there before they do.
Diana also had unrealistic expectations of the men in her life. She wanted them to pay a lot of attention to her, when that just isn’t possible for men with jobs, hobbies, and a life. She wanted Hasnat to give up his surgeon career, marry her, and travel the world as roving ambassadors for good causes. That was never going to happen. Her best platform to do that was the BRF. She didn’t know how to live out of the spotlight. Sound familiar? Harry has married a woman with Diana’s worst qualities, and they quit the BRF to be roving ambassadors of worthy causes, but that is not a job outside the BRF.
Is It Time For The Sussex Title To Be Stripped?
1. Arrogance
2. Believing their message is more important.
3. Not allowing others to have a valid point of view.
4. Being incredibly selfish.
5. Trying to drown out any competition in their eyes.
6. Ruthlessness
7. Not adhering to rules.
8. Ignoring common decency.
9. Not respecting authority.
10. Thinking they can get away with anything.
11. Obnoxious
I never had a narcissist in my life up earlier this year thank goodness (if there was they didn't last long enough for me to notice). But I sure saw it here.
At least Harry accomplishes things (and destroys) being a narc, while the average narc just destroys and look psychotic.
"I don't think that Harry is depressed. As I saw and learned here he is a Narcissist plain and simple.
Maybe.
Personally I don't see Harry as narcissistic myself but he certainly could be. Perhaps I haven't thought about it enough but true "clinical" narcissism is unlikely to erupt at age 30+. Yes, he was arrogant, obnoxious, and entitled before. We all know that. But I think if we're honest, any member of the RF could look that way. I don't care how often someone is described as "down to earth" or "nice" (whatever that means) or "never putting a foot wrong" there are stories out there about all of them that could be viewed as evidence of arrogance/entitlement.And why wouldn't there be? They are royalty by blood or by marriage, after all. (There are also stories out there about acts of kindness from many of them. But those also exist from Harry.)
In contrast, we do have evidence about Meghan from long, long ago that shows emerging narcissism or at least something related (like histrionic traits.) Playing "queen" at another child's birthday party? Please.
But even if Harry IS narcissistic, he could still be depressed. According to this source (and others):
https://focus.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.focus.11.2.167?journalCode=foc
"Major depressive disorder is the most common comorbid disorder in patients with pathological narcissism or NPD. Need for self-enhancement and chronic disillusionment with self make these individuals particularly susceptible to substance use."
I really do hope bickering stops around here. I cannot follow group while on moderation. I am sure I am not the only one who has same problem. I could be one of a hundred with same issue. Really selfish to destroy group for petty bullshit between a few posters, not to mention added stress and work to nutty and charade. I will be back if moderation gets lifted. Impossible via mobile to keep up otherwise
They probably can't get far enough away from each other in a mansion with 16 bathrooms.
That and the shock might explain a lot of the mass hysteria.
I haven't read the latest Harry Markle blog but was going to write this which may be relevant after all.
Barbados announced yesterday that it wishes to remove Queen Elizabeth as its head of state and become a republic. "The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind," the Caribbean island nation's government said. There has been an anti colonial movement everywhere that may have speeded up the process. The Harkles, as president and vice-president of the Commonwealth Trust, could have done so much more than their woke video chats. Had they stayed in the RF, they could have visited several countries in different regions of the globe and generated some goodwill. I think they could have made a real difference.
For this reason, and since they wanted a clean cut from the BRF, they should lose their roles and titles of president and vice-president of the QCT, as well, of course, as Duke & Duchess of Sussex as Harry Markle states.
@Oh Floof:
The news about Diana being at one of HK's operations was publicised before her death; :
Diana in scrubs Daily Mirror front page Tuesday April 23rd 1996. (Sorry, I've lost the URL)
Caption:
Theatre Star: Staring intently over a surgical mask, Princess Diana – the self-styled Queen of Hearts – watches from inches away as surgeons perform a televised three-hour heart op on a boy of seven yesterday
Earlier, however:
https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mirror/2019/10/29/prince-harry-hacking-exclusive-top-mirror-private-investigator-targeted-diana-princess-of-wales
This has an image of the Sunday Mirror front page of January 28th 1996, with info from phone hacking re her `trysts' with HK.
-and this from 1913:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401490/Dr-Khan-attacks-new-Princess-Diana-movie-reveals-insight-affair.html
Technology makes it so much easier for news to travel fast, and old news to be dug up as fast, just as easy access to printing allowed the proliferation of polemical, anti-King Charles I, tracts in the 1640s.
Yet, as early as 1989, I believe, I learned by word of mouth that Diana was running around with other chaps (I have the `receipt' somewhere...) - an eye-witness told a colleague who told me.
The old ways still work! Although when one `pulls a thread' online, interesting, unexpected stuff comes out in the unravelling:
from 26th Jan.2016:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/219647/illegal-immigrant-whose-life-was-saved-by-princess-diana-let-me-into-britain-too/
He alone is responsible for his choices. He chose to be involved with Markle. He's actively participating in all these ridiculous shenanigans. He had and continues to have the resources to extract himself from this situation. Yet it continues.
Some people just can't seem to get it right and make their own problems. Harry is who he is because that's who he is. The larger problem with these people is they destroy everyone and everything around them. My sympathies are with the BRF and the British people.
I stand corrected on the point that people didn't know about the affair until after her death. I guess that while she was still officially married, Dr. Khan was just a "side-piece" whom everyone thought would have a temporary run. Plus, he was discreet.
The PR game Diana and Dodi played during their short time together made him seem like a much more significant figure in her life (and to the BRF) than he would have been.
I agree that Prince William would have turned out pretty much the same. He had other very strong influences in his family who had been paying special attention to him long before his mother's death. And the courtship of Catherine would probably also have taken the good long while it has in our own "timeline." (Lots of people like to point out that William's cautious approach has more to do with his horoscope than with any trauma from his parents' marriage.) But I don't think Diana would have been very pleased with competition for her eldest son's time and affection that Catherine would have represented. And we might have been regaled with "Princess vs. Duchess" stories from the Cambridges' newlywed years, the conflicts intensifying after the children's birth. Catherine's parenting style is obviously very different from Diana's. (Anyone remember William imagining Diana showing up right at bath time, making a huge mess, and then leaving without helping to clean it up?) If we thought Charles was hurt that the Middletons got to see more of George (and Charlotte?), well, just think of how Diana would have reacted to the same!
