"We have got to all put our stock in something that is true and we need to have reliable media and news sources that are telling us the truth," the Duchess of Sussex told Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit in a video message on Tuesday.
If award shows still meant anything, that statement might win Meg a Best Irony award.
Fortune is no longer "Fortune Magazine"
First of all, Fortune is no longer the glossy Fortune Magazine that once lay on every CEO's mahogany desk.
It was purchased by the Iowa-based Meredith Corporation in 2017 as part of its takeover of Time, Inc. Meredith is best known as the publisher of Better Homes and Gardens, and it quickly went about selling off most of the Time Inc. magazine titles piece by piece to the highest bidder.
Fortune went to Thai billionaire Chatchaval Jiaravanon, head of the Chaoren Pokphand Group, a conglomerate with pharma, agriculture, and telecommunications interests.
The $150 million price was cheap for an established brand name. And the main asset was not Fortune Magazine's collapsing circulation and declining ad buys, but the Fortune 500 list of America's largest corporations.
Visit Fortune Magazine's website now and you'll find a sad little set of stories written by journalists who appear to be no-hopers. The stories have a strong pro-China and pro-Biden slant, which perhaps reflects the opinions of its Thai owner.
Meg wants flattering stories
Secondly, if anyone isn't interested in "reliable media and news sources that are telling us the truth" it is Meghan, who has lied to the media more times than most people can count, as well as lying to her own family, the Royal Family, to her past employers (I'm such a fraud!), past friends, past partners...the list goes on, and may or may not soon include the British judiciary if she is called to testify in person.
Meg wants media willing to tell flattering stories about her, and if necessary paid to tell flattering stories about her. Telling the truth isn't really a top parameter.
"It's about being authentic," Meg tells the interviewer from fake Fortune Magazine as part of a "summit" at which her PR people quite possibly have paid for her to be featured.
The (very light-skinned) interviewer, who writes "a newsletter on race", notes that Meg is one of many women who have had "a sitting president come after you, mobs come after you, powerful forces, try to take you down, try to disparage your message."
(What the hell is Meghan's message?)
A purpose-driven life, lived with authenticity
Anyway, Meghan responds: "If you don't notice all the noise out there, and just focus on living a purpose-driven life....the moment you are liberated from all these other opinions by what you know to be true...then I think it is very easy to live with authenticity."
Is this the person suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing a letter from her father, suggesting that it chose excerpts that put her in a bad light?
Is this the person suing a paparazzi agency for taking photos she clearly set up herself?
Is this the person who pays for bots to praise her?
A purpose-driven life, liberated from other opinions. Authentic. True.
That's worth the 2020 Best Irony award.
Comments
What really gets me is Rache saying she is not controversial. Is that her way of saying I am getting tired of paying to get positive media coverage and expect everyone to do it for free or pay me. Plus, everyone doing coverage of me is doing it wrong. It felt that way to me.
I'm not sure if Rache doesn't get it or she's frustrated she cannot turn it around so she is addressing it directly. She had her chance to get more whip-smart. The BRF could have given her great lessons on how not to be controversial. While not perfect, they've got a great lesson plan. If she needs an American icon, there is Dolly Parton.
You can’t quite believe that some parts of the press have reached a new low point when it features articles about people of no particular importance or merit etc. Does real journalism exists much these days? Where’s all the digging and research for evidence and proof to back-up a story? There appears to be no shortage of stories lacking truth and credibility these days.
So you have to laugh hard at Megsy’s candour or lack of when she utters total nonsense like printed in the Fortune magazine article.
It's impossible for me to address each one, but I must say there were a lot of great comments and it was a great diversion reading them. Thanks Nutties :)
All of the comments about Meg's desperate quest to get publicity remind me of the late comedienne, Joan Rivers. I wasn't a big fan of hers, although she could be quite funny. In her last years she was reduced to appearances on Donald Trump's reality show, The Apprentice. I remember reading a lengthy story somewhere about Joan being forced, through her agent, to pony up some $$$ for some sort of merching deal involving some product line of Ivanka's in order to stay on the show. At the time it was considered a bit of a scandal when it got out because it showed how phony the reality shows were. Perhaps the antipathy between Megs & Trump is related to their recognition of how they both operate. Trump is a loose canon, but I don't think he's delusional. He knows when he's blowing hot air, & he doesn't care if he's called on it, because contrary to what the liberal media thinks, he has very thick skin. Megs doesn't. She's thin-skinned & petty. She also seems to have trouble with reality, which is what stymies her.
Just want to again thank Nutty for providing this fun blog, (&Charade, for cleaning up messes.)
I think she figured some of this stuff including Mexgit pre-Covid, Netflix, the Court Case Going in her Favor, 'Running for President', and women's gigs would naturally spur greater nonstop interest in her thus eliminating her need to pay for spin and placements, and invites.
No one cares about Meghan and it must be hurting her pocketbook.
I do not think it helped at all to act so smug in the Fortune interview. For someone who doesn't care, Nutty pointed out, she sues everyone. Spending that much cash, is a sign of someone who does, in fact, care. So we have smug, and lying to pander to the audience and project an image that she is untouchable.
Untouchable is not authentic.
She needs media training, yesterday, and maybe a brand manager.
She should note that no one can cover her easily, because she also has demanded privacy. The only coverage she gets is the-adjacent to Harry (which must wind her up to no end).
As well as, from the looks of it she is at home all the time spending time with 'the little one'.
Doing my best Megs impression:
You can only spin so much, and spend so much until not much is there, and not much is left.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a6c5801eb5049096c9c57e0df775f735f9fc913859fdb27c97a41bc7b6189da.png
Not sure it's true - photo's of H&M on it to wipe his........... read end?
There are going to be great theories on this and I look forward to reading them. Off the top of my head, my theory of M’s marriage with the media encompassing pulling together a lot of threads and bits we have discussed.
One, she was born a narcissist and this was nurtured to an extreme degree.
Two, she was also a bossy mean girl, even as a child.
Three, she learned to lie and connive and win, writing complaint letters to companies for free candy, and being a fawning suck-up to teachers who then passed her world salad school essays with high marks, and overlooked the bullying. So she never had to develop her ethical code or skills past “I win via lazy work, babbling and lying” ....
Four, her emotional development halted in high school in tandem with the advent of her cosmetic surgeries and popularity so she is stunted and stuck in the 90s with its style, spoiled-kid fast talk, and her sly, unchecked mean girl’s viewpoint — all through her life, she just has had to keep fooling the nuns, basically.
Five, her apparent lack of normal human scruples or character and her love of money and stunted ruthlessness strikes us as damage, but I think it would strike certain groups as the perfect profile of someone they could hire to use. Her Forrest Gump-like ability to pop up everywhere and climb from angry awkward middle class school kid to Duchess with little charm, no talent, no money, no organic connections, only basic attractiveness, lots of rage, basic IQ, no original thoughts, and wafting waves of insincerity, is what I would call unusual achievement, if she did it on her own. So I doubt she did it on her own (Markus).
Flash forward to today, a time when “the truth” is somewhat garbled anyway in endless sources of media, and people are distracted, trying to survive the minefield of a worldwide pandemic, and political and social division.
Serious backers with goals who are handed a shameless agent of chaos like her (recruited via a certain group?) could easily keep paying some media to portray this damaged woman as an upside-down world heroine, because we are halfway in an upside down world.
Nothing she says has to make sense, and the media won’t care about the lies, contradictions, or gibberish: maybe you are just supposed to get used to her voice and the rhythm and key words of the gibberish and select cheap quotes. You are to accept that her baby is invisible, she was allowed to treat the queen like dirt and still get millions, she doesn’t work and has a mansion, she dictates books and leaks but says others did it. She should get to have what she wants. She is magical. You are to accept it all.
The magazines and moderators get paid. With media struggling today and everyone eager to grab the cash to survive, I think it is dangerous to assume that they will all have more ethics than M or her backers. She is a walking lesson in what greed looks; it can exist in media too.
Her gibberish in these $13,500 pay-to-say Women in Power Forums may be a double game, actually. From her damaged narcissist perspective, she will believe she said something amazing about herself, and it is true. They probably assure her it is. They just need her out there singing like a woke Britney Spears. She may think she is actually their chosen future world leader, hence the attitude.
Her backers probably approved the words for a reason, to suggest not paying attention to anything except what she (they) thinks or says. In other words, look away. She is truth. Follow her. All else is not authentic. Etc. We will probably hear the words again.
The interviewer for Fortune may think she is part of the sweep forward too, and will never say anything to jeopardize this.
M will likely mess up though. No way is she formed to work long on behalf of any cause bigger than what she sees in her mirror. Truth truth truth until she goes rogue,
This may sound crazy, maybe it is. Remember, though, it seems all of us together have connected more dots than many journalists. Why so many dots with just a bad actress?
Newsweek has an interesting article, quoting experts who say that MM should drop the lawsuit or risk major humiliation:
https://www.newsweek.com/experts-tell-meghan-markle-get-out-now-after-blow-tabloid-privacy-case-1535248
CDAN has an item saying that MM's purpose in making a documentary about herself and JH (AKA a reality show) is to rehabilitate her reputation and present herself as a victim. I'll bet it will backfire spectacularly, just like FF.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a6c5801eb5049096c9c57e0df775f735f9fc913859fdb27c97a41bc7b6189da.png
Not sure it's true - photo's of H&M on it to wipe his........... read end?
ROFL. I do remember seeing that the RF exchange gag gifts at Christmas. Perhaps that was one of them. Probably fiction, though. PW is probably saying "Now, why didn't I think of that?"
Megs,(&certainly Harry, as well) is too incompetent to even be a 'useful idiot.' She's proven herself to be inept at anything except briefly capitalizing on the fame & mystique of the BRF. I'm not sure how she snagged Harry, (& he doesn't seem to be much of a prize), but I don't think her story is much more than a variation on the Paris Hilton & Kardashian sagas, with a bit of weird, preachy politicking thrown in.
Megs just doesn't have the business chops that PH & the Ks do.
I don't really think she's much of a threat, or even very interesting. I'm more concerned about the possible deceptions the BRF has involved itself in. That's more worrying, & could eventually do more harm. I think the RF needs to extricate itself from this mess as quickly & cleanly as possible. Andrew not appearing at the Remembrance Day ceremony is a pretty big deal, the guy couldn't even be in his own daughter's wedding photos. He's been painted out pretty ruthlessly. I see Charles' hand in this, as he's always had issues with Andrew, but he's been spineless with Harry.
https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/the-mysterious-case-of-althea-bernstein/
All the high spend choices, with little visible income? Numerous shady enterprises, swooping right and left?
Sure, narcissism, idiocy, bank of dad, draining Harry’s wallet, a tired aging monarch. But....why her, why this mediocre mind?
So I decided to try thinking about it from a different angle, especially after this elevation to Women of Power.
Try this: we have seen how easy it is to topple or cancel freedoms, religions and statues, genders and cities, people and speech.
If you were someone who wanted to sweep things your way for whatever reason, you can find a way to disparage and trounce and bring down anything. We are watching it happen. I spent a lot of time in Germany and Italy over the years and heard many stories from old people who were there just how easily groups can bring down something familiar to create a gap, a chaos, an opportunity they need.
You mention Andrew. You can sweep a lot of people away via Epstein’s lengthy list, but so far only he has gone down. Maybe more to come, we hope. Why so BRF-centric? He has been buried now, yet the family continues on.
But how do you sweep away a little pastel-clad great grandma who has lived in people’s hearts around the globe for decades, and stands as the last real reminder of or link to many beloved things. How often have you heard people say, I don’t care for idea idea of a monarchy but I do like the Queen.”
