Duchess Meghan is working quite hard at the moment to be an "influencer."
She recently took the opportunity to go on video, with Harry, to suggest that people "vote against negativity" in the upcoming US election (given Meg's simping for Michelle Obama, that means not for Donald Trump) and also took time to send a video message offering encouragement to an America's Got Talent contestant who served time in prison while being wrongly accused of a crime.
(The contestant was named Archie, the same as the Sussexes's possibly mythical child, and the Daily Mail reports that he "smiled in disbelief" upon seeing the video. He may have been smiling uncomfortably because he had no idea who the Duchess was.)
Cause and effect
The question is, is anyone really being influenced by what Meghan says?
If so, whom?
Comments
I am wondering if in fact there is no 'fly on the wall' documentary finalised, but they are using the threat of doing such a programme to blackmail Charles and HM into giving them more money.
Or to put the pressure on Netflix? Perhaps it was a pitch that was rejected; so now they hope that "news" of it will generate enough interest that Netflix will see it will be popular.
And if there isn't enough interest, they have some deniability and can say it was merely a rumor.
didn’t either CDAN or Blindgossip have something about the Powers that be in Hollyweird know the Harkles need to be featured in whatever they produce in order for it to get viewers, and that MM was happy/thrilled /more than willing, but convincing PH was more diffucult?
they wouldn’t have gotten a $ deal from Netflix without it.
as mentioned , timing is interesting, day after the Sir David Cambridges pictures. it could have been announced or dropped at anny time, but MM/SS wasnted to steal some press away from the Cambridges.
also interesting on how it will affect or not, MM’s lawsuits claiming ‘privacy’.
run Harry run!
So Harry, is this the "privacy" you left the BRF for?
No altruism for the aged from Megz, though.
I always consider that people (not the humble carer) who enrich themselves by making money from old people to be particular contemptible.
Ahh, but Megz is offering "bespoke confidence and trust."
Are you thinking of `Essex Girl
@,Wild Boar Battle Maid
You are right. I am confusing the tv programme with the stereotyped Essex Girl named typically
Sharon or Trace dancing around their handbags wearing white stilletoes .
Apologises
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8780827/PIERS-MORGAN-presents-sneak-preview-Sussexes-new-fly-wall-reality-TV-show.html
Are you by any chance referring to the Essex ladies dancing around their handbags whilst wearing their white stilettos.......? (Look, she's from Essex)
@Miggy@Wild Boar Battle-Maid
Ooops..
Yes I did get the description of 'Essex ' mixed up 🤔 Apologies for that . I didnt watch the actual programme (no excuse) Essex Girls were depicted much like Harry Enfield Scousers in 1980 90s track suits permed hairstyle always ready to take offence always sparring (dated description now but it held some truth)😏
The facade is cracking. Harry forever has looked miserable but now he looks angry. Angry with Her. He could have ended segment with a cute arm fling around her and pulling her close. Sure it is not approved "protocol" but that is what she (they?) "thrive" on. This is about to get real ugly
Who does Meg influence? Couple weeks ago I would say JUST Harry, most definately. But now not so much. Tide has turned. For first time I see Harry wanting out. Now what?
Wullie recently reintroduced the biggest mystery of all , Archie. What influence does *he* play in all this? I used to think Meg was holding out for big pay day in releases some really great candid shots, but that ship has sailed. Where is he? Their privacy claim is garbage, especially so if they had crew follow them around for some Netflix release. Where is Archie? I would love a new post. I know it would be rehash but so much has happened since the birth . Nutty I would love your thoughts . New post idea in coming weeks? 🤞
Your mother was SO LUCKY to have a competent, caring daughter to stay on top of things. It must have been so draining for you.
To remain OT, I think if we had seen equal solicitousness from Megs toward her ailing, elderly father, we would have a different estimation of her.
Any charity they will use for the documentary is practically guaranteed to be the one from their former royal life. The Palace (bleating they are no longer royals) will be forced to eat it's own words because the Harkles will be de facto gaining money from the royal charities.
The chorus of anti-monarchy voices is becoming deafening. For the first time I can see direct calls for the Queen to step down. It is very significant. She has always been off-limits.
"According to the royal family website, the Harkles still retain 23 royal charities between them."
I don't think the site is correct. Unless I'm looking at something different, for example, it says Harry is still the Youth Ambassador to the Commonwealth. He's not. It also lists several honorary military positions. Finally, I'm not sure the
Henry van Straubenzee Memorial Fund is a "royal patronage."
And, now they aren't.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8781345/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-DENY-claims-Netflix-reality-show.html
Sure looks like that was a counter to the Sir David and the Cambridges.
What happened to the rumour that there might be a Regency after HM hits 95 in April? The obvious Prince Regent has been Charles, of course, but I wonder if that's set in stone? Even a Regency is unlikely while HM holds to her 21st Birthday vow. HM certainly won't abdicate.
We know nothing of what's going on behind the scenes - we can imagine tense exchanges, desperate consultations and flaming rows, but it's all conjecture. Diana hinted that she thought the Crown should by-pass Charles and go straight to William, `because he's the sensible one' she is reported as saying.
God Save the Queen and God save us all.
Yes, I find it very confusing. The royal family website clearly lists Harry as the Youth Ambassador for the Commonwealth. Reports about him quitting sound thus: "The queen reportedly✔ stripped Meghan Markle and Prince Harry of their Commonwealth Youth Ambassadors titles"
It has never been officially confirmed by the Palace. As far as I am concerned he IS still the YA because he is listed as one on the official royal website.
As for the Henry von Straubenzee Memorial Fund I think we can classify it as a royal charity because Wills is a Joint Patron with Harry and it is listed under the Royal Family Charities.
Regrettably I see no signs of Harry been stripped of the royal charities he has been involved with as the working member of the RF
Or does the Mudslide Manor have an `English Garden'.
Today's influencers are on YouTube, TikTok, and other social media sites.
Markle missed the boat by 20 years to be an influencer of any sort. Markle isn't interesting, she isn't fresh, with a total lack of creativity. She has no skills, except for lying and obfuscating the truth.
What does it say about her when a prince gives up his princedom for her, and looks like a hostage and absolutely miserable in every photo?
That write up by Piers was spot on! Just hysterical. However, I'd rather watch a reality series about a fly on a wall, rather than "a fly on the wall look" at The Harkles lives as the "leaders" in charity work. The fly's life would be far more interesting.
What the Harkles also fail to grasp is that all "reality" shows are fake, just like their charity work is. Everybody knows that, except for the few stans who believe the Kardashian's or the Real Housewives shows portray real life. It's all scripted. So, in effect, by calling it a reality show, they are saying that it will be scripted and fake.
The show is supposed to be about their philanthropic work? MM will never allow any attention to be on the charities. All focus will be on her, as usual. Are we going to be treated to more MM drivel, as in the Gloria Steinem chat? Are they going to continue to barge in uninvited to various charities, but now with a full TV filming crew in tow? How repugnant. True charity is silent and humble, not a glorified ad for The Harkles, as this reality show will be.
That bench is very common in the US. You'll probably find at least one on every block where I live.
"Regrettably I see no signs of Harry been stripped of the royal charities he has been involved with as the working member of the RF."
Maybe. I agree it's murky.
But that website lists a number of royal patronages for Andrew too even though BP said he was withdrawing from those.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a29951303/buckingham-palace-prince-andrew-steps-back-patronages/
And weren't officially we told Harry was giving up his military honors? The site lists him as
Honorary Air Commandant,
Royal Air Force Honington
Captain General, Royal Marines
Commodore-in-Chief, Small Ships and Diving,
Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command
I knew Will and Harry were joint patrons of the charity set up honoring Harry's dead school friend. But I'd always thought that was a private patronage...in other words, they weren't representing the Queen.
I viewed the YouTube video in which Meeeegan introduced Toronto to her fandom. She spoke so quickly I couldn’t grasp her pithy comments.
She is so incredibly smug, self satisfied, vapid, shallow....
Regarding the bench video: my impression was that she wanted to impart the gravity of the impending election, hence the lack of touching. Not that that stood in her way in thenUK, of course. Didn’t matter the occasion...her clutching was always de rigeur. So maybe I’ve talked myself out of that after all.
You brought up a very interesting issue which I think has wider implications than just charities. You may have found the evidence of the Palace two-faced manipulation of the public opinion.
They indeed spinned it like Andrew is stripped of his royal roles; we see he is still listed as patron of many royal charities. They will lose from association with him, so the Palace can't claim the loss of royal patron will damage them. He can't do public fundraising for them. Neither can be claimed they are his private projects. So why does the Queen still lets him be involved?
The same is happening with Harry. BP says one thing and does another, and I find it is a disgusting double standard. It comes across as Queen putting her family first no matter what her spin doctors are saying publicly.
During this debacle I have learned much that greatly disillusioned me with the royal family. It is largely a brightly coloured bejewelled facade hiding many ugly things.
So delusional is she. I wonder if she still feels FF was good idea. Speaking of..
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EivudjyWkAALHB-?format=jpg&name=small
LOL! Really? What in the world is the look he is going for with this? Cringe overload!!!!!
Thank you for this info. It means she will be using publicly funded work with the royal charities for direct personal gain.
She must have copyrighted the footage in order to use it like that.
Lets see what the chicken coop in the Palace will cluck about it.
Funny you should mention the bench photo being taken in England. When I first saw it, I thought they were in England. The style of bench, the rather dark photo (cloudy day?), the vegetation all pointed to England. But the absence of blue skies and palm trees doesn't necessarily mean they were not in California. I tried to look at aerial views of Fawlty Towers, aka Mudslide Mansions, but they're inconclusive.
@lizzy @happy days And others
I assume the company will never have a physical space, since it appears to be a referral agency. So, if your parents need a caregiver for 6 hrs a day, Doria’s new company will direct you to one. Doria makes $$$ through referral; she doesn’t have to provide the services herself or hire others to provide them. There is a huge market for those services.
I would be uncomfortable contracting with a business with no physical address or track record. BUT It is so hard to try to find reputable services for someone you are caring for. The idea of finding a company that will give you terrific referrals is appealing. I remember when my dad was dying. I was given 3 days to find a skilled nursing facility; not living in the area and not knowing which facilities offered quality care, i was horrified. Fortunately, the nurse took me outside and ticked off 3 places from the list of about 30, and said they were good and not to tell she referred places to me. One of those places provided excellent care to my dad for the last 5 days of his life.
So, if Doria (or someone she hires) actually has or develops relationships with service providers, she could theoretically have a nice, successful business. (As if . . . )
That photo is priceless! The smoking jacket! The bow tie! The sparkly trousers! The non-chalant pose! The pedigreed dog!
I think Scoobie is going for "International Man of Mystery," but completely fails, especially with those short little legs! And the fact that he looks like he's age 12 with Groucho's eyebrows. Hahaha!
I was thinking the same thing this AM. I hope the charities tell H&M to beat feet, because they are blatantly making money off of the charities if they film them for a show they get paid for.
Was it known that they were filming "the African Journey" documentary while they were there, or did it come out later?
She could not command these cameras and interest before she married Harry. While Diana, Kate, and Chelsey ran from the cameras, MM has to literally hire them to get the attention she wants.
I'm not sure if this reality show is happening, but I would believe they released this info to overshadow Eugenie's baby announcement, and to test public response.
I remember Harry taking the HIV test on camera to help remove the stigma of HIV. That was a worthy cause.
