There's a new CDAN blind item today, suggesting that there are "still no takers for the alliterate one and her ginger boy to speak at an event."
That's hardly surprising; first of all, there aren't many big in-person events or conventions going on right now, and Enty says that "even for virtual speaking they wanted the same fee as in person."
But fees aren't the only problem. What do the Sussexes bring to an event?
Do they have business knowledge, like how to increase an organization's sales, improve its branding, or inspire better product development?
Do they have an inspirational story, like people who have overcome terrible circumstances and excelled?
Or are they extremely popular (and non-controversial) celebrities that almost everyone would enjoy meeting?
Bragging rights
No, they're not any of the above, and for that reason it's difficult for any meeting planner to justify to his or her clients spending a great deal of money hiring the Sussexes. They don't "deliver value."
They also don't deliver prestige. For big-name speaking events, bragging rights are important.
You want someone at the top of their fame - Cardi B, for example, in September 2020 - or someone your attendees could show off to their friends about having met.
(For left wing/progressive organizations, AOC or Ilan Omar would be great "get"s; for conservative groups, attendees might be excited to meet Madison Cawthorne or Kim Klacik).
Not many people are interested in showing off about having met Harry and Meghan; it's not an envy-generator.
Big-time event planners also like an exclusive on someone who isn't doing any similar events. Harry and Meghan gave that up by doing a highly-publicized (and widely-panned) event for JP Morgan.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
Pre-speech conditions
In addition to not having an obvious way of delivering value to a client, the Sussexes are a pain in the behind. The Telegraph (quoted in the New York Post, with no paywall) revealed a long list of pre-speech conditions, including the ability to choose their moderator, a requirement that a list of attendees be provided in advance, and details of any sponsorship arrangements.
That's a lot of headaches for a little word salad.
Comments
I agree that it would be tough to get all that work done in 4-5 months, in the winter.
With invisible workers, much like the invisible baby. :-)
Maybe Meghan could give a Ted talk about how all that came to be.
Speaking of equality, as someone mentioned above, she could speak of the equality of having two homes, one clearly a mansion, the other unused by them. Whilst so many women struggle to have a home at all. How does she reconcile that?
Has she donated anything other than money for a dog kennel, and someone's used baby clothing one time? What has she done to help women live a better life?
A few zoom calls here and there, not seen by homeless women. A few minutes spent at charities, high end charities, not the kind where you get in there and actually do the hard work, with a long term commitment.
What she did was the easy kind of charity. Help with backpacks for 15 minutes, plant some flowers by herself whilst selling pictures of strangers' children for a profit to herself, spending 20 minutes dropping off food. Get dressed up for zoom calls. Easy stuff.
Which would make for a boring million dollar speech. Anyone can do that kind of charity, and many do. Let's see some charity where she's really making a difference, something that a lot of people aren't already doing.
She brags about her platform, using her voice to make a difference. But she hasn't done anything to make a difference. Lots of people are doing what she has done, and it makes no difference if she is there or not.
She doesn't inspire anyone to do anything out of the ordinary and mundane.
WAY off topic: That reminds me of daughter's favorite childhood book series and movie Anne of Green Gables, based on the book written in 1908, about how orphaned children were adopted out to provide labor in Canada. I do not know if you are aware of the orphan trains https://www.history.com/news/orphan-trains-childrens-aid-society which took place in the U.S.A. for the purpose of moving orphaned and abandoned children from cities to farmland where they might have a chance of a better life. Some had good outcomes; some were treated cruelly, beaten, starved, and were basically slaves.
Thank you. The people making a difference are the volunteers quietly converting words to braille for the blind day in and day out. The people making a difference are the volunteers who rock screaming newborn babies born addicted to drugs and in pain for hours on end. The people making a difference are the volunteers for hospice who help families with their dying family members and/or who hold a dying person's hand so that they do not die alone. The people making a difference are child's advocates who speak for the children's needs in court cases. They are the true heroes.
WAY off topic: That reminds me of daughter's favorite childhood book series and movie Anne of Green Gables, based on the book written in 1908, about how orphaned children were adopted out to provide labor in Canada. I do not know if you are aware of the orphan trains https://www.history.com/news/orphan-trains-childrens-aid-society which took place in the U.S.A. for the purpose of moving orphaned and abandoned children from cities to farmland where they might have a chance of a better life. Some had good outcomes; some were treated cruelly, beaten, starved, and were basically slaves.
_____________________________________________________________
There is a great rendition of Anne of Green Gables on Netflix. Very nostalgic. It's called Anne With an E.
_________________________________________________________
Speaking of Netflix, as with everything La Markle does, she will continue to keep her "projects" close to her chest so as to build suspense. But what she fails to understand is the longer you hold an audience captive waiting for "amazing" content, the more they expect well, amazing content.
She's shooting herself in the foot as we know she blows hot air out of her bum and can't deliver.
My objection to the speechifying of the Markles is that it is not backed up by anything nor are they using their own platform.
...
Telling girls to empower themselves does not make them safe from violent men or win them equal treatment in the workplace.
@Mel
She brags about her platform, using her voice to make a difference. But she hasn't done anything to make a difference.
______________________________
The point is, she preaches but does not lead by example. How did she empower herself? By using a series a men. If she could give personal examples of how she was successful at something through her own merits, or use the examples of other successful women, then girls could try and emulate her. In any case, words alone are not enough to inspire young girls/women. She cannot make a difference because young girls/women simply cannot relate to her.
I agree with many of your comments. As far as value goes, I guess that is wildly subjective. I cited the other day Hilary Clinton gave a 10 minute speech to the Pharmaceutical Industry conference some years back and received $50,000 for a video call. That works out to $300,000/hr. What are the Kardashians paid per episode? How much money does it take to see a 1 hour concert? Seems our society does pay big sums of money for celebrities (btw the Kardashians whose content makes me sick, but evidently they influence the young).
Yes I think real leaders and movers and shakers have more inherent lasting effect from the words they deliver. However, the young girls might listen to someone like Meghan although I wouldn't have when young. But sometimes it is only a simple quote that one may think about, pondered intently, analyzed for the relevancy in one's own life or how it could be applied. Could be the only thing gained from a speech. We all know quotes we find particularly poignant and moving and we may reflect on from time to time. I don't have much belief the HAMS has it in them for such originality and inspiration but maybe they can work on it and achieve some measure of success in the future. Who would have guessed they had it in them to land a staggering multimillion dollar NetFlix deal?
I had a longer post to put up from an author who wrote an article from his perspective on what the three elements a good speaker possesses. Thought it was quite succinct and accurate; he was a former Olympian and successful Keynote speaker (possible English too). However my computer ate it and will now leave for med. appt and do it this evening.
What charity got the 3 million Disney paid them for The Lion King
What did they do to support Covid victims as they declared earlier
What did they do to support veterans as declared earlier
How many private flights they had altogether and how many trees they planted to offset the impact
How is their BLM work and when do they plan to go to cities burned by looters to help the victims many of whom are non-whites
Do they do anything to help victims of the wild fires
How is Markle's support for Althea's "case" going
How much water do they use in their mansion
What Markle plans to do to help to her (still) UK charities she is the patron of
What do they feel about the Cuties backlash and why are they silent about it
How does Harry dare to declare he "is supporting the Queen" after trashing her lifelong work with the Commonwealth
Isn't Harry ashamed to take money from Netflix that plans to show the Diana musicle
I am starting to wonder which platform we could use to send an open letter to Sussexes with all the questions they dodge and moderate.
Nutties! This might just be for Nutties in the UK, not sure outside the UK.
I have just found out that, as libraries are still closed (and slowly starting to reopen) because of the covid, online resources are accessible to library members. The interesting thing is that this includes, as well as e-books and e-audiobooks, e-magazines and e-newspapers free of charge. You'll need the number on your library card. I tried it and had a quick look, it seems you can have access to newspapers behind a paywall (I tried the Telegraph and the Guardian). You can also access foreign publications such a the NYT. They have 7421 publications.
I don't you can access the system from outside the UK as you need a UK library card. In the UK, perhaps try www.(name of your council/borough).gov.uk/libraries and follow the instructions.
Yes, I knew it went on with British orphans being sent to Australia up to the 1967. There was a huge scandal here it a few years back.
Dr Barnardo's charity was heavily involved, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnardo%27s
Over 30 years ago, I heard sociologist AH Halsey describe it as `exporting our problems'
We were encouraged to raise money for Dr B's at school - I got my `silver' badge and now have very mixed feelings about it.
--------------
I've tried to think of something, anything, MM might have actually done, rather than just preaching about it or just showing her face long enough to have her picture taken. I can't think of any single instance of her doing anything at all with sincerity. She can't even fake that.
She may have had an education designed to make her a good Catholic but somehow the teaching about giving alms in secret -
`That thine alms may be in secret: and
thy Father which seeth in secret
himself shall reward thee openly.' (Matthew 6.4 - Sermon on the Mount)
- has passed her by.
Perhaps she was away from school that day...
She gives a tenner for a kennel and makes sure she tells us.
I used to be Pledged Giving secretary at our parish, encouraging donors to sign Gift Aid forms so the Church could reclaim the income tax that the donor had paid on the money. One major donor refused to join the scheme because she didn't want anyone to know, either me or the taxman, just how much she gave. Also, she believed on rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Is there anything that Megsy has exhorted us to do which isn't diametrically opposite to what she does?
As you have pointed out, France has very different sensibilities towards sexuality and still views what North Americans may view as sexual exploitation as "art." I still have a book by French photographer David Hamilton, who photographed pubescent girls wearing beautiful, old fashioned and revealing clothes with the famous "Hamilton Blur." One of the girls grew up and complained that she was exploited, and raped by him. Three more followed along the exploitation theme and Hamilton took his own life. All parents were happy to let their 10-year-olds be photographed tastefully by Hamilton, although many of us would now argue that there is nothing tasteful in a semi-nude pre-teen.
___________________________________________________________
This is why Roman Polanski fled to France. From Wiki:
Polanski decided not to appear at his sentencing. He told his friend, producer Dino De Laurentiis, "I've made up my mind. I'm getting out of here."[147] On 31 January 1978, the day before sentencing, Polanski left the country on a flight to London,[150][151] where he had a home.
**One day later, he left for France.[152][153] As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition and has lived mostly in France since then.[154] Since he fled the United States before final sentencing, the charges are still pending.**
this article says it can be seen from 2 miles away.
Looks like pieces of construction if you look carefully: https://theprojectsworld.com/celebrities/everything-we-know-about-meghan-markle-and-prince-harrys-frogmore-cottage-fixer-upper/
Worker on the roof: https://www.shutterstock.com/es/editorial/image-editorial/frogmore-cottage-windsor-uk-10-mar-2019-10149719f
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/editorial/image-editorial/frogmore-cottage-windsor-uk-10-mar-2019-10149719d
More workers on the roof: http://dianalegacy.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-to-splash-out-50000-on-soundproofing-unit-for-their-new-windsor-home-to-block-out-noise-from-heathrow-jets/work-continues-round-the-clock-with-just-over-8-weeks-to-go-before-the-birth-of-meghan-and-harrys-first-child/
https://homes.nine.com.au/latest/meghan-markle-prince-harry-frogmore-cottage-organic-vegetable-garden/89255a96-b282-4583-93d4-04f6031ba6fc
Construction equipment: https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-frogmore-cottage/a36ac270-5483-401a-8f00-f0c52d185364
We discussed this as it was happening. I think some here must have poor memories? 🤷🏼♀️
Thanks for the idea! I get books from my library which I order online then do a pick up. I will certainly look into publications.
(I've always sanitized my library books since I worked in a library as a young woman. They are very dirty and germ-y! E books are great but there's nothing like the feel of a great old school book in the hand).