How do you knock down the last old beloved building preventing you from building something new? How do you make sure even the little pastel, peaches and cream granny and her handbags go, even if the shame of Epstein and Andrew fails?
Enter: Meghan. A one-woman ruthless wrecking crew who thinks nothing of the U.K., just the cash. She creates the perfect hostage situation with Harry, and as the royals dither about whether or not to shoot, essentially, she steps up the behavior, and soon calls for a Republic increase. More and more word salad, and the baby Trojan Horse retreats into the mists of memory, because it was about a bigger prize: topple the heart-deep religion of loving the Queen, corgis, castles.
It may now be up to the man who scarfed her.
Again just another theory!
The sheer hypocrisy is gobsmacking. Worse, she just keeps running off at the mouth telling us the sky is neon purple, every day and all the time ... and no one anywhere can seem to shut her up or hold her accountable in any way.
He didn't last long--his wife had a recurrence of leukemia and had to get both hips replaced, and he got Epstein-Barr syndrome, probably from the stress.
Some comments all around (thank you posters and Nutty for this chance to bat ideas back and forth.
riff on the idea of getting tired of paying for someone to write about how wonderful she is about something.
I was thinking about the push back in March(?) where they said they would welcome press and then put limitations on them. I think there might be something there as they were expecting (? maybe? shakes head) that people would fight to get access or that some hungry writer would bite and chew/swallow their hook in hopes it gets them higher/etc and moving in the direction of where they really want: a Pulitzer.
Megxit was not expected to put any sort of a crimp on their plans/idea - even well before covid threw a spanner in everyone on the planet's life ... (and I'm still going back and forth if they are grateful or not grateful HM put in a year review clause).
Maybe the real reason her message is unclear at this point is that she may not know anymore? Nothing has gone as planned. (I don't think there were any plans after A (ie, not B, C, D or so on). At this point, she's kind of chasing falling stars at night and hoping something will click.
MM knows that. She has zero self awareness for sure but notice how she keeps babbling about anything she lacks. She talks about the importance of the truth when she’s a pathological liar. She emphasizes the importance of charity when she’s never been deeply tied to any specific cause or charitable organization. She keeps going on and on about feminism when she’s been using men her whole life. She criticizes white privilege while married to a British prince. She talks about equality while clinging onto her title. She keeps patronizing others about climate change while hopping around in private jets. She keeps telling the world to be kind and she’s the typical mean girl.
I can go on and on but we all here get the picture. There’s a French saying : l’attaque est la meilleure défense.
Attack is the best defense. She knows what her weaknesses are and, instead of laying low or stirring away from those sensitive issues, she goes right in! This way she believes she has the upper hand and she controls the narrative.
And of course she cares about EVERY SINGLE OPINION out there! But what I find disturbing is her determination “to change people’s minds”. This reeks of pathological behavior.
https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/meghan-and-harry-montecito-2/
The pair purchased the property from a controversial Russian oligarch named Sergey “Scarface” Grishin, who admitted to stealing $60 billion from Russian banks as the Soviet Union was collapsing. Grishin went to great lengths to keep the deal quiet—even ordering an underling to get a real estate license so she could broker the transaction without involving nosy real estate agents.
While the recovering royals have not yet ventured out to local hot spots, they were recently observed pedaling around Montecito with a few minders. Mineards expects they will eventually turn up at VIP haunts like Lucky’s and Pierre Lafond—a French restaurant favored by Prince Andrew’s daughter Beatrice—and the Santa Barbara Polo Club, where Mineard’s friend Nacho Figueras, the Argentinian polo player, holds court. In the long run, he thinks Montecito will be a better fit for the pair than L.A. “It’s a wealthy enclave, international and very small. Nobody cares who you are. There are tons of famous people here and nobody gives them a second look!”
Re: Joan Rivers
I watched the season of The Apprentice that you referenced and found Joan Rivers fascinating in it. She was a complete witch on wheels at one point -- but most people still loved her and wanted her to win! After that, I started watching old clips of her on YouTube, from her earliest standup routines to interviews through the decades. (Having learned more about her career, I wouldn't say she was "reduced" to being part of Donald Trump's cast; it actually seems like something right up her alley!) I'm not at all a fan of her comedy, but I know exactly what Camille Paglia meant when she wrote: "For every hundred people whom Joan Rivers offended and repelled, there are a thousand others who will always adore and respect her."
And this may seem funny to say of someone who had so much plastic surgery and dressed so outlandishly, but I believe Rivers was able to win those thousands of people over because she was authentic.
(I wanted to write "lived with authenticity," to bring us full circle to Meghan's latest appearance, but just typing out that bit of word salad was too much for me. Princess Harry is actually quite clumsy with words.)
Anyway, Meghan wishes she could be as adored and respected as Rivers was.
Maybe the real reason her message is unclear at this point is that she may not know anymore?
I do see your point. She does try whatever seems trendy and hopes it takes off. But I also think her message was never anything more than: "I am an amazing woman. You all should love me. Now here are some big words for you to hang on."
Perhaps the one thing she has stuck to over the years was "feminism" -- but only because it worked. That is, even as a child, she was already throwing everything she could at the wall of fame, and it was that letter to the dish soap people that stuck. And by sticking, I meant it got her her first TV appearance and the chance to boast of "the magnitude of her own actions" years later at the UN. Had she been featured on TV for getting a landfill closed, she'd probably still be all about the environment today.
I don't think they're respected any more, and I don't think they've been taken in. I believe they've been paid to feature her.
@Nutty: Thank you for this new thread. I agree with you that Meghan is getting these gigs because events are being paid by the Harry Walker Agency or Sunshine Sachs to get Meghan added to the list of speakers as a “special last-minute addition” to the events. These events have probably been planned for months, and it’s not as if the organizers of these events aren’t aware that Meghan has been living in North America basically for nearly a year now. If they thought she was an interesting speaker who brings a special element to their event, they would have contacted her months ago.
I think her teams are trying to, as fishermen say “chum the waters” to attract big customers by paying to place her in these events, hoping organizers of future events for other companies and organizations will want to hire her as a speaker.
Meghan’s problem is she is the anthesis of authentic and she spends most of her time whining as she portrays herself as the ultimate victim.
That’s a hard sell when she lives in a mansion, has a royal title, a monthly budget that likely exceeds what most people in the US and the rest of the planet make in a year, decades, or their entire lifetime.
I just don’t think she connects with people very well because she’s such an obvious fraud.
Even other uber liberals seem to be avoiding any public embrace or support of her on a notable scale, perhaps the bad reputation she had with many people who actually worked with her has not done her any favors. There’s nothing stopping Hollywood movers snd dhakers from using social media to welcome and support her during the pandemic but it’s been mostly crickets. Katherine McPhee may be friendly with Meghan, but these two appear to be cut from the same cloth and are both looking to use each other more than anything else.
Meghan’s jumping onto the latest social justice cause of the week may also damaging her.
The other problem Meghan has, (and Harry too) is they want to charge fees that many people can’t or are unwilling to pay for a speaker who has no particular usable expertise and as I mentioned earlier, they both whine too much.
I did this simple search --- authenticity "meghan markle" ---- and got many results
__________________
"And the moment you are able to be liberated from all these other opinions of what you know to be true, then I think it’s just very easy to just live with peace and live with authenticity,' she said. 'And that is how I choose to move through the world.'"
The words are at odds with Meghan and Prince Harry's ongoing war against the media, which has seen the Duchess of Sussex repeatedly decry the 'toxicity' that she believes the couple has faced.
"There’s nothing stopping Hollywood movers and shakers from using social media to welcome and support her during the pandemic but it’s been mostly crickets. Katherine McPhee may be friendly with Meghan, but these two appear to be cut from the same cloth and are both looking to use each other more than anything else."
Agree. And I don't believe McPhee was even a close enough friend in 2018 to rate an invite to the wedding.
@flore said
"Sadly, investigative journalism has become scarce and once respectable publications have become filled with puff PR pieces."
This has been one of the most upsetting developments over the last few years, in my opinion - that once trustworthy (or somewhat trustworthy) names in journalism have thrown objectivity out the window in a bid to "get Trump", support racial equity, etc.
Even the Associated Press, which was once reliable as just-the-facts-ma'am basic journalism, has become highly opinionated.
The next generation of journalists coming up is unlikely to fix this. I saw that all of the students on NYU's student newspaper quit last week because their adviser (among other crimes) wouldn't let them call Brionna Taylor's death a "murder" in the news columns, instead suggesting they write an opinion piece from that point of view. Taylor's death was gruesome, of course, but it was not legally declared a murder, and in that sense the advisor was correct, at least under traditional journalistic principles.
One of my favorite commenters at the moment is Sean Ono Lennon, the 45-year-old son of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, who has a thriving Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/seanonolennon/status/1310407311786205189?s=20
Sean wrote the other day: "So hard to do your own research online these days. You can find equally legitimate sources claiming the exact opposite about historic and current events, politicians, statistics, and even science. How are we supposed to feel anything but dazed? I miss Encyclopedia Brittanica."
My SIL's older brother got to no. 3 at Fortune about 30 years ago. It was center-left-conventional-Wall Street-wisdom then. Forbes was more free-market-conservative.
That's true - I had forgotten about Forbes. I believe Steve Forbes even ran for President.
The Forbes brand is a real mess these days. They'll let just about anybody write for it, so when I see someone referencing a Forbes article to prove a point, I cringe. Zero credibility.
Here in post-Megxit 2020, that is.
@nutty, I think you might enjoy this about Althea Bernstein
https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/2020/08/01/the-mysterious-case-of-althea-bernstein/
I did enjoy this! Interesting, the role of her mother, taking the misleading photos. I wonder if her mother is an activist.
I assumed the whole thing was going to be allowed to fade away, so I'm surprised that there was a demonstration supporting Althea in early September.
Who has come out and publicly supported Meghan, and for that matter, Harry?
Here in post-Megxit 2020, that is.
Other than Gloria Steinem?
I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, in part because Meg has so few favors to trade at the moment.
Having said that, I too have read that her participation in seminars, etc. were all because she or her PR reached out asking for the opportunities. No one is beating down her door to be associated with her.
As for the Netflix deal, time will tell. Because of "Cuties" and Netflix's meaningless non-response to sexualizing prepubescent girls, I cancelled my subscription. I won't knowingly pay for that type of material, nor any production made by the Obamas or the Harkles; not to mention that I don't support Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor to Obama, having a seat on the Netflix Board of Directors. Those machiavellian deals Netflix made aren't about genuine entertainment or education.
Truth is always important, and because she doesn't recognize reality or truth, she'll continue whispering into Harry's ear and dragging him along with her for as long as he's useful.
Today:
Prince Philip 'very disappointed' by Meghan's failure to support monarchy
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12369515
and from 22nd September -
Harry and Meghan lookalikes reveal Megxit has made it hard to find work
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12367392 (22nd September - not much demand for lookalikes)
I recall that the many Diana lookalikes suddenly found themselves without work.
Busy day for me today - I'll be back later.
Thank you for the post. I was wondering about the recent decline in the Times and the odd angle it now takes. You have answered why.
Unfortunately Meghan reflects the sad state of the things in modern PR. In the past the fact somebody paid for a positive cover would have been a career killer.
Now it is simply a matter of who has more money for PR wins.
She is a froth on top of the ugly brew.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/10/01/mm-and-the-shambolic-fortune-word-salad/
Duke and Duchess gave an interview on race at start of Black History Month
Harry said views 'may seem controversial' as they spoke from £11m US mansion
Last week they were criticised for controversially weighing in on US election
By RORY TINGLE FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 07:12 EDT, 1 October 2020
^^^^^These goofballs are daring the Queen to strip their titles. Hapless is an equal participant.
Wow. Just Wow. This new HM is absolutely fantastic!