There is a book coming out by Robert Lacey (15 October), all about the falling out between the brothers and what really happened at the Sandringham Summit. Tatler has a teaser about what is in it. Robert Lacey also has a Twitter account and a website. Stock up on tea and popcorn!
On another topic ... of course the Sussexes are doing a documentary about themselves and of course there will be footage of them 'royalling'. They have nothing else to offer, desparately need the 'royal connection' to sell, and have no idea what philanthropy is. That they are not calling it reality TV is simply semantics. They have nothing else to offer and Meghan loves posing and sprouting word salad. My prediction is that their 'royal' documentary about their philanthropic/charity work (parachute into a place/organisation for the photo op) is not going to be popular, but it might be so cringeworthy that it becomes a comedy classic.
Gosh, she really does love showing off and is so over the top false and trying too hard in that video!
"I assume the company will never have a physical space, since it appears to be a referral agency....
Doria makes $$$ through referral; she doesn’t have to provide the services herself or hire others to provide them. There is a huge market for those services."
Sure, I can see that although I'm not sure how the business can operate without an office. And I'd think it could be successful even in the medium-term only if the referrals provided have been vetted properly. The nurse who wasn't supposed to give you referrals at such a difficult time obviously knew the resources in the community and sincerely tried to help. But if she'd just given you the names of places that arranged with her to be mentioned, there might not have been such good care for your dad.
And Doria's business claims to do everything (or rather be able to refer people who will do everything.) It's not just another "A Place for Mom" referral business. It also claims to cover things like 24 hr emergency services, medication management, helping the family member's adjustment to a facility, companions for trips, Wills, and rides to medical appts. And seems to claim it can do those things anywhere in the US. And it all starts with a phone call "consultation" setting up a home visit/assessment for the elderly person? I guess. I'd never invite someone into my home or a loved one's home under those circumstances.
Another difference from A Place for Mom services is that the consumer doesn't pay those. They get paid by the business if the consumer contracts with a business. But Doria's is cash for services upfront it sounds like.
We'll see.
------
@Fairy Crocodile:
It does appear the Palace is spinning. A lot. Sad.
I just wondered whether our respective garden benches had distinctive accents, rather as American and English strains of the same dog breed can be different.
Speaking of dogs, am I the only one to see a facial similarity between Scabby and the bulldog? You know, the `owners look like their dogs' theory? (Just for the record, my dog of choice would be a collie cross).
French Bulldogs are very much the fashionable dog of the moment but I feel so sorry for any of the breeds that have squashed faces - to me it seems immoral to breed them. I hope I haven't offended anyone - I know they are said to have lovely characters.
If I were a dog, I'd be a Staffordshire Bull Terrier - I've got my teeth into the Harkles' case and won't let go.
I just recited your episode treatments for my husband. It was hard to get through the tears of laughter.
Her words are not just a giant spin salad, so is her life!
*musky*, good call on the free cars. Hope more people product place in the background of the Harkles garden Zoom speeches. Can't blame them lol!!!!
The same is happening with Harry. BP says one thing and does another, and I find it is a disgusting double standard. It comes across as Queen putting her family first no matter what her spin doctors are saying publicly.
During this debacle I have learned much that greatly disillusioned me with the royal family. It is largely a brightly coloured bejewelled facade hiding many ugly things.
It does appear the Palace is spinning. A lot. Sad.
The entre of Hurricane Tungsten into the BRF has illuminated one thing for sure--its complete ineffectuality in dealing with someone who refuses to play by their arcane and mostly unspoken, rules. Meg has really blown the commonly-accepted trope that Her Majesty runs a tight ship to smithereens. Her bark is far worse than her bite . . all she does is bark, in fact. Bite seems to be entirely missing, even when it should be applied.
I include the entire Palace machinery of courtiers here, not just HM alone, because it's not clear exactly if HM is being told of the most egregious examples of the Harkles' behavior. At her great age, and with Covid on and with the time remaining with her Prince precious, perhaps she herself has given instructions that she is not to be given daily news bulletins of the Sussex Shenanigans as not being good for the Royal blood pressure. If Charles is expected to act like a King-in-Waiting and deal with his own recalcitrant kid and his grifting daughter-in-law--that does not appear from our vantage point to be happening . . but HM promised the ingrates a 12-month review commencing in March and I think we will not see any *public* declarations before then what the future is going to look like for the Sussex traitors. HM is in a pickle, because despite what odious Murkle may have pushed him into, Harry is family. Everyone in the family has to know that Haz is not in his right mind. But that's precisely why it's so dangerous to have him running free range in the world. Moving up the review period would really be for Harry's benefit, if there's any chance of extracting him from this toxic situation before then. He may have chosen this life, or think he has, but I do not believe that his is mentally competent to run his own affairs and probably needs the kind of constant support and conservatorship such as Britney Spears receives. She has been ruled by a court as being incapable of making adult decisions for herself and her children due to pervasive and co-existing conditions of mental illness, which were exacerbated by substance abuse. I think Harry is the same, and while under the protection/umbrella of the BRF, they could manage him to a functioning level. He's now in the grips of somebody who could care less for his welfare, and we might even say, it would be vastly in her interests, for financial support and public sympathy if she were to become Harry's widow rather than his ex from a failed marriage--and if that could be expedited, so much the better from her view. When Meg is done with someone, she is DONE, and it sure looks like she's getting ready to be DONE with Harry.
He may be a douchebag, but he is a severely compromised douchebag. In a criminal proceeding it would be called 'diminished responsibility due to mental disease or defect.'
It is my understanding that all of Harry's military associations were left open (vacant) for him to return to after the years' review, IF the situation warranted it. Ie., if the couple behaved themselves and displayed a willingness to show contrition and renewed commitment to being working Royals.
Such an idea is ludicrous now, after the events of this summer. What H & M want and what the Queen stands for are mutually incompatible. It's completely untenable to have the Harkles part of the BRF in any capacity . .but is not Elizabeth essentially granting Meg that 'half in/half out' status that she has always wanted? If their patronages and affiliations are not *publicly* removed, along with the HRHs and the Sussex--the appearance is that the Crown has capitulated to everything Meg wanted.
The Sun posted a story a couple of hours ago saying that in Tatler, Omid tells of terrible threats he received after FF came out, saying he had to call the police over the endless frightening threats.
The Sun dutifully contacted The Met for further information.
Headline:
“Spun Out of Control” Finding Freedom author Omid Scobie says he has had to call the POLICE over threats to burn his house down.”
And from the article, here’s what the Sun online found out:
“The Sun Online approached The Met for comment however they were unable to find any reference to a crime at Scobie’s London home.”
!!!!
(PS, thanks, Not Meghan Markle!)
The market for Paris Kim and Britney ala the 2000s is dead because mass media is dead. Social media is not dead, but you need to be the top of your field to actually make money on views, and product placements.
If she wants to be a paid influencer, she needs to pick a lane, work hard, and go to the top of that field to make any sort of 'income'.
She clearly thinks being Royal is an influence enough. Clearly, it is not.
@HappyDays
I had to check out the original photo of Diana on a bench myself. Here is the link for others who might be having trouble finding it:
https://twitter.com/Murky__Meg/status/1309939611293102085/photo/1
@Enbrethiliel: Do you think similarity of the photo of Meghan and Hapless is so similar to the one of Charles and Diana that it is likely another case of Meghan copying another scene from Diana’s life?
The clothes are different, but I’m looking at the visual characteristics of the two images in general.
The entre of Hurricane Tungsten into the BRF has illuminated one thing for sure--its complete ineffectuality in dealing with someone who refuses to play by their arcane and mostly unspoken, rules. Meg has really blown the commonly-accepted trope that Her Majesty runs a tight ship to smithereens. Her bark is far worse than her bite . . all she does is bark, in fact. Bite seems to be entirely missing, even when it should be applied.
I include the entire Palace machinery of courtiers here, not just HM alone
Megs has run rings around the Queen and her Grey Men. Megs, not just by herself but with her lawyers, strategists and PR people. She has been in the DM every day this month. Megs goes along with Pimp Mama Kardashian that, "There is no such thing as bad publicity"
Let's also admit that Megs is not alone in profiting off her Royal title. Prince Andrew did this for years with his semi-scam and skim called Pitch At The Palace. This made Andrew millions, my guess is at least 20 million. As a Royal did he pay UK taxes? And the Pitch@Palace sessions were held right at Buckingham Palace! Did any entrepreneur successes come of this sham?
Pitch@Palace was founded in 2014 to provide a platform to amplify and accelerate the work of Entrepreneurs. Pitch@Palace gives Entrepreneurs the opportunity to meet the people who can make their business dreams become a reality. 1,043 Entrepreneurs 64 Countries £1,345m+ Economic activity 6,322 Jobs created
Pitch@Palace 10.0 Brings New Power Of Best Entrepreneurs ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/montymunford/2018/11/...
Nov 12, 2018 · After nine previous iterations, Pitch@Palace 10 took place last week at Buckingham Palace and invited more than 40 entrepreneurs to pitch to a …
I said earlier that the address was in a Morgan Stanley's building. I have found out, however, that the address is shared by
. Morgan Stanley - investment bank
. Stone Genow Smelkinson Binder & Christopher - law firm working in the
entertainment industry
. Wells Fargo Avisors - financial advisors
. RBC Wealth Management - a sort of investment bank
. Sotheby's Realty - selling luxury properties (peasants need not apply)
. MRC (Media Consultants Rights) - independent film & TV studios
Richard Genow is a founding partner of Stone, Genow, Smelkinson, Binder & Christopher, LLP (SGSBC). The practice represents both individual talent clients and entrepreneurial production companies in all aspects of the entertainment industry. Mr. Genow represents Sir Ben Kingsly, Odeya Rush and Greg Kinnear, as well as Indian movie star Aishwarya Rai.
(As for the Delaware address, I cannot find it. 838 Walker Road, Dover but Google map shows #840 Community Legal Aid Society and then the next building is #820, Vision Quest Eye Care Center.)
I don't know why Loving Kindness needs to be in a building with lawyers in what seems a rather prestigious address. What is the rent for their office?. As for Genow, he is a lawyer who has represented MM. It all sounds very cosy.
I have also found this DM article on Genow & MM: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882361/How-Meghan-Markle-kept-Hollywood-power-lawyer-agent-despite-joining-royal-family.html
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EivudjyWkAALHB-?format=jpg&name=small
"That photo is priceless! The smoking jacket! The bow tie! The sparkly trousers! The non-chalant pose! The pedigreed dog!
I think Scoobie is going for "International Man of Mystery," but completely fails, especially with those short little legs! And the fact that he looks like he's age 12 with Groucho's eyebrows. Hahaha!"
_________
I disagree. He is quite Freddy Mercury-esque and George Michael-esque in the photo. IMO, Freddy and George Michael were beautiful, talented Parsi-Indian British and Greek British men.
I'm not saying he represents an iota of their talent but he seems influenced by them as a gay man.
I'm giving him credit based on his appearance in this photo not on his book dealings.
David Duke of Windsor had short little legs yet was very dapper. What's the difference in your opinion, looks wise?
So what would her niche be? I am pondering this, In all seriousness, it must be large-scale grifting?
Would her niche be people longing to (1)grift and (2)con and (3)fail spectacularly?
——-
@Maneki Neko - amazing sleuthing! That is a find, and I think you’re onto something. Wonder if any journalists or other BRF agencies are aware of this?
And the Pitch@Palace sessions were held right at Buckingham Palace!
