"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
Très bien! :)
Good point but if the rumour is true, this is MM we're talking about (don't forget she's a great linguist!)
Having just read the last few comments re the Harkles and Christmas, is there any chance of you doing a post on this topic nearer the date? I think it would be a riot reading all the snarky comments about how JH and MM will be spending the festive season and with whom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvt4b_qwC_Q
Or maybe that would be a soiree at my place.
...Or were they too busy plotting their revenge and writing in their burn books?
The comment was cryptic and I don't know if it's because the person doesn't write well, or because they were referring to a club I don't know.
Would the queen and prince Phillip be able to have a Christmas this year anyway with Covid and given their ages? Seems to me, everyone is going to have their own family Christmas this year.
David Foster is up there age-wise where he shouldn't be unnecessarily exposing himself to potential virus contamination, either. Perhaps his wife has made the calculation that she would be better off a widow than a divorcee, too. Or it is all made up.
I would think that Camilla would be in very great danger if she became infected as well.
I know that my husband and I are the only ones in the family who put on masks around his frail 90-something-year-old parents. I would say that I would hope the royal family has more sense, but Harry and Scary are members.
I forgot about this comment about Harry and Meghan from CDAN a few days ago - someone who commented said that they saw Harry coming out of a club in LA with a few girls, maybe escorts?
Practicing bringing home prostitutes for the reality show? Research and work, that's what that is.
/Harry, if you use this, you're welcome.
Christmas is two and a half months away. Anything can happen between here and then plus at last minute (and just may well as this year has been BSC bat sh*t crazy).
That's a good question. The last time this they are doing a reality show PR which then we were all told was not true but it just happened to burst out when some very nice positive stuff was coming about about the Cams (Catherine I believe). And until the they aren't (false alarm), the world got in a tizzy about how could this be possible. (there is a small part of me which wonders if the idea of seeing if anyone would bite on it at the palace was more what the aim was).
Historically, her sister and I think her dad, commented that she did seem to go around rules (think the British Vogue fait accompli), African documentary which vered from that to how horrid things were for them ... so if something is being called a documentary and not a reality show, well that might be written off as Hollywood, PR or something.
FF was a marvelous example of this is the definitive source for how things really went down for them until the everyone started saying they hadn't talked directly, yada and then WE started reading it for ourselves, people are backing away from it in all directions only to have it show up last week in the court case.
So, with anything about JH&M, they are good at being able to releasing information which may or may not be true, may or not be labeled as we would describe it and until it comes out, it's hard for any of us to know what it really will be like until we are watching it with our popcorn.
Information which may or may not be true = the same might be said of CDAN. Sometimes it is just entertainment and sometimes, it is true. For the most part, unless we personally are in that soup, we probably don't really know which is which.
I managed to copy and paste! Yay!
That is a long post on LSA (just click on the spoiler to see that long comment). I think it is very good commentary.
I have been most disappointed with the excerpts from the Lacey book. I thought he was a good writer/researcher but his writing is shallow and nothing meets the expectations of the hype.
Is Lacey in the process of being Markled?
Not only was the tea that was hyped not delivered, but I see no evidence of critical thinking or analysis nor any of the other traits of a reputable researcher with a deep understanding of the monarchy.
Harry and Meghan are not constitutionally relevant, and Meghan was always 'not going to fit in'. That Harry did not see that Meghan would have major problems with being a working royal is actually very sad. He either knew very little of the woman he was marrying or he was very confused but very much in love or colluded with her from a very early stage ...
IMO the behaviour of the Harkles is an annoyance to the monarchy (there are plenty of scandals in the Queen's extended family) but it must be heartbreaking for them as family to have lost a troubled and problematic but well loved son, brother, grandson, uncle, cousin ...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1343531/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-LA-Megxit-royal-family-controversy-latest-news
LIBBY PURVES
Royals don’t deserve this baseless psychobabble
Robert Lacey’s new book about Princes William and Harry tells us more about royal Kremlinologists than the Windsors
The book is headline-fodder: Battle of Brothers . . . A Family in Tumult. Robert Lacey has been writing about royals for more than 40 years and turns now with ill-concealed delight to Princes William and Harry. He claims that the royal family “took fright over the title” and compares the Sussexes’ move to the abdication crisis. Though so far the only monarch involved is firmly in situ, with two direct heirs standing by and the next three in training, lisping charmingly at David Attenborough.
Well, freedom allows expression to any meretricious flapdoodle, from David Icke to Gwyneth Paltrow. A British readership may even prefer to believe the silver-haired codger Lacey, who married a marquess’s daughter and “consults” for the inaccuracies of Netflix’s The Crown, rather than trust the sycophantic authors of Finding Freedom. Excerpts from Lacey’s book brought on one particular queasiness, though. It dates, for me, to the morning the Princess of Wales died. A Sunday supplement printed earlier was blaring “Diana on the Couch”: a supposed analysis of the poor woman’s emotional life written by a psychological professional (albeit one with a weak grasp of Hippocratic principles). He had not treated or even met her. This impertinent presumption bothered me: there is a profound wrongness in publicly second-guessing a vulnerable stranger’s intimate thoughts. Later that morning my son and his friend, both Prince William’s age, showed the same concern. They made a formal deputation to me: “If you have to write about it, don’t say anything about her boys’ feelings.”
There is a line, not drawn often enough by any of us, between reporting the words and actions of people you know by hearsay, and anatomising their mental privacies. We are fully entitled to report, judge or lampoon when public figures appear, speak, divorce, resign, emigrate, are prosecuted for dangerous dogs, called up by US prosecutors or signed by Netflix. If they do interviews about their feelings we can quote them. What we are not entitled to do is to publish unprovable theories about mental states and relationships they haven’t confided.
It is invasive and cruel. In ordinary life we resent the impertinence of outsiders who inform you in bereavement exactly what “stage of grief” you’re at, and opine unsolicited on your “mental health”. Over a kitchen table you can answer back sharply; published, it feels as if a stranger vomited on your dressing gown. Media keep crossing this line: even Tom Bower’s new book about Boris Johnson falls for the emotional interpretation schtick, though it matters less when sources are cited and can be weighed. However, the royals are constantly afflicted by anonymous or invented insights into private relationships by writers they’ve never once sat down with.
It’s a tempting slide from reporting to imagining: journalism turning to fiction because in novels an author is godlike and all-seeing. When a subject is dead biographers can reasonably attempt conclusions, though the respectable ones base it on memoirs and diaries. When the victim is still struggling with life it is just spiteful. If a newspaper profile writer does it to a performer or politician there is at least the option of scornful flat denial on air or online. Royalty is hampered and mostly stays silent, though the Cambridges finally got Tatler to remove allegations that William was “obsessed” with his mother-in-law and his wife “exhausted”. Honestly, there is enough solid fact about the Sussex debacle to make Laceyfication vain and creepy. Remember that the first Queen Elizabeth said, after the Reformation years, that she had no wish “to make a window into men’s souls”.
You could argue that some members of the family ask for it, such as poor Diana. I actually defended her right to vent her feelings on TV because everyone owns their private story. But she did the future of royal reporting no favours earlier by giving her version on tape to Andrew Morton, then indignantly denying collusion. That muddied the waters and made it seem justifiable for any parasitic hack to theorise about how the family feel and relate in private. It gives little understanding and corrodes reasonable respect for our mainly dutiful constitutional monarchy, which is still favoured by a 62 per cent majority of the public.
Yet what bothers me most is the potential of this rogue psychobabble to cause human pain and aggravate real family tensions. How would royal authors feel if the tables were turned? “After his vituperative divorce Peter Paw-Prince, whose teenage daughter is reputed to hate him, shows needy co-dependence with his gay agent Basil Backstair . . .” Or “The many sexual rejections and weight issues of Bess O’Blige, author of Oh, Princess! are widely spoken of by concerned friends . . .” See?
Thank you so much!
I do recall talking, some time ago, about UK charities and how they have to set up separate legal entities when they start anything resembling trading, eg Oxfam and Oxfam Trading, WI Markets having to become Country Markets as opposed to WI - the new entities operate under business rules.
Of course, UK rules are similar to those in the US (but not necessarily the same as) and are laid out in:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/610137/CC9.pdf
Here's the very first statement in this doc:
1.1 Key points about campaigning and political activity
• Legal requirement: to be a charity an organisation must be established for charitable purposes only, which are for the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political.'
------------
I bet she's called her Christmas `do' a `soiree' because she doesn't know the term `conversazione'...
This is a new week and who knows what tomorrow might bring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuOaewwSOS0
Interesting how critical the opinion about Lacey's book is. May be because, being a serious respected writer, he was always expected to deliver a high class product. After reading his "fragment" I agree his is analysing and speculating a bit like we do here; this is fine if he has sources to support it. So far he names few and his attributions are opaque.
The DM fragment of his book about the "summit" made me realise one thing: after seven years of playing Rachel Zane Rachel Markle lost the distinction between herself and her imaginary character. She believes she possesses Zane's background and qualities and behaves accordingly. That is why her actions are illogical and nonsensical. She simply sees no real situation and reacts how Hollywood imaginary rules dictate her character to react.
I particularly enjoyed the volte-face in the final paragraph.