If we had only one written source to inform us on the debacle, this latest piece would fill in all the blanks. All the highlights without the filler fluff. Just down to the bone analysis.
A great piece of expose commentary!
Thanks for letting us know her newest is up. I totally enjoyed it!
She and her Ma must be pretty dim not to have realised that people would notice:
a) that the `injuries on one side of her face were a mirror image of those on the other.
b) that having a Jewish father doesn’t make one Jewish. Having a Jewish mother is different. Unless she had her surname on one of these windscreen sun-strips so popular in the 1970, how could anyone know?
I doubt if Rache realised this either.
On the subject of not being very bright, I do wonder about her intellectual capacity, as well as that of Harry. I suspect she has a very limited vocabulary, mainly of buzzwords.
Her monstrous ego keeps them bouncing around in that empty space between her ears, only for them to emerge from her mouth in no particular order.
I ‘m sure my 15-16yr old students who took part in the Grosvenor Square Riot of 1968 could out-think her, even when they crawled into class the next morning.
How did she ever get a degree?
Has she any cognitive reserve?
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/dementia-cause-risk-personality-moody-113359209.html
I thought it was a really good read as well.
Couldn't get my head round MMs word salad, took me 3 attempts and I still have no idea what she meant.
The latest 'anti racism' video, looks like Harry has had botox to his forehead. Yuk.
Thanks also to you for turning me on to Sean Ono Lennon's twitter. I'm digging it!
I adore Julian Lennon. He's so much like his mom Cynthia. Just beautiful inside and out. Sean has a wee touch of his dad's snark...he he.. which as we all know inspires my shadow self ;)
George, in his Eastern spiritual phase, is and will always be my favorite Beatle. His son Dani is his 'mini me'.
IRL, I'm more like George (believe it or don't as my ol man used to say), thus the shadow self...
I enjoy your blog. Keep up the important work!
thought it was a really good read as well.
Couldn't get my head round MMs word salad, took me 3 attempts and I still have no idea what she meant.
_______
Lol...same here. If there ever was a university that offered a course on analysis of the Duchess of Puke, students would come to a concensus: "Ya, she's full of shit".
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8793931/Prince-Harry-reveals-awakening-issues-faced-black-people.html#comments
Harry seems confident when talking but then resorts to looking uncomfortable whilst Meg talks. (lots of fidgeting and swallowing)
Meghan just stares at H with her love struck puppy eyes when it's H's turn to pontificate.
The best part for me was when the dog jumped up onto the sofa and no matter how hard Meg tried to restrain him... he fought to get nearer to H.
Meg... even your own dog wants to get away from you!
She is spoonfeeding problems from a US perspective where the race issue is far far different to any we might have here. Yes there is institutional racism in some quarters such as the police but even they have done much to counter this in recent years, especially after the MacPherson report following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Just because Harry is thick how dare he paint us all with the same brush!
She didn't have a clue about UK culture and society and didn't want to learn. Her ridiculous display at their last appearance when, making sure the camera was on her, she rushed to hug young black people at the commonwealth thing and then at the royal marines thing (sorry, typing qiuckly in a temper!) just exposed her as a glory hunter of the worst sort.
She's using him to exercise her spiteful revenge on the UK because we saw through her BS.
We have the largest number of mixed race marriages in Europe and are far ahead of the US when it comes to legal redress for race discrimination.
As for his moronic comment about black dolls, he clearly never goes into the shops. We have had black dolls for 40 years!
She's making him look like a fool. Probably her intention.
If he were to embrace the authenticity of which Megz speaks and admit that "I too used to be an unreconstructed racist who called others P***s and Towelheads...", I might sit up and take notice.
Just when we thought Christmas as going to be ghastly, it's got a whole lot worse.
I was going to ask if she's aiming at the the `Windrush' generation as a useful constituency, then Husband mentioned see a report that they hope to be back here for Christmas. Presumably she wants to ruin the RF's Christmas before going on to the High Court.
Coronavirus however may have scotched the traditional RF festivities and they'd have to spend time in quarantine when they arrive.
We don't need them. IMO They are dangerous and a threat to the peace and stability of the nation.
We were right to dub her Miss Goebbels -
From https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Propaganda/goebbels.html -
Hitler's Basic Principles
These principles are abstracted from Jowett & O'Donnell.
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.
Give only one side of the argument.
Continuously criticize your opponents.
Pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
It looks as if part of her `constructed Self' came from the building supplies firm of Messrs AH & JG, Inc.
She is spoonfeeding problems from a US perspective where the race issue is far far different to any we might have here. Yes there is institutional racism in some quarters such as the police but even they have done much to counter this in recent years, especially after the MacPherson report following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Just because Harry is thick how dare he paint us all with the same brush!
______
So true and I apologize that Thing Harry Married is from the USA. A good majority of yanks (I use this word with affection not as an insult, due to my British friends) are horrified too at how she did your country, heritage, traditions mighty dirty. AND HOW NUMBNUTS SUPPORTS HER!
One long time friend, who is British, lives in London. We can't even talk about it because she's far to the left and sympathizes with them. I ask her if it offends her how they have crapped all over her country. She says "changes are needed". I get furious but to preserve the friendship, I eat it and stay mum.
I agree 100% that GB is doing far better with progress in race relations as my backwards country. Both countries have a history of oppression but it seems like America/USA at an impasse on how to move on and get some real solutions going. GB is doing much, much better.
My opinion is America is currently in a civil war. Meghan knows this and uses her platform to agitate and instigate against everything her husband represents. This is why I cannot get my arms around why BP has not shut them down...
I also believe in Karma. What goes around comes around, reap what you sow etc. etc. etc. Institutions of many forms are reaping what they have sown and from my perspective, America was built on genocide. So there ya go. I will leave it there. I am not singling out any particular institution, just stating in general.
Cheers :)
Right off the top, they call the U.K. a “country”. As in “how the U.K. can be made a better country.” The U.K. is a union of four countries. At least that is what thecommonwealth.org thinks.
How did America’s newest celeb power couple note America’s BHM in February? Oh, they didn’t. The ES fails to mention anything about their lack of observation of American BHM. (The commenters on LSA even did a casual daily watch to see if M would ever pop up with any platitudes about BHM in February. She didn’t.)
One of their new awards for their U.K.-directed BHM NextGen Trailbkazers goes to her Vogue accomplice Edward Enninful (aka a close friend of her close friend Markus) of course. Quid pro quo. No awards for people in medicine or science or tech? Just arts and sports again? Their spoon is a shallow one, it appears. Sitting on a sofa five minutes a week tossing out awards and platitudes under their 90s $350 art pieces from Furniture Boredom Barn. Depth!
JH (he’s “sixth in line to the throne” the article reminds us a heartbeat after saying they stepped down and quit Britain, because we must keep having it both ways, in this long con game) continues to mouth her words, even to the bit about dolls, yet another twist on her old story of her dad buying two sets of family dolls to create a mixed race family of dolls reflecting M’s childhood family. We see a dog, not Archie of course. So I will assume the “little one” referred to must indeed be the dog,
(Not a single question about why they fled the U.K. in disgust and tears p, throwing flames of rage and threats, yet keep obsessively tampering in U.K. business from their white Montecito sofa while drooling about kindness. Someone wipe down that white fabric!)
My friend’s niece started journalism studies four years ago at a university noted for the quality and success of its journalism scholars. The young woman decided to leave field of study, along with a dozen fellow students, after the professor told them journalism was more important than medicine or science (“people will die everyday but it takes an advanced mind to write about the process in a fresh way”) and then, after they were taught their role was to “meld and harvest” the basic facts of a story to “align with” the “stance” of their publication “and its partners” to “create an account that educates the mind view of the readers, in keeping with interests of the publication.” After working with what that meant for awhile, she switched her area of study to architecture. She is now a bit jaded about the media in general.
.
Russian monarchy looked absolutely unshakable and it collapsed under the combination of economic weight, incompetence and failure to hear the voice of the people.
We don't need them. IMO They are dangerous and a threat to the peace and stability of the nation.
______
P.s.
Yes! I have stated several times on this blog I believe them to be treasonous. And I do. Nothing short of what Julius and Ethel Rosenberg allegedly were tried for and sent to the chair. For handing nuclear secrets over to the Russians during the Cold War. EXCEPT, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are blowing up GB and America with agitation and rhetoric- which we know is as powerful as Semtex these days.
Nothing short of treason. I am non violent so removing the titles IMMEDIATLY would suffice...
Russian monarchy looked absolutely unshakable and it collapsed under the combination of economic weight, incompetence and failure to hear the voice of the people.
______
Yup!!
The last Tsar was a weak man much like Harry and his wife. The Tsarina Alexandra was a coo coo bird who hung out with the likes of the putrid Mad Monk Rasputin.
Tsar Nicolas had his head in the sand and lost the Romanov Empire. The BRF needs to take a look into cousin Nicky's playbook and go in the opposite direction, I'm afraid.
Thank God for William and Kate. We shall see what they do about this mess.
@Puds, NeutralObserver. I have no idea who her backers (my tin hat theory yesterday) could be. Politics, finance, US, EU, Chinese, global, who knows. A friend’s ex, with whom she shares a daughter, went from basic millionaire British Indian hedge finder to billionaire working with a Russian partner in under four years, and she tells me she is uncomfortable with what she hears.
Just a few years ago, three friends in Germany, all nice nerdy scientists of the Big Bang ilk basically, asked me to do a weird favor for them, saying it would be a fun adventure. They had to go inspect a foundation and submit their opinion on whether or not the foundation, in the green sector, should get its annual millions in funding. Would I join them and two others, and pose as a sort of dumb friendly personal assistant? And just be an extra set of eyes no one would pay attention to? Because something smelled off about the place in all their calls? Free trip to a lovely German city! I had time so said yes.
I got some silly fun clothes at Zara, and off we went. While they got the heavy welcome presentation and tour if the ultra modern brand new institute, I excused myself to find the WC but wandered. I noticed all the women working there in the “struggling” ultra chic institute wore very expensive current season to season ahead designer clothes and very high end shoes. I walked around three rows of students diligently working and consulting with each other and I noted all the computer screens of the brand new Apple desktop stations, about 30 of them, were blank, not plugged in, not functioning, but every single student or worker was pretending to work and point things out to each other. I walked out to a smoking spot and waited, and soon giggled my way into getting five students to take me to lunch at a pub. I bought lots of beer for our table. I learned a lot from them. I turned I my report and the institute lost all its funding. The three scientist friends then told me a little more about why they had their doubts, particularly after having been taken to a lavish dinner at a seminar by a very famous world billionaire we all know who offered them money to work on something with some other scientists at the dinner. My friends were so unnerved, they refused the very generous project funding.
So, at this point in my life, my senses simply say something may be amiss with MM and JH and who they know and what is up, because things do happen and there are weird things out there. Again, maybe she is just the world’s best Z-list, C-student grifter. Tin hat off.
An excerpt.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-loses-court-battle-finding-freedom-mail-on-sunday-151225190.html
It’s already the case that the duchess, who now lives in the U.S. and is likely to join the case via video link, will have to hand over months’ worth of communications, including texts, emails and call logs. Boy, the Duck-A$$ must be sweating over this. Shall we bet on Meg facing charges of not only perjury but evidence tampering anytime soon?
Justin Rushbrooke, representing Meghan, immediately asked for permission to appeal but it was denied. However, her lawyers could take an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
He said the “inherent improbability” of Meghan co-operating with the book could be seen by “simply comparing what the defendant’s own articles said with what the book said about the letter.” What? Like 'the book', being written AFTER the Mail article couldn't have been revised to be more favorable to Meg? How droll. What is 'inherently improbable', Mr Rushbrooke, is that your client is being truthful with you. She certainly is not being truthful with anyone else. As a defense counsel, it is in Mr Rushbrooke's interest to insist for the record that he is not defending a liar. Because if he is knowingly allowing untruths to be perpetuated in court, he might be struck off.