Yes . . .let's not forget the infamous photo with Ghislane Maxwell and a gentleman friend posing for pictures in the throne room at BP--one of 'em, anyway. I think she was with Kevin Spacey--the madam and the disgraced pedophile, both guests of PA and being given the full Royal tour, apparently. Where was Mummy while the kids were playing up in the throne room? I think ER's MO all throughout her reign has been to firmly look away from that which she prefers not to know, even if (though) she *should* know it.
After 70+ years of exemplary personal service to the UK, she is being made to look weak, out to lunch, dare I say even foolish, or at best, fatally overindulgent, when held over the barrel by a rogue grandkid and his disaster of a wife. Prince Andrew is an even stickier wicket. It's a double-barrel of family-instigated headaches for HM.
I admire the Queen a great deal for her longevity, if nothing else . .but really from Aberfan onwards, she has displayed that distaste for confronting unpleasant/painful realities within her realm and her family which she'd rather avoid. She eventually faces up to them, but only after the most opportune moments have passed. At 94 years of age, she still seems not to have absorbed the lesson that problems do not Go Away if One ignores them. They only fester. It was 23 years ago that the monarchy was dealt its last stinging rebuke from her people in the Diana matter. HM finally relented and spoke publicly about Diana and arranged a suitable state-worthy sendoff for her--but ONLY after she had been bullied by her Prime Minister into doing it.
I compare what Meg and Harry are getting away with now to to the treatment which was meted out to Diana and Fergie for relatively minor infractions even before they left the family. There was a bit of high-spiritedness with an umbrella, I recall . . based on the press that got, it was blown into nearly a national incident. Was Elizabeth more robust in her chastisements back then? Or did it just seem like it, because even Fergie wouldn't have dreamt of turning up at a formal engagement in the company of the Queen without a hat or hosiery?
A lot of the Palace 'rules' are majoring in minors: who gets to enter a room first and what shoes go with which hat and what nail varnish to wear and whether one may eat shrimps at table. When something *actually* MAJOR happens--rising to the level of potential treason and/or massive fiscal irregularities--it's circle the wagons, bury Our Head in the sand time.
These are just my opinions as a foreign observer, but I've been watching ER since at least 1980. Given her devotion to duty and doing things properly and with love for Crown and country foremost, I guess I find myself shocked at the blase attitude emanating from the Palace in regards to their rogue members. Is is just the *appearance* of serenity only, or does she really not plan to do anything about the current situation? If this were 1620, or 1720, or maybe even 1820, the sovereign would have responded to blatant insurrection in her house swiftly and definitively--former monarchs executed traitors for less grounds than the Harkles are now giving.
But--Elizabeth has allowed this marriage, so the inevitability of what is happening now kind of rests with her. She gave Harry and his bint too, too much and they've been taking advantage since Day One.
Oh dear, you reminded us of the possibly worst episode in all the sad drama. A paedophile and a sex trafficker sitting on the thrones of the Great Britain, encouraged by the son of the Monarch.
I hope this was not a harbinger and will not become the epitaph to a thousand year old monarchy.
When Notre Dame burned many people said it was a bad omen. Hello Covid and crush of the normal way of life.
Picture of paedophiles sitting on the symbol of the royal power? Sure not a good sign.
Yep, Meghan has inserted herself there!
'... preeminent women in business, along with select leaders in government, philanthropy, education, sports, and the arts ...'
I fail to see how the grifting con artist qualifies in any way to be part of this event.
Good write-up, thanks
What would her platform look like?
According to him, it is a feature of psychopaths that they have to break rules. They see a line and are impelled to step over it. It is a challenge to them, it doesn't matter what it is.
You can imagine the snorting laugh that accompanied her then saying `Is Meghan a psychopath? Well!', or wtte.
By Paul Revoir and Rebecca English For Daily Mail22:01, 28 Sep 2020 , updated 22:19,
The Sussexes cold create Netflix documentary with home footage, it is claimed The supposed footage 'includes their departure from the Royal family last year'Insiders claim they told Netflix about the material before signing $100m dealThe couple have denied reports they have agreed to make fly-on-the-wall show
Harry and Meghan could create a Netflix documentary with sensational home footage recorded during their departure from the Royal Family, it was claimed last night.
The couple are believed to have told bosses at the US streaming giant about the trove of homemade material before they signed a deal earlier this month said to be worth 100million dollars (£77.9million), insiders said
1shares
Megxit the home movie? Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 'touted behind-the-scenes footage of decision to leave Britain'
By Paul Revoir and Rebecca English For Daily Mail22:01, 28 Sep 2020 , updated 22:19, 28 Sep
The Sussexes cold create Netflix documentary with home footage, it is claimed The supposed footage 'includes their departure from the Royal family last year'Insiders claim they told Netflix about the material before signing $100m dealThe couple have denied reports they have agreed to make fly-on-the-wall show
Harry and Meghan could create a Netflix documentary with sensational home footage recorded during their departure from the Royal Family, it was claimed last night.
The couple are believed to have told bosses at the US streaming giant about the trove of homemade material before they signed a deal earlier this month said to be worth 100million dollars (£77.9million), insiders said.
Their representatives are thought to have pitched the footage, including personal videos recorded as they stepped back from royal life, during negotiations with Netflix.
The claim was made after the couple denied reports that they had agreed to make a fly-on-the-wall reality series for Netflix.
There are suggestions the pair realised that if they wanted to make their own ‘worthy’ documentaries and still receive a big price-tag from Netflix, then they needed another project which could offer more commercial value.
Harry and Meghan 'could use home footage of Megxit in Netflix show'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8782653/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-touted-scenes-footage-decision-leave-Britain.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
Meghan, 35, who has been linked to Prince Harry, models her new range for Canadian retailer, Reitmans
UK Daily Mail--- 9 November 2016
Many good old photos here!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3901656/His-lady-leather-Prince-Harry-s-new-girlfriend-Megan-Markle-showcases-INCREDIBLE-figure-shows-new-fashion-range.html
Meghan and Harry got the Netflix deal by pitching the play-by-play footage of their decision to leave the RF.
LOL. Now she's gonna tell Reed/Netflix, "oh sorry we were working members and we will get sued if we actually use it. I didn't know that! Blame Granny again!"
lol!
Netflix getting Markled is LOL
Now Reed's video defending Netflix 'decision' makes a lot more sense!!!
"Most viewed content next year!"
Privacy? Discretion? LOL
Spot on, isn't it?
The program was about a dot com money bag who bought a theatre in order to star in productions himself!
If it's past footage, or 'recordings', and their version of events they can deny the 'reality show' aspect.
Harry probably doesn't have an NDA. He's probably going to be the star of it, so Meghan can continue to have him take all the heat claiming it was *his decision*.
What utter disgraces.
You're welcome! I hope they help. Thanks to all who have commented on the state of elder care. I hope I didn't get the blog too off track, but it's a subject that is so close to my heart.
@LL,
Freddie Mercury, an all-time favorite of mine, had a personality so much larger than life on stage that he could enthrall a crowd while wearing a paper sack. He also had an innate sense of style and massive charisma. Although he wasn't a beautiful man, he came across as beautiful because of his incredible talent. Nobody could strut across a stage like my Freddie. But he always did it with swagger and a little twinkle in his eye. He saw the humor in his own public persona.
I would love to have seen Freddie wearing the same outfit in the same pose as Omid. Freddie would have worn it with such aplomb that you would believe that he walked around his home wearing just that every day. He would have given such life to the outfit, because he just had that massive extra something that made him a mega-star, the "IT Factor." The same goes for George Michael.
Omid, as much as he tries, doesn't have that charisma, the aplomb or the "it factor" to make that outfit his own. He just looks silly.
Freddie and George Michael would have rocked that look with such style and ease, with a little bit of sly humor thrown in. Little Scoobie just doesn't have the it factor it takes to carry off such style. He looks like a child wearing his father's clothes for a Halloween costume, where Freddie and George would look as if they had a dozen of the same outfit hanging in their wardrobes.
You simply can't compare Freddie or George to little Scoobie Do.
The teak bench.
I purchased two of those benches from a Home Depot in Irvine, California circa 2008. The price was about USD$100 each. Came in flatpack boxes which I assembled myself. Still have them and they currently look identical to the one in the photo.
HarryMarkle blog.
The Latest on ‘The Letter/Infamous Five’ Case
Thanks for your wonderful reply! Very well written :)
You said:
You simply can't compare Freddie or George to little Scoobie Do.
__________
Lol...I wasn't trying to compare but that's the feeling I got from the pic. Comparing the two super stars to the knat that Obid is would be foolish.
I added -esque because it seemed to me he was reaching for an alpha Zaddy like vibe which we know both Freddie and GM definitely owned. They came to mind with his effort just as the pug and the short legs reminded me of the Duke of Windsor...lol.
My son played Queen on a constant loop when he was still at home. I know their music inside and out. I agree that Freddie (sorry I spelled his name wrong. Don't tell my son!) and George are in a whole nother league than Obid.
I disagree about Freddie not being beautiful looks wise. I think he was! His teeth kept him from the movie star quality look. But maybe it was his charisma, as you mentioned, which gave him that shine.
I do like Obid's pic; he has a doll face. But yes you are right on second glance. He does look like he's wearing his dad's clothes! That cracked me up! :D :D :D
It's left me wondering since it makes total sense that Meghan has been recording every move since joining the RF, is this just her way of making sure the BRF keeps paying their upkeep? Blackmail?
Is this what is holding it all together after all? Is this why we do not hear from The BRF?
I don't have a subscription so can't open the whole story, but it is available on the Cat With the Emerald Tiara blog.
Your reply reminded me of the worst self-introduction that ever came my way. I was at a party, when a quite short guy came up to me and said, "Hi! My name is ___. I have little man syndrome." Then, he just walked away. To this day, I am puzzled by this.
Bless you both for being there for your loved ones. Too many people nowdays stick their parent in a hone and forget them.
We lost my mother last month after a fifteen year struggle with Alzheimer's and we had the same problems with finding good care. The helpers seemed to spend all of their time on their phones, if they even showed up, forget on time. We had petty thievery, sleeping while on duty, and one even snapped at my mother for spilling a bit of her meal.
We finally found one caretaker who is so compassionate, so kind and so wonderful with mom. She is 85 years old, but she managed to do everything mom needed, and gave her respect and
and friendship besides. She is family.
Mom was able to stay at home until she passed. I am so grateful for that.
The task Doria seems to be taking on is so enormous, and so fraught with emotion, I cant see her succeeding. Her website is all about the money and very little about the patient and how they find their staff.
The entire enterprise screams fraud to me. Another source for money laundering.
Amd what terrible karma that is. The care of the elderly, especially that of those with dementia is excruciatingly hard. It requires the patience of a yogi and the love of a saint. I shudder tovthink what this company could do to the ill and vulnerable.
From the Telegraph:
Meet the new Kardashians – they are called Harry and Meghan
Even if reports of a reality TV show are a load of nonsense, the Sussexes surely can’t be surprised that such stories are circulating
By Celia Walden
Part I
A big fat belly laugh. That’s what I needed on a Monday morning. It’s what we all need right now. But when what started out as a low, throaty rumble at the breakfast table yesterday morning built up to a wild cackle of incredulity, I was afraid I’d never be able to stop.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry “have agreed to star in a fly-on-the-wall Netflix reality series, with cameras following them for three months”. Like you, I had to read the headline twice. Because, yes, this is the same couple who moved 5,462 miles away to escape the “public interest” and “media intrusion” that violated their “right to privacy”.