Great tip! :)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8159494/meghan-markle-prince-harry-green-energy-family-unit-frogmore-cottage/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9365793/meghan-markle-prince-harry-frogmore-cottage-refurb/
New roof and construction vehicle at bottom of pics: https://www.alamy.com/frogmore-cottage-the-home-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-in-the-grounds-of-windsor-castle-seen-during-renovation-image339091946.html
Workmen at Frogmore Cottage: https://www.alamy.com/workmen-seen-at-frogmore-cottage-the-home-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-in-the-grounds-of-windsor-castle-seen-du-image339094587.html
Now tell me again how no one saw this. Please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeHZTGWGcgI&ab_channel=According2taz
So I am guessing the reason PH uses them is because of dilated pupils.
Possibly. Why would he have dilated pupils, though? Or unevenly dilated pupils?
Seems like kind of an odd thing to do, unless he's trying to mask or hide something. He didn't seem to have that need earlier in life?
----------
Forgot to note who said it:
But sometimes it is only a simple quote that one may think about
You mean like the one she said recently...if you remain silent you're complicit?
------------
Wild Boar Battle-maid said
Also, she believed on rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Something to be said for the ethics of that kind of thinking.
As mm moved her corporation to Delaware because they allow you to hide more information.
And them being encouraged to move their businesses and foundations off-shore in order to avoid US taxes.
"@KC, by "support their younger children better" I think you mean to encourage them in careers, insist on an education of some sort, and try to discourage them away from a life of nightclubs and jet setting?
It seems so easy, but based on the past few generations, when combined with no need to earn a living, it must be really difficult. Maybe they need to go live with the Middletons in the summers, do something useful."
Yes, that would be my hope. The Queen and Prince Philip were brought up to be responsible, accountable people, and Charles and Anne carry on in that tradition; the other two seem to be,shall we say, not. Edward tried but was too insistent on his royal privilege to really sustain a commercial enterprise, and Andrew was all about getting a cut of the action and where could he play a round of golf?
But that other way of life....so tempting...
In all of those photos that you provided, I saw one Readymix concrete truck and one unidentified commercial truck. Those aren't nearly enough to do the kind of refurbishment needed at Frogmore Cott. No photos of electricians, plumbers, roofers, floorers, drywall installers, etc? No deliveries of appliances and soft goods?
The "workmen" in the last series of photos (way at the bottom of the photos) could have been anybody from visitors to the site who were required to wear a hardhat and vest. For all we know, they could have been from whatever agency that oversees refurbs of protected properties, surveyors, architects, etc.
In these photos, I see no actual builders or workmen actually working on Frog Cott, and just wearing a hardhat and vest doesn't mean that work was in progress.
Creating a discussion can be a very positive thing. Isn’t that (creating buzz and getting the brand Netflix mentioned) why they gave the Duo a development deal though? Has Netflix’s involvement with the Duo a subliminal reason the film has been so ill received or even partly why? Would the film have got as much negative attention if Netflix had passed on the Duo?
Does anyone think Megsy will support the film. It has a black female director. She can hardly slate the film now can she? Because if she did, she would be once again biting the hands that feeds her . ;o)
I would like to add to your post above - renovations always require large skips that get filled up with old rubble, plaster, old wood, old bricks, old window frames etc. A renovation of that scale would require several skips. Add considerable amount of noise and dust from knocking down the walls, insulation, enforcements etc.
I don't know, may be they worked at night and brought and removed skips every night as well, but the level of activity was nowhere enough for the project.
New According 2Taz vid up called Netflix Backlash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeHZTGWGcgI&ab_channel=According2taz
This is her mocking the H/M Netflix deal and she/Taz goes on about the Netflix blunder to distribute "Cuties". I like Taz, how she goes on a mile a minute without glancing much at notes. She is caffeinated (she has said so) and not that scripted.
Does anyone think Megsy will support the film. It has a black female director. She can hardly slate the film now can she? Because if she did, she would be once again biting the hands that feeds her . ;o)
___________
Yeah she's definitely between the tree and the bark on this one! Lol.
I don't think she has the diplomatic skills to separate herself from the film if asked. I think she will do all she can to avoid it because she knows she doesn't have the communication chops to make a professional reply.
I'm just counting the moments before she seriously pisses someone big at Neflix off. Then, ruh roe...
That will be rich. Not if, but when it happens. :D
This makes A LOT of sense to me. H and M were always crying about PRIVACY and the invasion of theirs. Why wouldn't the BRF (The Firm), just use Frog Cott as a Cover? Ticks the boxes- shit place for a royal, looks becoming of their position, no PR debacle over the building. The public didn't care. Which The Firm wanted. Nondescript nothing.
So, I'm of the belief that this Charade, that they even live there or lived there has gotten out of hand, via MEGHAN and her PR. the BRF saved face by saying the couple would pay it back in monthly installments, Meghan couldn't handle the negative backlash this FAKE story kept creating for her, so she put out PR saying they paid it off. Also, MPs were demanding they all fix it or bring it up legally. Thus, EXPOSING it all. Either Meghan or BRF just pushed it under the rug *payment complete!*
FINE.
Who cares. The BRF lies about a lot, and they pushed 'Harry as this great BRO' on us for years. Harry is a despicable loser.
So I'm firmly in the camp that Frogmore was just never their home, and they lived somewhere else because PRIVACY ahhhh!
Good thing Megs had to sign an NDA.
Good riddance.
The workmen in yellow seem to have J.A.C. insignias on their jackets. There's other writing but I can't read it. Anyone know what entity J.A.C. is?
I've never had a major reno done to a house I've owned. But even a roof replacement and major yard overhaul resulted in the presence of many trucks, lots of noise that I'm sure neighbors down the block heard, and lots of debris.
Some of the articles seemed to be saying the taxpayer part of the 3+million FC reno was around 1.5 million. The rest was due to H&M's upgrades-- fancy HVAC, sound-proofing, upgraded appliances, built in wardrobes, and so forth. I wonder if they had paid for those extras. Or even paid for the installation of those assuming they were installed. How could labor be partitioned out if a special extra crew wasn't coming in to do the installation? For example, surely the skilled finish carpenters doing the taxpayer-covered work on crown molding, casings, etc did the built-ins too.
The articles note the exterior painting hadn't been done close to move in time either.
Definitely a puzzle.
Here ya go! J.A.C Construction:
http://www.jacconstruction.co.uk/Home
Thanks! So it sounds like those folks keep buildings from failing down during renovations and/or when doing things like basement excavations or loft conversions. I'm sure the issue of installing support beams would have come up re: FC given the kind of changes. And that sort work is costly but also takes time.
Maybe it's different in the UK, but those JAC guys in matching yellow coats look like "consultants" or bosses, not actual workers to me.
Yikes, the photos of Frog Cott in alleged refurbishment, make me more suspicious than ever. Frog Cott is a Grade II Listed building, & according to Unknown's research, was slated for considerable repairs pre-Harkle, not unexpected for a structure over 200 yrs old. The photos show that the house got what looks to be a handsome new slate roof, & it looks as though workmen were installing new metal liners for the chimneys. Updates which were probably needed whether the Harkles moved in or not.
As the house had been divied up into staff flats, considerable work was needed to make it suitable for a small family. Since the building is a listed bldg., my guess is the reconstruction work has to meet some sort of standard. Slapping up some drywall, as if it were some jerry-built Florida McMansion, wouldn't suffice. My current avatar is the little London house I lived in over thirty years ago, ( apparently worth millions now due to Russian, Chinese, & Indian billionaires investing heavily in London property in the intervening years). That house is about 130 years old, not listed or historically important, but required a sensitive & lengthy refurbishment, involving things like cheesecloth used to patch 3 ft. thick plaster walls, which are so much more lasting than sheetrock(drywall). One can only imagine the care which would go into a listed historical building.
Plus, anyone who has undergone any sort of renovation knows it can take months, & months, even years. That reno would involve re-wiring, re-plumbing, knocking down walls, plastering, etc. etc. An atmosphere of sawdust, paint, varnish, soldering materials, etc., is no place for either a pregnant woman, or a newborn. There is no way the Harkles, unless completely insane, lived in that building during the putative dates.
This is very fishy. The 'repayment' was fishy, & at first smelled like the Bank of Dad covering up, & at least shows that someone understands how damaging to the monarchy the Harkles are, (Tory MPs demanding repayment on the floor of Parliament show things are getting shaky for the RF.), but those photos of the 'refurbishment' look like fraud of some sort. If I were a Brit I would want the RF to come clean, or at least put paid to the Harkle antics once & for all.
business dealing, only on official duty for the monarchy.
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/08/07/princess-to-stop-exploiting-her-title/
Harry and Meghan should have done the same thing. Its just disgusting how they (especially Meghan) clings to those titles for dear life. Neither really have anything of value to contribute.
I'm leaving this out there.
Interesting tweet. No idea about the accuracy of the main claims. But the claim Meghan tried to "switch" her major from Communications (which does include Theater) to International Studies but was denied has to be false.
Northwestern's major in International Studies is an "adjunct" major. No one can graduate from Northwestern with only that major. It's also a pretty "loose" major (choose any of these 10 courses, any of these 8...) and according to the catalog, is open to any Northwestern student. Certainly there's no "admissions committee" as there might be for professional degree programs like those for teachers or nurses.
https://twitter.com/icur_here2/status/1304299469345701888/photo/1
________________
Wow if this is true then it confirms everything many have said about her "mean girl" persona. And her posing as a "feminist". Why would a genuine feminist (I think HM is a genuine feminist and has been since she was crowned) practice severe hazing of other sorority girls? To the point of being disciplined for it?
I've just finished watching the trailer for 'The Gloria's' and though Gloria Steinem was in it to win it for herself, in many ways, she did manage to accomplish a good amount during the days of the ERA movement. Meghan Markle's accomplishments, in the scope of working for women's rights, is non existent outside of lip service and using other women as stepping stones to get ahead. She has used every well-connected woman she has come in contact with. And now, if she ever were to look back, she lacks the capacity to see that she will face those powerful women on her way down.
Oprah, Michelle, Amal, Jessica, Serena, and other's silence can't be bought off as the sorority girl in the tweet. Their silence is free and it's deafening...
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Let's hear about those ideas, mm. Oh wait, we can't because top priority is making money for yourselves, not trying to make the world better
What about all those great ideas you wanted to shine a light on? Haven't heard a word about them.
I also thought they were going to make it a priority to only deal with young, up and coming journalists. So far they deal with Scobie, a high end photographer, Vanity Fair, People, etc.
Doesn't seem that they're all that much into leading the way to a better world.
So far it's just been about suing, getting big bucks for doing nothing much, hiding their own baby whilst photographing stranger's children for profit, staying in big houses for free, complaining about their families, making a special point to trash Catherine whenever and wherever possible, whining that they aren't respected enough.
Not seeing anything about the big world improvement plans. No unlockable actions.
That's new. Have not heard of anyone talking about it, let alone showing it.
I'm technically on team pillow and not always believing there is a real baby that they have regular access too. So ... for me, until I see video of not just that baby from the book reading but baby interacting with them, this is just another Omid distraction to look over here, not there.
If this is a distraction, then this is part of a distraction from the idea that they aren't making headway on speech sales as people might hang on in negotiations in hope, they too, will be lucky like Omid to see the kid.
No one is in the news this much with something real.
Now I wonder if this is the BRF Harry Exit Strategy. Break his rep down, to build it up and laugh all the way to the bank.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8724003/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Did-Harry-court-jester-Guy-Pelly-raise-morale.html
Plus, anyone who has undergone any sort of renovation knows it can take months, & months, even years. That reno would involve re-wiring, re-plumbing, knocking down walls, plastering, etc. etc. An atmosphere of sawdust, paint, varnish, soldering materials, etc., is no place for either a pregnant woman, or a newborn. There is no way the Harkles, unless completely insane, lived in that building during the putative dates.