Last week, in written statements to court, Rushbrooke said: “The claimant and her husband did not collaborate with the authors on the book, nor were they interviewed for it, nor did they provide photographs to the authors for the book.”
Scobie even provided a witness statement confirming the couple did not speak to him or Durand, adding: “They did not authorize the book and have never been interviewed for it. The book was always prepared on the understanding that it was to be independent and unauthorized. Kudos to Scooby Doo for this masterful exercise in Clintonian speech. 'The couple did not speak to him' does not preclude, say, he speaking to Meg and she nodding yes or no to question. He stays on the edge of truth by saying she was not interviewed for the book--I can believe there was never anything so structured as an interview, on purpose. But she could send Scooby Doo personal journals, notes, or instruct 'friends' to give him anecdotes straight from her mouth--none of these is an 'interview' But he and Durand absolutely had access to Meg's personal information and her voice on paper, if not in person. If he did not, then the book must be marketed as fiction, whereby Scooby Doo imagined what his fictional heroine called Meghan Markle, only loosely modelled on the real thing may have said or done in private situations, such as when answering calls of nature in the African bush or the philosophical musings she gets up to while whipping up a batch of banana bread.
Meg is well on her way to losing this case and her lawyer's flailing around sounds really desperate. Dropping the case is not an option for her as the defendant does not agree to this--they are in this to defend their honor. IF Meg agrees to settle before the trial, her opponent might agree--but settling on her part would be an admission of defeat, ie., the paper was right and she was wrong. I don't think her ego will allow for this. The way things are going, she is going to have her buttpads handed to her and it's going to be very expensive. I just hope Charles is no longer paying. Maybe if the Mail cleans her out, Harry will be packed up and sent home. That's probably the best outcome for him.
In the United States many are disgusted with the Sussex fakers. But you are really angry in England and the UK. You (UK) are really on to her and Harry, that they have disgraced the monarchy and the British people. They are wasting their time to ever make a return visit, they might get pelted with rotten fruit and eggs.
But in America the animus against them is much more diluted. Against the background of Hollywood, the Gruesomes are just two of many disgusting creatures that ply their trade there. They kind of get lost in the shuffle, this is why Megs gets her PR people to place her in the DM and other outlets every day.
@WBBM said,
Btw,
We were right to dub her Miss Goebbels -
From https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Propaganda/goebbels.html -
Hitler's Basic Principles
These principles are abstracted from Jowett & O'Donnell.
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.
Give only one side of the argument.
Continuously criticize your opponents.
Pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
It looks as if part of her `constructed Self' came from the building supplies firm of Messrs AH & JG, Inc.
_____
Very good point.
I try to take these types of analogies with discernment because used by a respected, powerful person, to an angry and agitated tin hat crowd, it can be misconstrued and then we are seeing Nazis, demons, and Meghans, behind every bush.
I always enjoy your posts WBBM.
Cheers :)
I'm always perplexed when they roll out the line about the racist stories as, apart from the 'straight outta compton' one I saw nothing that fit that description. Of course now a number of young black teenagers in the US are convinced that the entire UK calls them monkeys on the basis of the Danny Baker tweet. Anyone in the UK knows that he meant it as a comment on the ridiculous spectacle of the monarchy, the chimp represented our fascination with gawping at royal babies as if they are animals in a zoo or circus. There is also a blog somewhere that details Baker's longstanding use of the chimp as an image of comedy, just as we have done in the UK with PG Tips tea etc.
Again, we are two cultures joined by the same language but very different in many ways.
I love the US and spent time teaching US literature but there is a very different foundational philosophy at work, much more individualistic and constantly striving. Nothing wrong with that and I certainly don't see the UK as 'better' or the US as 'backwards' just different. Context is everything.
I'm probably in a minority here as I don't consider myself much of a 'monarchist' and am quite left wing. Ok, very left wing, lol. It annoys me no end when I see people who think themselves left leaning supporting the Harkles or others who think the couple are 'marxists' of some sort. Meg and Harry are 'woke' capitalists. Their liberal/left witterings are empty and meaningless without any corresponding understanding of class relations and structural economic inequality. They sacrifice nothing by jumping on the BLM bandwagon. Black lives are impacted by lack of resources..lack of decent housing, education, health care. Its not about getting more black entertainers on stage or just supporting those who have already succeeded against the odds; they are the exception. Real change comes when there is genuine redistribution of resources and wealth and the Harkles, along with their rich friends and woke capitalists like Beyonce and Oprah, suck up the world's resources, perpetuate inequality and the world remains untouched.
So I'm fascinated by the Harkles for the same reasons most of you are, for their hypocrisy and shallowness and sheer hubris. But I don't see them as threatening the status quo one little bit. I watch them to see them trip up over the internal contradictions implicit in everything they say.
She hardly ever looks the same in videos, she's a bit of a chameleon.
'm probably in a minority here as I don't consider myself much of a 'monarchist' and am quite left wing. Ok, very left wing, lol. It annoys me no end when I see people who think themselves left leaning supporting the Harkles or others who think the couple are 'marxists' of some sort. Meg and Harry are 'woke' capitalists. Their liberal/left witterings are empty and meaningless without any corresponding understanding of class relations and structural economic inequality. They sacrifice nothing by jumping on the BLM bandwagon. Black lives are impacted by lack of resources..lack of decent housing, education, health care. Its not about getting more black entertainers on stage or just supporting those who have already succeeded against the odds; they are the exception. Real change comes when there is genuine redistribution of resources and wealth and the Harkles, along with their rich friends and woke capitalists like Beyonce and Oprah, suck up the world's resources, perpetuate inequality and the world remains untouched.
_________
You are most welcome :)
I respect your ability and courage, to state your political position. I myself am apolitical but when I have to take a stand, I try to keep a balance by encouraging my pendulum to stay in the middle rather to swing left or right. I find that fits my values system best.
I agree with your statements above. If I could, I would start a Unity Party but most people nowadays would laugh at the mere concept, so farfetched is the idea of Unity to our current societal trends.
I can't because of my age and current health. I'm afraid the stress would be too much. But if I was young-watch out world!")
I will look for your posts. I still work part-time so I post only in the morning, my time.
We are in shifts here on NFB which works perfect for me! ;)
Cheers!
Black people are not the only ones in UK facing problems with poverty, housing, education etc. Everybody does. I am especially offended by the Harkles comments because in my experience Brits are in their vast majority are very tolerant people. They are not demonstrative and may be grumpy but if you respect them they will respect you back. I am not British but I took offense because Markle's drivel is pure poison and false too.
Every single coutry in the world has nut jobs who attack people based on ethnicity, religion, culture, age, gender - you name it.
The biggest danger I see is eventually good people will get too much of this crp and say: Whatever I do is not good enough and you call me racist. OK, as you wish. I will turn into one.
..... My theory is that she had a pre-conceived idea of the UK and expected to meet far more overt racism than she actually did and when she saw she was wrong, and also how much the RF have also progressed with these things, she was miffed as she couldn't use the race card quite so effectively for sympathy.
True enough. Probably why she had to pivot to 'Catherine is so mean to me.'
Without those steps, I will agree with @Wild Boar Battle-maid and LL: they are very dangerous.
Regarding M’s “chameleon” appearance noted by D1, I would add that she seems to be a chameleon about religion, race, nationality, love, backstory, ambitions and loyalty, so who knows about her politics. When everything about a person is for sale, the highest bidder wins.
We are not one thing or the other; we can be many things, some of them contradictory.
What a chump. His bridges are well and truly burnt.
It’s putting many people on the defensive when they don’t want to, it’s making people wantIng or needing to take sides when they’ve never had to or ever wanted to. It’s very frightening and it’s getting worse by the day. I take great offence when someone like Megsy can throw rocks and stones at a entire nation, who’s clearly and effortlessly showing herself to be one of the most divisive people around.
How many more times are the royal family going to roll over, bury their heads in the sand and ignore this truly ghastly and dangerous pair? They deserve every bit of criticism they get if they continue their stance.
Hateful Harry gave it all up, sawed off his legs and balls and life. She smugly did her sleight of hand and profited beyond her wildest dreams.
She gloats and poses and pontificates instead of waitressing. Meanwhile, he’s done.
Even though I'm not a monarchist she has achieved the impossible and made me quite protective of them!
I totally agree with you. It is giving the divisive person a prominent position due to her royal connection that made things so much worse. Divisive minor actress is nothing. Divisive daughter in law to the King of Britain is a lot more dangerous.
Everything the Harkles say and do is feflected back on the monarchy.
she was miffed as she couldn't use the race card quite so effectively for sympathy.
______
This is true IMO.
With that said, not everyone who calls out racism is cut from the same cloth as described above^^^.
Some people call it out and become defensive because they can ***feel*** and smell racist ideology.
Everyone I know will strongly defend their heritage, regardless of their heritage or ethnicity. It's inmate in us to defend our community. It's a form of survival, especially for communities that have experienced the rath of *group think* and violence first hand.
I only wish we could feel safe enough to separate from the herd so we can see the Other, and understand where they are truly coming from rather than viewing the Other with a lens which doesn't allow for difference.
People like Meghan who use their "voice" more like a chip on the shoulder rather than a genuine voice-which wishes to protect their own, are headed for great disappointment and will surely bring innocent folks down with them (her family, his family, citizens etc.)
But I do not care what happens to people like her. We reap what we sow. Every time, over time...
I first came to the town where I now live a couple of weeks after the Coronation. Almost my first memory of the place is seeing a news placard proclaiming `Rosenbergs Go the Chair’. Chilling. I still think of it when I walk past the spot, 67 years later. (Such a contrast to the placards on Coronation Day telling us that Everest had been climbed).
Yes, I still wonder if they are `useful idiots', unwitting puppets of those who do not have the interests of democracy at heart. Your guess is as good as mine as to who it could be, though the Socialist Workers' Party seems strong in it's support of BLM here.
The only crumb of comfort I can find is that she does seem, to some extent, to have gone rogue, putting her own interests ahead of those who might be her masters. Harry Markle commented early on, that if she did have dangerous backers, they’d picked a very unreliable agent for their purposes.
The whole `sinister backer’ theory seemed crazy at first, (I prefer coincidence and cock-ups to conspiracies) but I’ve found nothing so far to contradict it or which would be an alternative coherent explanation. I wish I could.
We have discussed Rasputin before, Harry as Alexandra, Rache as Rasputin. Have a look at his images - he’s got the same mad stare.
If H got his wish and became an `ordinary bloke'/a plebeian/one of the proletariat which category would he be - worker, peasant or intellectual?
Btw, Thanks for the compliments but I really haven't anything original to say about Royal scandals - most are quite well known.
But maybe she is wrong and they will, depending on what is at stake. Prince William is the wild card she stupidly didn’t expect after hearing H mock him perhaps, or after assuming she could bewitch him too? There is a big stinging scarf headed her way, I believe.
My mother, aunt and grandmother were the true lovers of monarchy and queen. I like some cultural history and lore, some traditions, and respect what it means to family and friends. I deeply dislike the idea of a pointless greedy viper trying to decimate the queen and her lifetime of service, and trash the UK’s people for good measure as well. I have a client who still seethes at her comment about the stiff upper lip.
Because I originally thought that MM was a fine person and good for Harry, then saw what was going on and shifted quickly to regard her as the worst sort of grifter, I am watching all this like you. I am hoping they trip her (them?) up in a grand way. I know uneasy rests the head that wears the crown, but this is beyond all sense, and has to be stopped really.