Yes, these are the same two who decided to “step back” from the limelight and create “space” for themselves by carving out an “independent” and “progressive new role” in Hollywood – that go-to city for discreet people who live in fear of being “commoditised”, and an industry that more than any other epitomises Garbo’s heartfelt plea: “I want to be alone.”
Their spokesman has now denied plans for such a documentary, but can they be surprised that such stories are circulating? The Sussexes’ decision to embark on four separate lawsuits against the British tabloids was nothing less than a battle cry for freedom, and Meghan and Harry were still mid-diatribe and busy stressing the universal significance of their fight against a media intent on invading their privacy when a courier pulled up outside their £26 million Santa Barbara mansion with a £112 million cheque. Picture it as one of those giant lottery winner cheques, only instead of the ‘fingers crossed’ logo, there in the top left is a big red ‘N’ for Netflix.
Oscar Wilde was right: we are all in the gutter, but Meghan and Harry are looking at the stars. And we can be forgiven for speculating that the light from those stars is so blinding, so mesmerising, that when the nice Netflix executive casually mentioned how good it would be to include a “Keeping Up With the Sussexes” reality show as part of their megawatt multi-year deal, the intensely private pair didn’t think twice.
This, after all, is the couple whose public wrangle with the Queen over using the ‘Sussex Royal’ brand to flog their wares abroad had me lunging for the sanitiser, so grubby did the wording of their statement make one feel. This is the couple who decided to announce their new endeavour, Archewell, in the midst of a global pandemic, and a woman who halfway through a documentary to raise awareness for war-scarred South Africans saw fit to wonder aloud why “not many people have asked if I’m OK”.
So it’s hard not to picture a royal Kardashians reality show as being every bit as tasteful as KUWTK, with a heavy dose of ethical and environmental moralising thrown in. I can see the opening titles now. It’s a Vogue-style montage combining effortless chic with effort-filled attempts to do good.
As the show’s theme tune plays (Laissez-Moi Tranquille by Serge Gainsbourg), Meghan and Harry can be seen in various degrees of cutaway mesh swimwear drawing up spreadsheets that will allow them in one fell swoop to save the whales, the elephants, the ocean floor and the homeless – all from a daybed by their Santa Barbara infinity pool.
From there, we move on to Meghan and Harry penning an impassioned speech about climate change aboard the private jet Harry affectionately calls ‘PJ’ – before changing into crisp his ‘n’ hers white shirts as they prepare to take their rightful places on the Nobel Peace Corps.
Meghan and Harry getting a standing ovation as they storm the stage at the first US presidential debate to make a rousing, profoundly unconstitutional speech against “hate”, “negativity” and President Trump. Megan and Harry baking homemade vegan cupcakes for sex workers in their Carrara marble kitchen, each one painstakingly iced with messages of empowerment: “You are special”, “You are strong”…
Along with the light that Keeping Up With the Sussexes aims to “shine on people and causes around the world”, Meghan “hopes viewers will get to see the real her,” according to a source. And, again, I had to read this twice. Because we’ve had nothing but the real Meghan for over two years now. Any more reality from either her or Harry and I’ll be forced to take out my own legal injunction against these “fascinating insights” in a desperate bid to find my freedom - from the Sussexes.
However, it is not to be. A spokesman has informed Hello! magazine that “the Duke and Duchess are not taking part in any reality shows”. Then again, they categorically denied a move to America. The idea that their show will, in fact, be a “docu-series” only brings on another bout of hysterical laughter.
You can come back from almost everything: embarrassing and rude behaviour, poor judgement and even, possibly, hypocrisy – but not derision. Once you’ve become a laughing stock, once every decision just makes you even more cackleworthy than the last – what then? Well, then, you might as well do a reality TV show.
Your reply reminded me of the worst self-introduction that ever came my way. I was at a party, when a quite short guy came up to me and said, "Hi! My name is ___. I have little man syndrome." Then, he just walked away. To this day, I am puzzled by this.
________
Lol! Lordy that was weird. On the bright side, at least you didn't have to find out the hard way :D
Obid=Omid. Sheeze and crackers, I just can't get it right!
Valley of the Molls
Their sham, faux reality
Will showcase their poncey new realty
They’ll set up the ho’stage
Walls beige, beige on neige
All funded by their Russian fealty
Arch might free his restraint
Play piano, and covered in paint
The scoop of the year
LiberalArchie is the new-found Vermeer
@ Lizzie
@Hikari
Regarding the patronages, the charities/organizations themselves are actually the bottom line regarding the Harkles. It is they who ask to have a royal as patron and both parties agree to it many of them have had a Royal patron for generations (like the Royal School of Needlework, their first patron was Queen Victoria) .
It would be not be a good look if the Palace (i.e. Queen) were to publically remove all their patronages unilaterally, I think the Palace is leaving it up to the charities/organizations in question to decide if they want H&M and Andrew’s names linked with them and they in turn are probably waiting to see how things pan out.
I can imagine boards up and down the country discussing what to do and the general consensus would likely be ‘just let the status quo remain for the time being’.
If Titles and Styles are lost or they become too toxic for the charities to be linked to I’m sure some quiet agreement would be made with them to resign their position as patrons rather than have the patronage publically removed and create more scandal or possibly even twitter/blog backlash from the sugars towards a charity.
The Queen could tell both the Sussex’s and the charities that any participant could not use the term ‘Royal Patronage’ any longer , but keeping Harry/Meg or Andrew as patron would be up the organization itself.
@Maneki Neko
Earlier estate agents photographs of the Montecito Monster showed lovely Italianate terraced gardens in one part of the grounds , the bench shot would have been taken in that area. The gardens are very extensive and would need a full time gardener to keep them looking good, after a decade on the market with minimal maintenance the gardens might have gone feral, if I recall there were quite a lot of hedges,rose bushes and fruit trees.
I'm so sorry to hear about your mother. Yes, the state of elder care is horrible, but you finally found the one person who loved and respected her enough to care for her so well. That is a blessing because it is so rare. Those people do become like family, don't they?
I can't see one ounce of love or compassion for the elderly in Doria's newest endeavor, either. It's all about the money. Interestingly, in the first iteration of Loving Kindness, it was listed as an entertainment company. It's on the original incorporation docs. Then, it switched to elder care. That is extremely worrisome, and it looks like a money laundering entity to me, too.
One can only hope that when Doria needs elder care, that she is cared for by one of the people that she trained. That would be justice well served.
https://www.humanetech.com/who-we-are#story
're: the Scobie photo, I find it difficult to take seriously a man who wears more make up than I do.
re: patronages
Thanks for the info. That makes some sense BUT
1.Announcements have been made from the palace side that appear maybe not to be true re: PA and PH's patronages. That doesn't look good either.
2. Groups generally ask to have a royal patron---I get that. But if a group asked for one and got TQ for 40 years and then it was passed on by TQ to Royal X last year, how likely is a charity to put up a fuss? Does TQ ask the charity's "permission" first before passing it on? From a purely American perspective, somehow that seems unlikely. And haven't patronages been passed on to new folks at the end of each year recently? Maybe after the Sandringham holiday gathering?
3. Does this mean Harry actually HAS retained his military honors?That each military unit/branch has to officially ask to dump him for it to be done? How can that happen "chain of command-wise?" And the same for Harry as Youth Ambassador to the CW? That each CW nation would have to vote no to Harry and convey that to TQ as Head of the CW? Did the CW nations ever ask for a Youth Ambassador in the first place? (Whatever that is.)
The Royal Family website @Fairy Crocodile cited still lists Harry as holding those honorary positions and still being the YA to the CW. And it doesn't seem to make a distinction between patron and royal patron.
4. One last question--- is it assumed that a royal patron to X represents TQ or do they represent themselves? Thanks!
Remember that CDAN and other sources I read in 2018 reported that Meghan had been keeping copious notes since she started dating Harry and after she moved in with Harry in late 2017, had been shipping packages of those notes to someone in North America for safe keeping, obviously with the intention of an eventual book or film project.
If she has bern shipping reams of notes with the purpose of making money from it, it is totally believable she would make sure video was shot as they planned to drop their bombshell on HMTQ at the start of 2020.
As an aside, I find it fascinating that while she is incredibly detail-oriented and outcome driven with some things in her life, Meghan is as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to other things, such as damaging the monarchy.
It is stunning (in a bad way) that Meghan is almost gleeful in her efforts to undermine the foundation of the British monarchy without any apparent thought of the ramifications that may eventually be generated by her actions.
If due to the antics of the Sussexes, plus Andrew’s behavior, added to the passing of the Queen, leaving. weakling Charles as King, the UK citizenry could reach the point of deciding to dispense with the monarchy in favor of a republic.
If that happens, Meghan once again has no cache and loses that shiny title that has brought the dollars and status her way.
If there is no monarchy, there is no longer a royal family, and she could be considered a major contributor to the final shove of the monarchy over a cliff.
Once there is no royal family and no monarchy, there would likely no need for any of them or the aristocracy to have titles of any kind. It would seem silly to call yourself HRH Prince Henry, when the source of your former title no longer exists.
Yes, I know there are various “royals and aristocrats in name only” still clinging to their outdated titles such as Beatrice’s hubby Edo, whom I believe has an Italian title,, bit it’s a bit of a joke to actually use it.
Meghan and Harry would simply be Meghan and Harry Mountbatten Windsor. No royal dukedom, no prince, no nothing.
When her entire existence is linked to title she has because the monarchy exists, it is astounding she seems to not just want to bite the hand that feeds her, but to chew it clean off like a rabid dog.0
With the discussion of "home movies" I now fully accept that she was wearing a recording device of some sort.
1 : Regarding palace announcements , quite often recent so called ‘Palace Announcements’ reported in the media have no source and are just click bait, ‘a palace source said….’ and then it is interpreted by a journalist to suit their agenda for the day. The juggernaut of the RF does not do knee jerk reactions, the wheels grind slowly to avoid mistakes , they play the long game. Their website is probably the best place to look for the actual state of play, that doesn’t mean that what the ‘palace source’ said isn’t on the agenda or being discussed, it simply hasn’t been written in stone yet.
2 : There are always lots of discussions that go on behind the scenes for these things, most of the older high profile organizations (100 years plus of Royal patrons) simply have one event a year and the Royal in question turns up to a dinner or open day, no real pressure or controversy surrounding the appointments, agreements are made as to who does what by the Palace but always with input from the organization involved. I don’t think either the Royals or the organizations mind much who takes up the patronage , it’s just a one day a year thing after all.
However some of these groups actually have a Royal as President which involves a bit more work on the Royals part. (Duchess of Gloucester at the RSN for instance, they actually have two Royals in the mix - Camilla is their patron, it will probably pass to Kate later on as they embroidered her wedding dress). The organizations holding these old patronages often have 'Royal' in their name and it's more a 'prestige' thing than them actually gaining income from the presence of the patron.
Newer patronages are vetted very carefully, no scandal, no criminal cases recent or pending, reputable board members, no overt political affiliation, no financial regularities etc. In some instances one of the Royals may lobby the Palace to become patron of such and such (Andrew and golf courses comes to mind) but it usually takes years to secure one. I think they let the Harkles and Will/Kate jump the gun on a few patronages (jumping on bandwagons) without proper oversight, which may come back to bite them in the end.