This is very fishy. The 'repayment' was fishy, & at first smelled like the Bank of Dad covering up, & at least shows that someone understands how damaging to the monarchy the Harkles are, (Tory MPs demanding repayment on the floor of Parliament show things are getting shaky for the RF.), but those photos of the 'refurbishment' look like fraud of some sort. If I were a Brit I would want the RF to come clean, or at least put paid to the Harkle antics once & for all.
Yep. Looked at pictures previously of the alleged construction, was not convinced. Maybe there are pictures elsewhere showing more people working and carrying out construction demolition debris, but I haven't seen them.
Historically significant houses are a PITA and most everything is going to be custom made. It is easier, quicker, and can be less expensive to rebuild than renovate (but getting permission to demolish a historically significant house isn't going to happen).
I was wondering whether there are a preponderance of skilled workers that are standing around idle that are capable of doing the work PLUS are able to leap at the job at short notice and keep at it for months? (Highly skilled workmen here may be booked for months in advance.) Maybe the BRF has lots of specialized crews available for maintenance and repair. IDK.
"Over the years I’m sure you’ve sat through many conferences, meetings, forums, kick-offs, board meeting, seminars and events. During that time you will have undoubtedly seen some outstanding speakers and some very poor presentations.
Personally, I particularly remember one event when an elderly man, introduced as an economist, shuffled on to the stage. He had his hands in the pockets of his suit jacket and he looked slightly disheveled and out of place.
His topic was not one that I was particularly interested in and I wrote him off before he opened his mouth. In the next 45 minutes he proceeded to explain how the global economy worked in terms that even I could understand by talking about his wife’s shopping habits, while having us in hysterics. He was outstanding.
At the other end of the scale, during an event in Malta for a global medical equipment company, I watched the firm’s marketing director limp through some beautifully produced slides which used the story of a cycling team to explain the businesses marketing strategy.
The links made sense but it was excruciating to watch the poor man die on his feet, telling a story that he didn’t seem to care about.
On another occasion the mixture of abject fear and hopelessness was palpable as the managing director of a construction company described standing for five minutes outside a front door, summoning up the courage to knock and tell the mother of three that her husband had been killed at work in a fall. The vividness of her story made it the most memorable, emotional and impactful safety briefing that I’ve ever heard.
The aim should be to have people thinking ‘me too’ rather than ‘so what’
It is not the slides, it is not the topic, it’s not the physical movement of the speaker that makes them great, good or indifferent. There are three simple areas that have to be worked on in order to make a good speaker great.
Relevance:
A great presenter makes the topic relevant to the people that they are talking to. There was no burning need for me to increase my knowledge of global economics but the presenter made the topic relevant.
He made me understand why I should want to know more and his vehicle for explaining economics was based on someone who fitted many stereotype that we all understood.
When I started doing keynotes about my sporting experiences it took me some time to learn what people are actually interested in, what is relevant to them, what they can connect to in their everyday lives. Even if someone if funny, if they are not relevant people will switch off. The aim should be to have people thinking ‘me too’ rather than ‘so what’.
Emotional Engagement:
To quote Carl W Buehner: “They may forget what you said – but they will never forget how you made them feel.”
The marketing director was not a cyclist, he wasn’t a cycling fan, he didn’t create an emotional engagement to his topic because there was no emotional connection from him to his presentation other than discomfort.
You can create emotional connections through being still and quietly spoken or being loud and energetic. Physical energy is not necessarily the answer. The trick is to really care, and show others that you care.
"I recently had the privilege of listening to a managing director talking for about 10 minutes to her factory managers about why what they are doing is important and the faith that her boss, the investor, has put in them all.
Her passion was very clear for everyone in the room to see, hear and feel. It wasn’t the slickest speech, she had no visuals, but she meant what she said and the impact was huge.
If you want people to do something differently following a presentation or a conference you need to make them feel differently so they act differently.
It you want them to feel differently, you have to take them on an emotional journey. To do that, you need to be on an emotional journey.
Stories:
Most of us know that stories are memorable and therefore we should use them when presenting. The trick is finding the right story and tell it with the colour and detail to make it stick.
The right story might be about having to break the news of a death following an avoidable accident or it might be an amusing and in the grand scheme of things – an inconsequential anecdote about a customer experience that you had that demonstrates a point that you’re trying to make.
The topic of the story is not important but the colour and detail bring it to life. Cutting short the detail and the colour can kill the impact.
In so many situations the right story will convey the message far more powerfully than the theory or the facts.
A great speaker will be able to tell a story with colour and detail in a passion way where the content is clear and relevant to those listening."
My Observation on the HAMS:
1. Harry has little to contribute as it relates to the average person unless it is about him being a parent. But with Archie so young and his life shrouded in mystery it is unlikely the Duke will offer up anything of relevance. Meghan too does not have a deep well to draw upon which we adults would feel keen to listen to. However, maybe she can try to inspire young girls with platitudes which aren't worthy if they reflect her life of using men and climbing the greasy pole of HW success to Suits. Beyond that it would be unbelievable. a Duchess who was what a phenom but in reality a very public failure. If she was contrite and made up with her father/family maybe there would be some common ground with others.
2. Emotional engagement is pretty much lacking in Harry unless he occasionally throws out a positive line about his love of Archie and his devotion to Meghan is more like he is reciting the lines of a captive for his captor at gunpoint. Meghan's emotional attachment is to green bills in the largest currency she can wheedle out of Charles, Harry or Hastings preferably with five zeroes after the 1. Oh and herself; she can talk glowingly and emotionally about herself no matter the topic.
4. Stories are something either Harkle can provide with varying degrees of self-awareness and truthfulness. Harry is better equipped to spin a yarn especially if it involves his passion for conservation as long as he doesn't shill for Travalyst that he can't begin to even adequately describe on its website. Meghan fudges the truth and plagiarizes so it would be hard for her to tell a factual story and doubtful it would be entertaining unless of course she finally tells us the real story being Archie's provenance. If she told us the behind the scene events of all the secrecy maybe it would be worth a listen for entertainment value, and Finding Freedom wasn't it. She might get some laughs on what we think are stories of her recent life but that is probably going to be the last thing she would want us to do, laugh about her.
So all in all. the HAMS as some work to do, a lot of work to do to even start penning a speech much less be able to successfully deliver it to a satisfied audience. With ample money at their disposal they can hire speech writers but we known micromanaging Meglomaniac would have none of it and of course Harry would defer to her. So I think they could get some takers but after one or two speech bomb events they would be put back on the shelf and get dusted maybe forever.
It brings home what failures the Harkles are at speaking currently. Not seeing million dollar value there. Or really any value.
No one wants to pay money to listen to two whiners. I'm really, really tired of the Catherine bashing.
You're right that an honest speech about the provenance of the baby could be worth something, though.
Harry has always been extremely cheap,when he used to drink at The Cr0ss KeYS, on Fulham Road, he was well known to take every drink offered to him, but he NEVER bought a round in return, not even for those he arrived at the pub with in the first place. He's a greedy, little braIn de.ad dumB@s$.
Thank you. I too am tired of the Catherine bashing. I really admire Catherine and William also.
I wish the BRF would put out a bunch of positive PR to counter the Meghan digs. However I think the DINO (Duchess in name only) will become a victim of her own mouth and dastardly actions. People like that usually meet their comeuppance.
I don't know about the rest of y'all but, if I'm going to make a speech about something, I make sure that it is about a subject that I know backwards, forwards, and sideways. Her speeches appear to me as if she didn't put any significant amount of effort into them. I find this insulting as an audience member.
"How much more can Netflix grow?"
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2020/09/10/how-much-more-can-netflix-grow
Thank you for the interesting Twitter link about Meghan in college. I think the part about the physically harmful hazing by Meghan and how she and her sorority got in trouble for it is accurate, but am not so sure on the other info in the comment about Meghan’s age and the part about wanting to change majors. I’m not surprised she had her college records sealed.
I have read Meghan had a reputation as a Mean Girl in high school too.
I will look for a reply I saw from the sister of a girl Meghan and her group of “cool girls” bullied extensively in high school.
I also saw a reply to a Quora question “Is Meghan Markle a nice person?” I will try to find it and post it here this weekend. The reply was from March or April 2020 by a woman who said she was friends with Meghan at Northwestern. She basically described Meghan as a Mean Girl at her sorority at Northwestern and describes narcissistic behavior without labeling it as such.
Then she tries to soften the early part of her comment, by saying that everyone is mean.
But after reading about and watching the videos and photos of Meghan’s behavior in the ensuing years since the Quora woman knew Meghan, it confirms to me Meghan likely has narcissistic personality disorder. At their core, narcissists are angry people. Being mean and cruel is their specialty. Most likely by this time in their relationship, in private, she is probably very mean and emotionally abusive of Harry, which could be why he looks so bad since leaving the UK.
Netflix has been going down a rather questionable path even before MM and Cuties.
Cuties has 11 year old girls Twerking.
They are very scantily clad during their dance numbers/performances. My cousin who gave the movie the benefit of the doubt watched it and was disgusted. He and his mates ( all 19-20 university students) said the message may have been what the director "claimed" but watching 11 year old girl's arses' and their bodies was like being a border-line pedo and who wants to look at 11 year old girl's bodies.
I do not blindly follow the herd and can and do think for myself. I can see what has been happening to young girls in the name of "feminism", especially fourth wave feminism which I had to endure at uni. 11 year old girls twerking and other films showing underage girls pole dancing yes this is supposedly feminism, right.
If some people feel the message is worth sexualising 11 year old girls well I guess we have different points of view and that is fine. I'm not a, pearl clutcher by any means by will give a pass to this film and to Netflix.
Some more information which the mainstream media and film critics don't really mention much-
The Sundance Award was given to Netflix’s ‘CUTIES’. The co-founder of the Sundance Awards,Sterling Van Wagenen, was sentenced to a minimum of six years in prison after being found guilty of child molestation in June last year.
Is she kind?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-court-cases-involving-duke-duchess-sussex-101158034.html
3 of the cases are to be heard in England, of which one is concerned with matters we thought had been dealt with(phone hacking); one is to do with events that occurred in Canada (dead-frog walk); and one does concern the actions of British papers(publication of her letter to her father). Only one alleged incident occurred in, and will be heard, in California.
Such a litiginous attitude suggests another reason for their overall lack of gainful employment.
“Is Meghan Markle a nice person?”
Is she kind?
------
She makes a lot of noise about being kind but what we have witnessed suggests that the answer to that is a resounding `No!'
Even if that tweet about her age and university career isn't true, it says a lot in that it is totally believable - not one person has said `Can it really be true? I would have expected far better of her'.
--------
Sexy dresssing - the last time my mother exclaimed `You're not going out in that are you?!', I was in a T-shirt with a lowish neckline. I was 36...
Thank you. What an interesting post on how to give a talk. It reminded me of a talk we had at work by a professor. He looked rather unprepossessing but he was so interesting and very funny with it. MM takes herself far too seriously to be funny - a bit of (self-deprecating) humour would help.
I particularly liked the wise comment quoting what one poster's `Dear Old Dad used to always say':
“Chaos never follows good people, if chaos follows you, look at your own self for the answer"
As a child, I had no clue as to what that meant. As an adult it's crystal clear.
And as we look at the past 2 years of Royal life with MM Duchess of Sussex…… need I say more?'
Company LogoBASEMENT CONSTRUCTION & STRUCTURAL
J.A.C. is a structural alterations company that specialise in forming structural openings with temporary propping, design and fabrication of structural steel with all associated ground-work and builders-work.