@Sandie I also think that Harry probably colluded from the start and this can be seen very clearly in the exchanged glances during the engagement interview; they were like two naughty kids who couldn't believe the grown ups were fooled by their lies.
I wouldn’t describe Lacey as a hack. He’s been writing about the royals for decades and does know his stuff. However, I do think he’s giving Megsy an easier time then he should (or she deserves!) and giving both Harry and Megsy too much credit for believing they would have behaved better if Geidt had been around at the start of their marriage etc.
I have the book pre-ordered, so it will be interesting to read the whole book in more context.
Harry and Meghan are not constitutionally relevant, and Meghan was always 'not going to fit in'. That Harry did not see that Meghan would have major problems with being a working royal is actually very sad. He either knew very little of the woman he was marrying or he was very confused but very much in love or colluded with her from a very early stage ...
IMO the behaviour of the Harkles is an annoyance to the monarchy (there are plenty of scandals in the Queen's extended family) but it must be heartbreaking for them as family to have lost a troubled and problematic but well loved son, brother, grandson, uncle, cousin ...
When JH and Murky Meg got engaged, and all through the bizarre wedding and their first half-year of marriage, I accepted the tale of the Lovesick, C#ntstruck Prince, throwing away his friends and the good opinion of his family because he was just so in Luuurve with this breathtakingly unsuitable, overbearing woman who dragged him around by the hand and elbowed him out of the way to shake hands with dignitaries first.
When Meg first turned up on JH's arm, I thought, "Well, this is going to be interesting . ." but saw the potential for her to be an asset to the Royal Family. If only she'd been even a fraction of the person she'd promoted herself as, she might have been. 'Round about the time the 'pregnancy' was announced, I detected a sea change in Harry's demeanor. Though they still went about with a death grip on each other's hands in public, it very often seemed to me that he was beyond irritated bordering into hate with her. Now that he's looking like death warmed over and isn't even trying to hide it, I keep wondering what the exact nature of their relationship is.
Was Haz EVER in love with this succubus? I think he was infatuated with his transatlantic booty call for a few months . . but he very obviously had grown tired of her and cast her off based on the cooling off of their relationship for 8-9 months while she stalked him 'round the globe. In JH's mind, it seemed to be well and truly over. Until it wasn't. They couldn't have secretly gotten married in Botswana on their third date if he broke it off with her in November/December 2016, in response to the photo-taking scandal at KP. Or, just because he was tired of tapping that tapped-out vessel. Her turning up at the Inskip wedding in April 2017 smacked of her being (barely) tolerated due to the invitation that had been previously extended as JH's plus-one months before when they were still ostensibly an item. There was no indication that JH had started seeing her again prior to Invictus, September 2017, when she turned up with her entourage looking like a Fury from hell and JH looked like he may have soiled himself there in the stands next to Mrs. Trump.
2 months later, they were engaged. Somehow this does not feel to me like the trajectory of a besotted man locking down the love of his life.
Is Harry that intent on destroying the peace of his father's and brother's future reigns that he is grimly doubling down on this toxic partnership? Or is the real JH dead and in his place, this vacant Stepford Husband robot has been installed? All these months on, while Meg is ludicrously transparent to me, it JH that remains the enigma. Why??? If he were truly in love, such as Great-Great-Uncle David had been with Wallis, one could forgive his subsequent actions a bit more. If all he's got is hate in his heart--hatred of his father, his brother . . and yes, his grandparents as well, and that is the only thing motivating him to continue to be a thorn in their sides . . he is well and truly lost.
You both have a lot of insightful things to say regarding the Ghastly Duo. Please carry-on regardless and continue to post. ;o)
You both have a lot of insightful things to say regarding the Ghastly Duo. Please carry-on regardless and continue to post. ;o)
_____
Yeah ok but what am I supposed to think as a POC (there I said it!) when Blacks are made to look like the boogey man on this thread? If these things are said and ***implied about the Black community, naturally I am going to wonder what is said about my community, right??? Rhetorical question.
I don't need a blog that bad. I belong to my tribe. My real tribe...
Must have missed the "when Blacks are made to look like the boogey man on this thread"
No offence meant, but I don't see this blog as racist.
Colour of your skin is irrelevant, your opinions, thoughts are far more important.
Agree with you
Must have missed the "when Blacks are made to look like the boogey man on this thread"
____________
The ongoing talk about false stories of Blacks being killed, questioning if they are real etc. I would think it's best to just not even go there (out of courtesy for non Whites on the blog?), especially for a RF thread...but it went on for days.
Agree with you
_____
Maybe you agree because it's never happen to you?
This blog has always been about the behavior of them - what are they doing now? what do you think about it? and, I wonder what is going on or why they are doing that.
Behavior with commentary.
No offence meant, but I don't see this blog as racist
_______
I don't think this is a "racist blog" but at times there are racist undertones here...
Let's get back to the topic of this post please.
I liked what Charade said about not wanting to endlessly revisit the past comments.
Please move on. The alternative is moderation. (I am now writing as a moderator).
I liked what Charade said about not wanting to endlessly revisit the past comments.
______
Then please consider doing as Charade did and ask posters to not post race related content (that to me can appear to be baiting)...
"But at times there are racist undertones here"
I would be interested to learn what discussions you think have racists undertones. It will help us not to go there again.
I was pretty sure we are all in agreement here the only way forward is looking at actions of the individual, not race.
Most comments I saw discuss behaviour and our moderator is pretty good at cutting offensive comments off.
@WBBM a registered 201C3 charity is not allowed to support any political candidate or it may lose its tax-free status.
@Weekittylass said: Love your handle!
How does a 201C3 differ from a 501C3? I’m not familiar with that designation.
I know that US tax law is pretty draconian and had assumed that any concessions they've had so far from the IRS can be withdrawn. I get the impression, however, perhaps wrongly, that the IRS taxes all money earned/acquired, from within the US or abroad, as US income. I know my late cousin, living in London and who had US widow's pension, couldn't have coped with her US tax return without serious assistance - to the point that she wondered if it was worth the effort after all, it seemed so intrusive.
So I was wondering how far the IRS/Feds can go with investigating accounts that have no connection with the US, especially looking into the affairs of other UK nationals living at home.
To quote @Nutty,
"Just to wrap up the story on Althea Bernstein, I find it a sad state of affairs that nobody is being called to account for supporting and publicizing this obvious hoax."
October 2, 2020 10:06 am
_____
Perfect example. Why even start this tirade when there are POC on this blog? Even if it is a hoax, why go there??? Rhetorical question.
Thanks for trying to understand.
Someone online said that there ratings are from polls done last year, before the flight to Canada and Megxit, but I cannot find verification for that?
https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/fame/royalty/all
Fame is not about admiration or respect, but the Sussexes may be confused about that. Even popularity is a subjective thing.
It is very interesting to see how Harry has
The next two polls will be interesting.
Harry has thrown away so much for Meghan ...!
You've always had some interesting things to say and I have looked for them.
To ask people not to post unrelated comments about race is reasonable.
You also have a responsibility to state that, in your opinion, this comment, you feel, is inappropriate at the time.
Please also understand that not everyone will always agree with you each and every time that this or that is offensive. Offensive can be elusive in pinning down as each of us look at things differently based on our own past experiences, not someone else's.
Moderators (or I am) have enough by trying to keep the current topic on track at the moment and step in at that time and not go back far when the conversation has moved on.
This blog moves really fast and keeping up with it is like keeping plates spinning on sticks while herding cats.
I am sorry you felt that particular discussion was offensive to the POC here. It was never meant to be.
I understood the AB case as an example of how any lies can lead to unforeseen great implications. In this particular of a British Royal Family member getting involved into a dubious case that could further inflame racial tensions and drag the whole royal family into it.
After reading your thoughtful posts I doubt you approve of lies and equally doubt you approve of Markle using AB's case for personal PR.
It's not a race matter to me, more of an example of Meghan jumping on another bandwagon without putting in work and educating herself about the topic first.
@Fairy Crocadile,
To quote @Nutty,
"Just to wrap up the story on Althea Bernstein, I find it a sad state of affairs that nobody is being called to account for supporting and publicizing this obvious hoax."
October 2, 2020 10:06 am
_____
Perfect example. Why even start this tirade when there are POC on this blog? Even if it is a hoax, why go there??? Rhetorical question
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tirade: noun
ti·rade | \ ˈtī-ˌrād , also ti-ˈrād \
Collegiate Definition
: a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative or harshly censorious language
The discussion pertaining to the Althea Bernstein “incident”/hoax belongs here because Harry and Meghan used it for their woke PR campaign, by calling Bernstein to express their support for her—before the facts of the case had been determined.
You might want to choose your words more carefully in the future.
Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours devoted to the Bernstein investigation by local, state (Wisconsin, where I live) and federal (FBI) law enforcement were wasted thanks to an 18-year-old’s fraudulent claimsthat she was the victim of racially motivated violence perpetrated by 4 non-existent white “frat boys” in downtown Madison. Bernstein and her family should be held to account . The fact that the entire sordid matter is being ignored by the Left-wing powers-that-be in Madison is disgraceful.
After reading your thoughtful posts I doubt you approve of lies and equally doubt you approve of Markle using AB's case for personal PR.
______
You are absolutely right. I find her despicable using another biracial female to get just another foot up.
You stated ..."a dubious case that could further inflame racial tensions"...