Relatively recently media outlets have been investigating just how much revenue a Royal Patron for a charity brings in and it really isn't that much, in fact some charities reported losing money as people assumed the cash was rolling in to that charity because say Kate or Harry had become it's patron and then donated elsewhere. I read a few months ago that one of the Harkles relatively high profile charities had increased their income by 350k a year since the marriage (a 10% increase) with all the hype you would think it would be a 500% increase. I think at least one of Kates children’s patronages closed through lack of donations. Probably likely to happen to some of the Sussex charities now as well because of their bad press.
The Royal Warrants are also a form of patronage the difference being no one turns up for a dinner at those business, it takes many years to get one of those as well, highly prised because it generates increased sales, especially overseas.
Might explain his discomfort with trying to keep his suit jacket closed whilst walking into the church. He seemed to be fussing with his jacket quite a bit, which he doesn't usually do?
3: The Military patronages are an entirely different thing, they really aren't patronages as such but special military post, it is very much up to the Queen, even if they didn't like who she put in the position they are obliged to accept him/her. The Queen is their commander in chief and that's that. There are quite a few high ranking military people past and present) in the Privy Council , so if there were rumblings in the military itself they will let the Queen know. Generally if it really became problematic a quiet word with the powers that be would be sort it without drama and without publicity and no one would ever know about the grumbles , that was until the Gruesomes came along.
In answer to your question.....Yes , Harry still holds the Military titles at the moment but is not allowed to use them, Harry's posts are in limbo and depend on the March 2021 review, most seem to think they will be redistributed in the family. (Anne and Sophie are very well like in military circles). That probably goes for the Commonwealth post as well, everyone can see they are not fit to represent the Queen, they simply cannot be trusted.
4: There are Royal Patronages and Organizations with a Royal Patron....they are not the same but I have no idea how it all gets sorted in the wash.
Everything a working Royal does on duty is to represent the Queen, hence Royal Patronages must be approved, I don’t believe that they can just take up a patronage using their Royal titles without that permission and as they never do anything without using their titles it will all go through the Palace mill.
However these things are no written in law and I’m sure that ‘personal’ patronages may sometimes be insinuated into the list by certain members of the RF (Andrew) but they will still be overseen to some extent.
The main thing to remember is that the Palace , the Monarchy and the RF , up until recently operated like a swan. Beautiful and serene on the surface while underneath furious paddling duck feet, mud and weeds, that no one ever saw, that is until Wallis II up ended everything. Now everyone can see those duck feet on display, river slime and all, that’s the real dilemma for the Royals at the moment.
Did they deny the book involvement after the Mail on Sunday wanted to include it in their case or because BP possibly threatened them or both? Is it a similar situation with the reality stint? Are they back peddling because BP is shutting them down or is it really all just smoke and mirrors (again) to garner yet more legs for press coverage?
So much deceit with these two. Will they end up tripping up over their own lies?! Plus I’m not convinced that BP or KP are doing anything, though I’d still like to believe it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8782653/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-touted-scenes-footage-decision-leave-Britain.html
Christmas is coming
And Megs is in a flap
Putting all her pennies in her Netflix crap
It’s time for all to take a pause
And await the advent(ures) of Santa Claws
re the office in the lawyers / investments building for Dorias company.
Dont know what it is like in the US but here legitimate companies and partnerships have registered offices at there accountants or solicitors.
As an agricultural business we do. Saves anyone coming out to the properties and finding no one who can help them at the houses or sheds or working in the fields. I always assumed it was more an initial contact spot government type agencies that might need it.
Our accountants have a list in there front office of the companies ‘located’ there. Surgeons, shops and business with a couple of different premises where it might be harder to track down the principle on the spot or where companies might not work normal business hours.
Perhaps it is similar with Doria.
The stars were maligned
As their crossed eyes aligned
On that lairy, scary night
Haz thought it was fate
That bought his third date
Alas ‘twas
Ill met by moonlight
Dont know what it is like in the US but here legitimate companies and partnerships have registered offices at there accountants or solicitors.
I second this, it’s not unusual at all in the UK.
You can also have a whole building with many different registered businesses listed being there. However, it can also mean some could possibly just be listed there as a front (e.g. for money laundering or some other illegal activity) too.
Bespoke is now woke
They’re having a joke
None of it makes any sense
Apart from Dorias role as their fence...
Interestingly, in the first iteration of Loving Kindness, it was listed as an entertainment company. It's on the original incorporation docs. Then, it switched to elder care.
----------------
I have seen Richard Genow mentioned in the context of the 'entertainment industry'. He is an attorney working for entertainment law. I must say that the info is not always clear.
Richard Genow was selected to Super Lawyers for 2020 - 2021. Super Lawyers is an exclusive list of top-rated attorneys in specific practice areas who were chosen after thorough evaluation of numerous criteria.
(I explained this in detail in an earlier post - yesterday 9.48pm).
Thanks for the additional patronage info.
1. I never thought "a palace source said..." was official. I did think "Buckingham Palace announced..." was. How is it ever really known then what is official?
2. I had heard Harry's military posts/titles were not being filled until after the 1-yr review period, presumably in case Harry wanted to come back. Except for you though, I had never heard anyone say Harry still holds those appts and honorary titles but just "isn't allowed to use them." But they are certainly on the RF website. So if that suggests they are active, they are held by Harry. Of course, as I said previously Andrew's patronages appear active as do 75 pages of Philip's. (On some of those, Philip is listed as a "lifetime member" or "president emeritus" but on many others he is still a "patron" or a "president.")
3. Interesting points about the value of having a royal patron. I had wondered when it wasn't a situation where the royal was actively appealing for donations if it made a difference. I had read somewhere that some of the mental health groups were privately complaining about being under the Royal Foundation's Heads Together initiative for the same reason-- everyone assumed they were getting tons of money and stopped contributing. So they may have had more PR but got less money.
4. Thanks for the info about how royal patronages come about. I had wondered about the Henry van Straubenzee Memorial Fund as I always thought that was a "private" patronage of Harry's & William's. The goal-- education in Uganda-- is fine. But unfortunately lots of young adults get killed in car accidents caused by alcohol after partying. So I had wondered how some of memorial charities became "royal."
Do you think similarity of the photo of Meghan and Hapless is so similar to the one of Charles and Diana that it is likely another case of Meghan copying another scene from Diana’s life?
To be honest, I don't feel sure either way! The bench seems so normal -- something any other couple could have thought of -- that it might have just been a coincidence. And the original photo of Prince Charles and Diana isn't as famous as other "looks" Meghan has cosplayed in the past. On the other hand, I have learned not to put anything past her . . .
You might say I'm 60% leaning toward Diana cosplay and 40% wiling to believe it's coincidence.
If it was a deliberate choice, however, I find it interesting that Prince Harry is so strongly positioned as the Charles. Meghan has cast herself as the second coming of Diana countless times, but she never (as far as I can recall) portrayed Harry as her Charles. The identification with Diana was so strong that she even got Harry to say he is still traumatized by flashbulbs and the like. But now she seems to be separating him from the new myth she is weaving for herself.
By the way, I apologize for replying so late! Things have piled up a bit for me at work, so I can't visit Nutty's blog as often as I'd like.
If you hear or read Buckingham Palace (or KP or CH) has announced.... then it is official, it’s how it’s said on any news bulletins or reported in the media. A palace source or something similar isn’t an official announcement, nor does it mean its completely untruthful. It can mean someone close within the royal circles etc., has heard or been told something. Sometimes though it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, it’s just knowing when! ;o)
Yes we have privacy laws, and no unofficial photos of royal children can be published without prior consent. Agree, the Duo cannot show any private footage of the royal family, because it’s extremely unlikely they would give their consent. So any said footage could only legally show the Duo themselves.
Basically, Instagram is being used as a virtual pimping agency for women wishing to up their game with wealthy men.
I thought of Brad Pitt and his new squeeze and of course
Harry. We know it's not surprising how he ended up with the skank he married.
My point is, I am sure your average person will never know what really happened there and of how the RF has been involved in a grand cover up scheme.
Sad to say, it's the end of an era, although the RF has been covering up royal scandals for centuries. Why is this one any different?
The green caped dress - I hadn't thought of it as possible covering recording equipment. I wondered if it had a bullet proof vest shoved under it.
So I relooked at some of the photos and she does have a duper's delight kind of smile.
I don't really think it's a Diana cosplay. Could be, M would certainly do that, but I doubt it was this time.
More recently than Diana we have had Charles's 70th with the family including M on or around a bench, Charles and Camilla's 2018 Christmas card on the same bench (taken the same day, as the 70th ones, I believe), Charles and Camilla and their dogs on a different bench outside their Birkhall home for their 15th wedding anniversary.
Bench photos just aren't unusual for anyone. Diana didn't invent that photographic setting nor is it especially identified with her IMO (except for maybe the Taj Mahal bench one.) And even with that giant monstosity of a house, it seems there are limited places H&M want to be filmed. The same old white corner with black casement windows and the same fiddleleaf fig plant wasn't going to cut it. The Gloria Steinham "local stable not really our backyard" couldn't pass muster again (not that it really did the first time) especially if the white split rail pasture fencing showed again. The sofa with the unread books backdrop had probably already been set aside for M wishing Archie #2 good luck on AGT. In the case of the Times 100 tape, I think it's reaching to find intended symbolism other than "here we are happily relaxing outside in our yard in beautiful CA..." symbolism that didn't work given their body language and facial expressions.
But I often think non-existent symbols are reported. For example, I'm not convinced the Cambridges dressed in shades of blue to honor the NHS during their meeting with Sir David either. Will has worn blue sweaters longer than Harry has worn grey polo shirts. And with two young boys, blue clothes make sense if planning a harmonious family photo.
There was a time not so long ago when British media would never publish a story like this. It's an indication that the public no longer hold the Queen in the same high regard they used to, and I'm sure it's due in large part to her perceived weakness over the Harkle Debacle. I have no idea whether this story is true but if it is - if she really thinks that having to stay at Windsor castle over Christmas is some kind of hardship, she really is out of touch.
Apparently Harry was told to "put his uniforms in mothballs" (literally - they are all made of wool) at the March summit, which means the Queen told him he wouldn't be wearing them in the foreseeable future, the rumour is that Andrew got the same message. I suspect the Military units he is attached to were also quietly told he wouldn’t be appearing at their events so not to make plans involving him. The Military appointments can't be left in limbo indefinitely so the March review will probably be the official end of many or all of them for Harry. The Queen is giving him as much leeway as she can to see sense but I think she will hope in vain and she will have to wield the axe eventually. Lord knows what's happening with Andrew he is also in limbo at the moment, it could be several years before all the posts are refilled.
All this confusion comes about because the palace is not used to having to explain itself on every detail, usually the British Public take things at face value regarding the Monarchy and all the pomp, protocol, hand shaking and titles , but now because of Megxit people are wanting to know every little detail 'why is that happening', 'how does that work', 'who needs all this rubbish' 'what are we paying for exactly' and it's making every one in the Palace machine very uneasy because the BRF is turning into cheap tabloid entertainment on a daily basis rather than being a revered bastion of tradition,duty and dignity.
The longer this H&M debacle goes on the more esteem the RF/Monarchy/Queen loses, they really need to be seen to act now and decisively or get ready to close up shop because they are losing peoples respect and it will be hard to win back once gone, six months is just too long to wait for the final curtain to come down on H&M because people are already starting to leave the theatre.
If you are standing in the street and photograph something from there, it's OK.
Otherwise, it's `My House - My Rules'.
The control may be for privacy, security (burglars casing the joint) or to stop commercial photography for profit, snapping a subject for free, or if it breaches other people's copyright (art exhibition.)