"Good King Harry," on the other hand, might have become even more entitled. Diana would have pushed him forward in the media -- and it would have been easy for him to grab headlines and column inches from his more private brother. I disagree that we might have Chelsy as the Duchess of Sussex. With Diana enabling Harry's worst qualities, I think he might have lost Chelsy even faster! BUT I do Diana would have seen through Meghan pretty quickly -- and probably launched a salvo against her in the press, making sure the yachting stories, etc. got leaked as early as possible. So Meghan wouldn't be the Duchess of Sussex, either.
But here I am imagining that the Harry of that timeline doesn't have a "come to Jesus" moment. William had started to see his mother's shortcomings before she died; perhaps Harry would have, too, in a few more years' time.
I wouldn't read too much into Barbados making plans to becoming a Republic it's just the tabloids making a mountain out of a pimple, pushing a Shock-Horror piece for click bait.
Of the 54 Commonwealth Countries 33 of them are Republics and after the Queen goes I think all the others will follow suit, they will still be members of the Commonwealth. The whole idea of the 'Commonwealth Of Nations' was to guide former colonies toward total independence "free and equal" and that's what's happening. Apart from that Barbados will no longer have to pay for the Queen's representatives in the Country.
However with the last legal ties with the UK removed I can see corruption in high places getting worse and I wouldn't be surprised if China suddenly discovers Barbados.
As for Meghan, I think she was swept away by his position and wealth and fame, so for her it was also a kind of infatuation. They actually had nothing in common other than negative traits. She not only knew nothing about the British lifestyle and values he grew up with, but she had no interest in them.
In the last few days I have come across various accounts of their first meeting. In her interview with Tatler, she said it was May and in Toronto. The online edition was then scrubbed of that information (and the editor left abruptly), because they were trying to hide the fact that she dumped the chef for Harry, and got together with Harry while she was still in a long-term relationship with the chef. (my opinion) The social set each of them came from would not see such action as bad in any way (unless they were personally close to the one who got dumped perhaps) and Cory was perhaps secretly relieved to be free of her. (my opinion) There was a dinner arranged for Harry in Toronto that May. The chef did the catering (and he is a celebrity chef so there would have been social interaction with Harry) and the Mulroneys were present. Meghanas the supreme social comber, would have definitely wanted to be there, so perhaps they met in May at that dinner, as she said in the Tatler article. Meghan then dumped the chef, arranged a blind date (perhaps Harry did not have a clear recollection of her but was open to any dates with any 'hot' women, or perhaps he did remember her, or perhaps there was no blind date and they started texting each other after that first meeting) through a friend and set forth for London to capture a prince with high octane love bombing and word salad
He was pressurised into marriage very quickly but I think their relationship would have followed the same path, perhaps by a different route, if they had not married in such a hurry. Without the work on Suits, Meghan could not stay in Canada. Without talent, she could not get work in the UK. Her only option in Hollywood was Hallmark movies and she may have burnt her bridges there as well. Although she is the supreme hustler, her merching deals and various appearances on shows were small change compared with the wealth Harry had and the wealth she saw she could access through him.
Diana did seem to recover from her infatuations with unsuitable men. Would Harry have recovered from his infatuation with Meghan? Has he?
OT but perhaps not
I haven't read the latest Harry Markle blog but was going to write this which may be relevant after all.
Barbados announced yesterday that it wishes to remove Queen Elizabeth as its head of state and become a republic. "The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind," the Caribbean island nation's government said. There has been an anti colonial movement everywhere that may have speeded up the process. The Harkles, as president and vice-president of the Commonwealth Trust, could have done so much more than their woke video chats. Had they stayed in the RF, they could have visited several countries in different regions of the globe and generated some goodwill. I think they could have made a real difference.
For this reason, and since they wanted a clean cut from the BRF, they should lose their roles and titles of president and vice-president of the QCT, as well, of course, as Duke & Duchess of Sussex as Harry Markle states.
_____________________
So true. Maybe now the RF/TPTB will remove those titles and the CW Trust positions. Seems as if all the distaste aimed at H$M is hitting it's mark. This will wake up the palace... we hope!
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/meghan-markle-cover-story
Diana did seem to recover from her infatuations with unsuitable men.
_____
When? She died in the midst of seeing a most unsuitable one.
Not reading too much into Barbados. Yes, they have been making noises about becoming a republic for a long time; it is up to them to chose their way forward.
However it is bad timing for the royal family. The Harkles trashing the Commonwealth coinciding with Barbados move just makes it more obvious how badly royals managed Harry and his scandalous behavior.
I will not be surprised if more countries follow as respect for the royals nosedives.
"Re: what's wrong with Harry....
He alone is responsible for his choices. He chose to be involved with Markle. He's actively participating in all these ridiculous shenanigans. He had and continues to have the resources to extract himself from this situation. Yet it continues.
Some people just can't seem to get it right and make their own problems. Harry is who he is because that's who he is. The larger problem with these people is they destroy everyone and everything around them. My sympathies are with the BRF and the British people."
Yes!!! I would just differ in that although he may be attempting to destroy the BRF, I think (and do hope) he will not adversely affect them much outwardly although internally (behind closed doors the Queen, Philip, and William may be seething and sad. I do not see Harry as a depressed indecisive figure but more than a mere irritant to his family and the public. Meg is the machine behind the Nexflix deal but he is the draw I believe precisely because of his unique royal status. Neither have original ideas and will have to rely on documenting the efforts of others (e.g. story behind one of the founders of BLM, conservation work performed by true ecowarriors, etc...)
I humbly offer the following:
"In a display of culinary skills that would be no surprise to the readers of her phenomenally successful blog The Tig, the Duchess of Sussex whipped together a four-course dinner for her husband in honor of his birthday. "H," as she affectionately calls him, had surprised her on her own birthday with a three-course meal."
September 16, 2020 at 1:39 AM
Thank you Enbrethiliel, for elegantly filling in the doubtless inadvertent gap in Sussex Birthday coverage, from the person legally closest to H. The Times of London itself could hardly have outdone your gracefully informative prose. Noting especially how the Duchess turned out FOUR courses, besting H by one. So romantic. ๐๐๐
The rumor of Obama removing Churchill’s bust was denied by the White House at the time. I think it was shortly after his 1st term began. The White House even provided photos to show it was still there.