This! Whether it involves the RF or a member of the blog community, racial tensions are high (in the US especially and in the UK) in which extra vigilance needs to be in place- simply because there are non-White members of this community posting. That's what I've been trying to say today!
I do understand there are those that deeply resent having to show sensitivity. My take is that's just the way it is right now. I have my prejudices but I won't bring them to a public blog that's for sure. Because I'm being careful to not offend. I learned that in preschool. It's not that hard.
Merci!
Pivot: any one else had a chance to read this yet?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8806583/Meghan-Markles-ego-left-raging-Forunes-virtual-summit.html
now to rewatch the video (suggest in silence so you aren't distracted by voice)
You might want to choose your words more carefully in the future.
_____
Ok I will if you will make it a point to show more sensitivity to the issue of POC. Especially now that people are on the defensive. On both sides of the debate.
The more I am reprimanded the more it seems to me like some people don't get what its like to be a minority. It seems flippant and it creates more defensiveness like a vicious cycle.
The optics have not been good from my perspective.
Markle certainly did herself no favour by speaking out about that case. Self Markled?
I'm done with this conversation. I've said my peace (or piece, whichever one you dig the most).
Later Gators.
Thank you for always staying polite and considerate. I think your exchange with people shows that it is possible to discuss even sensitive matters without fighting.
People may disagree on things but continue respecting each other. I am glad about it
I understand there is the whole layer of special tax regulations applicable to the working royals in UK and it creates an absolute minefield when colluding with "normal" tax regimes of different countries.
Harry's ill thought move to USA has created a mess and a lucrative field for lawyers of all kinds. I doubt he will have much change out of 3 mil a year.
Apropos of my response to your last post before this one . .
Harry has thrown away so much for Meghan ...!
It's indisputable that he's thrown away his family, his country, his good name, the regard of his countrymen, all of his military associations, his friends, hobbies and seemingly everyting else he used to value.
But here is the crux of the matter: Was it all for lovesickness of Meg . . or ultimately for himself and his addled vision of eclipsing his brother come hell or high water that he has done this?
Earlier on in this saga, we cast JH as the c#ntstruck Prince giving up everything for the love of his ambitious American bride. He is much diminished from what he was, and in ways that have taken him by nasty surprise. I think he'd gotten used to manipulating his Granny as an ostensible favorite . . or taking refuge in his lifelong pattern of getting his way despite being a non-starter on every level. I don't think he truly expected his family to play hardball with him in regards to the military associations and honors. He acts like they are taking his toys away. Meg glommed on and took advantage . . but only because JH was full of grievances and already primed to turn traitor before she arrived on the scene. He had all the anger and the deluded visions of grandeur but lacked the personal initiative to strike out on his own . . not to mention, the ability. Meg is the firecracker that lit the royal bum on fire and blasted him out of his orbit. But he allowed her to light him up. Never once has he said, "No, I will not do this." I don't think he fears losing *her*; their relationship has never felt authentic--they are both playing roles. She has convinced him and/or he has convinced himself that he's got to stick with her as the only way to garner as much attention as William and Catherine. He was never going to get a Dukedom without a wife, and here was one who couldn't marry him fast enough. These two are a business merger, with terms that are increasingly unfavorable to JH. The man-child is entirely institutionalized, never having existed before now outside some institutional structure. His family of birth . . .the Army . . both rigid organizations with clear and defined rules. The same rules which he chafed against were actually bolstering him up. He's got no idea how to 'be' outside of these. Meg has taken over his life management and we see how that's going. Apparently he thought he could move to America, live in a mansion and rub elbows with movie stars, while still collecting his allowance from Dad and received all the deferences and attention he received as a Prince, just not having do dress up or do anything 'boring'. Granny would keep everything waiting for him and he could pop back and forth as he liked between countries.
JH is a petulant and very stupid child in a man's body. No matter what happens, this isn't going to end well for him.
re: Meghan Markle's 'eye blocks' and 'throat tightening' are signs her ego was left 'raging' when she was told 'she's not the only powerful woman' during Fortune's virtual summit, body expert claims.....
I read the article earlier today, but there’s no embedded video (of Megsy’s Fortune summit) within the article, so I couldn’t view the body language.
I don't think it is going to end well for Harry!
Meghan played to his weaknesses and faults and limitations. The two of them together unleashed the worst in each other and there is no one left in their life to offer any kind of counter balance, grounding, reality check ...
Edward was a bit of spoilt, petulant brat when he was younger. In the long run, marriage to Sophie seems to bring out the best in him. So, I don't blame anyone for believing that Harry would turn out all right with the right support and guidance. Then he met Meghan ... they might as well have left him playing billiards naked in Las Vegas!
There's an embedded video now. The eye block comes in at around the 30-second mark.
It's very subtle, but there definitely is a hardening of her eyes at the line "You're not the only powerful woman." Her lips tighten, too.
For someone who declined a Vogue cover on the grounds that it would be boastful and instead generously shone a light on other women who have been "forces of change" . . . she doesn't much like sharing what she perceives as her spotlight, does she?
No doubt. At least he was still Happy Hazza then. I bet he wishes he could go back to those days.
Understandably, the Palace could not have pictures of Charles's son in his birthday suit circulating on the Internet--thought they seem to have missed a few during the clean-up, because I've seen them. One has Haz in the hot tub, sporting a white Panama hat .. hmm . .if Little Harry is free range under the bubbles, we can't see anything. Another rather blurry photo taken at a distance depicts Harry kissing a girl while his hands are arranged modestly, fig-leaf style over the royal jewels. I guess those PG-13 pictures were allowed to stand but the security services had confiscated the phones and other devices of everyone present lest they had more compromising photos, which they probably did. Full-on money shots/shots of drugs being actively consumed, etc.
While that was an imbroglio for Haz, I thought it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot, really. At the time he was a 27-year-old soldier on R&R leave. In Las Vegas, where any debauchery is on offer 24/7. Not for nothing is its slogan "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Unfortunately, it does not stay in Vegas when one is (at that time) the third in line for the British throne. There was no suggestion whatsoever that all the equally scantily clad girls present were not of legal age and willingly part of the festivities. Drugs aren't legal, of course, even in Vegas, nor is public nudity, though they push the envelope to the limit with salient bits covered with tassels and string. Still, a lot more leeway is given in Vegas than other places for that sort of thing.
Were these hijinks actually worse than Harry donning Nazi reglia and giving the old Seig Heil a few years earlier? I personally do not think so.
Whatever he did to get embroiled with Megs was worse than what he got up to that weekend, by the looks of all these dodgy Soho House connections. No, naked hot-tubbing is by far from the worst thing Haz has ever done.
Interesting that it was sometime after this incident when a white Panama hat began to feature so prominently in Meg's Instagram photos, innit? Still--I hardly think that she targeted Harry from that early on. She was obsessed with Diana, yes, but she had her eye on William, the son with the Crown, the caboodle and all. Even a few months before meeting Harry, she was looking for any rich, available British guy to be her next sugar daddy. I think Harry was the last resort, actually.
Now I how I can I say this sensitively?
Earlier today I was reading articles critical of a certain controversial female MP at Westminster, who had better be nameless. It concerned a petition for her to be removed as her views seem to express the same kind of attitude that she attacks, thereby showing her, in many people's view, to be unfit as a Parliamentarian.
There was also something about Marxist cultural/racial theory that I hadn't come across before, or at least I could just about read without groaning. This claims, apparently, that those who control the means of production are those who are privileged, and have power, and that those who do not are oppressed and powerless.
So far, so good, it's like the basic Capitalist/Workers situation... except, each group, in this extension of the theory, is equated to certain ethnic groups which are not associated with Asia or pre-Columbian America, shall we say?
How does this play out with Meghan? I can only think that in her own mind, she thinks she is oppressed, despite being desperate for even more power than she has at present. Some of her speeches, eg in SA, defy analysis within this framework. Her evident rage at being reminded that there are other powerful women, she's not the only one, speaks volumes.
If there was a Nobel Prize for Cognitive Dissonance, she'd win it hands down, repeatedly.
I do hope I haven't offended anyone but I thought it was worth thinking about.
Hmmm?
Btw: Thanks for the answers to my Qs re the Feds.
Mind you, I'd switched off Safe Search.
I saw the Full Monty photos of H in Las Vegas, hence my gag about him perhaps taking a job as a nude life model - I've yet to see a meagre specimen posing.
"Meagre" 'bout sums it up, from what I could tell. Harry has thin hands and there was no suggestion that everything wasn't so well-covered as to be invisible.
Haz had quite a reputation with the lassies, pre-Meg, before she snipped his one functioning testicle to keep in her jewelry box. One wonders whether there wasn't some serious overcompensation at play there. Harry could always bag chicks on account of being a Prince, not because there was anything much special going on underneath the HRH.
Probably just another reason for him to be so rabidly jealous of William, his strapping brother. We have all seen the size of William's hands, after all. No one confident in his masculinity would have would up with the Megster. Apparently Wallis hooked David through similar insecurities, so the legend goes.
I'm surprised these last two years haven't turned him completely white. Maybe they have . .