J.A.C. offers a competitive solution to structural alterations in London and the surrounding
areas
http://www.jacconstruction.co.uk/Home
When Meghan moved to Toronto, Thomas flew there with his toolbox to fix/build things for her new home.
Diane's aquamarine ring was something 'borrowed' that Meghan wore on her wedding day.
Interesting coincidence with the Yahoo article - has the High Court decided enough is enough and declared them to be vexatious?
Might a `Superinjunction' be involved? (that is, an Injunction has been issued to stop them initiating another case, followed by a Superinjunction forbidding any mention of the first injunction?
The only clue we'll have is if they stop bothering the English courts? Even that won't be conclusive, of course, it may just be that everything they now complain about has happened (allegedly) in California.
For the restrictions placed on such buildings, see https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/owning-historic-property/listed-building/
Do the planning applications for Toad Hall tie in with work that would be allowed under these regulations?
On the subject of `steels' ie steel beams/joists in our context, we need to have one installed to support the ceiling of our sitting room which was sagging. We didn't need Listed Building Consent for our 1957 dwelling, just compliance with the local council's Building Regs.
Comments are on moderation. I will approve comments periodically but it will be slower this weekend. I have a family matter I need to attend to. I apologize for the inconvenience.
P.S. I want to send thoughts and best wishes to any and all Nutties who may need them at this time.
Tweet via Twitter from ik Times writer
Janice Turner
Janice Turner
@VictoriaPeckham
·
52m
The little girls in Cuties & LGBT kids online: there’s no bigotry in trying to protect children. My
@thetimes
column
I'm glad you found the article again. Thanks for sharing it.
In my opinion, it's the second and third parts that really handicap Meghan (because she handicapped herself first). As I wrote earlier, she can't tell a single personal story that will stand up to fact-checking. And emotional engagement must be real challenge for her: Since she herself only cares about #1, how can she get anyone else to care about a cause she is supposedly backing?
The closest she has come, in my opinion, is her speech for the SmartWorks capsule collection. She said we wouldn't forget the row of lilac blazers -- and in grudging fairness to her, I haven't! Partly because I can't wear lilac with my coloring, so if I were one of the women needing SmartWorks' help, that entire section wouldn't be very helpful for me. And perhaps if Meghan had made her focus one of inclusivity, so that all skin tones (and body types) could find something flattering, her patronage of SmartWorks would have been much better received. As it is, she is remembered for insulting the charity and its donors in her speech and making everyone buy her friend's overpriced shirt that didn't even look that good on her when she modeled it during the speech.
I think Meghan believes all she needs to do is come up with something catchy and quotable. That's why she says things like, "not a hand out, but a hand held," and "If you're complacent, you're complicit." We may laugh at the overall package, but there's arguably an attempt at rhetoric there. Her problem is that rhetoric is all she has got.
Most of the other reputable researchers are looking at dealing with the virus itself via ‘molecular clamping’ basically developing a biological machine which prevents the virus from connecting to human cells which will require a lot more testing and manufacturing time.
Think one army fighting another army in hand to hand combat with no guarantee the enemy won’t mutate before it’s wiped out (Astra Zeneca) Versus A spray gun that coats everyone in the enemy army in quick drying super glue , can’t move, can’t breathe, can’t eat, quick death (Several European and one Australian group are working on this approach)
I personally would not even think about getting a Covid-19 vaccine until the maybe Aug/Sept 2021 no matter what hype big Pharma and government bodies spew out. It will really be mid 2022 before there is a ‘foolproof’ version.
@Ralph L ..... Regarding the cost of Frog Cottage renovations , the place is grade II listed , meaning only certain approved firms may do the work and only certain methods and materials can be used . Ripping up floorboards and replacing them, a bit of new wiring and plumbing, removal of asbestos if it was in the building and I’m sure it was, knocking down walls etc , the cottage is built on swampland so rising damp was probably an issue as well, that would eat up 2million in the blink of an eye as the firms that are registered to do the work charge like a wounded bull.
I'd say it was far more suggestive than what adult women can be seen doing, in open view, on the Adult Channels of UK TV late at night (though I've no idea what goes on when someone phones in and pays for more entertainment)- I can guess though.
The girls acting in the movie are what? 14-15?
OK to act but not OK to watch.
Our great feminist must have something to say about it.
Meg's is zooming again!
Smart Set - The First Anniversary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etef_h-rFE4&feature=youtu.be
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8724891/Members-Congress-demand-Netflix-investigated-DOJ-distributing-child-porn-Cuties-film.html
Could H$M have worse timing? The comments are scathing.
This may post twice due to moderation.
@Charade,
Thanks for your kind words. Hope everything is ok with your family. Thanks for your hard work cleaning up our messes.
Another poster here apparently subscribes to Air Mail, and to spare her the copy-and-paste today, I will contribute this hilarious and--yes!!-- on-topic entry: (The writer is a clever mimic. I'd say he's only missed by omitting the playing of the Diana card.)
When Harry Met NetflixOn the heels of Harry and Meghan’s multi-million-dollar Hollywood deal, we imagine what’s behind the grasping. And what’s to come
HARRY: It’s not going to be easy, but, let’s face it, guys, there should be no place in this world for things which really have no place in it. We’ve got to find a way to move on. Because unless we move on, there’s no turning back. And that’s what we’re so proud to communicate in our amazing new project with Netflix. You see, we both understand the inspirational power of the human spirit, the need to listen to all voices, great and -
MEGHAN: - and that’s why I want to share something with those of you who are crying out for change in this world. It was five, six years ago. I had just grabbed a guava and agave smoothie and I was walking along the sidewalk when something in a shopfront caught my eye.
Call it happenstance. Call it synchronicity. Call it providence. But what I saw that day changed my life. It was a sign. And this is what it said. “TOMORROW IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.” And that’s what I want to talk to you about today. Tomorrow -
HARRY: - not yesterday, not today -
MEGHAN: Tomorrow is the first day. Of the rest. Of our lives.
HARRY: - not just our lives, but your lives too -
MEGHAN: Ten little words, but, they mean so much. Because, you know what? Together, Harry and I have embarked on a journey to open a new chapter in the history of mankind.
HARRY: So, the way I see it. In the old days, when I went on night patrol with the totally brilliant guys in my regiment, we’d have this fantastic sense of being in this thing together, like it was us against the world, and, given the chance we’d just, like, blow the bloody enemy to smither -
MEGHAN: - But this time, no-one’s “against” anyone else. Together, we’re poised to harness the values of a generation to rebuild our broken world and set a tone for a more inclusive and - yes - empathetic direction not only for all humanity, but for all humankind.
You know, a wise person once told me -
HARRY: And we so need wise people in these troubled times. What I always think is, if you are in need of wisdom, a wise person should be your first stop.
MEGHAN: Right.
So a wise person once told me that the most important part of the healing process is the conversation. Put it this way: you would never visit a doctor without having a conversation. Because without a conversation, nothing heals.
HARRY: And without heels, there are no shoes. And - yes - we desperately need shoes to walk with. Because, as I learnt from my time in the armed forces, without a decent pair of shoes -
MEGHAN: What I can’t believe is that the Palace offered us absolutely no help with our shoes. Remember, I was totally new to this game. So when Kate saw me in my new pair of Louboutins, of which I was so proud, and she said nothing, anyone could see why I’d be hurt, very deeply hurt.
HARRY: And William didn’t mention those shoes either, even though he knew how proud you were of them. I was furious. And when I mentioned this to granny, she just changed the subject and asked how the building works were coming along. And that makes my blood boil - not just for the two of us, but for all of humanity.
MEGHAN: A word of praise costs nothing. Anyone who has the courage to wear a new pair of shoes deserves encouragement, regardless of their race or gender. That’s why there’s no turning back. We must own this conversation. We need to show the world that from one little grain of salt, you can grow a forest.
HARRY: We have one planet. Just one. And that’s like incredibly few.
There’s not another planet attached to this one, or if there is, we haven’t discovered it yet. The nearest other planet is literally miles away, out in space. So let’s treat our planet the way we would treat our best friend. Share some laughs with it, down a few, give it a high-five. Yes, put it there!
MEGHAN: Sometimes, I look at the moon and I worry it’s sidelining me, or treating me, as a woman, with disrespect. I’m sorry, but Princess Anne’s the same. She’s never once complimented me on a single episode of Suits, even though it was such a landmark series and contains some of my finest work as a woman of color.
HARRY: We continue to represent and support Her Majesty, albeit in a more limited capacity.
MEGHAN: I have such deep respect for Her Majesty. Despite her immense old age, she’s still a great listener. So why has she never asked me for fashion tips, when she knows I used to manage my own hugely successful fashion and lifestyle website?
HARRY: Deeply, deeply hurtful. I was furious.
MEGHAN: Well, it just makes me sad on her behalf. You see, I know she admires me, and the feeling is mutual. But do I detect a hint of, I don’t know - envy? Envy at our friendships with George and Amal, with Oprah and Idris and David and Victoria? Envy at the way Harry and I have created a life of our own in the sunshine, putting all our energies into creating our own brand and helping mankind?
Last time I saw Her Majesty, I looked into those beautiful, blue, young-at-heart eyes of hers, and reached out to her with a pearl of wisdom to treasure forever.
“With fame comes opportunity - the chance to advocate and to share,” I told her. “And if we are given the right tools to succeed, we can create incredible futures, not only for ourselves, but for all those around us. Elizabeth - you are a child of the universe. And you have a right to be here”
In her position it must be so tempting to just focus on the clothes and the shoes and the glamour and applause, so easy to ignore those less fortunate. So I had privileged her with a glimpse into another reality. And you know what? Her gratitude shone through.
I’ll never forget her reply. That truly great old lady looked me deep in the eyes, as if she could see into my very soul, its passions, its ideals, its heartaches. And she said:
“Have you come far?”
Four little words - but a universe of experience.
“Yes, I have come far,” I said. “Do you have a problem with that?”
Craig Brown is a columnist for the Daily Mail and the author of One Two Three Four: The Beatles in Time
Thanks for the c&p of Craig Brown's brilliant piece in the DM. If it's good enough for the DM, then it's good enough for me ;)
"Some more information which the mainstream media and film critics don't really mention much-
The Sundance Award was given to Netflix’s ‘CUTIES’. The co-founder of the Sundance Awards,Sterling Van Wagenen, was sentenced to a minimum of six years in prison after being found guilty of child molestation in June last year."
That makes my skin crawl. I hope Netflix will drop the film, but probably not.
Thanks for the Air Mail article. Craig Brown has captured them perfectly!!
Thank you for taking the time to post that...was beyond funny! Great way to wake up here with a good laugh.
Thanks for the article. Really well done and very funny!
@Swamp woman ......regarding the Astra Zeneca vaccine . There have been rumblings from several quarters over their approach which is very old school and relies on animal antibodies to fight the virus , so they can rush it through and get the big $$$$$ by being FIRST.
I do like the idea of the other vaccine(s) better. I'm a bit sceptical of something that may attack nerve tissue. Since my kids were famous for getting on my last nerve, it isn't like I have a lot left.
@GoodVibes Eternal
"Some more information which the mainstream media and film critics don't really mention much-
The Sundance Award was given to Netflix’s ‘CUTIES’. The co-founder of the Sundance Awards,Sterling Van Wagenen, was sentenced to a minimum of six years in prison after being found guilty of child molestation in June last year."
That makes my skin crawl. I hope Netflix will drop the film, but probably not.
Agree. Somebody wanted to do soft kids porn to appeal to the prurient (disguised as a 'coming of age' movie because that somehow makes sexualizing children okay).