Meg & H courting publicity/cons & bluffs re Archie's birth/her pushiness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuCFDq5dhNo
`Prince Harry and Meghan Markle set to appear in exciting new TV show'
https://in.style.yahoo.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-set-104000625.html?guccounter=1
`The Queen just said the sweetest thing about little Archie`
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a34051506/the-queen-archie-red-hair-sweetest-comment/
Can anyone see any shred of truth in either?
Both originate in Cosmopolitan. When I used to read Cosmo (the very first issue onward)in the early1970s, it was written for and by intelligent women who would have put cr*p like this from Ms Savin straight into the bin.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/meghan-markle-cover-story
I didn't get a gander at the Vanity Fair cover story until after they had announced their engagement. Not a regular reader and after Cressida, I stopped keeping up on Harry's girlfriends.
I guess this cover is supposed to be her 'high fashion' face? Because it isn't an attractive photo at all. In fact, her crazy eyes and poor skin are fully on display. If they hadn't shot it in such extreme close up, it would have looked better.
Meg was capable of some attractive pictures in the pre-wedding days . . that particular one was not it. I liked the engagement photos, but after that things slid downhill pretty fast. Meg's face has the knack of looking different in nearly every picture; a lot of actors' faces have this chameleonlike quality, even without plastic surgery. She looked the most like her 'Suits' era self in the engagement photos, but Bridezilla looked very different to this, and her face (and figure) have just continued to morph. Not for the better, in my opinion. Every time we see her she looks a bit worse.
I don't believe she carried Archie, but when she emerged from her confinement with her preternaturally still baby, who was quite tiny for being nearly three weeks overdue, she was certifiably puffy and bloated. Meg is the only new mum I know who looked much bigger *after* her child was born. Now she's used so many fillers and whatnot, her face is pretty distorted from how it looked before. If I had fallen asleep for a three-year nap between seeing the engagement photos and the latest Zoom video, I don't think I would recognize her as the same person. How do other readers feel about this?
I'm glad you noticed! I deliberately made it a four-course meal for that reason!
Well, Prince Harry's birthday has come and gone, and we've heard nothing from the Sussexes except the news about the donation. Meghan must not be very happy with "H." I had thought she would at least use the occasion to claim that Harry said she is already the best birthday present he could have ever received.
Oh, and Archie, too, of course.
Trump then moved the Churchill bust back to the Oval Office. There are many articles attesting to this. Here's one -
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315419-trump-puts-churchill-bust-back-in-the-oval-office
If I had fallen asleep for a three-year nap between seeing the engagement photos and the latest Zoom video, I don't think I would recognize her as the same person. How do other readers feel about this?
______
Waaay too much Botox. Or a combo of too much Botox and too much hooch...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-winston-churchill-bust-oval-office-britain
I guess this cover is supposed to be her 'high fashion' face? Because it isn't an attractive photo at all. In fact, her crazy eyes and poor skin are fully on display. If they hadn't shot it in such extreme close up, it would have looked better.
Ah, thank you! I had been feeling like one of the people in The Emperor's New Clothes when it comes to that cover. Meghan can take good photos. That one wasn't one of them by a long shot.
I actually found her beautiful at her first Trooping and on her first visit to the National Theater. Yes, the off-the-shoulder dress was a huge faux-pax and the huge moonbump ruined the peach suit. (Both were peach, actually. It must be her color!) The National Theater visit was also when she was caking on the bronzer as if her life depended on it. But I found her face more than pleasant to look at on both occasions.
To answer your question, she does look quite different in the Zoom clips these days. It would be interesting to get an image that's not in that tell-tale soft focus, so that we can really compare. I guess the virus situation is working out for her in one way: When she's papped wearing a mask, no one can tell what she looks like!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8741197/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-feature-televised-TIMEs-100-list.html
The Carolina Herrera dress at TOC 2018 would have been really nice for a summer wedding, but when contrasted with what the other Royal ladies were wearing, it was inappropriate and just made Markle look clueless and like she was trying too hard. I didn't know about the merching then, but even for a newbie into the family, I'm certain as I breathe that MM received a memo about appropriate dress for the balcony--summer colors, hat, hosiery and NO SKIN. This wasn't Meg making an honest error, because it was otherwise a lovely dress, and Eugenie showed as much skin at her wedding . . but for only her second(?) Royal appearance--and the first, in another pale peach dress--didn't go well at all, so we hear, it was extremely brazen to flout the rules. She also had her Smug Face on in the carriage.
I dubbed this dress "Harry's Little Island Bride" look. The vibrant color was lovely but I feel a bit too girlish for Meg. It did serve to make her appear 'more exotic' in it, if that's what she was going for. The long flowing black locks and the oversized hat and the fuschia color made me think of Mr. Rochester's Jamaican first wife from 'Wide Sargasso Sea'--the one that entrapped a naive young man with sex and then went barking insane and was shut up in the attic. If that's racist, that's regrettable, but that is really what she looked like to me. The dress was designed to be worn either with regular shoulders for a more conservative look, or off-the-shoulder, so MM purposely chose the one that violated the rules. She is very proud of her skin all over because she enjoys showing so much of it off. We saw all the way up to her vijayjay on a number of occasions. Girl is always marketing her chief asset, seems to me.
That balcony appearance would have been quite nice if it weren't marred by the sight of Markle sniggering behind her hand when an elderly guardsman fainted and fell from his horse. Kate looks utterly horrified. I can't decide about Harry's expression. At first I thought he was grimacing/wincing in concern for a fallen comrade, but it could also be interpreted as sharing in his wife's mirth at a potentially paralyzing injury.
That visit to the National was a very *shiny* one for Meg. She had so much bronzer and lip gloss and some glowstick or something that she looked very . . .slippery. This visit was at the end of January . . 30th or 31st, I believe, and the dress was a spring one. It must have been a mild day in London, for a pregnant lady to forgo wearing a coat, but we got a good look at Bump as it shrank and expanded several times during her visit. The dress would have been nice without that distraction.
In June, when it happened, many of us noted that Althea's story didn't really hang together, and suggested that it might have been a hoax.
https://nuttyflavor88.blogspot.com/2020/06/meghan-and-harry-and-racial-tension-in.html
Anyway, the update is that no footage of the crime has yet been released (it took place at an intersection in downtown Madison, Wisconsin in an area where there are numerous CCTV cameras) and no suspects have been named or arrested.