Meg and Harry are 'woke' capitalists.
***
‘Woke capitalists’, yes! I consider myself to be very left wing too. And I do not for the life of me understand what is going on with the likes of the Harkles and political celebrities like AOC. These folks know nothing about anything, have no experience in anything, and appear to be beholden to some capitalist interests (lots of money involved, and lots of BRANDING), while pandering to social media followers. And, as Nutty mentioned earlier, journalism is dead; no one is investigating these very suspicious phenomena. The media basically regurgitates social media trends in order to drive more clicks to their websites and get more advertising dough.
Yes, I get all that. And I also get that the individualist consumerist culture of today has produced turbo-charged narcissists such as MM and AOC. But what is it that fuels their sustained time in the spotlight? Why is nobody calling them out for their BS? Surely we haven’t run out of real subject matter experts who can make mincemeat of the fakers? Why is everyone putting up with this nonsense? It’s surreal to see MM and AOC and the like appearing all over mainstream media, talking like the foremost expert on the subject currently being discussed, making utter fools of themselves, and still being fawned over by previously rational and sensible (liberal) people.
Personally, I believe someone’s definitely backing (or advising) MM, but I can’t begin to guess their intentions. Why do I believe this? MM’s interviews paint her to be someone who does not think clearly or originally. She knows nice words, but not how to use them well, which points to a lack of thinking through of ideas and concepts, of cause and effect. I cannot imagine someone like that singlehandedly orchestrating these bizarre moves of hers and causing such a huge PR disaster for the BRF. Someone’s been whispering in her ear: “You are amazing, Megs. You are going to save the world. Keep going on your mission, and ignore the naysayers.” Maybe it’s Doria, maybe it’s MA, maybe it’s (fill in the blank), but surely someone is supporting her, someone with a keen understanding of the effects her actions are having on the UK and the US.
Ok. Did I have my Tin foil hat on there?
Anyways. The Harkles’ latest appearance is so infuriating. I only suffered through it cos I saw that the dog was going to join in. That was so contrived, btw. The dog didn’t look like he voluntarily came to cuddle LOL.
Also, why is their internet connection so bad?!?! The ES reporters were perfectly visible in HD, but the Harkles’ feed kept pixelating and sputtering. This happens in every Zoom call of theirs. And what’s with her appearing in various shades of brown?!
LOL ok, glad I got all that off my chest. I’m a long time lurker who just couldn’t hold it in anymore. Love this site and all you guys! Thanks for helping me keep my sanity!
Since when is Vanity Fair so into her? Does Ken Sunshine own part of it?
But as I mentioned, I have seen some odd stuff in my life. And the load of dots to be connected here is getting so vast, it seems beyond coincidence. I reluctantly tried a tin hat a couple of days ago, but....who knows. Maybe just a group of greedy soulless fools.
A friend observed a few months ago, “who would believe a goofy NY dork could pretend to be a math teacher, and Investor, and become a billionaire with a bizarre sex island and submarines that implicated royalty and presidents, then everyone falls asleep and all cameras fail when he dies in his cell? How organic is that?”“
He was making a joking point about something unrelated re work, but his comment might apply to this ongoing craziness as well.
I do hope the security forces of both the UK and US are keeping as close an eye on them as we are!
If H got his wish and became an `ordinary bloke'/a plebeian/one of the proletariat which category would he be - worker, peasant or intellectual?
Meghan's presence in Harry's life is just a symptom of his real tragedy, not its cause. His real tragedy is that for his entire life from pre-teen onwards, he has chafed against what he saw as the 'restrictions' of his Royal role. For years and years before he met MM, he whined about how much he'd rather be a 'regular bloke' . .how much happier he'd be. Meg smoothly exploited this nebulous wish to 'be free' and now we are here.
Harry has no f'n concept of what it means to be a regular bloke, despite his Mum making him stand on line at McDonald's with the rest of the commoners. Harry's attachment to Africa and to this notion of being a 'regular' person, free of the constraints of Royalty is gleaned from extended luxury vacations which his very Royal status made possible. The Wales men did spent significant time in Botswana after Diana's death, so I'm not surprised Harry regards the place as somehow magical and healing and far distant from his everyday life in royal palaces (what used to be his everyday life, that is.) But I doubt very highly that the Royal guys ever roughed in out in the bush in a tent, cooking beans over a fire they'd built themselves . . or that they ever did any heavy lifting of any sort, even their own baggage. Wherever the Royals go, their path is smoothed for them by equerries and servants who organize everything and make all the arrangements and do all the 'work' of daily life so that the Royal comfort is never compromised. And even if a holiday was more rustic, it was only for a few days and then it was straight back to cossetted Royal privilege. Even when he was 'traveling incognito' to romance Meg, the couple stayed at luxury resorts in Canada and abroad. Meg was auditioning for a role of a lifetime with a faked-up persona and nothing about their courtship was 'real life'. Haz doesn't know what real life is and even now, he's certainly not living it.
I'm thinking that Haz must have some significant intellectual difficulties apart from just being lazy, because any native gifts he had would have asserted themselves before now. He used to have a jocular manner and seemed to care about his charities and having a laugh with the royal press corps and the public . . but how much of that was savvy image management? His lacks of academic achievement or natural leadership ability have been well-documented. Neither can he excel at some aspect of the creative arts, based on his inability to complete an O-Level art project without cheating. He's futzed around a bit with some wildlife photography, but it seemed more the whim of a moment than a real passion. Harry would not be hireable for any sort of work apart from the Firm he left on such bad terms. His experience of life has been so curated that even the most basic customer service job would be beyond his capabilities.
When the inevitable divorce occurs, perhaps Harry will be allowed to come back to the UK, but I hope that if the family takes him back, it is under the stipulation that he will be treated as the 'normal, private individual' he has professed to want, while he's making reality TV show deals with Netflix. This little experiment in Finding Freedom should bring home to everyone concerned that Haz is not and never will be, functional outside of the umbrella of the Royal family. But he needs to be kept out of the public eye and sent to live in a gameskeeper's cottage on Balmoral. Let him receive a stipend befitting one of Her Majesty's land servants and let him earn his keep by mucking out stalls or gardening, under supervision. Let him have a half-day off during the week and Sundays and a few days at Christmas, and let him collect his pay packet along with all the other servants, and buy all his own drinks down at the pub. He will be fed, clothed and looked after, but he will learn what real normality feels like.
As a blood prince, I suppose he will always have to have an RPO with him, but he can still work despite it. This is the only way Harry will redeem himself. He'll never do it, but if he were willing, I think that would actually back some of the respect he has thrown away with both hands.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 01, 2020
Blind Item #8
Much like the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp trial, it looks like the alliterate one and witnesses will have to appear in person for the trial. If that does happen, rather than allowing virtual testifying, it will just give the alliterate one another reason to drop the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=24&v=Z3Mbd9W9u50
He is at 02:14.
Spot on.
I too think Rache is a Rasputin figure in weak Harry's life. I also see that Nicolas was weak like Harry- easily guided and manipulated by the wife. "Whatever you say dear", "Whatever she wants, she gets". Well, right into the 'house of special purpose' in the Urals with the entire family (his children!)executed because he didn't have the strength and sense to shut it down early on. If history repeats itself, it doesn't bode well for Mr.and Ms. Markle-Windsor. Metaphoricaly speaking of course.
I hear you about much already written on royal scandals. Just like to hear new theories when applicable.
Especially the salacious ones from back in the day like Jack the Ripper was thought to be a member of the RF. Even if they are proven false, they make for great entertainment :D
Courts will be sensitive to this issue. We do not live in normal times. Courts bend over backwards to accommodate various issues on both sides, and I would assume England is no different.
There was an article in the DM a few weeks ago about white working class children's attainment: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8751131/White-working-class-children-UKs-deprived-pupils-MPs-warned.html
White working-class children are being left behind by the school system, face a lifetime of economic disadvantage and will be hit hardest by the coronavirus crisis, new research reveals.
However, help to raise educational standards is often targeted at ethnically diverse areas and pupils from minority backgrounds – further stacking the cards against poor white boys and girls, academics said.
One Oxford University don said the plight of working-class white children was seen as ‘unfashionable’ and ‘not worthy’. And he suggested that even raising the issue was ‘taboo’, particularly in academic circles, as it was associated with ‘hard-Right political thinking’
And today, there is an article abt Oxford university launching a new scholarship for black students. So much for 'white priviledge'.
What about her father and his ability or inability to travel? If the courts make the plaintiff and witnesses appear in person, so must the defense witnesses.
I can totally see MM showing up in person for a dramatic court room showdown with her father.
But I doubt very highly that the Royal guys ever roughed in out in the bush in a tent, cooking beans over a fire they'd built themselves . . or that they ever did any heavy lifting of any sort, even their own baggage.
----------------------
I've found this old Mirror article:
Prince William took some time out from his Royal duties when he was 18, travelling to Chile, Kenya, Tanzania and Botswana to work on important projects.
The 18-year-old travelled to Chile where he spent three months working on community projects with the expedition organisation Raleigh Internarional.
During his time there he helped build and decorate houses and playgrounds, and was seen painting and chopping wood, and he also worked on a dairy farm.
According to the group's logistics manager Graham Hornsey the royal was determined to be treated like everyone else in the group - which meant he had to scrub the loos.
Harry also took a 'gap year'. He spent three months working on a ranch in southern Queensland, Australia where he learnt how to handle cattle and repair damaged fences. He also worked in Southern Africa and visited an orphanage for children with Aids in Lesotho where he helped to build a clinic and road bridge.
It wasn't for the benefit of the press, they did genuine work. A pity Harry didn't continue with his efforts.
Exactly.
I'd forgotten about Professor Sir Bryan Thwaites, thank you for the reminder.
Thank you for the reference to this article. When I read it I remembered two sayings I totally stand by
I only kneel before God; everybody else I treat as my equal and to those who deserve respect I show respect.
While the nation is laughing the Monarch can sleep soundly.
We seem to be forgetting the overwhelming principle of equality that made the Western world a beacon of civilisation. So called positive discrimination is not a good thing; it is fragmenting our society further. The only way forward was and is to completely disregard the colour and treat people by merit. To do otherwise will inevitably split us into ethnic groups and bring out animosity. We can see it happening right before our eyes now.
As for the second one - the nation is not laughing any more; there is a very palpable anger that is beginning to turn against the royal family for letting things go that far. Elizabeth II still runs on the huge respect she accumulated over the years; Charles doesn't have this advantage.
Since when is Vanity Fair so into her? Does Ken Sunshine own part of it?
I think Vanity Fair needs money as desperately as any publication does. It's no longer the cultural force it once was, and advertising has dipped even further during COVID times, with both NYC and Hollywood in eclipse. PR payoffs are at least a steady source of income. And since Meg still lives in the 1990s (as Anonymous House Plant repeatedly states), she thinks Vanity Fair is a prestige buy, even though no one else does anymore.
As for the second one - the nation is not laughing any more; there is a very palpable anger that is beginning to turn against the royal family for letting things go that far. Elizabeth II still runs on the huge respect she accumulated over the years; Charles doesn't have this advantage.
Not to be morbid, but we're overdue for a significant assassination.
I realize that most of the powerful people in the world have a great deal of security around them, but it isn't unknown for an individual to be assassinated by his or her own security personnel.
Not speaking of any specific country or individual here.
I hate how British sensibilities keep being grouped with those in the States. Current events and the American political && cultural asides on this form have made my eyes pop out too often to count. HM is the only one who can resolve our country's crisis. I find Yanks have made the fight for our royal family harder && stickier.