@KCM1212: I know, right? I hope our appreciation of his genius outweighs any possible copyright charges : )
__________________
Chris Brown is another witty, snarky mind whom I adore :D Reminds me a bit of this guy:
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars". Oscar Wilde
I enjoy your posts :)
Related to the school days of the Harkles, & Megs' alleged 'mean girl' reputation, I think a lot of her petty attitude toward Kate is projection. She most likely would have deliberately snubbed someone by not offering a ride to the shops, so she interpreted Kate's behavior by her own standards. I'm sure when Markle passes out a favor, she makes it known, & makes sure that the receiver recognizes their debt to Megs. She thinks everyone is like her. It's like the continued spats between our politicians here in the US. They're constantly accusing each other of stuff they all do. So tedious.
I agree that their marriage is bogus.
No one is in the news this much with something real.
Markle just keeps on churning out the PR. I know she has got to be mentally disordered, because a normal person would 1. Realize when too much is too much, and pull back, lie low for a while. Saturating the media landscape every sodding day with dozens of recycled stories that didn't have any basis in truth the first time is not the way to generate popularity. 2. Only a disordered person would insist on keeping sensitive issues in the forefront all the time. To wit, Archie. Any sane person, whether she actually wanted 'privacy' for her baby, or alternatively, did not in fact have a baby in her custody wouldn't talk about his phantom antics so very often or put him at the forefront of a lawsuit. Last night I read Vanity Fair's take on the 'Archie photo-bombs his parents' Zoom calls'. Accompanying this 'story', meant to make the 'young family' seem 'relatable', just like all the other millions of working-from-home parents whose children interrupt their attempts to work is the by-now year-old photo of Tutu baby in SA. Time has moved on, but Meg hasn't, not where pictures of Archie are concerned. A snap of Archie adorably interrupting a Zoom call would go a long way toward bolstering the veracity of this tale. And 'Archie' wherever he is is no longer a babe in arms but rather an active toddler who would walk into the room under his own steam.
To embroider this fiction further, the article goes on to say that Archie has enjoyed a far different summer than last year in his new home in Montecito. For one thing, there are (direct quote) "No play dates with the cousins, like last year."
Play dates with the cousins . . .would that be the one (1) time you brought a plastic child to the polo and hung around the Cambridge family like Samira out of 'The Ring' clutching the dangling, inert, naked child . . that playdate, Meghan?
Archie doesn't miss the cousins, owing to having a vast yard to kick the old footie ball around with Daddy (at 16 months. Meg's view of child development is in a world, bizarre. On alternative days we get conflicting stories. Some days he is not quite walking on his own. Other days, he is almost ready to audition for the LA Galaxy. Meg thinks we will find both of these entirely believable.) In addition to all the active outdoor exercise he's getting, he and his parents are constantly receiving tons of 'friends' to their new pad. Though Meg has bemoaned in other recent stories, Arch's total lack of little friends owing to his parents' global fame.
Schizophrenic.
Meghan & Harry don't have any friends . . they have both ghosted everyone they have ever known, and even if Harry had a few friends left, they are all back in England.
Netflix may have been Markled even before they signed her, since this Cuties movie was completed long before that. I think Reed Hastings is an ars*h*le and I had cancelled my membership at least 4 years ago. But I have enjoyed some of their programming, most notably 'The Crown'. I think it's the popularity of that program and the renewed interest in the Royal family which led to the Sussexes being signed, but Reed Hastings obviously has failed to understand the dearth of actual creative momentum with this pair. The Obamas, a couple with vastly more cultural influence and resources and contacts than the Harkles have, have only just now produced their first project for Netflix and it has been a year in development. That is not unusual. It takes that long, often longer, to assemble a quality product.
Can we really imagine Harry and Meg working doggedly behind the scenes for a year-plus on a single project and seeing it through to completion? This duo cannot sustain their attention span for more than a week,
However fake, strained, calculated or ill-advised we thought the Sussex union going into this, it seems like it's far, far worse than we ever could have imagined. I never thought Harry would dump Invictus the way he has, as it was one of the sole threads left connecting him to his former identity in England. Apparently according to the way the Queen left things with the patronages, it is up to the organisations themselves to sever ties with Haz and Mess, because they are no longer Royal patrons at the behest of the Queen but merely 'celebrity' patrons now. Invictus needs to tell Harry to shove off in no uncertain terms and put out a call for new patron(s). Zara and Mike have been nominated by the public with a 75% of the vote. Perhaps what needs to happen with Invictus is to have a rotating patronage; say every four years, or two Games cycles, appoint a new patron, preferably one who is a British veteran as well as a celebrity. There must be a number of well-known Britons who served in the military. By having terms of service, it wouldn't have to become burdensome to any one patron and could give other ex-service members a chance to serve.
It appears as if Netflix is about to be canceled and rightly so. To think they listed the vile piece.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8724891/Members-Congress-demand-Netflix-investigated-DOJ-distributing-child-porn-Cuties-film.html
Could H$M have worse timing? The comments are scathing.
I posted my thoughts on this deal in my last comment. I think it's ultimately going to fall through, just like everything else they do. Because put together, both of them don't have the attention span of a bucket of gnats. Even 'if' they were able to create a 'production company'--which would necessitate a LOT of other people being willing to work with them--to truly broker and oversee successful productions would mean a lot more concentrated work than those two have ever put forth. As an actress/briefcase model, Markle just showed up when they told her to and they dressed her (in not much), posed her like a mannequin and said "Action!" As an actor, your every minute on set is stage-managed for you; you do not have to put thought into the Big Problems, just your own performance, your own scenes. Actually creating something from soup to nuts and getting it made under your own steam, hiring the talent and the production team that will actually do it . . ? They aren't equipped. They probably suppose that they will just make a couple of phone calls, allow their names to be slapped on a project and sit back in Mudslide Towers collecting the $150 mil. Even in a best-case scenario, there's going to be more involved than that. I predict that even if it gets as far as production meetings with prospective content creators, MM will alienate everybody before anything gets off the ground. Which could take a year or more. A year minimum, if the Obamas are a yardstick to go by, and of course now we are dealing with COVID delays and restrictions.
Also, I greet with gleeful schadenfruede, the prospect of their streaming platform and source of all this as-yet-unproven largesse going belly-up due to indictments for distributing kiddie porn. I dislike Reed Hastings nearly as much as I dislike Meghan. 'Cuties' didn't have anything to do with her, but she just might have been Markled by Reed Hastings before she even got on the scene. To which I say, 'Great! Couldn't have happened to a more deserving couple of tossers!"
I'd say all that remains is for Mudslide Towers to go over the cliff, but in that case, the Russians could collect on the insurance and would probably be glad to be rid of the albatross. So for our purposes, we need to pray that Mudslide Towers keeps on standing and that Meg and Harry will be on the hook for all that $7.5 million. The property is in Meg's name solely, as I understand, so that means that the mortgage debt is her sole legal responsibility. Either way, I am afraid Charles will be on the hook for it. There's the divorce settlement.
Does this mean we strike nails on their heads?
Or what?
Thanks for sharing that article.
Great satire.
Megs looks puffy - coke bloat?
A while back, I came across a old quote from a Meg stan, this one a male, in the lead-up to the engagement. I have tried to search for this particular quote in vain, but it was definitely a guy singing Markle's praises. I want to say it was Marcus Anderson as the most likely mouthpiece at that time. In it he enthused about how Meghan had the gift of lighting up every room she entered and 'making every day a holiday' just by being around.
This was so sicky-making, it left me looking for a sick bucket.
Just a day or two ago, I was looking at some archived online articles about Princess Grace of Monaco. I'm not sure what compelled me to look her up, but I was interested in the circumstances of her death. I suppose with the recent anniversary of Diana just passed, the sudden tragic death of a glamorous Princess far too young has been on my mind. My mouth fell open when I came upon this section of Grace's former co-star Jimmy Stewart's eulogy for her. I can hear Jimmy's singular voice in my head delivering these lines, and in this context, they do not seem sicky-making at all, but genuine:
“You know, I just love Grace Kelly. ... Grace brought into my life, as she brought into yours, a soft, warm light every time I saw her, and every time I saw her was a holiday of its own. No question, I'll miss her, we'll all miss her. God bless you, Princess Grace.” Jimmy Stewart, 1982
The repugnant Markle has scavenged from the eulogy of the late American princess, the epitome of style and beauty, warmly remembered by all who worked with her, for MM's own crass self-promotion, and packaged it as coming from one of 'her' male admirer/friends. T
Utterly without shame.
Public petition to solve problem of Sussexes/political interference/Netflix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC-SVelcuCU
Great laugh, thank you for the post! They caught the essence of the Harkles' world salads excellently.
Ooooh, the plagiarism completely slipped my mind -- but you're right! Forget the fact-checking on any possible anecdotes she may share; plagiarism opens a legal can of worms.
This is also the first I've read of that "holiday" imagery scavenging, but it's truly shameless.
Re the quote from one of MM's Stan's, I found this in the Express (March 2020), quoting Thomas Markle junior - I don't know when he was interviewed.
Meghan even possessed star quality at an early age, with her brother Thomas Markle Jr remembering “she just lit up a room when she walked in” as a teenager.
Obviously, that was then.
Blimey!!!! Absolutely mind boggling - Netflix CEO is a paedophile?? O my God, what world we are living in.
If true this is enormous.
Great find on the plagiarism from Grace Kelly's death. Interesting that mm never thinks she's gonna get busted months that stuff, and yet she is every time.
Thinking more about the Cuties movie. Kind of an odd title for supposedly a serious movie intended to call attention to a serious topic?
To me that title has a sexual undertone. It's meant to let the perverts know what's enticing about the movie. It sounds like the title of a movie on a soft porn site.
Cuties in reference to 3 year olds dressed in cute little dresses and tap shoes and tights has a far different connotation than Cuties in reference to 11 year olds dressed in exceedingly skimpy outfits while twerking.
Actually, I don't like the word Cuties at all as it relates to the subject matter. IMO, this is a movie about grooming children to be sexual. Getting people used to the idea of children as sexual beings. No, no, and no.
filet mignon: https://www.delish.com/uk/cooking/recipes/a30975396/how-to-cook-filet-mignon/
The original film title is Mignonnes is feminine plural. The clue's in the name, as they say.
Yes... IF true! (not seen it published anywhere else yet)
"Cuties" is how "Mignonnes" was translated for English-speaking audiences. <> As the only person on here who seems to have actually have seen it, I will say that the movie is not grooming children to be sexual, but--partly--how "society" has led young girls to believe that that's how they need to behave to succeed in show business. A long path has led to here, with stops for Jon Benet Ramsey and oh gosh, what's her name, the one with the mother and the dolla-bills (sorry, non-US readers, but possibly you've been spared this.) Britney. Lindsey Lohan. These girls (in the movie) groomed themselves. "Cuties" was the name of their little 4-person dance troupe.
Not defending Reed Hastings . . . he looks like a slick salesman with bad judgement and an eye for the main chance, and he didn't MAKE the movie.
I won't go on and on defending it as, again, as seemingly the only one who's actually seen it (I'm also the mother of daughters!) I have no skin in the game. But it's really an eye-opener as to the effects of propaganda, whisper campaigns, the Red Scare, the Salem Witch Trials, "fake news", you name it . . .just wow.
Re: mean girl at Northwestern Story.
I Find it hard to believe that source as she states MM is 44 years ago. She is not. According to the California State Birth Index , Rachel Meghan Markle was b Aug 1981 in Los Angeles and her mother was Doria Ragland (nee). This is an official state record. The index is available through Ancestry.com which, for a subscription fee, provides records mostly used by people doing genealogy. I posted all the info from the index on this blog several months ago, as well as her parents’ marriage record info.
I hear you and respect your opinion but please let me ask you this: do you think young girls who watch this movie will get the message that this culture is wrong and bad? Or they will find it "cool" because it was on screen?
Young people do not necessarily see things as we do. I think this is the real danger of movies like this.