Video cameras installed by private householders (neighbours from Hell?) or security have to have a warning sign - no secret recording.
Sneaky pics of kids are suspect. (paedophilia)
School often ban parents from pics of their darlings in Nativity plays in case they record other people's kids as well. At art school in the mid 90s I was in a class taken to the local swimming pool to make rapid drawings to convey the idea of movement. When I enquired a couple of years ago if it's be OK to make sketches at our local pool, I was regarded a criminal voyeur, just for asking about their policy. (Any artist using model is well advised to get a `model release' form signed that model is happy for image to exhibited.) College rules can ban group photos of students being taken on their premises.
It's illegal to make secret recordings - in telephone calls the other party has to be informed, hence the recorded voice that tell you `This call may be recorded for training purposes' (and to catch anyone being abusive!)
She should get the book thrown at her for this if that's what she's done - whether she will or not remains to be seen. Her actions are probably offences under several different sorts of legislation.
She may plan to use the material as source for a profitable documentary, although Netflix should check that her material isn't `hot' in the sense of being stolen, or, as some of us have long suspected, for blackmail.
Can anyone find definite links between Soho House and Epstein?
I'm not convinced the Cambridges dressed in shades of blue to honor the NHS during their meeting with Sir David either.
This is the first I've heard of that idea! But I agree with you that blue happens to be a nice color that they all wear well. They probably still would have harmonized in blues even if the NHS's color had been green.
Sad to say, it's the end of an era, although the RF has been covering up royal scandals for centuries. Why is this one any different?
This is true. When I read about the older generations of British royals, I'm scandalized by what they were able to get away with. The royals of our own lifetime can no longer avoid the consequences of their actions; and though this isn't true justice yet, it's arguably progress!
That their subjects can now demand more accountability from them may be a short-term nightmare, but it's one that can pay off in the long run. Going forward, they'll really have to develop moral character in order to justify their roles. Seeing what has happened to both his uncle and his brother, Prince William must feel extremely motivated to guide his children down a more virtuous path. Coverups and PR spin won't be possible with them.
From the magazine piece:
Name found in Epstein’s black book and on Epstein’s private jet log. Buckle took what we’re described as humanitarian trips to Africa with Bill Clinton n Epstein’s private zBoeing 727. According to a 2008 VF article feature about the former president, “Burkle’s usual means of transport is the customer -converged Boeing 757 that Clinton calls “Ron Air” and that Burkle’s own circle of young aides privately refer to as “Air F**k One.’”
The writer does not mention Burkle’s ownership of Soho House - he acquired 60% of Soho House in 2012 for $250 million, and has continued to inject a few billion into Its growth.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/Jeffrey-Epstein-high-society-contacts.html
Hope this is info you were looking for.
Remember at Eugenie's wedding, and Harry was fussing with his jacket and tie, and Markle gave him the most evil look?
Harry has a lot of tics, maybe developed since being held captive and abused by Markle.
I agree with your assessment and would go further to say that the whole story is made up.
This may be Phillip's last Christmas. That, along with the Andrew and Harry mess, probably means that the children and grandchildren want to have a traditional Christmas, at Sandringham, where Phillip has made his home since he retired.
The Wessexes and York's have homes in Windsor Great Park, and the castle has plenty of room plus is not far from London where most royals have some sort of residence, so Windsor may not be a bad place for a family gathering, except for Phillip, and who would want the Sussexes to turn up?
Meghan seems to be blind to anything other than the fantastical reflection she sees of herself and has no clue about consideration of others, tradition and polite society, so I do not think it is impossible that the Sussexes will return for Christmas. The best photo ops will be there, not only to get a lot of attention for now, but for historical record (like the photo op with Tutu).
Stock up on popcorn!
@LavenderLady
Sad to say, it's the end of an era, although the RF has been covering up royal scandals for centuries. Why is this one any different?
This is true. When I read about the older generations of British royals, I'm scandalized by what they were able to get away with. The royals of our own lifetime can no longer avoid the consequences of their actions; and though this isn't true justice yet, it's arguably progress!
That their subjects can now demand more accountability from them may be a short-term nightmare, but it's one that can pay off in the long run. Going forward, they'll really have to develop moral character in order to justify their roles. Seeing what has happened to both his uncle and his brother, Prince William must feel extremely motivated to guide his children down a more virtuous path. Coverups and PR spin won't be possible with them.
__________
Agreed!
We can only hope King William will turn the corner for the Firm on the nastiness his bro and SIL have brought to he and his wife.
We know Chas is goofy and cute (yes I think he's cute but then I think Omid has a doll face so there ya go!) Chas is worthless right now.
If TQ refuses to remove Harry's title of DoS, then she should change it Duke of Clarence as a burn to him and to the Skank he married.
As Michael Kelso would say so pointedly "BURN!!" :D :D :D
NOW, THE GOODIES:
It notes that this very "exclusive" club "denied applications from Kim Kardashian and multiple Desperate Housewives cast members."
Perhaps membership director Markus was waiting for his queen MM to gain reality traction instead? I feel more certain each day that there's a long game here, and backers. A longtime client, an older British businessman, very connected, shared his thoughts last fall and at this point, I actually think he is right.
I would pay money to read an essay of yours on Royal Scandals and how they have been covered up over the centuries.
I bet you'd write a damn good book on the subject!
I'm hinting...
The writer does not mention Burkle’s ownership of Soho House - he acquired 60% of Soho House in 2012 for $250 million, and has continued to inject a few billion into Its growth.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/Jeffrey-Epstein-high-society-contacts.html
Have any of you seen anything else about his 25 or 26-year-old son's cause of death? I've heard suicide rumored. I've thought it was a warning to him, but maybe I watch too many mafia movies.
I agree with your assessment and would go further to say that the whole story is made up.
I second this. We never hear what the truly Queen thinks, and I agree with Ròn, with that I think she’d be understanding of the whole situation.
You might say I'm 60% leaning toward Diana cosplay and 40% wiling to believe it's coincidence.
If it was a deliberate choice, however, I find it interesting that Prince Harry is so strongly positioned as the Charles. Meghan has cast herself as the second coming of Diana countless times, but she never (as far as I can recall) portrayed Harry as her Charles. The identification with Diana was so strong that she even got Harry to say he is still traumatized by flashbulbs and the like. But now she seems to be separating him from the new myth she is weaving for herself.
By the way, I apologize for replying so late! Things have piled up a bit for me at work, so I can't visit Nutty's blog as often as I'd like.
@Enbrethiliel: I know what you mean by things piling up at work.
I also initially thought that the bench photo was a coincidence, but because Meghan is involved, I think it was another carefully-contrived way for her (at least in HER mind) to subliminally plant the Diana seed once again. I truly think that besides Meghan having a severe case of narcissistic personality disorder, she has a deeply pathological obsession with Diana which results in her attempting to model the timeline of her life along the timeline of Diana’s life.
I think that this obsession of Meghan’s may be part of the reason she is so jealous of Kate, and throws shade at Kate any time she has the opportunity to do it. Diana was married to the Prince of Wales, and for Meghan in her mind being forced to settle for the numpty spare Harry
probably annoys her to no end.
I’ve read that Meghan initially targeted William and was making limited inroads into William’s circle of friends and associates, but hit a dead end. A few years later, Meghan eventually turned her energies toward Harry and as we all know, was successful at taking her target down.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mail-on-sunday-meghan-high-court-privacy-biography-a4559001.html
Apparently, Archewell, her foundation, is going to also build a humane tech platform lol. So we have,
1) Producer for Netflix (due to Harry leaving the Royal fam- AND that was her Ex-Husbands actual job in LA),
2) Running for President (due to hanging with the Queen), and
3) Tech Entrepreneur (due to hanging with Serena Williams and her Husband (Alexis Ohanian, the founder of Reddit).
Seeing a pattern here?? Lol
Ya know, if this was about making money she would be targeting the Financial Services industry (not all this other stuff). So, I still think this is all about finding another husband. She doesn't actually want to do any work. She just wants to be rich and famous.
Have any of you seen anything else about his 25 or 26-year-old son's cause of death? I've heard suicide rumored. I've thought it was a warning to him, but maybe I watch too many mafia movies
@Swampwoman
You are not alone on your thinking
This article Ifound may be just speculation but it does agree with your (and many others )guess. No conformation of the cause if death is strange and gives rise to such speculation naturally
Scallywag and Vagabond
Home Scandal and Gossip Ron Burkle’s Producer son dead – are there clues?
SCANDAL AND GOSSIPRon Burkle’s Producer son dead – are there clues?
Christopher Koulouris: About author bio at bottom of article.
-
January 7, 2020
Pictured Billionaire investor, Ron Burkle’s Producer son, Andrew Burkle. Image via social mediaAndrew Burkle cause of death- are there any clues? Ron Burkle’s Producer son, Andrew Burkle declared dead as the seemingly healthy son grappled with changing fortunes.
How does a 27 year old son of a billionaire tycoon end up dead?
Hollywood society has been set ablaze with the news that Ron Burkle’s Producer son, Andrew C. Burkle, was found dead at his Beverly Hills home, Monday night. The mystery death comes as authorities have yet to provide a cause of death.
But there might be clues.
The Beverly Hills Police Department said it received a call around 7:26 p.m. Monday about an ‘unconscious male.’ Upon arriving, emergency crews ‘determined the male was deceased,’ People reported.
Inferences have been made that police were called to the residence as cause for concern prior to the Hollywood producer behind such flicks as ‘The Juiceman,’ and ‘Airplane Mode’ – dying at his residence. Alluding to the notion that something caused Andrew Burkle to become unconscious- whether from a pre existing health condition, or as a result possibly of the consumption or use of external substances – including drugs and or narcotics- whether legally acquired or not.
Others on the web speculated beyond a possible drug overdose, whether Andrew Burkle’s death was the result of suicide, or tragic death, possibly in the unintended over consumption of say sleeping pills.
“It may be what it does not say rather than what it does say that might prove to be significant at trial”, she said of Mr Scobie’s statement."
So Omid worded his statement in a way a stupid person would buy it, but not well enough to prevent granting ANL the defence...
super interesting!
@ Swampwoman
Continued..
Ron and Andrew BurkleSeemingly healthy and everything to live for?
A source is reported to have told People that the producer had died earlier that Monday before he was discovered. It remained unclear whether the producer was discovered unconscious or already deceased.
Declining to address Andrew Burkle’s cause of death, perhaps for fear of feeding into speculation and innuendo – the family instead chose to release an opaque statement.
‘It is with the deepest regret and sadness that we announce the death of Andrew C. Burkle on January 6, 2020 in Beverly Hills, California,’ the Burkle family relayed via People.
The family in its statement said ‘that the privacy of the family be respected during this difficult time.’
Andrew’s sudden death comes after he spent Christmas with family. In a family Instagram post on Dec. 25, the seemingly jubilant and radiant 27 year old poses in front of a Christmas tree cuddling a young girl, believed to be a family member.
‘Merry Christmas from me and the munchkin! 2nd year of this photo, definitely a tradition now,’ Andrew captioned the shot.
Which is to wonder what possible ailment could have led to a seemingly robust young man in his prime dying less than two weeks later
There's a big difference between being `bitterly disappointed' and `furious' and I tend towards mischief-making rather than reliable reportage.
I can imagine the former. Not only might it be the final Christmas when 4 generations can meet up with both HM & Prince Philip present, but being at Sandringham until after February 6th has passed is always very important to HM, for that is where and when her beloved father died in 1952. Being there, I imagine, is a form of honouring his memory. I was till in Infants School then but I can remember how upset my mother was - fate seemed so cruel.