However, Althea has been enjoying her time as a martyr, and was recently a featured speaker at another social justice demonstration. This article seems to take the attack as a given, expressing no skepticism at all:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Demonstration-in-Madison-remains-relatively-15518549.php
In addition, the NFL has added Althea's name to the list of names NFL football players are allowed to wear on their helmets to protest "police violence and systemic racism."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/list-of-approved-names-for-placement-on-helmet-bumper-includes-david-dorn/ar-BB18Wwfy
Well, well, well . . . Harry and Meghan made Time's 100 Most Influential People list! It will be televised this year and the Sussexes are expected to make an appearance.
Time Magazine isn't what it once was, is it? I remember when the cover of Time Magazine was a real indicator of the Zeitgeist. Now I don't know anyone who reads it.
Poor Meg, always living in the 1990s.
Now she's used so many fillers and whatnot, her face is pretty distorted from how it looked before. If I had fallen asleep for a three-year nap between seeing the engagement photos and the latest Zoom video, I don't think I would recognize her as the same person. How do other readers feel about this?
I agree with you that Meg was once rather pretty, about halfway through her cosmetic surgery journey. (The same is true of Kim Kardashian, who was lovely somewhere around 2007).
Now she's trying to make her real-life face match her photo filters, which is never a good idea.
Madison is a very liberal place. Even so, local journalists have been trying to cover the story, but the cops will not cooperate.
"27 News representatives have made several requests of Madison Police for any video they may possess of the intersection of State and West Gorham streets, or nearby streets, at the time on June 24 Bernstein says the incident took place. But each request has been denied by police custodians, citing the ongoing investigation."
https://wkow.com/2020/08/26/madison-police-chief-denies-claim-teen-pressured-to-recant-hate-crime-claim/
@Hikari: One of the big reasons Meghan looked so good in her publicity photos pre-Harry is that the ones she looks great in were shot by professional photographers during photo sessions with studio-quality lighting. The other reason she looks so good is likely heavy manipulation in Photoshop or Lightroom, both programs from Adobe.
I spent more than 30 years in the photography business. Photoshop and Lightroom can do wonders to polish and refine and completely change a photograph. I’ve photographed my share of famous people in studio and non-studio situations, and many of them do not look nearly as good in-person as they do in photographs.
This is one big reason why Meghan is such a control freak with photos of herself, and why they hire their own photo people so they can do a handout release or sell to the media.
She looks so much different in the videos from the mudslide mansion because they are poorly lit, look like they were shot by a rank amateur (if you know what you’re doing, you can obtain stunning results in video and still images with even just a smart phone), and Meghan likely doesn’t have anyone assisting her with hair, makeup, which is different for photography than it is for real life, and no help with her wardrobe or background.
Part of the decline/difference in her looks can also be attributed to having more procedure on her face combined with her bad taste. The Morticia Addams hair does absolutely nothing for her. Or as my mother says, “Sweetie, some people have all their taste in their mouth.”
Meghan’s green outfit with her undergarments plainly showing last March at her last official appearance with the royal family is a shining example.
The Harkle Disasters 'Most Influential' examples of humanity for the year?
Surely Time is having us on and that is meant to read 'Most Under the Influence'?
Ye gads.
Well, I'm sure the Hazardous Twits are gloating over this, but I'd bet all my coffee beans that slots in this list are for sale. The fact that Haz and Mess are on it is proof enough that this contest is rigged. It smacks of the annual campaigns for Oscar nominations/wins--those are for sale, too.
There was a rumor after their deaths,maybe during the 2007 inquest, that Dodi was summoned to the Mediterranean by his father to be company for Diana (she already knew him) AND that Fayed Sr. had promised his son a $30 million settlement if Dodi got Diana to marry him. Dodi's butler at the time said Dodi sent that dinner ring she picked and Dodi bought, to be put, with roses a d champagne on ice,in the bedroom they would use that night at the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's old home, where they were headed when the crash happened.
Dodi as Exec Producer on films: his dad paid for all that, buying him a fancy job, trying to make up for not giving Dodi much attention as a kid (Fayed divorced Dodi's mother and was not interested in her kid).
Dodi could be generous. On one movie set he brought cocaine, lots, for everybody. He wanted to be popular. Director explained gently (to someone connected to the financial backing!), it was not appropriate and Dodi said ok. Things like this are part of the sleaze mentioned by Enbrethillel and Barbara of Montreal. It's been so long, people not British might have wondered...
I don't know that the Time Magazine placement was paid for, but it might have been a PR trade to get Time access to bigger stars.
@Nutty: I agree with you and doubt the TIME placement was paid for, but cultivating contacts and sources by including Harry and Meghan in the TIME 100 list is not out of the realm of schmoozing possibilities for TIME. And by being in the same stable of publications, it helps People magazine too.
Meghan likely doesn’t have anyone assisting her with hair, makeup, which is different for photography than it is for real life, and no help with her wardrobe or background.
Part of the decline/difference in her looks can also be attributed to having more procedure on her face combined with her bad taste. The Morticia Addams hair does absolutely nothing for her.
Agreed. You have to wonder if she's just setting up the camera herself, or having Harry do it. There is no evidence of them having any staff.
The hair is indeed terrible. I assume it is a wig or extensions - it is much longer than the natural hair she had in the Archie birthday video not long ago.
As for the Harkles making the list - it is bought and paid for. They have not influenced anything that matters, made no difference, change nothing for anybody.
Them making the list is total nonsense. This is just another brainwashing PR inventing value where there is none.
Could the police be unwilling or leery to/of make certain moves with the cries for defunding?
I think they're planning on dragging it out as long as possible, and then just letting it die quietly, perhaps when something else big is in the news.
I don't know that the Time Magazine placement was paid for, but it might have been a PR trade to get Time access to bigger stars.
@Nutty: I agree with you and doubt the TIME placement was paid for, but cultivating contacts and sources by including Harry and Meghan in the TIME 100 list is not out of the realm of schmoozing possibilities for TIME. And by being in the same stable of publications, it helps People magazine too.
It looks to me that Harry and Meghan are not on TIMES 100 Most Influential People List but rather that they are making an appearance on the broadcast at which the honorees will be revealed. Maybe I am reading it wrong?
I think either way, TIME is making a mistake putting them on this program. If they are not on this year’s list, which is a mistake by itself, there is no valid reason to include them in this tv program when their only achievements are being born into the royal family for Harry, and manipulating a vulnerable, needy, dim-witted prince into marrying her for Meghan.