Meghan supposedly used her HRH title when communicating with the DNC to try to get a speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention so they allegedly contacted the BRF about it
Also listen to Lady Colin Campbell's video today on youtube. She says that many people have been contacting Buckingham Palace about the awful way that Harry and Markle are behaving, but have not received a suitable response so they are urging LCC to contact Buckingham Palace on their behalf. She also says that much of Britain's powerful people are upset about their behaviour
Well, we could also cite Mary Poppins with 'Every day is a Holiday' as Megsy is better portrayed as a Cockney's bird than an American Princess:
Ain't it a glorious day?
Right as a mornin' in May
I feel like I could fly
'Ave you ever seen
The grass so green?
Or a bluer sky?
Oh, it's a jolly holiday
With Mary
Mary makes your 'eart so light
When the day is gray
And ordinary
Mary makes the sun shine bright!
Oh 'appiness is bloomin'
All around 'er
The daffoldils are smilin'
At the dove
When Mary 'olds your 'and
You feel so grand
Your 'eart starts beatin'
Like a big brass band
Oh, it's a jolly holiday with Mary
No wonder that it's Mary that we love!
Now then what'd be nice
We'll start with raspberry ice
And then some cakes and tea
Order what you will
There'll be no bill
It's complimentary
Oh, it's a jolly holiday
With you, Bert
Gentlemen like you are few
Though your just a diamond
In the rough, Bert
Underneath your blood is blue!
You'd never think of pressing
Your advantage
For bearance is the hallmark
Of your creed
A lady needn't fear
When you are near
Your sweet gentility is crystal clear!
Oh, it's a jolly holiday with you, Bert
A jolly, jolly holiday with you!
I have never seen someone promote the "anniversaries" of their work like she does.
Actually, I've never seen anyone celebrate themselves at every turn the way she does.
Don't forget the birthdays! She and Harry are really obsessed with their birthdays and just how awesomely they are going to be feted by other people--Special parties, special cakes, special getaways & gifts. Special, special, special! Most people in their later 30s (or even later) don't really care to make a huge fuss over the passage of another year. But the Queen has a big deal made of her birthday every year. Megsie obviously feels entitled to her own birthday parade broadcast on international TV, or as close as she can get to it. How sad for her that her last 3 or 4 special birthdays have devolved into 'A quiet day spent as a family with Harry and Archie." Read: Nobody did jacksh*t for your birthday, Meg, because everybody despises you. And, oh, yeah . .pandemic.
I stopped being as invested in my birthdays, or at least, expecting even my own family to make a big fuss of them around the age of 13, Meghan.
There's been a resurgence of the rumor that Meg is actually 5 years older than she claims, b. 1981, the class of 1995, not 1999. I think she's 39. Just a very rode-hard, put away wet 39. Lots of sun damage, damage from smoking dope and all the Tig and whatever else she takes recreationally or medicinally. Someone pointed to wrinkles on Meg's knees as being indicative of women in their 40s. To that I say, "Well, normally, maybe, but Meghan's knees have seen a lot of hard usage."
As for celebrating the 'work anniversaries' . . she's got to reminisce about events she did a year or more ago because she hasnt' got anything more recent to brag on. Meg and Harry are the two laziest, rudest most entitled prats to ever be offered a phantom $150 million. Look for a crap ton of South Africa tour photos being 'celebrated' next week.
*Correction: Craig Brown.
Maneki said,
Re the quote from one of MM's Stan's, I found this in the Express (March 2020), quoting Thomas Markle junior - I don't know when he was interviewed.
Meghan even possessed star quality at an early age, with her brother Thomas Markle Jr remembering “she just lit up a room when she walked in” as a teenager.
Obviously, that was then.
Considering that these glowing words about little sis Meg's star quality were uttered by the estranged half-brother who wrote Harry a now-public letter begging Haz not to marry her, this spin was obviously Meg's attempt to silence one of her critics who knows her *very* well. Tom and Samantha have benefit of the same information & Samantha has publicly stated that Meg was an escort. Maybe that's what Tom Jr. meant by 'star quality'? Didn't Meghan claim to not recognize Tom, Jr. in a photograph?--An obvious dodge to avoid acknowledging a half-brother she wished to erase from her past? Why would such a glowing praise be attributed to him?
In the current atmosphere, maybe having one's older-by-15 years brother from another mother admire his young teen sister's 'star quality' should be read with suspicion? Not that I think Tom, Jr. ever said it or probably ever thought it, either. He and Sammie had valid reasons to dislike their father's new family in defense of their abandoned mother . . and Meg seemed like she was anything but a winsome child. I doubt she'd have bothered wasting any "Markle Sparkle" on her detested older siblings.
Teasmade,
I am still searching for that quote . . I stumbled upon it completely randomly, as one does, when I was not looking for it and I thought it was a particularly pukey effort on the behalf of Meg's PR. I didn't think to save the link, because this was old--circa the engagement/Meet Meghan! period when this stuff about the fabulous so-kind humanitarian Harry had discovered was being churned out double-quick time to sell the British public on the engagement. I am nearly certain that it was Markus A. who it was attributed to. He was often referred to as her 'close friend' in the lead-up to the wedding. Yeah, we wonder exactly HOW close . . .
The other possibility would be the Weepy Makeup Guy, Daniel Martin, though we didn't hear from him until after the wedding day. I still can't believe he was so keen to take credit for doing that Corpse Bride look. And I really have a hard time accepting that a top celebrity hairdresser 'did her hair'. It looked like crap. Really wouldn't have been worse if she'd put it up herself sans mirror in the car on the way over to the church.
The speaker talked about the light Meg brought with her into every room she entered, but it was the mention of how just being around her made every day feel like a holiday that really stuck in my brain. The wording was slightly tweaked but the words 'light' and 'holiday' were definitely used. Meg doesn't credit anyone with a gag reflex or BS detector, never has. She really thinks she's selling this tripe . .still.
@LavenderGirl @GirlWithaHat
Re: mean girl at Northwestern Story.
I Find it hard to believe that source as she states MM is 44 years ago. She is not. According to the California State Birth Index , Rachel Meghan Markle was b Aug 1981 in Los Angeles and her mother was Doria Ragland (nee). This is an official state record. The index is available through Ancestry.com which, for a subscription fee, provides records mostly used by people doing genealogy. I posted all the info from the index on this blog several months ago, as well as her parents’ marriage record info.
____________________
Right. This is why I say in my post: *Wow if this is true* then it confirms everything many have said about her "mean girl" persona. And her posing as a "feminist". Why would a genuine feminist (I think HM is a genuine feminist and has been since she was crowned) practice severe hazing of other sorority girls? To the point of being disciplined for it?
I don't doubt the age bit. But everything else stated in that twitter post reeks of who she is, so it's not a stretch to say she's a "mean girl". I expounded on her sham feminism stance because that is obvious also; it's difficult to cover up the smell when one walks around with messy pants.
Thanks for your reply :)
JParent Television Council calls on Netflix to remove Argentinian film from the site, calling scene that suggests a nine-year-old girl masturbating for the first time to be 'child pornography'
By Dailymail.com Reporter
22:17 15 Aug 2018, updated 13:55 16 Aug 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6064749/Parent-group-demands-Netflix-remove-Argentinian-film-calling-child-porn.html
Always suspicious when they all use the exact same words.
Kinda like a few months ago when *every* one who met them said they were so 'down to earth'.
The hairdresser, supposedly the BP courtiers, some other people I don't remember.
Even the guy they delivered meals to. Although how he could tell from a 20 second interaction with a stranger, a woman in a mask, is hard to say.
Kind of hard to reconcile 'down to earth' with don't speak to them unless they speak to you, don't ask about the baby, don't make eye contact, aka they're too cool for their shoes.
I look forward to your posts as well as our WBBM as mentioned up thread a couple days ago. Thanks for your insights. They are always appreciated! :)
@Mel,
IMO, this is a movie about grooming children to be sexual. Getting people used to the idea of children as sexual beings. No, no, and no.
_________
This, this, and this!^^^
I had the same foreboding thought. Netflix is part of an insidious mindset to desensitize society to more and more degenerate "offerings". I am not ashamed to say, these types of agendas are evil.
I've said it before: Most Neflix content is what we used to call porno in the 70's...
Thank you!!
I've raised only boys. My only grandchild is a boy. But, I was a girl child at one time. My parents would have never allowed us to participate in such a group. Or wear the clothes the girls wore in the film. I understand the dance scenes were provocative. This too would have not been encouraged.
I come from a culturally conservative community. For little girls to conduct themselves in such a way would have been considered inviting trouble. That was decades ago and these mores still stand for me. Had I had daughters I would have passed it on...
I like to think as an elder, it is my role to be a good role model and a source of guidance, as a matriarch, to both boys and girls.
I won't promote the film nor Netflix for allowing it to be distributed.
If Harry and Meghan wish to continue with NF after the headlines concerning this film, then we'll see how far they get.
I like to believe that there are many in this world who still know how to walk in decency...
mignon(m)/mignonne(f) means cute, sweet, with an idea of small and pretty. Can apply to babies/children (totally non sexual), clothes, soft toys etc. Obviously, if this is the title of the film, the meaning is not so innocent.
Hard as it is to believe, Thomas Markle junior did say MM "lit up a room" and agreed she had "star quality". This was on video.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1255938/Meghan-Markle-news-brother-Thomas-Markle-jr-royal-family-latest
@ browned-eyed,
@LavenderGirl @GirlWithaHat
PART 1 of 2 parts:
I mentioned this item (see PART 2) from Quora yesterday as part of the discussion about Meghan being a Mean Girl at Northwestern.
The woman who wrote this is not complimentary at all in the first part, but then she makes excuses for Meghan during the last part by saying she could be nice. Well yes, Meghan CAN be nice, but it’s usually because she thinks you can be useful to her, which she said in the first part.
She also used the word “cruel” to describe Meghan, which to me is far beyond being described bitchy, a snob, off-putting, or impolite.
To me, describing someone as cruel is a large step up from from being described as mean, which most people would shudder at if they knew someone had used as an adjective to describe them.
Cruel is much worse than mean, but this woman apparently felt ok using it to describe Meghan. She also said Meghan bullied two girls in the Northwestern Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority chapter so fiercely that the girls nearly quit the sorority.
This is abhorrent behavior that is an indication of a personality disorder or other psychological issue in Meghan sometime between age 18 to 22.
Since then, she hasn’t gotten better, only worse. Now that she’s a duchess in the BRF, I shake my head at how mean and nasty she must be, especially in private to Harry, and one day, to Archie and any other children who have the misfortune of her as their mother.
From Quora:
Question:
Is Meghan Markle a nice person?
Anonymous
Answered March 27, 2020
I was friends with Meghan Markle in college (Woo go Northwestern!) so I can answer this one.
My personal opinion is that she could be very nice but also very cruel. It all depends on who you were. To her “crowd” or friends like me, she was very nice and friendly.
But to people she disliked or did not care for, or people who displeased her in some way, she could turn like a switch and become very mean.
At one point, her bullying of two friends of mine ( I will call them “Sam” and “Katie” ) became so bad, that both friends would refuse to come to events if they knew Rachel was there. One of them considered quitting the sorority because of it.
However, even though Rachel could have a few bad moments, I do not think she is a horrible person. She could also be very nice and friendly, which is how she was most of the time. What people need to realize is that most people are not 100% kind, compassionate people. Most people are not nice to every single person they meet, and I do not believe it is fair to put her on a pedestal and expect her to act perfectly 100% of the time.
Was what Rachel did to my friends wrong? Yes. But most people I knew in college could be quite mean, and could bully others at times, and I am willing to bet the person reading this has been mean to people as well.
So who are you to judge?
So while I do not think Rachel is the next Mother Theresa, I do not think she is a horrible human being either. What I think she is, is normal. And I think she should be treated like a normal human being.