So, so true! I don't know if you're in the UK but the (white) actor Laurence Fox, of the Fox family (Edward, James, Emilia, Freddie) had a row during the TV programme Question Time with a woman calling him a 'white privileged male' during a debate surrounding press coverage of H&M leaving as senior royals.
Apologies if you're British, you'll know about it. If not, this is very interesting and I believe Laurence Fox has a very valid point.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/laurence-fox-meghan-markle-question-time-racism-bbc-video-a9287971.html
I've found this old Mirror article:
Prince William took some time out from his Royal duties when he was 18, travelling to Chile, Kenya, Tanzania and Botswana to work on important projects.
The 18-year-old travelled to Chile where he spent three months working on community projects with the expedition organisation Raleigh Internarional.
During his time there he helped build and decorate houses and playgrounds, and was seen painting and chopping wood, and he also worked on a dairy farm.
According to the group's logistics manager Graham Hornsey the royal was determined to be treated like everyone else in the group - which meant he had to scrub the loos.
He (William) spent time on a dude ranch in America, too. The account, written years later, said that he was a hard-working and serious young man who could be quite the practical joker. He was polite, respectful, the very antithesis of a spoiled brat. He earned people's respect.
I was thinking about Stormzy's initiative & that of the chap who wanted to help white working class boys and the reception they got.
It'd struck me also that under-privileged girls were being ignored, regardless of race! I didn't hear anyone raising their voice to cry `What about them?
Anyway, DoTW, you've saved me some time checking it out, for which, many thanks.
-------------------------
One more thought about possible backers-
Not necessarily a matter of global political interests - it might `just' be the doing of an extortion/blackmail/sex racket ( still SoHo House, though)- and the RF was a tempting target - all that money, with an idiot among its members.
-----------------------------
Operation Raleigh.
I'm racking my brains about the earliest days of Operation Raleigh, as it was then, and its founder, Col (then Major, Royal Engineers) John Blashford Snell. My recollection is that it was earlier than the dates I've found online, say early to mid 1970s.
From the late 60s to mid'70s, I had contacts in both the RE & a couple of exploration groups at the time - and got the impression that the expeditions involving youngsters were tougher than either of the other 2 groups I knew would have contemplated (not that they were `soft')and that the founder expected a great deal of them.
I doubt if Will's experience was a luxury safari.
----------------
I also doubt if Rache has thought as what being POTUS entails
She probably entertains fantasies of being given a State Visit to the UK and speaking at a State Dinner in Buck House. She'll be working on her speech already and plans to tell the Monarch and the rest of the assembled company just what she thinks of our poxy little nation. She's probably decided what she'll wear as well.
'As dangerous as the Abdication': Prince Harry and William's breach is WORSE than anyone thinks (and started EARLIER), claims biographer behind new book laying bare devastating inside story - as he says Meghan was handled 'appallingly'
The article mentions that For his own book, Robert spent months talking to royal insiders about when the cracks in the brothers’ relationship started to appear (spoiler alert: it happened earlier than you think), and, pointedly, how the system of monarchy conspired to fan the flames of resentment rather than broker a compromise between the two.
The book is serialised in the Mail tomorrow and next week.
I also doubt if Rache has thought as what being POTUS entails.
---------------------------------
She has, WBBM, she has.
Have a look at thisn
https://www.meghanforpresident.com.
MM mentions 3 tenets: equality (of course), empowerment (of course), kindness (loving kindness?).
It might take a bit more to be the POTUS.
As far as I’m aware only the direct heir to the throne has the potential to become The Prince of Wales, so Harry won’t get a look in with that.
I was trawling through some youtube videos and came across one that I have previously ignored - Alex Belfield (THE VOICE OF REASON).
Alex worked at one time for the BBC but they fell out as Alex is very outspoken and he now does videos, calling out all people in the media he thinks are a total waste of space. His language can be rather "salty" but if you would like to see what the average Brit is probably thinking, then this is for you. Our US Nutties may like to hear what probably is the majority of us are thinking in the UK without relying on the DM, etc, with all their puff pieces.
He doesn't always talk about JH & MM but, when he does, he makes me laugh so much, especially as he pretends he can't remember JH's name and calls him "Prince Whatsisname".
https://blindgossip.com/this-video-bites/#more-101291
Blind Item #8
Much like the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp trial, it looks like the alliterate one and witnesses will have to appear in person for the trial. If that does happen, rather than allowing virtual testifying, it will just give the alliterate one another reason to drop the case.
If they want to be authentic, why don't they address the time Harry dressed like a Nazi and the time he was recorded calling a solider "Paki"?
This.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5739883/Meghan-poses-sultry-mens-magazine-shoot.html
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10159602134975207
https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a21348247/meghan-markle-video-suits-mens-health/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8796045/Prince-Harry-Williams-rift-worse-think-says-Royal-biographer-Robert-Lacey.html
I bet the palace is dreading this one too. It's like "pile on the RF" time.
@murphy and Fairy Crocodile
There was an article in the DM a few weeks ago about white working class children's attainment: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8751131/White-working-class-children-UKs-deprived-pupils-MPs-warned.html
White working-class children are being left behind by the school system, face a lifetime of economic disadvantage and will be hit hardest by the coronavirus crisis, new research reveals.
However, help to raise educational standards is often targeted at ethnically diverse areas and pupils from minority backgrounds – further stacking the cards against poor white boys and girls, academics said.
One Oxford University don said the plight of working-class white children was seen as ‘unfashionable’ and ‘not worthy’. And he suggested that even raising the issue was ‘taboo’, particularly in academic circles, as it was associated with ‘hard-Right political thinking’
And today, there is an article abt Oxford university launching a new scholarship for black students. So much for 'white priviledge'.
Indeed. White and Asian children here are the most discriminated-against people when it comes to university admissions; particularly males. The sons of multi-millionaire NBA fathers will get preferential admission while having lower scores than the child of immigrants that escaped North Korea or who worked in the coal mines of West Virginia.
Watched the video without the sound (boy does he have some nervous fingers and swallows a lot when she is speaking. As for her, that color top enhances the lightness of her skin (other colors like the blue dress with under the umbrellas, help her pop). Interesting neckline (not certain it is doing something good or just ok on her body).
Remember the comment of how Archie will show up during Zoom meetings (with an oh cute). That he didn't on this one and we got the dog instead? No Proof of Life there. Dog did not look comfortable nor was it really melting into them for petting - more like a posed and stay shot.
Don't know if you saw it but California just passed a law about looking into reparations. JH&M have not gotten involved in that (yet that we know of).
What I find appalling
And ruddy well galling
Is their need to keep stirring this pot
Their conscious decision
To cause strife, and division
More projection from the TWOT, and his THOT
Don't know if you saw it but California just passed a law about looking into reparations. JH&M have not gotten involved in that (yet that we know of).
Snort. I saw it. It is one of those things that makes one shake their head in disbelief. How many slaves does California have to make reparations to? The descendents of the Japanese Americans in world war 2 whose properties were confiscated?
Ms Understood Madam Lash
So crude, ill mannered and brash
All fur coat, no knickers
She must hear the snickers
As her ‘movements’ demand payment in cash
@ Hikari: I think Harry and Meghan will make SOME money, yes in the millions. I highly doubt they will make billions. But for giggles and laughs, let’s say they make $150 million in the next five years from Netflix, speaking fees, a reintroduction of The Tig or something like it. That might sound like a lot of money, but after they pay all of their overhead plus taxes, that will reduce that amount by 60 or 70 percent.
Taxes are likely to take 45 to 55 percent right off the top. Also I think the Internal revenue service will be watching their tax returns like a hawk. The Harkles will be on their radar and once you are audited, it can be very difficult to shake them. A longtime friend of mine who worked very closely with President and Mrs. Reagan in the 1980s got flagged to be audited after going through a divorce. Even though she worked at the White House, she still couldn’t get the IRS off her back and was audited for five straight years.
After taxes and overhead, even with tax write-offs I think Meghan will be such a lavish spender that she will get them into deep debt. Her narcissism drives her to disregard sound advice from experts. Het narcissism will also drive her to compete with the royal family by purchasing additional houses, perhaps lease or buy a jet or perhaps a helicopter for Harry, designer clothes, jewelry and all sorts of stuff she doesn’t really need.
Look at some of the outrageous expenses that have been revealed in celebrity divorces like Johnny Depp’s spending $2 million a month including $30,000 a month on wine. I think Meghan’s need to try to show the world she’s a big-shot could easily lead her into Depp-level spending.
The Harkles problem is that neither have a talent like Depp or any other notable talent that will support them for the next 50 years in the style that Meghan obviously desires.
America is a fickle place, and Hollywood is even more fickle when it comes to celebrities. They are currently a novelty and a bright and shiny bauble of the moment.
But within a relatively short time, their appeal will dull, largely because they are one-trick ponies and people will tire of their same wilted word salad as they portray themselves as millionaire victims looking for pity.
They will also need to be concerned about Charles and especially William, who will protect the monarchy above the wastrel Harkles who seem to be actively working to dismantle it.
Sometimes if you have cancer eating away at your body, you will do anything, even lose an arm or a leg in order to keep the rest of your body intact. I doubt William will sit by and allow Harry and Meghan to inflict terminal damage on the monarchy, and even Charles the Weak likely won’t stand for it if he feels the crown is threatened by his son and toxic daughter-in-law.
Chrissy T has gotten so sympathy and attention for their loss. Who else wants attention and sympathy???
If she does have incriminating evidence, used to nobble Harry, it could point to others obtaining the blackmail material in the first instance ie criminal conspiracy, unless she and H go back further than we have been led to believe.
I'll catch up later on the `overnight' discussion. I have to crack on now.
Who else believes Meg will have a miscarriage? Chrissy T has gotten so sympathy and attention for their loss. Who else wants attention and sympathy???
@Summykm: I think Meghan wouldn’t hesitate to claim a fake miscarriage to garner attention and sympathy, but I’m about 75% in the Archie was born of a surrogate camp, so I lean heavily that she never carried Archie and will never actually be pregnant. Any additional kid or kids she has will probably be via surrogate, but even that might be difficult at her age of she wants to use one of her eggs.
She’s 39, which is termed advanced maternal age, or the older term, geriatric pregnancy. Even with fertilty treatments that can include IVF, conception is still a crapshoot. At 39, about 50% of her already rapidly dwindling supply of eggs already contain chromosomal abnormalities. Mother Nature just doesn’t care if you’re a duchess.
By age 40, about 60% of a woman’s eggs will have abnormalities, and at 42, it’s a whopping 75%. Yes, it’s possible to have a healthy child in your late 30s into your 40s, but the odds get worse as every month passes.
He popped up on my YouTube feed a few weeks back, he’s spot on with the ghastly Duo!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-will-harry-and-meghan-stop-hectoring-us-
I’m watching a documentary on Rupert Murdoch,
very powerful, and dangerous. Scary stuff!
His third wife, Wendi Deng, reminds me of Megs.
Cunning, conniving and known for her tantrums.
Rumours of her being a spy?
Jerry Hall and Rupert make a strange couple.
That'll go to Wills, and Wills only as the first born, when Charles ascends the Throne. Even so, it may depend on what the people of Wales think, particularly if there's to be an Investiture.
Some US citizens must have some very strange ideas about us, although if they ever see BBC news they could get a misleading impression of the people of Britain.
Pantsface. Your final comment resonated with me. Divide and conquer is definitely what the powers that be are trying to do. Instead of the 99% coming together to fight for what binds us, we all seem to be pitted against each other. Young v old, black v white, Muslim v Christian, Trans v cis gender, mask - wearers v bare facers ... ad nauseam. I hope I don't sound too like Megz here, but I do question who is driving this idea of splintering society asunder? Cui bono? Tin foil hat now put back in box for the day!