Harry might be vain enough to use hair dye *now*, but I'm thinking back to his early adolescent years . . .at age nearly-13, at Diana's funeral, Harry had the straight, strawberry blond hair he'd had all through childhood. When we saw him about a year later, age 14, it had been cut very short, but it had also entirely changed texture into kinky and had seemingly overnight become more of a tomato red. I don't think he was dying his hair then. Red hair does fade more quickly than any other color, which is why it's so hard to keep it up when you purchase it at the salon. I attributed the fading of Haz's color to age.
The vast difference in H.'s hair from one year to the next has given rise a theory, outlier though it is that during childhood/adolescence, the 'real' Harry was switched with a double. As a baby and a young boy, H had an elfin quality, sometimes looking almost Nordic in his bone structure. His looks have changed a lot, but so have many people's. The older Harry gets, the more he looks like his Mountbatten side.
The only embedded video I could find in that article was the one of Harry and the marathon chat. Instead I found it on YouTube it was quicker! Lol
The body language was extremely subtle IMHO and the average person wouldn’t have picked up on it at all.
I will check 'Believing Bruce out as I’d like to see what he has to say about Megsy’s reaction. ;o)
It is now just gone 10:35pm here in the UK and I have been watching PW's documentary, "A Planet For All". What a difference to his brother!
If you would like to see how REAL royals see the environment, then this programme is for you. No hectoring, no harassment and absolutely no posing for the cameras. Both William and Catherine appear in it but they are there mainly to give a platform to various groups (mainly children) who are working on environmental issues.
I think JH and MM must be gnashing their teeth and, in JH's case especially, crying an ocean.
I would love to read comments from any other Nutties who have watched this programme.
Many thanks, Nutty, for allowing me to post this comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Pf4V11GO4
Swampwoman, another 🤬🤬🤬 Hurricane is on the way. This week!
I was pleasantly surprised about how much i enjoyed it - it wasn't about PW or his family, of course they were in it but it was more a celebration about what others are doing and their projects, no vanity, no look at me, aren't I great, do as I do blah blah. Certainly worth a watch and this is what the royals should be doing, showcasing others achievements for the greater good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome
elfish appearance with learning difficulties
Williams syndrome (WS) is a genetic disorder that affects many parts of the body.[3] Facial features frequently include a broad forehead, short nose and full cheeks, an appearance that has been described as "elfin".[3][5] While mild to moderate intellectual disability with particular problems with visual spatial tasks such as drawing is typical, verbal skills are generally relatively unaffected.[3] Those affected often have an outgoing personality, interact readily with strangers, and appear happy.[3][5] Problems with teeth, heart problems (especially supravalvular aortic stenosis), and periods of high blood calcium are common.
Here is the Fortune summit video:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8806583/Meghan-Markles-ego-left-raging-Forunes-virtual-summit.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
Apologies, I've only just seen your link re the video. The one I posted is just the interview without comments.
It's not just subtle. It may also be kind of specialized.
A body language expert whose videos I used to watch (until, ironically, she was taken in by Meghan during the engagement interview) said that you can't really read someone's body language until you know his "baseline." How is he "at rest," so to speak? For instance, if someone normally gestures a lot, then his suddenly going still would tell you something. But if someone is normally calm, a sudden gesture or jerk would be significant.
I think all of us Nutties are pretty familiar with Meghan's baseline and can tell when something sets her off. (People who have suffered narcissistic abuse have said similar things about Meghan raising red flags for them.) But the casual viewer, unless he were already a decent reader of body language, would miss important cues.
@ Tatty: Blogger tatty said...
Off topic!
Swampwoman, another 🤬🤬🤬 Hurricane is on the way. This week!
Nooooo! (Insert foul language of your choice here.) I hadn't been watching it since I saw the TS called Gamma decide to circle pointlessly around dropping lots of rain in Mexico. (Insert more foul language here.) Back to obsessively watching weather, I suppose.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Robert+Lacey+For+The+Daily+Mail
moderation for the time being
.....So I was wondering how far the IRS/Feds can go with investigating accounts that have no connection with the US, especially looking into the affairs of other UK nationals living at home.
--------------------------------
@WBBM
I don’t know much about it but for what it’s worth , I read about a year ago that the USA and UK had just signed an agreement that allowed the IRS to access the UK bank accounts and financial papers of people (UK citizens and aliens) liable to pay tax in the USA. It stuck in my mind because I had a WTF thought cloud over my head at the time.
An interesting article which might help explain Harry’s mental problems...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-guest-room/201102/the-kings-true-trauma
If Harry had found the right type of treatment things may have turned out much better, but the RF being what it is it was left far too late and he turned to substances and then latched onto Meg as his ‘safe place’ and the rest is and will be history.
AH! shoulda,coulda,woulda , If he ever does come back he will need years and years of therapy after his Megatrauma.
Off Topic but an interesting article of RF hidden gossip ....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1206431/Revealed-time--woman-Queen-Mothers-marriage.html
Another actress, but that’s how it’s done. Imagine if they had the media we do now back then though.
I had the same reaction as you to Lacey’s treatment of William in the latest DM excerpts taken from his book. I would certainly like to know who his sources are. And yes, very curious that Lacey omits any discussion of Markle’s obvious con job—talk about ignoring the elephant in the room.
Lacey also seems to argue that Markle’s departure from the royal fold may have precipitated Barbados’ decision to drop the Queen as its sovereign. Again, Lacey ignores the role that China’s “soft power” initiatives in the Caribbean and other economically challenged parts of the world play in their growing allegiance to the PPC, which is pouring billions of dollars into those nations’ economies in order to expand their global dominance.
I’d be interested in knowing more about Lacey’s political leanings.
Or is it like the extradition treaty which Blair agreed to?
@Golden Retriever said,
You might want to choose your words more carefully in the future.
_____
Ok I will if you will make it a point to show more sensitivity to the issue of POC. Especially now that people are on the defensive. On both sides of the debate.
The more I am reprimanded the more it seems to me like some people don't get what its like to be a minority. It seems flippant and it creates more defensiveness like a vicious cycle.
________________________________________________
No one has reprimanded you.
You have taken that comment of mine—“You might want to choose your words more carefully in the future”—out of context. I was referring specifically to your misuse of the word “tirade to describe the discussion about the Althea Bernstein fraud. Not one person here ever subjected you to a “tirade”.
And as a POC you should be troubled by Bernstein’s false claims that she was the target of a racially motivated hate crime, because her lies will only serve to make the pubic more skeptical in the future when someone claims to have been the victim of a hate crime.
Let's wrap up the conversation about Althea Bernstein.
The reason it was relevant to this blog is that Meghan rushed in once again without doing her homework, and ended up embroiled in a mess, which is par for the course. Once again, she's gotten the Royal Family's name involved in something inappropriate.
In addition, Meg did no follow-up, which is also par for the course.
Further discussions about race in America, ANTIFA, etc. are not relevant to this blog.
The Windsor Suite's interiors are in an old H&M shop
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1344241/Royal-shame-duke-of-windsor-waldorf-astoria-royal-news
@Charade {{belated hugs}} my thoughts are with you also.
Most Commonwealth countries do not have the British monarch as head of state. I predict that during the reign of Charles, all Commonwealth countries will make this change.
This is not an insult/blow to the Queen, but a long overdue modernisation.
Harry and Meghan have no influence in Commonwealth countries. They have nothing to do with trade agreements, financial aid or any kind of strategic alliances. That is what is important to these countries, especially those who have a lot of poverty.
What such a change might have an effect on is visas and work/study opportunities in the UK, especially for young people in these countries.
It will be interesting to see if the Harkles use their positions in the QCT to create a platform to blab on about their self importance and capitalise on what Lacey has written in his book.
I don't know if Lacey has an agenda. But I do know it would be pretty hard to write a credible account focusing on the conflicts between two brothers and frame the conflicts as the fault of only one brother. Otherwise you have a FF type of book.
I also know the idea that Harry was often made to pay the price for the mischief both he and William engaged in is not a new idea. It certainly isn't an idea that started with Meghan or her sugars. It's been around for years including the idea Will had a part in the costume party story. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/focus-poor-belittled-rich-kids-prince-harry-and-his-fancy-dress-set-486919.html
According to the above link, not only may William's animal costume been his second choice, it may not have been quite as innocent as it sounded (thanks, some said, to palace spin.)
I believe too there were some suggestions Will and his friends were not always responsible hunters but Harry tended to pay a bigger price (although if the Hen Harrier story is true Harry was protected by removal of the bodies.)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/07/monarchy.wildlife
I do agree the excerpt we've seen may blame Will too much for Harry's drinking. But there were stories about Will's alcohol consumption too. There were occasional pictures of Will falling out of nightclubs drunk, for example. And the infamous "I'm free" club table jumping after breaking up with Kate. But even before the 2017 dad-dancing Verbier weekend, after marriage there was the story about Will getting plastered at a wedding he attended without Kate and falling and breaking a tooth. Here's a 2007 article about both princes' drinking. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/3326/Warning-for-Princes-over-their-drunken-antics
The above article may or may not be true. But neither it nor others published before 2016 were influenced by Meghan or her minions.