If they are on this year’s list, which seems the likely reason they are on this program, then that is a mistake because as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, these two have not much in the realm of achievements other than celebrity, which shows how low TIME’s standards have sunk. I do not believe Harry and Meghan have as much influence as should be necessary to be included on this list.
If celebrity is TIME’s main measure, then the Kardashians should have bern on this list for years. At least the Kardashians have had the business savvy to make themselves wealthy while influencing culture ever closer to the sewer. At this point, Harry and Meghan are Kardashian wannabes masquerading as humanitarians while in their own way, are moving the world one step closer to becoming toilet fodder.
I suspect if the Queen and Charles are paying for the Montecito mansion of Meghan's it's part of the divorce settlement.
----------------
There was an article in the DM yesterday stating The Queen's private fortune is approximately £400 million, a new book claims.
Royal finance expert David McClure has also written that the monarch received a 55 per cent rise in EU farm subsidies at Sandringham, as Prince Charles turned the estate organic.
Mr McClure's new book, The Queen's True Worth, estimates Her Majesty's fortune at £50 million more than previously believed, The Express reports."
...
In his book, Mr McClure stresses that the Queen's true wealth remains murky and is hotly contested by royal watchers - partly due to the Royal Family not being bound by Freedom of Information laws to disclose their wealth.
If this is the case, then the Queen could have easily financed the purchase of Fawlty Towers. It could well be part of the divorce settlement as you say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_route_du_Champ_d%27Entra%C3%AEnement
Some interesting history here – I wonder if Megsy has her eye on this?
Perhaps H ought to be given a new Ducal title – as the second Duke of Windsor? (no Duchess) Might that help put Megsy’s gas at a peep?
At the time of her death, 9/11 was 4 years off but in 1989, in the UK at least, we had been deeply shocked by the reaction to Salman Rushdie's novel `The Satanic Verses': book burning on public streets Bradford, for instance, and the fatwa issued by the Iranian authorities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7883308.stm
I can't help wondering if there was an element of her using these relationships to get back at the RF and also what the effects of her marrying Dodi, or perhaps his successor, might have been on the boys.
Whether or not she was/was not about to become engaged to Dodi is a contested matter. Al Fayed said one thing; others said something different.
founder of Salesforce. Activist billionaire. Supports liberal movements.
He signed a $250 million deal with Netflix in Aug 2019, for activist programming.
He reneged on the separate deal he signed with Disney.
He works with Ken Sunshine who represents him.
He also owns Time Mag.
Still wondering where Megs and Harry are getting their deals?
They are being pawned against the RF, JUST as Meg wanted. This is looking like an effort that has been the works for 12+ months (megxit)
@Hikari
re: Lord Guthrie's fall from a charger at TTC:
I think Harry's expression was one of horror - His face and Kate's face's said the same thing to me but shown in different ways.
Kate gasped and clapped her hand over her mouth, which is what I recall doing when a car overtook a coach I was on, swerved to avoid something oncoming and rolled over in front of us.
Harry did what I've done when riding and someone in the party takes a tumble at a gallop - a wince accompanied by a sharp intake of breath through clenched teeth.
I cannot imagine anyone who rides, and knows what it's like to fall off, laughing at:
- an elderly person (b.1938) falling off, who may have had a medical episode. Indeed the photos suggest he was unconscious before he fell.
- from a charger (in the King's Troop of the RHA they are generally 18hh at the shoulder, whereas the one's pulling the guns are 16.2hh. A hand = 4" or about 10cm). That's a drop of 6' (almost 2m) from the saddle, further for the head.
- in a quarter barrel roll (in 3 dimensions if the animal's moving) in which the head accelerates rapidly and then stops abruptly
- on to a hard, made-up road.
I don't think for minute that Harry found it amusing - I believe it was an instant when his humanity came to the surface.
As for her, it is possible to laugh hysterically when something goes wrong but I do think she found it funny.
btw, I do believe Harry was laughing at Well Child; could that have been hysteria?
The Windsor’s Paris Flat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_route_du_Champ_d%27Entra%C3%AEnement
Some interesting history here – I wonder if Megsy has her eye on this?
_________________
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/real-estate/a29322379/duke-of-windsor-edward-viii-wallis-simpson-villa-windsor-french-house-photos/
In the black and white gallery of photos-further into the article- the first picture of Wallis sitting on the divan petting the pug dog. She looks eerily like La Markle.
Whoa! The same "little girl lost, dressed in mommy's clothes" look on her face. Yet we know better...
https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1306437192344981504
Marc Benioff
@Benioff
·
19h
The stars arrive on Tuesday and you'll be seeing Prince Harry & Meghan Markle there! Don't miss #Time100 @ABC at 10|9c to find out who made the @TIME list!
---------------------------------------------------------
On that depressing note, I shall say goodnight.
Puds - now that (loss of title to work) is an very interesting idea. I like that as it would undercut the whole thing Hikari brought up about the Sussex Royal reformed into the latest version but still merching despite that most likely being in the agreement (did she sign it or did JH?).
Sandie yeah, they don't seem to have a lot friends which some is covid but even before covid, you are correct, they weren't seen out and about with friends at some posh place (noted in the DM et al).
I have not reread any of the Diana bios in years but one of them talked about how she was lonely, didn't socially have any place to go which is why/how she wound on up on Dodi's father's yacht where the dad then called his son and said something about get here now. What Dodi offered was the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed to. There weren't a lot guys in her social circle who could pull that off and he could (with his father's money).
I don't think she was in love with him, maybe just infatuated (or tolerant) enough to go along for the ride for something to do while she figured out what to do next - which just ended badly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXWVsL41Z8
Starting about 1:46 or so (the departing for the service exit), just watching her body language, I am not overwhelmed at their closeness. Basically, if she has her arm around his waist, you don't see her lean into him. You see him pull/tug on her towards him but there's not a lot of PDA which strikes me as this is real intimacy (especially from just looking at her).
sigh, what do you do for an encore after you have left the BRF?
Sandie said...
Diana did seem to recover from her infatuations with unsuitable men.
_____
When? She died in the midst of seeing a most unsuitable one
In The Diana Chronicles Tina Brown said Diana went to visit the Fayeds in France that summer because she had nowhere else to go and everyone she knew was in the country or out of the country on vacation. Apparently no one else had invited her, they were on vacation from her and all the drama she brought along.