We've also got Nationalists (ie those who claim a Celtic identity) v Unionists - in N.Ireland, Scotland, Wales - and Cornwall.
Another function of the monarch has traditionally been to seen as a focus of unity - hence the requirement to be above party politics.
@Disgusted
News Corps Australia has nearly three-quarters of daily
metropolitan newspaper circulation! Struth!
What about the US?
Megs might become wife no 5, still be alliterate 😉
#FreeJerry
It’s the stuff of nightmares
The stuff of bad dreams
That Rupert Murdoch owns all, it seems
To hold so much power is a dangerous thing
I wonder what muck the ‘Dirty Digger’ will sling
Thanks @Disgusted
Thanks to Wullies Bucket I’ve now saved
a bag of scrawled scribbles.
Unfortunately they're hard to decipher!
You are so talented. Thank you, I really enjoy yr rhymes.
Apologies to the Monkees, especially Davy Jones😉
“Wokist Deceiver”
Wake up creepy Hazbeen
We all get what you mean
Wokist believer and your
Wannabe Queen
But how much Megsie, do you really need?
Remorse from the Source
To pee or not to pee
The headline we don’t wish to see
Whether ‘tis nobler to suffer
Crossed legs, as a muffer
Will be our Megsies downfall
No sling, nor an arrow
Was aimed at leg sparrow
She decided to tell Scobie all
Than our Magatha Mist-Say
So I leave our pretentious
Our own lovely contentious
The one they call Duchess
I leave her alone
As a lone Persephone
Rattling on-on her Fone
Or is it Zoom bombing
This time?
With her such Hapless puppet
Who only yearns to call home
Leaving our Megs as the master
Of foretold disasters
That Our Queen cannot stop
'Cause her heirs are no backstop
With Will and Chas
She gets quarrels
On into all tomorrows
That Megs will rule
With her thin Hollywood gruel.
Dismal indeed Sussex
West Coast Greed
@Puds 😘
So sick of the pair of them. They disgust me.
They deserve to be laughed at.
Hope Megs knows she’s a joke!
God Save the Queen
"I do believe that a pared-down version can still be a force for good. Witness Camilla's work for abused women, Anne's unglamorous gigs, Kate's work in early years' interventions, homeless charities, mental health initiatives etc. I think they can achieve just as much with fewer homes, clothes, baubles, cars and other royal accoutrements."
You also say it's up to the UK to decide. I agree but from an American perspective, I've always heard the pared-down version purportedly preferred by Charles would include only his line. What happens when Anne ages out? Or even Edward and Sophie? They also do alot. While COVID may have permanently changed travel for all of us including royals, for a long time Edward and Sophie have made many appearances abroad on behalf of TQ (funerals, weddings, visits to CW countries like Bangladesh.) I can't really see William and Kate doing all those things and it's a long time before George or his sibs will be able to.
I don't think things will fall apart without Harry though and agree with what @Puds wrote about Lacey's contention that
"....the public were only buying into modern royality because there were two princes."
“The real question is....why is ending racism such a triggering topic?”
Sugars have embraced this. A few others have not.
Now me, I am a curious sort. And I find myself wondering why a man who has gone to great painful lengths to surgically alter his original, natural handsome more ethnic appearance to that of a bland pale plastic white Ken doll,
......and who earns his keep defending a woman who identified as white or Italian for years and joined a white sorority and also continues to surgically altered herself away from her natural appearance, though she recently seems to have decided to profit from her biracial identity,
....why is such a man so confident about throwing out such bare broken bones to the crowds?
Is it to reframe the conversation awayfrom their mist recent arrogant unsussexful gaffes? To also distract from the fact The Met cannot find any records of him calling for police help when being threatened after FF came out — even though he told Tatler’s writer that he had to call the police repeatedly to his house?
One last crowning note, shall we say, a little reminder: his bio often tells the story that he had to quit a job after some actual workplace racist called him “a little *** Paki” (his mother is actually Iranian).......which is of course nearly the identical phrase that his hero, JH, is said to have used to belittle an army colleague.
Facts make journalism so utterly annoying! What a web they weave.
@lizzie
I don’t think things will fall apart without Harry.
I’ve always thought of Harry as a support to William.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The fact Wills has lost his support is a major, personal blow.
Wills will survive, the stronger for it.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/10/02/the-harkles-hang-onto-the-black-history-month-bandwagon/
https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/status/1311925273307369472/photo/1
@AverySunshinyDay
She has the R card, which aces all others!
And which she is playing once again!
@Natalier@AnT cheers 😉
"I’ve always thought of Harry as a support to William.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The fact Wills has lost his support is a major, personal blow.
Wills will survive, the stronger for it."
Yes, definitely it likely was a personal blow for William. He may have had more time to get used to the idea though than the public has. We tend to see the split as starting with Meghan. That may or may not be true. Certainly according to what Lacey has said so far, it didn't start there.
Just prior to Meghan we saw the "3 muskateers" at various events. And while they usually seemed happy enough, 95% of the time, Kate was pictured standing between the brothers. And we don't really know what was transpiring behind the scenes even then.
I've always thought it was significant we never saw Harry publically interacting (in any way) with any of W&K's kids, for example, but did see the kids with Anne's children and grandchildren. Periodically Harry would be painted as a favorite Cambridge uncle in press stories but there was never any photographic evidence to support that idea. And Harry didn't attend Charlotte's christening. (Went to Africa on personal conservation trip.)
My earlier comment quoting @Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells was related to workload and quoting @Puds post was related to Lacey's contention that public support for the monarchy was predicated on having "two princes," not on any personal loss the brothers may feel.
I am with you on Markle's looks. I think she would have looked far better with her natural hair, skin and facial features. I have always admired the thick wavy cloud of hair so many black women have; brown skin is very attractive and excellent at resisting wrinkles.
The plastic Barbie standards with surgeried noses and lips make all that Hollywood women identical to each other; Markle's natural face with the imperfect nose had so much character. Good subtle make up would turn her face really attractive.
She can't preach black pride with straightened hair, operated nose and lips and lightened skin. She ran away form her black heritage a mile a minute.
Yup, and am glad you brought this up. Based on the trivial nonsense that came out of her little “tell-all” book FF after months of gleeful insinuation and even threats, my guess is Meghan’s Big Secret Royal Dirt is that she saw Kate eat two chocolate biscuits at Christmas.
Because my new on-off tin hat self is considering the possibility she had/has backers, she might also believe that the possible monied Markus pals who keep the Harkles flying and up to their chins in PR will never ever let her down, like an iron shield. They put her in an energy-sucking mansion, they got her a ten dollar Netflix deal she is allowed to talk up, more orgs get registered, she launches preposterous lawsuit after lawsuit no one looks deeper or stops her and the money keeps arriving to her (and mama?), so she ferrets on.
She doesn’t know she is disposable yet. So they will keep jabbering for now, insinuating, blaming, trashing. Because snippy 14-yo Meggie never got caught, called out or stopped, smirky 40-yo Meggie feels stupidly confident no schoolgirls will speak up, and nothing will go wrong, and everyone will stay scared of her and she will win, win, win.
Point blank, They are in the wrong lane with this one.
Literally, no one cares about Meghan Markles' (who has pretended to be 100% white her entire life, until Harry and his affections for Africa) and a newly woke Prince, who needs to earn a buck, think.
How can these two be happy?
My guess is that he was banking on the Gruesome Twosome producing a couple of adorable, worthy, kids who, with the Cambridge brood, would help replace his own generation in a couple of decades time.
Not a dual nationality doll or imposter(s) irregularly conceived, not necessarily by them, going by the name of Archie.
Big mistake.
Your post finally helped me to pinpoint why I feel so uncomfortable watching the ghastly duo, fake performance apart. Megsy's recent pearl was "creating a relationship with yourself". That summarises her perfectly. She is locked in relationship with herself.
Even during their short time as working royals they must have met amazing people of all colours; dedicated charity workers; teachers, nurses, police officers, fishermen, conservationists, preachers; heart breaking RSPCA workers helping abused animals; just people living their lives well; they must have seen acts of kindness, hard work for good causes and devastating loss people must face sometimes.
They could have created a connection if they focused on what they have seen and helped to make all these amazing people visible and recognised.
Instead they are focusing on negatives that often exists in their own overflamed imaginations. Instead of positive message they sow discord, disdain, conceit.
THAT is the reason why I can't bring myself to watch anything involving them. And that is why Cambridges will always win hands down.
Has anyone considered that Meghan has absolutely nothing on the BRF but smirks and postures to make them think she does?
------
Isn't there a story about a kid who blackmails both his parents by saying to each individually `I know all about it...'. A bit like the secret police tactic which bosses use - `we've had a complaint (unspecified) but we'd like to hear it from your side.'
Everyone has secrets they wouldn't like the world to know and are easily tricked into confession.
I wish I could remember the story.
Nope, Meghan is not black (and she turned her back on all of her black family except her mother), neither outwardly nor inwardly, and to grab a platform and present her and her privileged whitey husband as spokespeople for black folk is a huge insult to real black people. I say that as an African, albeit one who is classified as white. Before I stop myself from going on a long rant, Harry has no excuse for claiming ignorance. He has spent time in Africa, outside of the modern and prosperous cities, so he has had plenty of opportunity to get to know real oppressed black people. Plus, he was in the army, working alongside British people classified as black, and did lots of royal official events where he met with all kinds of black people (some with Meghan) plus his Granny has black people on her staff ... What a load of nonsense they speak from their middle class home full of 'decor magazine' decorations and no sign of family or tradition or anything personal at all.
Of course the Lacey book is hyping up the feud, and he is trying to create controversy because he has a book to sell. Meghan was never going to fit in because of her personality and her inability to feel empathy and thus change. What is astounding about the whole story is how the petulant demands and blatant disrespect was ignored/tolerated and her nacissism was fed by all the special favours she got. Camilla did offer her good advice. The Queen did send her her most trusted and competent aide. The family did more for her than they had sdone for any other. Even the patronages she was given, very quickly, were aligned with her professed interests, and she was allowed to go ahead with the Grenfell project and bring in her mother and treat her husband like an annoying lapdog at a well publicised launch.
I have strayed into rant territory, but there is actually nothing I can say that the astute obsevors here have not already said. We are not taken in by all this nonsense because we have seen through it all!
All very divisive figures.
Has anyone considered that Meghan has absolutely nothing on the BRF but smirks and postures to make them think she does?
Yes she gets her PR people to exaggerate this angle. She love bombed Hapless, now she hate bombs the Royal Family. In the most passive-aggressive way of course. However, going by the BRF's non-action, they do behave as if Megsy has lots of embarrassing "stuff" on them. As an example- She might have tales that Harry told of Prince Andrew to put Andrew in the news cycle every week.
In fact dim Harry probably leaked most embarrassing Family material to Megs.
"...maybe the solution is for more Heads Together type of response to the work the royals do, gathering together many charities and patronages under one umbrella highlighting a theme..."
You could be right. But I have read there has been some grumbling from some charities subsumed under the HT umbrella. That they get less money than before in part because potential donors assume they are getting more from the umbrella foundation than they actually are. It also puts "dividing the pot" into other hands (although I would think donors could still give restricted gifts through the foundation.)
The complaint that arose when the Royal Foundation was divided pointed out some of the difficulties that can arise when there's an intermediary between donors and recipients. What ever happened with that complaint anyway?
This is exactly the point. Royal family is supposed to be an anchor, a moral beacon, a constant reminder of the past and hope for the stable future. Royals are supposed to serve the nation and be above the rat race of politics and campaigns that happen to be in vogue at the moment. They are supposed to focus on eternal things at the core of the nation. They are the face of the nation in a long term.
When they stop being all that they are no different to President Corbyn, as you say. Replaceable, discardable, chasing success in short-lived things. People stop seeing the point of them.