While the 2015 DM article claiming Charles was upset he never saw George may not have been true, it is the case that young George was never photographed with Charles except at the christening and at the TOC.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2980249/Charles-don-t-let-grandson-George-writes-SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE.html
Several years ago when Charles allowed photographers inside Clarence House, a picture of Charles holding infant George was seen. But over the years there were lots of pictures published of George with Carole M. It does appear things have changed--- perhaps as Lacey seems to suggest because of the need to deal with Harry, perhaps for other reasons. And it was only a few years ago when Will said Charles needed to stop working so much so he could see more of his grandchildren https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6364761/Prince-Charles-spend-time-grandchildren-says-Prince-William.html
Will's temper has been legendary for years too. In fact, some said Will was the more openly bad-tempered brother while Harry was more affable. So I'm not understanding some reactions here suggesting while Harry's temper is fair game for discussion, it was unnecessary to mention William's temper when purportedly trying to understand the relationship between the two brothers.
I do think Lacey makes some overblown claims. I don't think the survival of the monarchy was ever dependent on Will and Harry's relationship. And the book may have been unnecessary to write-- I don't really have an opinion about that. But if it was to be written, I don't think it would have helped to whitewash history.
Harry was on track with doing so, until he met Meghan.
That William had Harry by his side as he stepped up as a full-time working royal and even started a foundation with his brother and his wife shows how very close the brothers were. Harry was right in a way in saying that him and his brother have different paths in life. With a different wife, I think Harry could have navigated the 'together but not equal' position he had in his brother's life, but perhaps there was a lot more unhappiness and conflict behind the scenes. Odd though that the unhappiness and conflict only showed itself when Meghan arrived!
Harry separating from his brother and seeking his own path is perhaps not unexpected, but to cut himself off from everything in doing so and to end up in California as a TV producer, making 'royal' appearances, grabbing any platform to speechify ... the result of sheer exploitation from a grifter wife who wanted him for the fame and wealth (IMO).
By the way, Charles staying quiet and 'agreeing' when Willam lost his temper as a youngster shows maturity and depth. Standing up to or challenging someone who is angry/in a rage escalates the situation. The dominance and control exhibited by Meghan (force) is far more common than the power of restraint, so Charles is labelled as weak. That Willam has learnt to control his temper and built a very good relationship with his father shows that he has gained maturity and depth. In his marriage to Meghan, Harry has chosen the opposite path. The British monarchy is going to be ok!
That we know about these incidences of William being drunk and disorderly, losing his temper and so on actually shows that the story of Harry being some kind of victim taking the fall for his brother is a very warped view of them (bitter sibling rivalry and estrangement is better fodder for gossip). Willam was not given a free pass by the press.
William has matured, even though he spent so much of his life in the fishbowl of public scrutiny and opinion.
Harry met and married a woman who exploited him instead of supporting him in his own path to maturity.
I don't have a link, but there is another photo of George crawling and Charles on all fours on the grass encouraging him (in a suit as well!). George comfortably sits on his lap for that group photo and Louis leans forward to grab grandpa's nose while Charlotte comfortably snuggles up to Camilla. The few photos of Charles and Camilla with the grandchildren shows loving interaction. We don't even have photos of Archie having that kind of interaction with his parents!
Both his sons said that Charles was so busy that he did not spend enough time with his family (even Camilla has said this), but William has managed to get closer to his father, as a father and grandfather, whereas Harry has essentially cut himself off from his father.
P.S. I like sour patch candies in my popcorn. Coke to drink please.
Prince Philip served well
As Captain General
Sixty four years, give or take
He handed the reins
To Harry no brains
Who decided to go on the make
It should pass to Will
Philips boots he will fill
Get rid of Harry for f..ks sake!
Secrecy from Meghan (and the 'rumours' about the buzz and so on, but no actual information about who is working on the project) is what we have come to expect. She will turn on the cameras and deliver her word salad when she is ready! But why is Netflix going along with this?
1. Queen (78%)
2. William (73%)
3. Catherine (66%)
4. Anne (57%)
5. Philip (50%)
6. Charles (47%)
7. Harry (42%)
Indeed. Charles was busy doing king-lite things plus building a tremendous business proving that green can work. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that *anybody* that builds a successful business, whether they are building contractors, doctors, or retailers are going to have that work/home life balance issue. Older family member was talking with a young man about life choices who said something to the effect of "What would you know about having no money? You're rich!" Old man told him "Son, if you are willing to work 12 plus hours per day seven days a week for over 50 years and save and invest your money, you, too, will be 'rich'." Most people want the accountrements but not the work.
William's children may well have the same complaints about him one day.
@Sally
I read some time ago, a documentary maker, Queen’s 90th/Charles 70th?
He said he was surprised that behind palace doors
William was fun, outgoing and friendly. Harry was quiet, and reserved.
Quite the reverse of what he was expecting?
"That we know about these incidences of William being drunk and disorderly, losing his temper and so on actually shows that the story of Harry being some kind of victim taking the fall for his brother is a very warped view of them (bitter sibling rivalry and estrangement is better fodder for gossip). Willam was not given a free pass by the press."
True. I didn't mean to imply Will got a completely free pass. He didn't and Kate certainly didn't.
What I was saying was there were plenty of press stories about Harry getting more blame for W&H's joint ventures long before M came along. (Some when Harry was still a young teenager.) And there were a few instances where it appeared Will may have escaped getting quite so much blame because of palace interventions (first requesting a Zulu chief's outfit for the Natives and Colonials party.) And too, we don't know what was happening behind the scenes. Certainly Diana complained openly because she felt the family favored William too much. I happen to think she didn't do Harry any favors with her Good King Harry routine. But I don't think the idea that Will was more protected is all delusion. Seems pretty expectable in that kind of heritary system and probably does have some basis in reality. Pointless to fight it. Better Harry had not been sent messages he could/should compete.
Re: Charles and the grandchildren. Definitely things seem to have changed in the last few years. For whatever reason. The Middletons aren't so "out there" either. I expect they are still fully involved--- why wouldn't they be? But it's not front page news as much. I offered the quote from William not because he was necessarily the only one to say that about Charles's work schedule, but because Will said it on camera. It wasn't a "sources say" kind of thing. And the Lacey book does discuss Will vs Harry's relationship with Charles.
@Sally1975 wrote:
"Whatever trouble William may have gotten into when he was younger he at least managed to grow into a responsible adult."
True. I understand the Lacey book is getting criticized alot (although DM comments may not be the best barometer.) But that's fine. But I'm not sure what people expected Lscey to write if the topic was an historical account of conflicts between Will and Harry. An account of how everything was always all Harry's fault? I seriously doubt people behind the scenes thought so at the time some of the events unfolded. If the book dealt only with the brothers in their 30s, then I'd agree Will's road to reaching middle adulthood would be irrelevant. But it doesn't. And too, it's kind of hard to judge whether there's an agenda without seeing the full book as context is everything. It may be a work bashing Will. Or it may be a work that is more even-handed and that's interpreted as Will-bashing.
Further discussions about race in America, ANTIFA, etc. are not relevant to this blog.
_____
Good morning Nutty. Thank you.
There's always something more a parent could have done, and an element of growing up is forgiving our parents for mistakes they made that truly hurt us. I believe Prince William has been able to do this with both Prince Charles and Diana. And should his own children have reason to complain about how he balanced work and home life, I hope they also come to see that he did his best.
And now I realize that I wish for this kind of healing for Prince Harry, too. Not just because he may be a father himself, but also because everyone needs this great source of peace.
It’s not the first time I’ve read that William was shielded from bad publicity regarding his behaviour growing up whilst Harry’s was reported in the press (it was reported in the press years ago). However laying the blame for Harry’s bad behaviour at William’s door is totally unfair. This reads like Lacey wants to give Harry a free pass and put the blame and onus on his sibling. It was not William’s job to keep his younger brother in check, he’s not been ever been Harry’s substitute parent.
Their parents had two children, both parents had their issues and problems. William has managed to forge healthier relationships and found a stable wife from a stable family. Harry on the other hand has had numerous problems and developed a massive resentful chip on his shoulder. Rather than try and overcome it and look at all the positives his life offers, he’s chosen see nothing but all the negatives and wallow to the point of drowning in them.
@lizzie
The DM comments may not be the best barometer,
but, they have been proven to be the voice of middle England.
@swampwoman expected to be major cat 3 by Thursday, 😭😭😭😳😳😳☹️☹️☹️
Completely and Totally Off Topic: Oh, snap, just tuned into a Houston station and the spaghetti models all say Louisiana is on the menu! (I think there is a hurricane homing device hidden in your pine tree. You should cut it down and have it shipped to another state. The west coast needs the rain; we're good as it is currently pouring again.)
It may cross the Yucatan as a category 3 or 4? Those poor people. They've already had a tremendous amount of rainfall.
"The DM comments may not be the best barometer,
but, they have been proven to be the voice of middle England."
Maybe. But in this case, those comments are judging based on excerpts not on the full book. And in many other cases (including pre-Meghan) the comments have been seen to shift positions quite rapidly. Those rapid shifts may or may not represent rapidly shifting beliefs in middle England. That's all I meant.
In the end, I wonder what the point of the book is other than to cash in on a family drama happening in a very public family.
Change of topic ... Meghan did gain a huge amount of popularity and fame very quickly when she met Harry. She is not the 'top dog' in the BRF and did not get close to the top 5, but that very quick rise to fame and wealth must have influenced her thinking and her choices. After all, Meghan grew up in Kardashian territory! And maybe she was too set in her ways and/or too much of a narcissist to connect with the duty/ethics/honour part of being royal. When you compare her life before and after Harry, according to her values and priorities, she is a huge success.