Then Fayed said come on my yacht in the Mediterranean and summoned his son. She took her sons along. Somewhere in there Dodi hired a club for the night for.... Diana, William, Harry and himself. Just them. William found it what we now call cringey...Diana told him to be nice so he and Harry were polite. It has been suggested that this awkward party was to prove to D he had the wallet to provide good times for her. The boys went on to Balmoral and their dad, the paparazzi stayed on....and she came to the end of her vacation, but Fayed was the only way to get back to England. All other transport was booked to the hilt.
My opinion, she sincerely liked Dodi but ultimately would not have married him, although a guy who will spend money on you can be fun. She was still newly single for the first time since age 20 and now a grown woman in charge of her own life (although she was rather scattershot in her approach.) Dodi had a history of drug use which she was against although she is said to have encouraged him not to use. She had just cleaned Prince Charles out the year before -- he had to borrow from the Queen for the divorce settlement. Her friend Rosa Monckton has said Diana told her in a phone call "I need a man in my life now like I need a rash on my face." Maybe she would have married him later....when she got closer to 40...but there were some other possibilities...
attention to proper fitting underwear or shoes. In her eyes she must look great all the time.
Money can’t buy taste, and just because something is ostentatiously expensive doesn’t make it good. But Meg is inconsistent even when it comes to expensive—She will spend $100,000 on a gem encrusted designer maternity tent but then wear pounds of wigs that look like the cheapest QVC knockoff from a ghetto hair salon? Never has so much money been spent to so little pleasing effect. But she’s a style Icon! .....Maybe for the blind.
May I respectfully ask that bloggers please use a specific format when quoting other members - one that allows for clarity and reveals they are indeed quoting and not just replying or addressing another member?
Most of us when quoting to reply will start by doing this:
-Hikari said... (the word "said" being key)
-followed by the quote.
-and then some sort of division line .
-and then we address the person with an @Hikari....
Also, while I think it's important to grab enough of a quote to convey the actual meaning of the original writer, I don't think it necessary to copy and paste the entire prior post.
Thank you from a recently somewhat baffled reader.
๐๐๐
***********
@wullie's Bucket
Yes, I agree these are good though since I use the html tags I don't always use the line, nor do I necessarily address any commenter in particular. But I use @ if I do.
I Second especially not copying the whole post when it is very long, just a sample to show which I might just be reacting to. Or the timestamp, maybe. Sometimes the reactions are so interesting i want to see what it was about! But I do like the long informative posts, keep them coming!
And as you said, Wullie, this is a request and voluntary. It would just be helpful. I know copying can go weird sometimes.
Thanks! ๐๐๐๐ค
Dodi himself, although reportedly very charming, was a layabout who went from party to party and never accomplished anything. He was the executive producer of the movie Chariots of Fire, but that was a role his father bought for him - other people did the actual work. Dodi milked the Hollywood producer title for all he could, though, because it got him unlimited access to starlets like Brooke Shields and his drug of choice, cocaine.
When Diana met him, he was in his forties and still living off a (very generous) allowance from his father. Mohammed thought it would be a real coup for the Fayeds if Dodi married the Princess of Wales, and so he ordered Dodi to drop his fiancee, an American actress, and romance Diana instead. Dodi complied, since his father held the purse strings. It was Mohammed's idea for them to visit Paris; he was thinking of buying the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's home in the Bois-de-Boulogne and hoping that Dodi and Diana would marry and live there. They did visit the home, and Diana hated it.
As for Dr. Hasnat Khan, he insisted on keeping their relationship a secret because he did not want to get involved in the media circus which surrounded Diana. He also refused to marry her for the same reason: he is a very private person and he knew that if he became her husband, the tabloids would write about him endlessly. At one point he suggested they marry and move to Pakistan, where they could live a quiet, private life away from the paparazzi - he continuing his work as a heart surgeon, she as a Pakistani housewife - but that was not the kind of life she wanted.
Althea Bernstein could find herself in additional trouble if her claims are false. Her crowd funder raised almost 10k. A friend set it up for her to raise money for a pet rescue operation.
If she accepted those funds she may be facing fraud charges.
Yet another delicate situation for the police to manage.
The coverup of the Althea Bernstein story by Madison law enforcement is disgraceful but not surprising. Although I believe the police are being given orders from higher-ups—likely the left-wing mayor—the fact that they are deflecting any and all requests for information by the press is simply inexcusable. And what about the FBI?? Supposedly they are involved in the investigation. Have they been silenced as well? If so, by whom?
The fact that Bernstein is exploiting the suppression of information about her “attackers” by the authorities is rubbing salt in the wound. One can only hope that the truth will out one day.
As for the NFL allowing players to display Bernstein’s name on their helmets—pardon me, but WTF??!! I live in Wisconsin and am a Green Bay Packers season ticket holder. But this year I am not watching any NFL games and I’ve taken the team up on their offer to give refunds for this season due to COVID. I won’t spend a dime on merchandise either. Politics has tainted one of the last areas of our national life in the US that until recently was a unifying force—professional sports.
But, there was something about the PoW that renounced a kingdom that I thought I remembered. It is in memoirs of Tommy Lascelle. He had this to say about the Duchess of Wales: Money, and the things that money buys, were the principal desiderata in Mrs Simpson's philosophy. OOooooh, snap. Sounds familiar.
About the Duke of Windsor: Yet no article of this kind designed for publication immediately after the Duke of Windsor's death can ever be wholly satisfactory, for it can't bring out what I regard as the key to his baffling character.
His is one of the saddest instances in all history of 'lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds' - namely, that for some hereditary or physiological reason his normal mental development stopped dead when he reached adolescence.
I don't mean his physical development, for, in body, he might have been a sculptor's model; but his mental, moral and aesthetic development, which, broadly-speaking, remained that of a boy of 17.
Yikes.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled analysis. I'm scarin' myself here (grin).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417388/Prince-Charmless-A-damning-portrait-Edward-VIII.html
"Althea Bernstein could find herself in additional trouble if her claims are false. Her crowd funder raised almost 10k. A friend set it up for her to raise money for a pet rescue operation."
Maybe. While the info on that Go Fund Me page has changed over time, I don't think it ever explicitly tied donations to her attack. In fact, I think there were disclaimers from the start that, to me, looked like a CYA for both the founder & Althea. The other GFM appeals did tie their appeals. Some were obvious scams. One appeared well-meaning but the person starting it seemed to realize something wasn't right pretty quickly and closed it down & returned the donations. So far as I can tell, only one other remains: "Justice for Althea" ($675 contributed)
Early on it looked like AB's claims were false for a variety of reasons & I've not changed my mind. But the way the "Help Althea buy a farm" appeal was set up I'm not sure fraud charges re: the appeal would stick.