I think both you and I agree Markle is doing a huge damage to the monarchy by attaching it to the short lived, often damaging campaigners.
fill their cart with as many items as they could in a very short time period. That's MM - filling her cart with a lavish royal wedding, HRH and Duchess titles, a million-dollar couture wardrobe, extravagant trips around the world (always on private jets, of course) and celebrity "friends" before returning to LA. She had no intention whatsoever of being a working member of the BRF - she just wanted to gather as many goodies as she could.
They'd have to be more specific with me. "Oh, wait...is this about the time that I deliberately made the baby cry in church when we had a guest preacher that droned on way past dismissal time? I got congratulated for that! We all agreed that if he was preaching in heaven, we were going to be lined up at the door to hell. Not that one? Is it about the time that I hid an employee in an out-of-state job that was wanted by the law? I don't think beating up a drug dealer that was coming around to your addict brother right after he got out of rehab should even be a crime. Not that one either? Honey, you better pull up a chair and get comfortable. We could be here for days."
Where do you see Meghan and Harry in ten years?
Possible areas to predict: Still married? Separated? Divorced? Big movers and shakers in Hollywood, humanitarian causes, running for political office? Appearing on game shows (Celebrity Family Feud would be appropriate) because it’s all they can get?
Have lost custody of Archie and the spare kid to come? In rehab?
Hawking costume jewelry and anti-aging facial creams on QVC? Meghan is unrecognizable due to too many cosmetic procedures? Living in the US? Has their house burned in a brush fire or gone in a mudslide? Living in the UK? Living in Canada or Africa? Uber wealthy - more than $500 million net worth? Very wealthy $250-500 million net worth? Very wealthy - $50 million to $250 million net worth? Wealthy - $5 million to $50 million net worth? Less than $5 million net worth? Just barely paying their bills? Totally broke and in deep debt, bordering on filing bankruptcy and thinking about taking a gardener’s job at Anmer Hall (Harry?
Nutty: Suggestion for a future topic question:
Where do you see Meghan and Harry in ten years?
Possible areas to predict: Still married? Separated? Divorced? Big movers and shakers in Hollywood, humanitarian causes, running for political office? Appearing on game shows (Celebrity Family Feud would be appropriate) because it’s all they can get?
Have lost custody of Archie and the spare kid to come? In rehab?
Hawking costume jewelry and anti-aging facial creams on QVC? Meghan is unrecognizable due to too many cosmetic procedures? Living in the US? Has their house burned in a brush fire or gone in a mudslide? Living in the UK? Living in Canada or Africa? Uber wealthy - more than $500 million net worth? Very wealthy $250-500 million net worth? Very wealthy - $50 million to $250 million net worth? Wealthy - $5 million to $50 million net worth? Less than $5 million net worth? Just barely paying their bills? Totally broke and in deep debt, bordering on filing bankruptcy and thinking about taking a position as a gardener at Anmer Hall (Harry reminds me of Peter Sellers’ character Chance the gardener in Being There.)
Trevor Philips has long been a fav news journalist and presenter of mine. He has it so right with the Duo and I’m so glad it’s come from someone who so respected.
Lizzie. I suppose if RF is too pared-down it will make it harder to honour properly all the charities they represent.
Translation for pared down meant ace out Andrew, Sarah and their offspring. Charles and Andrew have not gotten along for ages. Paring down was Charles' ultimate revenge.
Almost as dim as Harry, Charles has learned to plod along in the groove he has carved out and keep his mouth shut. Charles is no fortune teller because Harry was essential to Charles' arrogantly pared down regime. So now there is a shortage of Royals to perform duties.
In my book Charles is a pig for dismissing and being mean to Beatrice and Eugenie. He is responsible for all the cave ins to Harry and Miss Misbegotten.
Talking of which, I came across a news report on Youtube a while ago from a US media organisation. It was made before the engagement interview. Interestingly the reporter interviewed some women in a shop in the US and when asked what they thought of Harry they just said, something like, 'all that really matters is whether he is kind'. I wish I could find that video again!!!
This new Lacey book sounds badly researched which is a shame. I think the key to Meg lies in getting to the bottom of everything that happened in the years immediately before the wedding, say from 2014 onwards.
I reckon all the humanitarian PR could have been orchestrated either by Harry and Meg or even by the RF itself. HM could never have allowed the marriage based on M's CV pre 2014.
Harry was rehabilitated after Vegas by being filmed laughing with black children in Africa. Seems to be the RF way. Or is it just a copy of their modus operandi by a cunning PR firm and their ambitious client?
The things she's had covered up could be her final undoing. Maybe all the embargoed facts will be released after the trial.
`Wales' (just `Wales') was used as as surname for both boys at school a, possibly in the Forces as well. They were both `Prince (insert name)of Wales' - not `The Prince of Wales' - that's Pa.
They probably think that Diana went to her graves as THE Princess of Wales, not just (any old) Princess of Wales IIRC. Technically, Cams should be The Princess of Wales now but that would've been too controversial, just as they've had to devise a new handle for her once C is king (`Princess Consort' as per Albert & Philip).
The `job' on a birth certificate is referred to as `Occupation', a more general term than `employment' `profession' or `calling', say.
@Swampwoman, I wish I had your presence of mind - the last time I was on the carpet I did not know whether I was there because I'd put my foot down with the noisy students in the Library or because I had, but not firmly enough!
Nope, Meghan is not black (and she turned her back on all of her black family except her mother), neither outwardly nor inwardly, and to grab a platform and present her and her privileged whitey husband as spokespeople for black folk is a huge insult to real black people. I say that as an African, albeit one who is classified as white. Before I stop myself from going on a long rant, Harry has no excuse for claiming ignorance. He has spent time in Africa, outside of the modern and prosperous cities, so he has had plenty of opportunity to get to know real oppressed black people. Plus, he was in the army, working alongside British people classified as black, and did lots of royal official events where he met with all kinds of black people (some with Meghan) plus his Granny has black people on her staff ... What a load of nonsense they speak from their middle class home full of 'decor magazine' decorations and no sign of family or tradition or anything personal at all.
What mystifies me is why Meg would be so worshipped by any legitimate women of color. Why do they make for their 'Queen' a person who:
Consistently denied her black heritage for years.
Posed as Italian or Hispanic to her school friends.
Let friends and school personnel assume her black mother was the household help.
Reiterated the hurtful story that her wealthy white neighbors assumed that Doria was a nanny pushing Megsie in her stroller.
Surgically altered her birth features to make them less African.
Straightened and bleached her natural hair until she decided to start wearing wigs made from the sold hair of oppressed Third World women (of color)
Dated, married and presumably slept with solely Caucasian men.
Listed herself as 'Caucasian' on her professional resume
Was willing to market herself as 'Latina' if necessary but not as African-American
Only 'embraced' her WOC status when it became obvious that she could make money off it and milk some sympathy. Wrote articles for magazines and perhaps the Northwestern University admissions committee about her struggles and oppression and the blatant racism she faced growing up biracial. There are hundreds of thousands of girls like Meghan in the greater Los Angeles area alone, but not many of them have Emmy-award winning film industry fathers who could pay to send them to the best schools, or fork over thousands of dollars for cosmetic surgery while they are still in high school.
Meg is genetically partially black, but she repudiated that part of herself until it became her meal ticket. When she was married to Trevor, she wasn't talking about her biracial oppression because she wanted to be accepted as as white as Jessica Mulroney. She's fake to the core. Her cultural frames of reference, manner of speaking, manner of dressing . .all white. This child of the '90s wasn't watching Spike Lee films growing up; I bet Meg' fave shows leaned toward 'Friends' and 'Beverly Hills 90210'--both devoid of any non-Caucasians in their casts.
What about her is so f'n admirable, from the sugars' perspective?
I enjoy the commentary over on LSA because those sisters are tellin' it like it is: Meg is only a faux-black ridiculous fraud and an insult to all racial groups. Her usury of the latest woke cause is so transparently for her own fame and fortune. Every ethic group should revile her.
Indeed. In her silly mind Megsy must be thinking Eurythmics/Aretha "sistahs doing it for themselves" She re-imagines she is is a black victim these days for PR purposes. We all know she was listed as Caucasian/White on her acting resume. Thus when Hallmark had her on a movie she looked/was represented as Italian or other ethic-nish.
LSA is down on Megsy because she can can pass (for white). Did so for her prime Hollywood/Suits years. The darker Black women there can see a fraud and a cultural appropriation and they are pissed. What many might not know there is a perpetual war in the black community between woman who are lighter vs the darker. In UK and USA this status seeking has been going on forever.
Most recently recalled in the Mariah Carey book reveals at DM. Her sister and other family was jealous because Mariah turned out lighter and somewhat curly blond.
Just prior to Meghan we saw the "3 muskateers" at various events. And while they usually seemed happy enough, 95% of the time, Kate was pictured standing between the brothers. And we don't really know what was transpiring behind the scenes even then.
It seems pretty likely in hindsight that the seeds of the schism between the brothers was planted around the time William went to Eton. Harry would have been about 10 at the time, and old enough to understand the path that William was to follow in the future and how it was going to eclipse Harry's. H. probably would have interpreted this leaving as abandonment . . Wills going off to have fun with his older, exciting crowd, and leaving Harry behind. Haz would follow to Eton in due course, but due to the way their birthdays fall was probably 3 classes behind, not 2. There's the persistent story that he was angry at William for not intervening to make his school life easier . . . emotion defies logic, because how was Wills, an upperclassman with his own schedule and circle, possibly in entirely different sections of the campus, supposed to 'intervene' in a lower grade . .or allow his little brother to tag along to his activities with his friends? At school, you might mingle with older students on the sporting ground but otherwise you're expected to stay with your own peers.
Harry was just caustically jealous of his extremely handsome and popular brother--the spitting image of Diana when he was younger, with that shock of golden hair. William would have been a BMOC and popular even without being heir to the throne. (Tom Hiddleston was Wills' classmate at Eton). I think it was a fatal error for Charles to send Harry to Eton in William's shadow. As the one marked for a military career from an early age, Harry might have thrived at the more action-oriented Gordonstoun, like his grandfather. Charles's hatred of Gordonstoun may have blinded him to the fact that his younger son might have actually loved it there and would have been able to carve out his own niche without William on the same campus. If Harry had insisted that he wanted to follow W. to Eton, Charles would not have wanted to thwart Harry's wishes in the way that his own had been thwarted by his father. But just as PP misread Charles, Charles in his turn misread Harry, and the results have been catastrophic.
The brothers got separated again when Wills went off to St. Andrews, where he'd meet the lovely Kate and get willingly sucked into her stable family life for all the school holidays. Harry would have interpreted that as abandonment again. He was working on his substance abuse issues from the age of 13 on, and by the time William had children, Uncle Harry was an established and angry addict of multiple substances. It has been a longstanding story that Uncle Harry was kept at an arms' length from William's older children because he was very often drunk when he turned up and would scare the kids. By the time Louis was born, Harry was embroiled with Meg and had started renouncing his family. I don't think the brothers have spent any substantive time together that was not an official engagement since Christmas 2017 when fiancee Meg was invited to Anmer--a trend that seems very likely to continue, no matter how much PR claptrap is put out about brotherly chats and wishes for Christmas reunions, etc. emanating from the Sussex camp. William remains silent about any contact with Harry, which makes me believe that it is not happening.
Harry's been William's bosom enemy since long before Meg appeared on scene; she just helped him load his guns faster.
Are those birds' nests? I thought they were pictures of Meghan's hair.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/police-federal-law-enforcement-find-no-evidence-biracial-madison-woman-was-attacked/article_391b86cf-5253-5cde-bf22-7320c61255e8.html