Flash:
“Kate makes urgent visit to university students as thousands trapped in Covid chaos” just flew up into my news feed.
She went to the University of Derby, according to the Express.
They say she met with first years, and nursing students, to ask how they were getting on.
And that, to me, is how you royal.
If cartoons Megs is developing in secret turn out to be something good I will issue a great sigh of relief. It is quite exhausting everything she did so far turned into a bovine waste product.
There must be something she can do well apart from promoting herself, right?
"Six Months in the Life of a Locked-Down Theater
Britain’s National Theater hopes to reopen in October after being closed for more than 200 days. But even with the shutters down, it’s been an eventful and emotional time for its staff."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/theater/uk-national-theater-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Features&pgtype=Homepage
Will's temper has been legendary for years too.
Apparently Wills' nursery school nickname was "Basher". He must have been a handful for his preschool teachers. How does one appropriately discipline the heir to the throne, even if he is only three?
In fact, some said Will was the more openly bad-tempered brother while Harry was more affable.
This may have been true behind the scenes, though it's hard to reconcile this horrid temper of Wills' with the child who assumed the caretaker/confidante role to his mum, passing tissues under the door, etc. Perhaps William's temper came some part out of being put in a push-me-pull-yu situation with his parents' marriage. By the time Chas and Di were splitting up, William was old enough to understand his future role of King and duty. So in that respect, he had to be loyal to his father and the Queen. But of course he loved his mother very much. To take her side would be to go against the expectations of the crown. An impossible position to be put in, for a 10-year-old boy. Harry, being that much younger, would have been sheltered from much of this.
If Wills was indoctrinated from babyhood on, including 27 months as the only apple of his parents' and the the nation's eye, that he would be King one day and was expected to act like it, that would explain some of the autocratic aspects of his temper. But he appears to have a knack at getting along much better with 'regular people'--Harry's the one with the persistent reputation, as Andrew has, of being spoiled by his princely privileges.
It doesn't reflect well on William if he was as egregiously involved in some exploits like the culturally insensitive costumery or illegal hunting or drunken hijinks that Harry got the blame for. I can totally believe that William did get sheltered more from negative consequences owing to his position. But the question now is, how have Diana's boys done at becoming men and put their adolescent pasts behind them? It seems only one has managed to do so. Word on the street is that William still has that temper, but where Harry's concerned, I'd now call it 'righteous anger', and if no one else in the family is going to get mad and do anything about the Harkle disasters, somebody's got to.
@lizzie
That’s fine. Middle England will still stand.
Btw- royal `experts' seem to emerge from under every stone so...
`How many Royal Experts does it take to change a light bulb?'
Ans. None - Megsy shines more than enough light as it is.
Boom, Boom!
Do you watch "The Crown"? There is a very early scene in the first episode, when George VI is being dressed for his daughter's wedding that he loses his temper with a dresser over a recalcitrant collar stud. His equerry Peter Townsend distracts HM with a dirty limerick, leading the King to come up with one in turn that's even more filthy, and good humor is restored.
I imagine in his case, frustration over his stammer and the attendant communication difficulties led to routine outbursts of temper. That plus being jacked up on about 80 cigarettes a day.
Does Charles have the same reputation for being snappy?
It was attributed to William as saying, aged about 9 or so, to Charles: "I hate you! Why do you make Mummy cry all the time?"
If this anecdote is true and not part of Diana's PR barrage to bolster tales of Charles's cruelty, then I daresay that "Basher" had courage, however misplaced, to come at the old man with those fightin' words. I cannot for the life of me imagine speaking to my dad like that. I would have been too afraid to. My father seems to have commanded more respect and awe out of his progeny than the future King of England has managed to do.
The two seem to have made up in recent years . . I think the birth of Charlotte, Charles's namesake, was the beginning, and the birth of Louis, after which the Cambridges were expected to step up their level of Royal engagements and become based full-time at Kensington Palace, cemented it. Kate has captured some really adorable and touching moments between Charles and his grands, and with his son.
My theory is that Lacey's book was backed by PC. Dumping all the blame on William was a ploy to lower his popularity since PC is perennially jealous of anyone usurping what he considers his rightful place in public approval. It's backfiring. It's the BRF and specially PC who are being criticized for terrible parenting. I love when mean machinations explode in their schemer's face!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8812187/Prince-William-Kate-Middletons-rocky-university-romance-ROBERT-LACEY-reveals-untold-twists.html
I find this very strange as he is repeating gossip that has been debunked. When Catherine changed her mind and applied to St Andrews, it was not known that William would go there. How could she have changed her university to 'chase Willam', as Lacey implies, if she applied almost a full year before she knew that William would be studying at St Andrews?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_2JRjhOT8I
Thanks for the link on LCC's latest vid. I loved it and agree with Lacy C 100% in everything she said. She is right on. I would love to read her book 'People of Colour and the Royals'.
She gave a brilliant explanation in a past vid about the blackamore pin Princess Michael of Kent wore to meet Meghan. She gave the history on that type of jewelry and it's real meaning. Leo who was her host at the time mentioned the blackamoor jewelry of his country Croatia. It was fascinating and very informative.
I'm a HUGE Bob Marley fan. She met Bob and had very good things to say about him. Bob was loved in Jamaica because he promoted unity which I think is a very important message that we don't hear enough of.
Lady C is so correct when she says the subject is very complex. I agree. We will never figure it out completely.
I really enjoyed it! Lady C is an amazing woman. One to admire for sure.
I love listening to Lady C because she has a fantastic memory, an amazing grasp of history, and she has met so many important and influential people. I also love her vocabulary and find her talks to be entertaining and educational. She is very charming, as well.
I love listening to Lady C because she has a fantastic memory, an amazing grasp of history, and she has met so many important and influential people. I also love her vocabulary and find her talks to be entertaining and educational. She is very charming, as well
_____
A very good description of LCC!
I learn how real English is spoken by listening to her!! Lol...meaning her amazing use of the language, her phrasing. I'm in awe of her abilities.
Our future king has transformed from a fiery young man into a mellow family-focused figurehead that can connect with people
By Camilla Tominey
It was a royal engagement many may have thought would once have been better suited to fun-loving Prince Harry. Surrounded by primary schoolchildren with worms in their hands, the visit to All Saints Catholic Primary School in Liverpool was full of potential pitfalls.
Yet as the touching exchanges between the future king and these inner-city children revealed during Monday’s TV documentary on the environment, it is William – not Harry, who is taking on the role of the “People’s Prince”.
As he took great delight in opening the Anfield school’s new bug hotel – dubbed “Bugingham Palace” – the heartwarming scenes showed a William many have never seen before. Viewers welcomed this self-deprecating and candid side to him as the father of three kept his humour while being bombarded with questions about Prince George, seven, Princess Charlotte, five, and Prince Louis, two.
Revealing that the eldest were as “cheeky as each other” and that his wife Kate was better at “flossing” than him, despite all the turmoil of the last two years, A Planet For Us All depicted a prince at peace with himself. William’s calm and thoughtful demeanour could not have been more at odds with historical reports of the “hot-headed” Prince’s “petulance”.
Yet as royal author Ingrid Steward put it: “Becoming a parent has mellowed him. William has always had this ability to connect with people. I remember from some of his earliest engagements how much he reminded me of Diana.
“He’s very natural and not at all fake. He’s always had it but I think perhaps he was overshadowed by Harry. Now he’s no longer on the scene, we are reminded that William has the same qualities in spades.”
It is certainly a new take on the latest royal chapter, which has seen William pitted against his beloved brother ever since Harry married Meghan Markle in 2018.
This week, the Royal family has been plagued with yet more revelations about the tensions between the Cambridges and the Sussexes with the serialisation of Robert Lacey’s new book Battle of Brothers.
In it, the respected royal author claims that Harry felt overshadowed not only by his sibling’s superior status in the royal pecking order, but by his tendency to always put the Firm first. Lacey’s book also references William’s fiery temper, revealing that even Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, was taken aback by the extent of his “ranting and raving” at Prince Charles when she married into the Royal family in 2005.
Describing William as “letting rip with no apparent inhibition in his presence”, he said: “The rows had been earth-shattering by her account, with William doing the shouting and Charles submitting meekly.”
Stubborn and strong-willed William was begged by palace PRs to acknowledge his father’s role in his upbringing in media appearances to mark the 20th anniversary of the Princess’s death in 2017 but he refused.
Those who know the couple best credit Kate – and indeed the Middleton family – with helping to calm fiery William. “When William is flying off the handle, it is often Kate who pulls him back,” said one source who knows them both well. “Sometimes William would let the press get to him. Kate would always be the one to say: ‘Let it go’.”
During the nearly two decades they have been together, William has also sought the wise counsel of Michael Middleton, Kate’s father, whom he jokingly refers to as “Dad”. The mild-mannered former BA flight dispatcher has been an invaluable sounding board over the years, but the success of this week’s documentary is also a testament to the team around William who have helped him to realise his ambitions.
His former private secretary, Simon Case, recently appointed as Cabinet Secretary by Boris Johnson, is credited with bolstering the Duke’s statesmanlike image. One of Mr Case’s last jobs at Kensington Palace was to help William write a diplomatically delicate speech during a visit to Ireland in March in which he insisted the monarchy was “determined” to play a part in protecting the bond between the UK and Ireland, post-Brexit.