Very odd though. What if her story is true & those 4 violent individuals have been at large all these months? No news, no descriptions (other than Althea's-- white "frat boys" in dark clothes or flowered shirts), no video, no real appeal to the public for help, no attempt from law enforcement to keep the public interested in helping find justice for Althea....
This is a very touchy subject, we all know why but it is my opinion that she was in the vicinity where there was protesting/ rioting and was participating and she burned herself accidentally or somehow got burnt accidentally in all the chaos.
Geez. So she isn't in demand. Shocker.
Interesting about Time Mag. He's clearly pulling a netflix and trying to drum up free advertising/press in the papers announcing the televised Time 100 special, using the ever so popular Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
It's not really working. Yeah they are the butt of jokes on the internet, the fly by night popular ex-monarchists (who still uh hold titles and are in the monarchy), but Harry was never famous in the USA, and Meghan is a nobody who has nothing going for her.
Then the negativity their appearance is going to stir up on the DM after their appearance? Yikes. Just wait for that sarcastic article and Time has a problem on their hands.
So, if they are on the 100 list, great they aren't paid for this gig.
But with the announcement and the tweets, it looks to me that they are paid speakers.
So they've proven they can get one billionaire with activist cash to throw their way, as Harry said and hoped.
All around, it looks like a bunch of stupid people self-congratulating, massive egos, doing stupid things.
Will it change anything? No
I've known some teenagers 16+ yrs who I'd call `middle-aged' but this is the first I've encountered one who claims to be this young.
btw, I subscribe to `Happify' - today's email offering is headed `The Humble Person's Guide to Self Promotion'.
Interesting thread about Netflix and money laundering here:
https://twitter.com/codyclarke/status/1306799861438853121?s=21
I thought the part about the $30 million paid for the new movie "Malcom & Marie" was particularly interesting. It stars John David Washington and Zendaya.
As Cody Clarke writes:
"30 MILLION paid for:
- a two person, one location film
- filmmaker's last film was a huge flop, only made 2.9 on a 7 mil budget. hes never been profitable
- would be impossible to release wide—no one would want it even in a good year
- b&w always does poorly
MONEY LAUNDERING AF"
"It can also be noted that Kate Middleton made the Times on her own without being an attachment to a man!"
Huh?
If you are saying Kate made the list as "Kate" and not as "Will plus Kate," that's true. But I can't quite see that her inclusion was for her own accomplishments outside of her role as Will's wife. Here is what TIME said in about her inclusion in 2013.
https://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/kate-middleton/
"Kate Middleton, whose ancestors toiled in the coal mines of Durham, was an ordinary college girl on a path to an unremarkable life. Then she met her Prince Charming, became the Duchess of Cambridge and in two years has emerged as a remarkable figure on the world stage. The future Queen is dignified, dutiful and unflappable, with a modest reluctance to steal the spotlight from her husband, Prince William. As patron of a growing number of charities, she has embraced the royal family’s tradition of public service, whether promoting scouting around a campfire or discussing sustainable fishing with trawler owners. Her elegant wardrobe has enormous popular appeal that has boosted the British fashion industry. In three months, she will take on the role of thoroughly modern mother. After changes to the law of male primogeniture, Kate’s baby, whether a boy or a girl, will be third in line to the throne, setting the seal on the British monarchy for decades to come."
And earlier, Kate and Pippa's 2012 entry (after the royal wedding) read:
"To appreciate the remarkable rise of the siblings whose very name, Middleton, seemed to presage an unremarkable life among their fellow commoners, you must first appreciate the forces that keep most Britons in their place. Snobbery is one luxury all classes feel able to afford. The man and woman in the U.K. street are swift to mock the upwardly mobile. As Prince William whispered sweet nothings to his girlfriend, the press muttered nasty somethings about her supposed ambition to wed above her station. They dubbed her Waitie Katie and bracketed her with Pippa as "the wisteria sisters," determined to climb. Since Kate, 30, successfully scaled the palace walls, Pippa, 28, now globally recognized, especially from behind, has found herself under yet greater pressure. A photo editor at a British paper recently revealed he is offered as many as 400 paparazzi photos of Pippa every day.
Those images matter. The Middletons have become avatars of aspiration. Other women aim to dress like them, to emulate their easy athleticism and their more problematic slenderness.
How do the sisters feel about their influence? They aren't saying. Latter-day Mona Lisas, they smile mysteriously and keep their mouths closed. In an age of bleating, tweeting, confessional celebrity, the middle-class Middletons show real class."
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2111952,00.html
I think TIME is pretty much "doctor/dentist office waiting room" garbage and has been for decades. And as an American woman, the lists and the Person of the Year awards embarrass me when those are assumed to represent American thought. Finally, I don't think those entries about Kate are especially flattering myself (and certainly were not for her joint mention with her sister when discussing Pippa's rear end. But yeah, we got that to some people Pippa's butt was a big deal in 2011.)
Whether or not she was/was not about to become engaged to Dodi is a contested matter. Al Fayed said one thing; others said something different.
@KC
Her friend Rosa Monckton has said Diana told her in a phone call "I need a man in my life now like I need a rash on my face."
------------------
I think it was in Al Fayed's interest to claim Dodi and Diana were going to marry perhaps (and the false assertion that Diana was pregnant) in a bit to feel more accepted by the establishment. The ring Dodi bought her was sometimes described as an engagement ring at the time but it was not. The relationship was far too new for Diana to think of remarrying and what she said to Lady Annabel Goldsmith was "I would need marriagein my life now like a rash on my face." (stated in several UK newspapers).
She [Megsy] will spend $100,000 on a gem encrusted designer maternity tent but then wear pounds of wigs that look like the cheapest QVC knockoff from a ghetto hair salon? Never has so much money been spent to so little pleasing effect. But she’s a style Icon! .....Maybe for the blind.
---------------------
Correction! Not she but Charles, either from private funds or the British taxpayer ๐. Meg's could never have afforded her couture wardrobe. As for "so much money being spent to so little pleasing effect, remember Dolly Parton's words “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap”. Very apt where Meg is concerned.