Prince Bertie, D of York, the second-born of Geo V, hadn't been thought much of as a candidate for king when his brother cleared off. You may have seen `The King's Speech' - it gave a good sense of what he had to contend with. The Government was, apparently, uneasy about him ascending the throne.
(Yet, he grew into the role, saw us through the war and died after barely 15 years on the throne, which was felt to be an unjust fate, hastened by heavy smoking in response to stress.)
Next in line to Bertie, had he not ascended, was George V's third, Henry, D.of Gloucester - I was going to say he didn't cause problems but, whoops, the family had to pay `regular hush money' to keep things quiet - see his Wikipedia entry.
The next one down the line was George, Duke of Kent. Oh dear.
His 1930s look like sex, drugs but no rock'n'roll. Then came the war. Plenty of rumours and speculation here about a possible conspiracy to oust Churchill as PM- it may be tied up with Hess's flight to Scotland. Kent's political views were believed to be, shall we say, not helpful to the war effort.
He died in circumstances that were not unexplained but in which the explanation has had historians scratching their heads ever since. He died in air crash whilst ostensibly flying to Iceland. The plane was carrying a considerable quantity of `Scandinavian' currency. Accounts vary as to which country had issued them (Iceland or Sweden?), hence where was he going? Sweden was neutral, Britain had `taken over' in Iceland in 1940 (it'd been a Danish colony but Denmark had been over-run by the Nazis, giving Iceland de facto independence. Total damage during `invasion' said to be one door in German Embassy)
(From my own experience in the early 70s, when few people went to Iceland, there were problems getting the correct currency as all Kronur were seen as interchangeable - `No, this is Danish money, I need Icelandic Kronur'.)
Small wonder there's confusion. All sorts of questions hang over these events still.
George V's father, Edward VII, was problematic to his mother, Victoria,. I read that when he was an undergraduate at Cambridge, Prince Albert made a special trip to read him the riot act about his peccadillos with the `ladies'. And there was a court case in which he was cited as Co-Respondent in a divorce, among other affaires.
One of his sisters was allowed to be an art student and seems to have `lived the life', attracting gossip. Another married a husband with a penchant for young guardsmen - she had a window in KP bricked up to stop him escaping at night.
Today, we'd see Victoria herself as consumer of cannabis and laudanum but that was acceptable then. Plus John Brown and the Munshi...
One of her uncles (2nd born) ditched his mistress and their 7 children, I think it was, to marry and ascend the throne as Willian IV.
The 1st born, Prince of Wales/Prince Regent/George IV, was an extravagant rake. He married Caroline of Brunswick, whose personal hygiene left much to be desired, even by the standards of the time. The best story is of her being locked out of Westminster Abbey for his Coronation.
That'll do for now, I think - it gives the flavour of some `much worse' situations the Crown has endured and I hope it gives grounds for optimism.
Most of my info comes from general reading; the only bit of scandal I've had `direct' was the revelation that James II & VIIth's `Protestant' 1st wife, Anne Hyde, intended to convert to Catholicism. This has only recently come to public gaze but I came across it almost 40 years ago, almost 300 years later than the event.
News travelled more slowly then; it was easier to conceal things when literacy was not widespread or technology very advanced. There was plenty of expression of republican and revolutionary ideas then as well but somehow they got through it..
First marriage, yachting, bitchiness in school and on the job. They need to run a campaign to delegitimise her. They are stupid and passive victims if they don't. They need to destroy any credibility these two might have. Everything needs to come out now.
Perhaps some sort of message to people in LA about her abilities without them or their assistance?
Which first marriage do you mean? There are pictures of her in circulation where she is in a white dress surrounded by girls in identical burgundy dresses. Sure looks like a bride with bridesmaids. And all before Trevity Trev Trev. Like this one:
https://64.media.tumblr.com/d3f3f8027913f768caa24b3ef4aced0d/24a9e96e72d157d4-fc/s1280x1920/27e7e6279fff473a672ba37a115bd419f7d60022.jpg
Or his one:
https://64.media.tumblr.com/afbfe8c41226c51af417ab3ca4cbe9bd/4af4a60494eabf4a-71/s1280x1920/8e3aa8d2ebea3f76e2cdd89230f470f3b6fa189b.jpg
Sorry don't know how to make the links active, need cut and paste
Only Megs really knows how many times she took the marriage vows.
Wikipedia doesn’t always state the gospel truth and this should be remembered, ;o) it was a bit of joke website not too many years back. Anyhow it needs updating. A documentary on our royals more recently repeated, put to bed the rumour relating to him with Markham as dates etc did not align when she said she was with him as he wasn’t even in the country. I wish I could remember more details of what was said, but that was the crux of it.
Re your 2nd photo
https://64.media.tumblr.com/afbfe8c41226c51af417ab3ca4cbe9bd/4af4a60494eabf4a-71/s1280x1920/8e3aa8d2ebea3f76e2cdd89230f470f3b6fa189b.jpg
Could that be MM & Joseph J.Goldberg-Giuliano, her [allegedly] first husband? She's definitely wearing some rings on the ring finger of her left hand. Unless she was in some local/university production. I tried to find photos of a young JJ G-G but it's hard to say.
Maybe she will go for Dr. Dre?
I honestly don't know, but unless it is a play it sure looks like a real wedding. The guy looks serious and excited, posed like a real groom. But it can be a dance, a performance or something like this. There is no veil, do you think she would have forgotten a veil for her wedding? But you are right, there is appears to be a ring on her finger.
Also her dress in pic with bridesmaids is different to the one with the boy. Two different events, obviously
Kudos to people who find such gems in the internet space.
Look at the black and white photo
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5137453/Unseen-photos-Meghan-Markle-prom.html
Yes, it is clear her pic with a guy was a prom. Thank you. But the second one with bridesmaids is still unexplained.
First wedding that had been annulled?
I’ll get back to you if I ever find it.
Claims to have inside info. The latest is that the Palace are deciding a strategy of how to protect the BRF from the Sussexes.
Exclusion: Official engagements/photos
Family gatherings: Permit no cell phones/recording devices
Concierges to accompany #Megxit duo @ all times on Palace grounds (excl Frogmore)
Sounds a bit far fetched to me. What do you think?
Thank you. You are good at finding information.
I did a quick search for "brides with gloves" and it brings countless images. Doesn't prove anything of course.
President Kate toasts scouts with a marshmallow
Leaning towards the fire with a marshmallow on a stick, the Duchess of Cambridge marked her new appointment as president of The Scout Association with a ritual repeated by members for generations.
Kate has become the first female president of the association, a position she will hold alongside the Duke of Kent, 84, who has led the organisation since 1975....
https://www.instyle.com/fashion/street-style/meghan-markle-best-street-style-looks?
I wonder if you misread what I wrote?
To clarify:
I did not name any Royal mistress, floozy or other presumed sexual partner of any Royal apart from a couple of spouses.
I gave the `hush money' reference - yes it was in Wikipedia, hardly a case of mea culpa.
It was, however, in relation to Prince Henry, later D.of Gloucester, not Prince George (D.of Kent.)
Kika Markham is a contemporary actress (b.1940). Were you thinking of Ms Kiki Preston, `the Girl With a Golden syringe', whom, again, I did not mention?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8786507/Meghan-Markle-says-doesnt-focus-criticism-flattery.html
Also, that she was on her own on Royal premises she had to be accompanied - now they're including H.
Thank the Lord, no more Balcony Twostep with Do-si-do.
Perhaps a few sniffer dogs wouldn't come amiss. I wonder if there are any trained yet to detect pregnancy? I'd love to see one sit down in front of her, gaze into her eyes and wag its tail, whether for bugs, dope, explosives or preggers.
It is very simple. Her agency does everything they can to have her included. They pay, pull favours - anything that works. The goal is to create an impression that she is in high demand.
It is very simple. Her agency does everything they can to have her included. They pay, pull favours - anything that works. The goal is to create an impression that she is in high demand.
Agree, it’s all paid for PR. The Kardashian’s do it, The Hadid girls do it (their parents paid to get their names in the papers for modelling contracts) it’s rife in that world where you’re famous for no particular reason or talent etc.
She keeps emphasizing what she 'says' not realizing the media only points out what she DOES. Which, are facts.
I love her opinion that bullying on social media “must be dealt with” which in Meghanspeak means she wants censorship of anything negative about her, even if it’s accurate or someone else’s opinion of her.
This is especially rich coming from a woman who according to people who knew her when she was younger who have told their experiences in online forums such as Quora, who say Meghan has bullied other people since she was in high school and in college.
From the Mirror 09-29-20
MEGHAN MARKLE DESCRIBES TEARFUL STRUGGLES AS SHE INSISTS SHE'S 'NOT CONTROVERSIAL'
Meghan Markle has hit back at critics who take offence at her speaking out - saying she's been misunderstood.
The Duchess of Sussex last week came under fire for urging people to vote in the upcoming US election, but she said she's done nothing wrong.
Speaking at the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit today, she said: "If you look back at anything I’ve said, what ends up being inflammatory is people’s interpretation of it.
"But if you listen to what I actually say, it’s not controversial, and some of it is reactive to things that just haven't happened."
Meghan, addressing the summit virtually from the £11million mansion she and Prince Harry bought in May, said the couple are throwing themselves into tackling hate speech and toxic behaviour online.
She said that allowing bullying and misinformation on social media is "not sustainable" and must be dealt with.
New Harry Markle !
@WBBM: And it’s damn good!
As I was about to publish this, news came in that MM will be a speaker at the Fortune Most powerful Women Summit (29 September,2020), where again she appears to be using/abusing the title to open doors. Apparently this is a last minute addition again, and it’s clear that MM has no shame in milking the title for the next six months. Is BP wise to let this continue?
She most definitely billed herself as Duchess of Sussex at Fortune's Most Powerful Women summit. It was sickening, she has done no Royal duties for months. The title should be stripped immediately! But the way the BRF is going, they may let her keep it when the March review comes around. Maybe William and Charles hope Megs (and Hapless) can establish herself in Los Angeles so that she is out of sight and out of mind.
"So go use/abuse your Sussex title if it helps keep you in Los Angeles and same for Harry. Stay there, 6000 miles away, and good riddance!"
The allure is the BRF and how an insurgent came in and tried to bring down the Monarchy and make a quick buck.
How can we look away from that? Netflix is right in that regard.
Maybe that's what she means? Her bills are too high and it must be dealt with?
I've learned to read into Meghan's words for clues into her real life, and I don't think I'm wrong in that regard considering she twists everything and projects it!
Something tells me she'll drop the case.
That'll do for now, I think - it gives the flavor of some `much worse' situations the Crown has endured and *I hope it gives grounds for optimism.
_____
Pt 1 and Pt2 Very nice! Thank you.
Yes, looking at the past helps us to see "this too shall pass".
I would be very surprised if she drops the case. In her eyes she is a victim and people need to know that. Just look at the declarations she does through her lawyers: "My friends are not under investigation here and nether am I" "I have done nothing wrong" "The matter remains the same - a private letter to my father" etc etc
She tried to blame the newspapers for "attacking" and "spreading false information". Thankfully the judge cut that bsht right away.
She is using the British court of justice to push her message across.
Which is $13,345 more than what she purportedly gave to the poor kennel (assuming she sends in the monthly subscription for one year).