William became the first royal to visit Jerusalem and Palestine in 2018 and a year later he and Kate became the first royals to visit Pakistan in 13 years.
A collaboration with Sir David Attenborough has seen the naturalist become William’s “mentor” on conservation issues, too.
Intent on spinning a positive message as opposed to finger-wagging doom-mongering, the Duke launched the Earthshot Prize in December, his biggest charitable endeavour to date, in a bid to galvanise a decade of action.
The initiative, backed by Sir David, aims to encourage and inspire people across the world to find innovative new solutions to one of the gravest problems facing the Earth. A multi-million-pound prize will be awarded to five winners a year over 10 years, comprising at least 50 solutions to the world’s greatest problems by 2030.
According to a source close to the Duke: “It’s about saying, ‘We can do this’, rather than feeling like it’s all too much of a daunting challenge.”
Much has been made of Harry and Meghan’s campaigning videos on issues including racism and voting, but William’s style is markedly different. Those closest to him insist that the last thing he wants to be is a “preaching Prince”.
“The Duke has no interest in telling people how to live their lives,” added the insider. “He is realistic. What he is trying to do is come up with solutions to the challenges we face.”
Oh, for pity's sake!
Actions have consequences, a truth lost on H & M.
Whoever Porne Michaels is on twitter, the person has put together a handy summary of all the organisations that the Harkles are linked to, with dates. When you compare the dates with the dates of the Sandringham Summit and Megxit, you can see that they were planning their commercialisation of their brand quite a while before, and even before the tour to Southern Africa and the pity me documentary.
They are both dishonest and duplicitous. It would be interesting for the tabloids press to accurately lay out all this evidence and show how they deceived his family and the taxpayers.
By the way, Andrew suposedly did some duplicitous squirelling away of money while being funded by taxpayers as a full-time working royal. Maybe the family just do not want close scrutiny of all of this and are angry with the Sussexes for being so messy and exposing them all?
I, too, love the "insider's" insight that Prince William's objective is to come up with solutions. It's obviously PR, but it's also good, focused PR. That is, it gives us a benchmark against which to measure him from this point on. Every time he launches a new project, we'll know that he's tackling a specific problem and we can evaluate his proposed solution on its own merits.
The "preaching" comment is also an interesting jab. A preacher doesn't want to solve problems as much as he (or she!) wants to convert people to a certain belief system. And that really does seem like William's sister-in-law's objective -- though what the belief system is doesn't seem to be too clear.
I'd say it's damn' difficult to handle a narcissist well, unless one has had extensive experience and has done the research - the only safe way to deal with them is to put as much distance between them and oneself them as one can.
Fergie? I wonder?
Did the Royals handle M badly?
I'd say it's damn' difficult to handle a narcissist well, unless one has had extensive experience and has done the research - the only safe way to deal with them is to put as much distance between them and oneself them as one can.
Fergie? I wonder?
I think you are right about that. A friend has a mother-in-law that is a diagnosed narc. The stories she tells me (and I have not found her to be an untruthful person) are mind-blowing, and those are just what the evil woman does to her own son (friend's husband) and her own husband! If constant drama is not ongoing in which she can play the victim and have a huge pity party, she will deliberately stir up something. Social media was made for those people, apparently. She wears a pious mask and tells people that she will pray for them when she has done something particularly underhanded to them. Naturally, she has a lot of money because things like empathy for others and playing by the rules was left out of her DNA. She would betray anybody for a dollar. Since she 'gives' a lot of money to the church, they are accommodating in that they tell all who will listen how wonderful she is.
Fergie as a source? I didn't think so at first, but I do believe that she would do anything for her girls and maybe even Andrew. If she thinks PW was involved in removing the girls from being working royals, I can see where the hidden knife might come out. But, I really don't know. I'll let the UK ladies hash this possibility out, and I shall enjoy reading the insights.
Fergie as a source? I didn't think so at first, but I do believe that she would do anything for her girls and maybe even Andrew. If she thinks PW was involved in removing the girls from being working royals, I can see where the hidden knife might come out.
Wasn't it around the time of William's wedding that Charles announced the slimmed-down monarchy scheme and removed Beatrice and Eugenie from a working role, declining to further cover their security? They were in their early 20s at the time, and their father assumed the costs for security for them. Andy's been nursing his grievances ever since . . not just at the expenditure, but at the reduced profile for his daughters. Back when William & Harry and their York cousins were small, apparently Sarah put about a story that she'd visited a fortune-teller who told her that Beatrice would one day be Queen.
Delusion did not enter the House of Windsor with MM; it's been established for quite a while.
What we are seeing play out now between William and Harry played out between Charles and Andrew, to a lesser degree since Andy didn't try to operate outside of the RF like Harry is doing, and their animosity was mostly hidden from the public. Harry's splashing his animosity all over the Internet and the publishing industry.
As far as the Yorks are concerned, their grievance is with Charles, so if they are going after William, it smacks of revenge at second-hand, rather than a hatred of William personally. It's his position and the attendant glory in relation to their daughters that rankles. William may be moving into more of an advisor/sounding board role for Charles as the two prepare to transition to their future roles as #1 and #2, but I don't think W. has the clout yet to be the decision-maker about personnel.
Thanks for the link on LCC's latest vid. I loved it and agree with Lacy C 100% in everything she said. She is right on.
She sure is, unlike a certain madam who doesn't have have the foggiest idea of what she's blathering on about! :)
This book was written well before the Duo got their Netflix deal. I pre-ordered the book in June (it’s being released next week), so it was already well into publication before then. So timeline wise it’s highly unlikely Lacey could have written a more syrupy take of the Duo in his book because he wrote a few episodes of The Crown for Netflix, who just happened to give a deal to the Duo.
@Lavender Lady said:
Thanks for the link on LCC's latest vid. I loved it and agree with Lacy C 100% in everything she said. She is right on.
She sure is, unlike a certain madam who doesn't have have the foggiest idea of what she's blathering on about! :)
_______
La Markle could have learned from LCC. Too bad she didn't think about that before pulling a runner.
I'd say it's damn' difficult to handle a narcissist well, unless one has had extensive experience and has done the research - the only safe way to deal with them is to put as much distance between them and oneself them as one can.
______
I can attest to this as a retired social worker. No contact is the only way. Once I determined put myself on a no contact rule for a narc relative (close relative), my life has been **much more peaceful.
It took awhile to figure her out as she's a covert narc and hid it well. Being she's close family, it took me longer to see the truth about her antics. As we know, narcissism is another buzz word in the psychobabble world where if we are not thorough, we can start seeing narcs behind every bush. I'm grateful we have miles between us, otherwise I'd still be pulling my hair out!
I can only begin to imagine the suffering of having a narc mate and raising children with that mate. With JH's highly dysfunctional upbringing and his wifey-poo being a raging narc, I shudder to think...
https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/netflix-indicted-texas-cuties-082654657.html
Are Megsy's chickens coming home to roost?
--------------
My latest narc might have been expert on various esoteric subjects but she was a know-all nothing about others. She announced to me that I'd have more room on the kitchen worktop (US -`counter') if I put the microwave away after each time I'd used it.
I stopped myself saying `Be my guest - feel free to try', fortunately.
She would probably have grabbed it - and promptly dropped it. A smashed foot would have been a painful lesson, one for which she would doubtless have blamed me.
Well, it's a free(ish) country; they can set up whatever they want as long as it's legal. The curious thing is that she has chosen to "set up court" in a place where people are only as important as their last hit movie, record, or business. No money, no influence, nobody cares.
so Harry was ranting about the paparazzi stalking him when there were none around?
the boy's got issues.
it’s highly unlikely Lacey could have written a more syrupy take of the Duo in his book because he wrote a few episodes of The Crown for Netflix, who just happened to give a deal to the Duo.
I'm trying to avoid as much as possible reading much about another sycophantic book, but can someone point me to the place where Mr. Lacey is attributed as a co-writer on The Crown? It's possible he contributed to the as-yet unaired Season 4 (ie, the advent of Diana), but of the 30 episodes comprising the first three seasons (10 each season), Peter Morgan is the sole author of 26 of those. He collaborated with four other writers for one episode apiece with them in S2 and S3, so if Lacey wrote anything for this show it was extremely minimal and hasn't aired yet. His book would have been well finished before he participated in any script writing. I think the Netflix connection is therefore coincidental. But then, not much coincidental seems to happen in Meg's world, does it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)
On January 19, 2020, The Independent ran an article entitled “Netflix boss declares interest in deal with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.”
It says in part, “Speaking at an event in Los Angeles, Mr Sarandos said he has his sights set on working with the royals. “Who wouldn’t be interested? Yes, sure.”
My guess is it took ten seconds for the master grifter to fund this in her daily search or hear of it from Scoobie, and to have her management ring Netflix up. And it would only take another ten seconds for Lacey, making bank for a few years as The Crown’s historian, to make some tweaks to his book’s content, per Netflix directives, to woo the duo just a little more and influence them to sign. “Our Crown historian is doing such a lovely book, you know....quite favorable, could be a docu-drama! You will be so pleased, Hazza, he really gets your struggle!”