P.S I would like to say I was never a “best” friend of Rachels, though I was involved in the sorority she was in and knew her well enough for us to call each other friends. Also, Im going Anonymous so I dont get death threats or nasty comments from anyone. Sorry, but I will not be answering any questions/comments. And no, Rachel and I are no longer in contact with each other, we went our separate ways after graduation.
Thank you for posting the Air Mail piece. I am glad I scrolled through the many recent comments to make sure it hadn’t been posted before I did—you saved me the trouble! 🙂 That imagined conversation with H and M made my day.
Thank you for your take on the Cuties film—I think you’re the only Nutty that has actually seen it. It appears that Netflix lit a fuse by choosing a salacious image for the poster they used to promote its release of the movie, without telling the director who was blindsided.
From the BBC:
The film is intended to be a commentary on the sexualisation of pre-adolescent girls - rather than an endorsement of it.
"The truth of the movie, as has been well covered by reviews and audience reactions, is that it is the nuanced, sensitive tale of a pre-teen girl who gets caught between two cultures," said Deadline's Tom Grater.
In her interview with the publication, Doucouré herself noted: "I received numerous attacks on my character from people who had not seen the film, who thought I was actually making a film that was apologetic about hyper-sexualisation of children."
Actress Tessa Thompson tweeted: "Disappointed to see how it was positioned in terms of marketing. I understand the response of everybody. But it doesn't speak to the film I saw."
Doucouré said she received "really supportive" messages from people who had seen the film, as well as "extraordinary support" from the French Government.
She added the film is set to be used as an educational tool in her home country.
In its apology, Netflix said the promotional image was "not representative" of the film itself and said it was "deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork".
"We had several discussions back and forth after this happened. Netflix apologised publicly, and also personally to me," Doucouré explained.
Am waiting for the avalanche of celebrities to condemn the sexualization/objectification/fetishization of girls. So far, mostly a deafening silence.
Cuties in relation to queer theory. Queer theory along with CRT (critical race theory) is all the rage in higher education (and has been for some time) with many followers among the intellectuals and social critics and leaders in our society. What does queer theory mean? Here is one definition:
"Queer Theory (QT) is both theory and political action. QT can be summarised as exploring the oppressive power of dominant norms, particularly those relating to sexuality, and the immiseration they cause to those who cannot, or do not wish to, live according to those norms. In analysing the power of ‘the normal’, QT contributes to a politics and ethics of difference. It challenges dominant norms, especially those of sexuality." (University of Illinois, Research Guide).
At the heart of QT is a fight against norms, norms associated with sexuality in particular. There should be no norms and ANY norm is oppressive, outdated, phobic, hateful and should be challenged.
While the director or writer of the film may see this as a coming of age story, it is also a bigger story about the inroads of the last outlier, the last forbidden area of sexuality in society.
Many girls will not view this film with the "adult lived experience" (barf) who can see the conflicts between religion, family, and who are cultural arbiters in our society today. It will be viewed by some girls as a path to power, to relationships, to adulthood.
And for adults who want to or already abuse children, it justifies their view of children as sexual objects.
"According to the DM, Guy Pelly has visited Hostage Harry. If this is true or not I have no idea."
I don't know if it's true either. But I find it extremely hard to believe Pelly and his wife would have flown to COVID hotspot LA with their 3-year daughter to visit when the couple was couch-surfing at TP's. But I guess it's possible.
I think Nutty should ban Q conspiracy theories on this board. My opinion.
The film is intended to be a commentary on the sexualisation of pre-adolescent girls - rather than an endorsement of it.
________________________________
Perhaps. But it's never ok to exploit children. There are many ways the subject matter could have been presented without the salaciousness shown in the documentary.
Maybe it's time for the French to catch up. I'm ashamed (as an American) over the heinous murder of Benet Ramsey so many years ago. I'm grateful American society is finally catching on that it's not ok to exploit and abuse children, elders, the intellectually disabled, marginalized people, helpless animals etc. Hell, anyone!
Seems to me the concept of creating a kinder world has been severely tainted in the minds of many people. Meghan and Harry are notoriously guilty of contributing to the creation of this distorted view of simple human kindness.
True we cannot be kind 100%. I know I have my moments where I can let it rip but I do not live there. I do strive to be better. I fall and I get up again. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be consistently crap to people then preach kindness. It's because of this disingenuous attitude is why we are on this blog...
In sum, children should be off the table to any type of exploitation.
You said Nitty should ban 'Q' conspiracy theories on her blog. I must confess I don't know what you mean by 'Q'. I googled the topic and this is what I got:
"Named after “Q,” who posts anonymously on the online bulletin board 4chan, QAnon alleges that President Donald Trump and military officials are working to expose a “deep state” pedophile ring with links to Hollywood, the media and the Democratic Party. Since its first mention some three years ago, the theory has drawn adherents looking for a clear way to explain recent disorienting global events."
Could you tell me if this is what you are referring to tatty? If not please explain what 'Q' conspiracy theories are if its not too much trouble. Thank you.
btw, Yes, I'd jumped to a secondary meaning of mignon(-ne) - but the close fit to the case in point is disturbing.
"In 2013, France banned pageants for children under age of 13 years, on the grounds that they promote the "hyper-sexualisation" of minors. France also voted to regulate pageants for children aged 13–15. France is the first western country to ban child pageants" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_beauty_pageant
The film is intended to be a commentary on the sexualisation of pre-adolescent girls - rather than an endorsement of it.
That's like making a snuff film (in which someone is literally killed on camera) in order to comment on the high murder rate.
Meghan made sure her "horror" over Prince Andrew's interview was on the record almost immediately after his interview. It has been several days since Cuties made the news and we have nothing but radio silence from her.
@Enbrethiliel
Is this another example he Pete Tiw send of The Who wrested but was found not guilty od downloading however)
: He'd been surfing the darker corners of the internet as part of research for the autobiography, in which Townshend intended to discuss his own suspected abuse as a child. Enraged by what he found, Townshend said he decided he'd expose this criminal underworld
Read More: When Pete Townshend Was Arrested on Child Porn Charges | https://ultimateclassicrock.com/pete-townshend-child-porn-arrest/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
Why is that Reed Hastings/ Netflix CEO arrested on child porn charges under “conspiracy theories” on that Toronto site and why can I find no corroborating evidence on it?
I think Nutty should ban Q conspiracy theories on this board. My opinion.
Also, I suggest you don’t click on “Toronto today” link which is based in Macedonia and probably had viruses and worms. Heads up!!!
____________________________________________________________________
Tatty, if I had known or even had the slightest inkling that the link I posted might be a conspiracy theory - I wouldn't have posted!! I did make a follow up post remarking that I also hadn't seen it published anywhere else, suggesting that it may not be true!
Also, whenever I read something on a website that I'm unfamiliar with and question the content,(even though in this case the 'site information' was shown as secure) I automatically run my virus detection plus Malwarebytes... and I can assure you, they BOTH came up clean!!
IT HAS NOW BEEN DELETED!!
Totally off topic, just watched “they shall not grow old”
Peter Jackson film, commemorating WW1, surreal, and very poignant.
“Cuties” like Nabakovs book “Lolita” In the 50’s, wrong, very disturbing.
We’re sick of them, it’s true
The wig, and her Principal, “lets sue”
The games are afoot
From the prat and his s.ut
Have now ended in Smartworks, zoom, two
I think what really disgusts people with respect to Cuties is the creative aspect. If it were a documentary putting together existing footage of exploitation to show how terrible it is, it would be analogous to Townshend's research. But because Cuties created more exploitation, it would be as if Townshend produced his own porn video, with a new innocent child, to expose the truth. It wouldn't be just an accurate representation of the seedy reality; it would be part of the seedy reality itself.
Anyway, has Meghan commented yet?
My question to 'tatty' was innocent as I clearly stated no knowledge of the 'Q' thing. Sorry if you thought my question was me engaging in a discussion. I am apologizing even though no one answered my question. I hate to assume things from an indirect possible inference.
Yes, Q conspiracy theories are from Q anon and I haven’t delved too much into them, but I think it’s pizzagate and anything else that goes down a rabbit hole.
Back to bed.
"Anybody who gets into bed with Netflix has to effectively turn over all control of every aspect of their commercial life to Netflix. This means that although Harry has said that . . . the cancellation of the Invictus Games, which were going to be aired over Amazon, have nothing to do with the signing of the Netflix deal, the reality is, that despite his disclaimers to the contrary, once he signed the Netflix deal, it was going to be impossible for him to be in bed with any other organization."
Others have said on this thread that they think Netflix will be harder on the Harkles than the British Royal Family ever was. And I confess that the first time this was raised, I had a hard time believing it. But right away, here is an example of Netflix tightening the noose!
I'm not that surprised that Harry didn't see the implications going in. (Not the sharpest tool, etc.) And I'll give him enough credit to doubt that he wanted to drop the Invictus Games. (He may have cut a lot of ties with his family and country before this, but there was also that recent "honor to support your grandmother" lip service bit.) A Syrian account I follow on Twitter recently shared a video of the absolutely dismayed Serbian President, after he found out he had agreed to move Serbia's Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. I wonder if Harry had a similar expression on his face after he learned what his signature on the Netflix contract meant.
On the other hand, I am surprised that Netflix didn't agree to make this one exception. Harry's dropping of the Invictus Games generated another wave of bad publicity. And it's never a good look to dismiss handicapped veterans. I can't see how this helps Netflix very much.
Suppose Netflix will let mm post something to compete with that?
What kind of royaling while in the US can mm release to take the focus off of DOC?
A picture of the invisible baby doing some charity work?
Some charity event mm and H crashed?
Complete with photos of strangers' children for which the children weren't compensated?
Maybe a video in which she looks like yet again a whole different person?
Something invoking Diana? Although that's old news for now.
BLM is also old news, so's Covid.
Something with his military service? That's something they haven't used much lately.
But she's not the center of attention then.
Although wasn't there something when they first got to the US that he was going to set up something for injured vets in the US?
Suppose that's off the table with the Netflix thing?
No current holidays or upcoming events.
They're running out of ideas to use?
They're also running out of unsuspecting charities to use for publicity?
Not that many aging celebrities to ounce upon either?
Maybe a video in that spot of garden they have, rather than by their fireplace window. That's getting boring.
I'm not that surprised that Harry didn't see the implications going in. (Not the sharpest tool, etc.) And I'll give him enough credit to doubt that he wanted to drop the Invictus Games. (He may have cut a lot of ties with his family and country before this, but there was also that recent "honor to support your grandmother" lip service bit.)
I said at the time of hearing about the contract that I wondered if Harry had attorneys representing him present at the signing. He should have, but I was doubtful. If he is both mentally ill AND lazy, I can see where he may have been content to leave it all to Meghan. If he is in full rebellion against the family, he may not have seen the point of having a law firm look out for his interests as well as those of the BRF. Perhaps Meghan, with $$$ in her eyes, may have told him that it was just his family being jealous and wanting to keep him from his well-deserved fame and fortune.
I know, I know, all speculation, no facts. JMO.
Thanks for sharing that testimony from a former friend of Meghan's. What a refreshingly charitable view of her!
For someone who could name two people who were bullied so badly they wouldn't even go to events if they knew Meghan would be there, but couldn't come up with a comparatively nice anecdote, it's very generous of her to say that Meghan is simply "normal."
I personally don't think there's anything "normal" about her. But if we're going to make her a benchmark for normalcy, then we'll have to agree that the even-keeled married-ins from Timothy Laurence to Jack Brooksbank are rather extraordinary.
Suppose that's off the table with the Netflix thing?
Perhaps it will be a Netflix program.