How the hardworking CEO of GM feels about speaking on the same level as a D-list cable actress who yachted and banged a prince to get there is anyone’s guess. But Fortune slid downhill the last few years, so, maybe no surprise.
I do not think it is impossible that the Sussexes will return for Christmas. The best photo ops will be there, not only to get a lot of attention for now, but for historical record (like the photo op with Tutu).
Given the extreme precautions taken around the health of two nonagenarians, I think it very, very unlikely that the Sussexes will be invited for Christmas, or indeed, permitted to attend if they are so gauche as to show up sans invitation. This is about more than bad feeling among the family now--Her Majesty and Philip's lives depend on not exposing them to germs.
The Suxxits have spent the last six months in *the* Covid hotspot of the United States--worse than New York City, now. Their living arrangements are, shall we say . . hazy. Who is with them in Mudslide Manor? Is that even where they live? What if they are in Soho House--a hotel? What about this documentary series, being followed around by film crews? Then the flight all the way from L.A. . .even if it's by private jet--too risky.
The non-invitation will be framed as 'Harry and Megan have decided to remain in Montecito in the best interests of the health of her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh.' They will be allowed to sound magnanimous for this 'decision' but I think the decision's already been made for them.
HM has to see them in March, unless the review happens over Zoom. The UK is poised to go into lockdowns again for a second wave, so the staying apart would be for 'Archie's' sake as well.
Duchess of Sussex loses latest legal skirmish over privacy
Finding Freedom can be used by the tabloid newspaper in its defence of her privacy claim, the High Court heard today
By Jack Hardy
Part I
The Duchess of Sussex will have Finding Freedom used against her when the privacy battle she is waging against the Mail on Sunday reaches trial.
A judge agreed on Tuesday that the newspaper could rely on the recent biography of the Sussexes in its defence as the Duchess lost the latest skirmish in her High Court case.
She is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL), the owner of the Mail on Sunday, over its publication of a “private and confidential” letter sent to her estranged father.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the newspaper sought permission to change its defence after the biography was released - claiming the Duchess had breached her own privacy.
ANL said it wished to argue she had "co-operated with the authors of the recently published book Finding Freedom to put out their version of certain events".
The suggestion was strongly refuted by the Duchess's lawyers, who denied she had “collaborated” with the authors and argued the references to the letter in the book were simply extracts from the Mail on Sunday’s own stories.
One of the authors, Omid Scobie, provided a written witness statement to the court saying the Duchess had not been involved with the book.
Ruling on the application on Tuesday, Judge Francesca Kaye said she did not wish to get drawn into a “mini trial” over the issue and allowed the amendment to be made.
She said the changes to the argument did not raise “new defences", adding that the Duchess “knows the case case she has to meet” and “there is no suggestion that she is in fact unable to do so”.
Neither the arguments put forward by the Duchess's barrister, Justin Rushbrooke QC, or the statement from Mr Scobie delivered a “knockout blow” against the amendments and they would be issues for the trial judge to determine, she said.
She added of Mr Scobie’s statement: “It may be what it does not say, rather than what it does say, that might prove to be significant at trial.”
It emerged in court that the latest legal tussle had cost the Duchess nearly £180,000 - £139,000 for her own representation and £39,000 to cover the newspaper’s costs after losing the ruling.
Master Kaye also indicated impatience with the “leisurely” pace at which the legal battle was unfolding, saying she did not wish for the “comparatively modestly valued, relatively straightforward case to take up yet more court time” when it came to trial in January.
In a statement released after the ruling, a spokesman for Schillings, the law firm representing the Duchess, said: “The Mail has been allowed to prolong this action and try contending its amended defence at trial, where we have no doubt it will fail.
“This defence has no merit and is in fact false.”
The Duchess is suing ANL over five articles - two in the Mail on Sunday and three on MailOnline, which were published in February 2019.
She claims the February 2019 publication of parts of the handwritten letter, sent to Thomas Markle, 76, in August 2018, was a misuse of her private information and breached the Data Protection Act.
It's so funny how she projects that everyone else says the wrong things about her and how we need to stick to facts. Why doesn't SHE stick to the facts? Is it because she's too busy scheming with Omid "technically a diary I gave my friend to read and ended up in Omid's hands was out of my control!".
All anyone here has been doing is looking at the facts of Meghan.
I'm sure she had many reasons to abandon many people in her life, and I'm sure personally those reasons made sense to her in her 'come up', but we live within a moral and ethical culture. She can't outrun the judgment of cultures that exist in the paradigm of right and wrong, and good and evil.
It's very interesting coming from someone who pays and seeks out, press. This is why she can handle the 'game' she doesn't actually care because it meets her goals, but it's good for her biz to say she is a victim and above it all.
Does anyone have a photo of Meghan crying or showing any emotion other than the dagger stares?
Last note: the eyebrows! I've never seen a surgical brow job I didn't like, until her video today! Geez.
i’ve always that blind was MM.
/www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+meghan+markle+leaving+green+dress
Is it fair to say that someone like Meghan is for sale to the highest bidder?
Yes. It would be interesting to know who owns her now. Is it Netflix? Is it Burkle? Is it somebody else?
she generally has awful taste and often chooses the most ill-fitting garments.
Well, that explains dumping her father in order to have the future King of England walk her down the aisle!
Also, NF is going to have to go through every single frame of the "documentary" to make sure, absolutely sure, there is no unauthorized video. I would think even a glimpse of, say, George at home would cost them big money in a lawsuit (remember Will sued the tabs over Katherine's photos). How much will that cost and will it, combined with ovwever much they payed the Harkles, cover the expected revenue generated?
Wonder if the Spencer sisters feel as used as they were.
This also explains the very bizarre Canada House--whatever it was.
https://blindgossip.com/nice-house-and-fake-tears/
on the other hand heres a crying actress blind that sounds like MM too and fits with somethin PH said ‘she cries’’ everynight....crocodile tears
https://blindgossip.com/she-cries-every-day/
i think bothe were MM, one was Croc tears, the other was pyscho narc non-tears
Bentworth
Now that Netflix has bought her
The ‘lectricians daughter
She really needs to change tack
Produce a family affair
Including her Pere, Frere, and Mere
To show Green really Is the New Black
MEGHAN MARKLE TWERKING?
BTW: We don't see "Archie" because the kid absolutely cannot get more attention than Markle herself. She's jealous of her own kid.
Now that you’ve touched on Megs new eye brows I started thinking back on our discussion of Megs 'Historical Fashion' a few threads back , once Meg has sorted the wigs she can move onto the must have fashion accessory of noble ladies in the 1700's Mouse Skin Eye Brows.
I think she might have Scobie giving them a test run for her already.
In the style of our own poet laureate Magatha Mistie.
A poem written by Matthew Prior in 1718 : (names changed to protect the innocent)
Duchess Meg was just dipt into bed
Her eye-brows on the toilet lay
Away the kitten with them fled
As fees belonging to her prey
For this misfortune careless Harry,
Assure yourself, was loudly rated
And madam, getting up again,
With her own hand the mouse-trap baited.
On little things, as sages write,
Depends our human joy or sorrows
If we don’t catch a mouse to-night
Alas! no eyebrows for to-morrow.
A few more things to add to that book of Royal cover ups
Queen Mary was a kleptomaniac, everyone who was expecting a visit from her hid any small valuable portables like snuff boxes, because if she took a fancy to something she would simply pocket it. She managed to abscond with a shawl and small footstool which had belonged to Queen Victoria after visits to the Royal School of Needlework , silver coffee spoons and lace edged napkins seemed to be a favourite target. Some items would find their way back home but many probably ended up in the Royal collection.
Queen Alexandra’s daughter Princess Victoria (Toria) was a resentful, spiteful gossip, meddling in all the family marriages playing off royal family members against each other(including foreign royal relatives) and almost caused a war with her manipulations and lies when the foreign office had to intervene and do some fancy diplomatic dancing. Edward VIII, once stated that she was 'a bitch of the first order.' (She’s buried at Frogmore as well).
Queen Victoria was virtually a nymphomaniac, discussed her sex life with her Prime Minister (Melbourne) and wore poor Albert out with her demands , banging on his locked bedroom door at all hours because ‘she needed him’ apparently. Loved sex but hated the consequences (babies – which she found revolting). Her daughter Pss Beatrice took control of her diaries after her death and copied all 141 volumes by hand (70 years worth), leaving out all the racy, indiscreet and scandalous bits and then burned the originals.
That family tree has a lot of odd fruit hanging from it, all (over)ripe for the picking.....WBBM do think about that book or even a blog on royal scandals/cover ups.
I think her RPO and all other security not to mention her staff would have noticed it if it was. The RPO’s aren’t paid idiots. :o/
@emeraldcity 😉
I hadn’t heard of Matthew Prior
I like his style, and I like his wit
Exposing Megs with fun, satire
I’ll carry on, and do my bit
Loving Kindness sounds like a massage/funeral parlour
Happy Endings either way...
More Ron Burkle info
@Puds Ron Burkle
HARRY AND MEGHAN
Radar online ~ Meghan Markle Pals with Ron Burkle EXCLUSIVE!!!!
Date: November 9, 2018Author: jerseydeanne0
Ron Burkle owns Radar Online? The rag that does all the hit pieces on HM and Kate? Like how the Queen forced Meghan to degrade herself with a fertility test? Or the Queen refused to let MM run a marathon or how Kate is mean to MM? So Megsy’s buddy owns the rag that prints this garbage? Wow. Well, another connection established. This is the rag that has printed one idiot story after another claiming the Queen is an autocrat out of touch woman constantly keeping MM from doing what she wants. Flat out nasty articles. And it is owned by her buddy Ron Burkle SH owner and the guy who took her to the White House. Okay And we are the crazy ones?
=====================================================
That’s correct anon! Ron brought it as it was failing, that’s what he does, buys company and revamp them into money makers. The answer is yes, his company published all the rubbish against the Royals along with MM topless pictures that she denied.
We’ve all been her mouthpieces to her rise to fame and fortune. At least she could do was drop some money in the tip cup.
Why would so-called not insider/insider, tell us to keep hammering away at MM? Why? It gives her rise, without us bloggers she would still be a nobody like me and you.
Thank you
According to:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/data-protection-act-2018
- one of the effects of the act is that it `empowers people to take control of their data'.
`Data' is regarded as information such as name, address, tel.no, email address, medical records, ethnicity, religious and political affiliations. records, DNA, ie info about one - not the text of documents one has produced.
I believe it even covers exam results - the latest higher education institution I've been involved with is very careful only to publish anonymised degree results, whereas 50+ years ago, my university regarded such information as being of public interest - printed Class Lists were attached as public notices to the railings outside a main university building. Dammit, they were even published in the Times, along with the name of one's previous school! That's just one instance of the change.
So, have the papers got it wrong? Just which piece of legislation is she invoking?
Oh yes, Queen Mary was well known for being light-fingered when visiting, or at least dropping very broad hints if she spotted some trifle of her hosts that she liked. I have visions of chatelaines gasping `The Queen's coming - quick, hide the teaspoons!'
Blogger Raspberry Ruffle said.. quoting Faltering Sky, Watch carefully in the first 10 seconds when the camera catches her from the back as the wind blow her cover, err cape. Look at the middle of her back. She has a box on!
I dealt with `wanding' her in my post dated yesterday evening: September 29, 2020 at 10:28 PM
I suppose if she put her name and address on the letter, it could could be construed as `data' but I'm not sure whether expressing emotions, opinions and assertions counts as `data'.
Might pass muster under `Copyright' insofar as they look like creative writing!