Only pure speculation of course. Then she held out coyly to see who else would pay them the big numbers. No one stepped up, Disney snarked, and so they settled for Netflix for their little deal, perhaps. Speculation!
See https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/harry-meghan-netflix-deal-us-canada-royal-family-a9290831.html
.
So it's easy to see how the confusion arose.
The Daily Mail has been publishing extracts from the forthcoming book, and as Lacey is an established historian, one expects him to come up with something decent compared to ‘Finding Freedom’. The fact that BP returned his drafts unopened says a lot, but why was he surprised? The title of the book alone is enough to deter hardcore monarchists, but Lacey relies on his association with the Netflix series ‘The Crown’ where he was a historical consultant as his claim to fame.
She uses 'was a consultant', so perhaps Lacey's role with the production is finished. Never a screenwriter.
I can't say as I would expect very much from any others of his works of historical scholarship if his latest effort is as putrid as I'm hearing. It seems little better than suck-up celebrity hagiography such as Scooby Doo engages in. Historians are meant to be more objective and present events in context, even if they are fundamentally sympathetic to their subject. This book was not a suitable project for an historian. Can you write an analysis of history 'as' it's being made? You can, but then it's speculative editorial, not 'history'.
Lacey reveals himself to be as dim as Harry if he is actually siding with the Sussexes childish catalogue of slights and favoring their version of events over, not only the current 'official royals' . .but over the future King William V. What kind of access to Windsor family history will be provided to Mr. Lacey in coming years? Meg and Harry are at most a temporary distraction. They will self-destruct, and it's already in progress. William and the BRF are waiting them out. The announcement that the Royal Marines are moving forward with William as patron is another nail in the coffin of Harry's reputation. By the time William is ready to be king, perhaps George will have done his own military service and be ready to take over.
Lacey has queered his pitch with this hatchet job on William and has Markled himself too.
Do go read Harry Markle's post on the Battle of Brothers controversy. She also has an hilariously scathing dismissal of Harry's pathetic socially distanced meeting with some runners doing the virtual London Marathan this past Sunday. And I quote:
How can you describe the interview other than it looked like a smashed jar of Marmite on a concrete floor that a litter of puppies got stuck in?
That deserves a whole Starbuck store full of lattes!
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 07, 2020
Blind Item #5
Not the greatest of days for a former financial benefactor of the alliterate one. She thought she struck gold with him a couple of years before meeting the ginger headed one. Probably a good thing he found her wanting or she could be involved in that huge money laundering scandal surrounding him.
example:
Rumor has it, Harry was going to publicly call his family racists if they didn't allow him to marry Meghan who is half-black.
The royals knew exactly what and who Meghan was but decided to scrub a lot of her history online and gave her a PR work over. Now that she is no longer royal or part of the working royal life, her secrets are slowly seeping out. Harry's as well. Some soldiers are saying he was a complete a-shole while doing his military duty and that people spent more time protecting him. Yet the royals saw fit to give Harry a "Military Hero" PR make over. But he shot that all to pieces when he decided to go pitch his wife's skills at the Lion King premier instead of going to the ceremony honoring fallen soldiers.
He also screwed over Invitcus as well.
=======
Jdubya and Sally1975 - I think of it as great minds thinking alike.
...the royals saw fit to give Harry a "Military Hero" PR make over. But he shot that all to pieces when he decided to go pitch his wife's skills at the Lion King premier instead of going to the ceremony honoring fallen soldiers.
________
I think it was Enty who said way back that when you're loyal to the RF, you get full protection. But cross them and you're all on your own.
I found a book on Amazon titled The Crown: The official book of the hit Netflix series which he wrote to accompany the series. I know the series has been criticised on this side of the pond for over embellishing facts, and taking poetic licensing too far.
So yes, it’s entirely credible he had his bread and butter in mind when writing about the Duo. He loses all credibility by doing so though, and this book will be nothing like his previous books.
Lady C was asked in on of her recent videos if the Crown was based on fact... and she replied definitely not!
@Sally -Cheers
Hardly a day goes by
Without a dig, on the sly
From Megs and her PR team
Most days without fail
There’s more crap in the Mail
About Megs, who is living the dream
All those poles, high and greasy
Climbed our madam sleazy
Not stopping to take in the view
On her crawl to the top
She’s overstepped, and should stop
As her options are proving to be few
I think my BP towelling flips-flops/mules were worth the higher price simply because I smile at the irony every time I put my my size 7, less-than-pretty, plebeian feet into them.
Some things are priceless.
There’s no disputing
That Megs and old Putin
Would make an interesting match
Megski’s greed and desire
For that emerald tiara
May lead’er to Vlad the Inhaler
He’s even more paler, staler, maler?
Than Hazov, her latest catch
Lacey and his latest book
Appears to deliver a punch, left hook
There’s no rhyme, nor reason
It’s all open season
Against Will and his beautiful wife
I’m surprised and appalled
And bloody well galled
That he’s causing them more trouble, and strife
Sorry for all my posts.
Trying to to bring some fun back to the blog.
Come on Nutties, post!!
I have to get you know what into gear and go into town, so a quick check in ...
The creative juices are flowing for you today and the result is much appreciated and savoured!
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will join activist Malala Yousafzai for virtual chat about the importance of women's right to education to mark International Day of the Girl.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8818297/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-chat-activist-Malala-Yousafzai-International-Day-Girl.html
Prince William has unveiled his team of high-profile environmental activists, philanthropic leaders and A-listers who will decide the winners of his prestigious Earthshot Prize.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8819135/Prince-William-unveils-celebrities-philanthropists-panel-50m-Earthshot-Prize.html
Your posts always brighten up my day. Keep them coming. :)
@Sandie
Thank you X
I sometimes feel I’m pi..ing in the wind! X
@Miggy 😘
I can only repeat Miggie's comment. Your poems always raise a smile or give me a good chuckle. We need a hefty dose of humour to counteract all the depressive sight and sound emanating from Mudslide Mansion's.
I concur @Maneki, @Miggy and @Sandie
You always make me smile, Magatha. Thank you for your lovely poetry!
Has anyone else seen the clips of Camilla at one of the Royal Voluntary Service's lunch clubs? She helped to serve food to some of the elderly people who attended the lunch. One of the women was 96 and almost blind, so she had no idea who was serving her when she asked Camilla to cut up her food before she started eating. Camilla gamely and graciously did so.
I couldn't help but contrast it with Meghan's engagement at the home for retired actors. All she did was make really awkward small talk and unveil a plaque. Recalling the "I'm feeling very pregnant today" comment, I think she hoped to be asked about herself rather than try to be interested in the residents. I wonder if someone had suggested that she help out serving food or doing something else the staff does on a regular basis, and she shot the idea down.
You just made my day! A joy to find your poems this morning.
@Frenchieliv and Miggy
Thanks for the links to Meghan and Harry's next virtual chats. The comments are worth reading- ex."God they are appearing on everything from America's Got Talent to a box of cereal!"
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will join activist Malala Yousafzai for virtual chat about the importance of women's right to education to mark International Day of the Girl.
_______
I saw this in the very wee hours of the morning and thought Jaysus, they will roll out anybody and everybody to get their foot up onto the pole of "influential". That poor girl who went through hell is now being used by the Suckits...
I didn't post it because I figured by the time I'm up out of my bed it will be here due to time differences.
(I can't remember but did they try to use the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Thought I read that somewhere, Nutties.
Thanks for posting Miggy!
A favorite from today's offerings . .
All those poles, high and greasy
Climbed our madam sleazy
Not stopping to take in the view
On her crawl to the top
She’s overstepped, and should stop
As her options are proving to be few
I stumbled into a comment by a sugar yesterday that repeated the same tired garbage they always trot out.
Meg and Harry are picked on because Harry married a Black woman. A Black woman who's led a far more interesting life than Kate's and one who can 'do more than have babies and take photographs'
To which I replied,
Like what? Merching home decor on Zoom? Yeah, she can do that.
This stan also derided William, saying that 'Everybody knows that he's Kate's puppet and she tells him what to do.'
Frankly, there are not enough '?' marks in the word to express quizzicalness at that statement.
I said,
First you say Kate isn't capable of anything besides making babies and taking pictures, and then you claim that she is the true power behind a future King. Which is it, 'cause you can't have it both ways.
If the mass delusion shared by Meg and all her stans that she's actively doing so much more than Catherine to improve the world, holed up in her mansion in Monte, making dodgy Zoom videos while sporting a collection of fake hair weren't so infuriating, it would be chuckle-worthy.
According2Taz has promised to post a new video called "The Mask Slips" about Meg's latest rage-face appearance for the Fortune video. It really is telling. We have come to the point of absolute Narc-meltdown. She actually looked rather nice, in terms of her styling that day, but there is no more covering over the cracks and pretending that she's a 'nice' person. I think she must have used up her quota of fake smiles by the time they'd moved to Mudslide Manor . . neither she nor Harry have smiled in months.
Swirling the drain . . .
I don't think Meg's sour mien was due entirely to the moderator calling her 'not the most powerful woman'. That was part of it, but maybe just before going live, Meg had received a phone call from the chairman of the DNC saying, "Look, please don't run for President in 2024--you are a bigger embarrassment than Joe Biden. We do not want you."
We can hope.