Time after time
They beg for news space
Deluded and desperate
With much air, and no grace
Making the list for the dodgy one hundred
Is yet one more ploy
For the money hungered mongered
Megsies run for President
Would serve us well
If she’s that hell bent
All the muck from her questionable past
Would be dug up, deep
She’d be gone, quick fast
I kind of hope that she is on the list because I want to read the bio they write about her. We can spot the word salad, elaborate gushing of non-existent achievements, and so on. Will global style icon be there? What about humanitarian? Of course, the royal connection will be mentioned. Champion of the rights of young women (what does that actually mean in practical terms?) surely will make the cut. Will BLM get a mention? Gosh, I was forgetting executive producer!
What will not be in the bio are hustler, grifter, mercher, frequent litigant ... and all of the real stuff that has made her famous. Oh, I am forgetting influencer to a rabid threatening group of stans who raise money for Meghan causes so she does not have to part with her own money.
"TV actress aiming much higher"
Thank you for this gem. Yes, this is undoubtedly Markle.
People in the industry know very well who is worth what. They may be pretending they buy her PR but behind closed doors they exchange knowing jokes.
She may think royalty will open all doors for her but God Bless America, where personal achievements were always number one. Her only huge one is marrying Harry and folk know that.
I’m in no doubt
The Queen has much clout
She chooses to use subtlety
Harry will find out
In a total knockout
The Queen will choose crown, and country
Apologies to John Lennon
Imagine there’s no Megsie
It’s easy if you try
The hell is with us
Humanitarian my eye
Imagine all the people
Living without Megs
Imagine there’s no country
In which Megs can sue
No-one to schill or flog to
All asking, Meghan who?
Imagine all us Nutties
Living life anew
They may say we are dreamers
But were not the only ones
I hope some day the sugars join us
And the world will be as one
Here's a video from Laowhy of the Chinese people widely panning live-action Mulan which was apparently made to bypass the knuckle-dragging American audience and pander to China. As Laowhy points out, Disney, who boycotted the state of Georgia because they banned late-term abortions, must therefore approve of China's forcible abortions of Uighur women, rape of Uighur women, and forced labor (slavery) and torture because it was filmed in the area of their "re-education" camps. Apparently the live-action Mulan is so hated in China that the people are openly questioning where the $200,000,000 for the movie went and whether the movie Mulan is an example of money laundering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOLX2NNLqdc
I'm not a movie professional, but even *I* know that anything made for distribution is going to be pirated and watched *for free* in China and that making a movie expecting to profit there is stupid.
The royal couple the Harkles are most often compared to are the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. But the Tumblr blogger Scorpiotwentythree, who does believe in reincarnation, believes the true connection is with King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. The two of them were even married on Boleyn's death anniversary!
"entrants are recognized for changing the world" -- quoted by @Puds
Can we really tell within a year whether someone has changed the world? Are entrants getting in on credit?
If the 100 entrants were merely the most-talked about people from the past year, then, sure, Prince and Princess Harry are shoo-ins.
That's so good! ๐๐๐
Surely Time is having us on and that is meant to read 'Most Under the Influence'?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I hadn't thought of it that way. You have to be very devious to think of such things.
The Queen has stripped Harvey Weinstein of his CBE.
It read: 'The Queen has directed that the appointment of Harvey Weinstein to be an Honorary Commander of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, dated January 19 2004, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.'
Great... can she now strip the Harkles of their titles too please!
I kind of hope that she is on the list because I want to read the bio they write about her.
If, as @HappyDays has pointed out, Prince and Princess Harry made the Time 100 thanks to Time Magazine's connection to People Magazine, then it will be a puff piece we will all enjoy fisking!
Weren't they so influential that they got fans from all over the world to raise a whopping 130,000 dollars for an African charity? And didn't they single-handedly inspire Barbados to remove the Queen as head of state? (Can the average Time reader find Barbados on a map? Serious question.) And so on . . .
(Not to disparage the fans who contributed to a good cause. They gave what they could out of a sincere desire to honor people they admired and help the needy. But the Harkles' matching donation of 130,000 is small potatoes in the celebrity philanthropy world.)
Excuse me? Extraordinary achievements? Megsy and JH? He's a dimwit whose only "achievement" was being born into the right family; she's a D-list actress who manipulated the dimwit into marrying her. This list is like People magazine's "Sexiest Person" award - meaningless PR fluff.
I can remember a time (a few decades ago) when Time was actually a well-respected, serious and influential news magazine. Obviously those days are long gone. BTW, I also remember the days when fashion magazines were about fashion, instead of the bibles of wokeness they are today. I've always bought the September issues of Vogue, Harper's Bazaar and InStyle, and i did so this year - but they're just page after page after page of articles by or about "activists" (mostly actresses and models) telling us readers how serious they are about the causes of the day. After leafing through the magazines, I have no idea what the fashions trends are this fall. I wonder whether their regular readers love this direction the magazines are taking, or whether they're just as exasperated as I am.
Netflix is on to you
When you don't produce
They will reduce
Your payment down to one sou (old Canadian penny coin)
Netflix is on to you
When you don't produce
They will reduce
Your payment down to one sou (old Canadian penny coin)
RE: Kate Middleton "How do the sisters feel about their influence? They aren't saying. Latter-day Mona Lisas, they smile mysteriously and keep their mouths closed. In an age of bleating, tweeting, confessional celebrity, the middle-class Middletons show real class."
_________________
I agree with that statement however I prefer this angle on the Duchess of Cambridge, future Queen Consort:
https://www.vogue.com/article/how-kate-middleton-defined-herself-in-2020
Vogue may well be Kate's comeuppance since La Markle seemed to own Vogue at one time (or at least in her sad little mind) in spite of their once negative view of DoC.
One of the things I so admire about TQ is her steadfast ability to keep a dignified silence. Kate has learned well in Her Maj's tutorage. It's one of those traits that shows deep character and respect. The opposite, (Megsy Baby) is wearisome and just plain vulgar, indicating a low class mentality.
Vive la difference!
Re. Time 100
https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/1306437192344981504
"Harry & Meghan"--no Duke and Duchess of Sussex
I guess that's something at least. They've been demoted, even if we still have to look at their smug faces.
Between that and cuties and guy who was arrested for producing child porn couple days ago from show "Cheer" (no idea who he is I do not have Metflix) it does appear , at the very least, the entire operation will be investigated. I do hope so