Maybe they've already exploited another charity and have just been sitting on the photos? This wouldn't be the first time Meghan sat on something for weeks so she could release it in order to upstage Catherine.
"So...the Duchess of Cambridge has the release of her photography competition tomorrow.....
What kind of royaling while in the US can mm release to take the focus off of DOC?"
Harry's birthday is Tuesday. But somehow we never hear as much about his celebrations as M's.
Perhaps Meghan, with $$$ in her eyes, may have told him that it was just his family being jealous and wanting to keep him from his well-deserved fame and fortune.
"They held you back by saddling you with Invictus while William got all the glamorous gigs . . . but now you can show them that you were always the real star in that family!"
Yes, also only speculation. But given what we already know of both of them, highly plausible!
The clips shown are getting twisted as propaganda.
That she doesn’t believe 11 year old girls should be sexualized and they shouldn’t be gyrating like that and to watch the show because the message is important.
🤷🏼♀️
The message could be told without all the closeups of 11 year old girls rears' in very tight shorts, crotch shots, a pile up of girls rolling around giggling together, sexualized dance moves, jiggling breasts.
The focus of the film was on their bodies, which was not necessary to tell this story. The scene where a girl finds a used condom, blows it up and sticks it in her shirt as a large breast was not necessary to tell this story. I watched more than just snippets.
Honours Forfeiture Committee meeting on Friday. May strip Harvey of his OBE based on his convictions.
Could be what happens next spring after official Megxit.
I think Megxit is a huge mistake for Harry, no matter how successful Meghan becomes.
He won't ever be able to rejoin the BRF. They already said it won't ever be half in half out, with an open door policy to come and go. I'm sure it is shocking to The Queen, if Harry decides on a hard exit in January.
This will force the hand with the titles, and maybe an investigation into their intent when they married. I can imagine MPs will go the 'fraud' route and demand even more money be paid back to the public purse.
How do you think she's been getting away with her behavior. He loves what she stands for! Himself! lol.
Are the kids going to be there with you for this storm?
We have localized flood warnings, rain forecast for all next week including a nor'easter forecast for mid-week with high winds and heavy rain, then the next tropical system should be here. I can hardly wait.
Time to upgrade the fishing boat for an ark?
I agree with you. If say I am making an anti porno movie do I have to include porno in it?
Sort of defeats the purpose.
Thank you. That's what I was trying to put into words. This film is sexualizing children by claiming it's against sexualizing children. You are exactly right.
"So Kate Middleton is exhibiting a Black Lives Matter photograph in her collection.
I'm thinking the Monarchy is making terrible moves and will be outstripped, if they aren't careful."
I thought that was a bit odd too. As I recall, the photographs were supposed to illustrate "life under lockdown." While the BLM demonstrations happened during part of the lockdown, they weren't emblematic of it, at least not IMO.
Er, no...
Supposing it is photographically excellent, but was omitted, what might the backlash be?
In these situations, one is damned either way.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8728329/Viewers-hit-Netflix-employees-Megan-Harry-Obamas-stay-silent-Cuties.html
"re the BLM photo - perhaps it meets all the photographic criteria for being a first-rate shot?
Supposing it is photographically excellent, but was omitted, what might the backlash be?
In these situations, one is damned either way."
That's probably true. And a panel made the decisions, not Kate by herself.
The BLM photo I saw did seem to be a good shot. I just don't quite see the connection to the COVID lockdown, (purportedly the overall subject photos were to address) other than time of year and concerns over protests being super-spreader events. Photos were supposed to fit one of three themes: Helpers and Heroes, Your New Normal and Acts of Kindness. Not sure which category it fit.
But there could have been criticism for not choosing at least one BLM shot, I suppose. There reportedly were over 31,500 entries though so I'm sure a great many "photographically excellent" shots didn't make the final group of 100.
“Prince Andrew being ‘airbrushed’ from father’s 100th birthday celebrations: report“:
https://pagesix.com/2020/09/13/prince-andrew-being-airbrushed-from-fathers-birthday-celebrations-report/
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2020
Blind Item #8
The ginger one has agreed to give up his military titles. Who will get to make the announcement and issue the statement and spin it their own way. Oh, and that rental money/payback money isn't being paid.
ah ha - just noticed Barbara from Montreal posted it. I'm wondering if this is part of a behind the scenes deal. Maybe the blowback from all the BS they've been up to lately. RF agreeing to take some of the heat off them with Bank of Pa making the payment in return for H giving up things. Will we ever know the truth?
Your New Normal.
I thought he'd already given up his military titles, besides retired Captain.
Swampwoman, yeah, we are already getting rain and yes, I expect we will lose at least 2 more trees on my property and a good 4 or so more on the property next to mine. I will want one adult kid to come home, but it is ultimately his decision. I do not trust the levee system in the greater New Orleans Area. Another adult kid could get recalled home as well. Her university doesn’t cancel class for hurricanes unless it’s completely necessary. They pride themselves in keeping in class on for tropical storms and cat 1 hurricanes, despite the local flooding. I just put my garden back together. UUGH. The pine tree threw down a small branch today— don’t know why. It was before the rain we had.
I do not want to have to use the generators again. That was miserable. I have a cpap so I am looking to get a dental device that pulls the jaw forward.
To get back to HAMS.... ummm, the only comment I have that is relative to them is CDAN is usually terrible about Royal gossip.
Thanks for indulging the off topic banter. Stay safe, swampwoman and everyone on the dirty side of the storm!
I was up north in a cabin for better part of a week and just spent nearly four hours catching up on last post and nearly 400 comments on this post. I get tto say something darn it haha, sorry
I can't add anything to above topic, besides to say Harry would be the draw for a speaking engagement. For good or bad he will forever be fascinating. His star is losing its sheen but he will always be royal blood
As to Frogmore cottage I always thought the 2.4 million was for the interior and whatever OTT decor they demanded (floating yoga floor?) I can't imagine they would be charged for the conversion of flats to single home floorplan or to update wiring etc. etc. Was probably 10 million+ when all said and done
@sir stinxalot I chuckled when I read you learned to turn off Harkle newsfeed. Isn't it great? But they sure pushed them hard. All my meg stories they labeled as PH so Ihad to say no to him too and then they slipped in more stories and labeled them Royal Family. I didn't want RF cut out entirely. I like reading of others. Anyhow, it took about 3 days of hard push to finally break free. Worth it!
Nice to see some long ago commenters back and Ava I bat my eyelashes too you hehe
Hope everyone is well.
Part I
Regarding the Horoscopes of Harry and Meg, (which was touched on in the last thread) I was recently in touch with an old friend ,a semi- retired professional Astrologer. I hope this makes sense as these were crib notes as he spoke over the phone. Basically he expects them to part ways in mid 2022.
First up their individual and combined charts show a deep karmic connection.....this match was meant to be for better or worse both for themselves, the RF and Britain.
Many of his friends in the psychic/astro world think it is lingering karma to be worked out regarding Wallis and Edward, Princess Margaret and the RF as there are many astrological similarities with key events.
The Monarchy and Royal Family are suffering not because of Meg and Harry but for covering up things in the past and hiding misdeeds.
Finances will be the catalyst that causes the Sussex's split. The entire ending hinges on Taurus and planets in Taurus. The sign and house which also governs their joint finances. There is a slight chance that Harry and Meghan would try to return to the past to start again (i.e. back into the RF) but only if Meghan admits defeat and accepts her secondary position and the RF rules/traditions. Either way there will be an ending to their current life by September 2022.
The Taurus sign and planets point to a crucial events for Harry and Meghan their wedding and Harry was also made Duke of Sussex on that day in 2018 and the aspects then and in mid 2022 show that both the marriage and the title are in grave danger.
A big decision regarding their future was made in July this year by someone else (the Queen probably as she is a Taurus or Charles as a Scorpio in opposition to Taurus)
Saturn is starting to stir up resentments in the marriage at the moment which will come to a head in a year’s time.
By October 2021 Harry begins to see what a big mistake he made leaving the Royal family and his resentment will boil and fester until mid 2022 when he will conclude Meghan is the cause of his misery.
Action will finally be triggered by an extremely rare transit of Uranus which can only happen once every 84years and it happens to them in mid 2022, when Uranus (chaos/disruption and sudden change) passes through their joint 8th house of Taurus, grinding back and forth like a hacksaw for 6months, right over Harry’s moon (emotions/past karma), Meghan’s Chiron (karmic wounds/the wounded warrior/the wounded child) which are conjunct in their joint 8th house dealing with shared finances, inheritance, wills, investments, bankruptcy, and alimony.
Also Harry’s natal moon is opposition Meghan’s Uranus . Harry’s natal sun is in his 8th house adding more weight to the stress. Taurus Archie is also a central part of the disruption/chaos.
The 8th house problems may also indicate a death in the family. Also secrets will come out around this time possibly related to sex.
Nothing career wise will be happening for them before November 2020 and then it will be a slow uphill slog to get things moving in 2021.
Eventually Harry will return to the UK to live but it will take 12years to live down the Megxit debacle.
On a side note there may be health problems for Meghan over the next two years , if it is made public then we should believe her because she is not crying wolf or inventing an illness for sympathy or to keep Harry shackled , even though that would certainly be a side benefit.
Most surprising to me was that he said the Queen will retire soon , most likely before July 2021. She is simply running out of energy and the stress of the last few years has taken its toll on her , hidden health problems will be the deciding factor.
--------------
I wonder if the recent news about Harry giving up all his military titles is related to the decision made in July?
When did MM get impressed by the BLM movement and sense there was a story there she could tell?
It's been around for years now (2013). Not saying she could not do this but she would come off by the early people as a Johnny Come Lately. And that would not be a good PR point (like the girl burned in the car that we haven't heard about since when?).
https://twitter.com/BarkJack/status/1304836176323457026
"It's been around for years now (2013). Not saying she could not do this but she would come off by the early people as a Johnny Come Lately."
Yes it would seem so, but unfortunately the masses new to the movement probably wouldn't mind. However, it is hard for me to believe Meghan and Harry would really commit to anything since they are only seemingly really into things for the money, big money and I don't see how the BLM movement would make them money; PR yes, but money 'No'.
I think you're right about BLM. That's old news for one thing. Also fairly controversial lately?
I don't see how the Harkles are going to make big money off that one. Publicity, maybe. They'd have to do a bang up job, of which I'm not seeing them having the expertise to do.
Think of the videos they've done so far. Nothing in them says that they 'have an eye for telling a story.' So far it's just been mindless drivel from them.
He is stoned out of his mind half the time.......can’t you see that. and someone please tell me what is up with the “brown contact lenses he is now sporting?
@Hikari – I love `just a very rode-hard, put away wet'- and not so much as a rub-down with a hay wisp…
-----------------------
- and from one of the tweeted threads mentioned somewhere above (thanks to whoever posted the link!):
`- looks like she's getting darker. Must be using different cosmetics to enhance her political aspirations....'
`- Is it me or is she looking more like AOC?'
What do you think?
Ironically the more he speaks the more the royal mystique fades. But for now if there is opening on speaker circuit. People would much rather hear from Harry than Meg (JP Morgan as example)
He obviously bombed as I don't recall him being invited anywhere else. Same with Meghan. Anything by her doesn't strike me as by invite but her forcing her way in
She must have been hell at Disney too. No second project. I wonder if it was because she was awful narrator or diva. Both?
Personally I would not pay for either of them but hand to fire For I choose Harry
Of course my opinion on the entire matter is (censored) and no not in a million years would I ever believe she would be in oscar race but if she was still trying to land parts I would be curious what her resume (CV) would look like today, or her face for that matter
https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/oscars-best-picture-inclusion-diversity-standards-47776291
https://www.npg.org.uk/hold-still/
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a34004505/queen-elizabeth-kate-middleton-hold-still-photo-exhibition/