It's a staple of gossip columns: celebrity divas (and divos, to include the men) who insist that the peons around them refrain from making eye contact.
J-Lo, Neil Diamond, Nicole Kidman, Barbra Streisand and Bob Dylan are among the stars who insist on no eye contact, according to a long-running thread at DataLounge, and Ellen DeGeneres was also recently accused of refusing to make eye contact with her long-suffering staff.
Which brings us to the latest official photo from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Photographed looking away from the viewer
The new photo is being compared to the Sussex engagement photo, perhaps because Meghan's head is slightly south of Harry's in both photos.
I find it more similar to one of the black and white wedding photos the couple chose to share.
In both the new photo and the wedding photo, Meghan is looking somewhere else, away from the viewer.
The wedding photo has her looking out of the frame (did she find somebody better? Maybe husband #4?), while the new photo has her looking bashfully, mid-laugh, towards her elbow on the arm of a chair.
The new photo might have worked for a puff-piece layout in a 1990s edition of Vanity Fair or Vogue, but it is a spectacularly bad choice for its stated purpose, which is to promote the Sussexes' "Time 100 Talks".
How can you talk to me, or talk to anyone else, when you won't look at me directly?
Looking away is a power move
Like refusing to make eye contact with the people who work for you, intentionally posting a photo in which you are looking away from the viewer is a power move.
"I don't need you," it says. "I have a fabulous life in which I am so terribly busy that I don't have time to interact with you, and I don't need your approval.
"Ha ha! I'm laughing at a private joke. But...you wouldn't get it."
Why Meg won't ever be a politician
If you follow politics in the US or any other country, you'll notice the one thing that almost every official photo of a politician seeking election - right wing, left wing, or in between - has in common.
The politician is posed to look directly at the viewer, simulating eye contact.
I see you, the politician seems to say. I see your needs and concerns.
Have you ever seen an official photo of a politician bashfully looking at his or her elbow and laughing?
Meg doesn't want to be equal
This is one of the many reasons I don't think Meg will ever become an elected official.
She doesn't want to "see" people; she doesn't really want to know people, which is why she has so few long-term friends and most of her relationships appear to be transactional.
Meg doesn't even particularly want to be liked, a desire that has driven countless celebrity careers, from Bill Clinton to Joan Crawford to Justin Bieber.
Instead, Meg wants to be admired and envied. She wants you to acknowledge that she is better than you.
Unsurprisingly, this doesn't sell well; most people aren't really looking for someone to envy.
This is one of the many reasons Meg (and Harry's) career has never really taken off.
Meg won't take advice
Another reason it hasn't taken off is that Meg seems incapable of taking advice.
I find it hard to believe that someone on the Time 100 team didn't tell Meg that this photo didn't fill the bill for a series of Time 100 Talks, which are presumably a ripoff of TED talks.
Photos need to tell a story. This one should have been her and Harry eager to welcome some exciting new voices to the stage. Curious, energetic, listening, learning should have been the vibe.
Instead, Harry looks like a Vegas lounge singer on a break, and he seems to be gently laughing at whatever's being said.
Not too encouraging for the Time 100 speakers pouring out their hearts or opening up about the ideas they have nurtured for a lifetime.
Meg, meanwhile, isn't paying attention to the speaker OR the audience. She's got something else going on, something more interesting and much more entertaining. Sorry, Time 100 speaker!
At any rate, if someone suggested that this wasn't quite the right photo for the Sussexes to promote the event - as opposed to promoting themselves - that advice was ignored, as so much advice given to the Susssexes has been ignored in the past.
Comments
As for the don’t look at me can’t see you portraits she keeps putting out there, they are a pathetic and laughable attempt at creating a mysterious aura around her. So ridiculous as she seems stuck in the 90s!
Apparently (?) the house is for rent to movies companies. Someone posted available for two weeks in December.
Where are the Harkles going to be those two weeks in December???????
Where is Your Subject Looking and Why Does it Matter?
A Post By: Darren Rowse
When posing a portrait subject, two important questions to ask yourself include:
1. ‘where are they looking?’2. ‘what impact does this have on the shot?’
Where your subject is looking can have a real impact upon your image and how those looking at your image view it.
In many instances your subjects eyes determines where the viewer of your image looks.
Here are a few examples:
two people looking at each other – draws your viewer into ‘relationship’a child holding out a plate with a chocolate cake but looking at the camera gives a feeling of invitation – the child becomes the focusa child holding out a plate of chocolate cake and looking at the cake can give a sense of ‘desire’ – the cake become the focusLooking outside the frame can leave the viewer wondering what they’re looking at?
There’s no right or wrong but each option can have consequences (good and bad) on the shot.
Here are a couple of considerations to keep in mind when making a decision on how to pose your subject:
Looking Away from the Camera
By AP Photographie ?
If your subject is looking at something other than the camera viewers will naturally want to see what it is. You then have two choices – either to show them or not hide the object of their gaze.If the object is within the frame this will often create a focal point for your shots (example – in the picture of the ‘bubble boy’ above).If the subject looks outside the frame it can create either tension or intrigue. This can either spoil or make the shot!Looking Directly At the Camera
By Giorgio Quattrone
If your subject is looking directly at the camera it’s hard not to look at them – they become the focal pointSometimes when a subject looks directly at the camera it can create discomfort or tension for the viewer of the image – it can be a very strong and confronting pose. This is not necessarily bad – in fact it can really make the shot quite powerful – but it is something to be aware of.
The direction that your subject looks when being photographed can have a profound impact upon an image so give it careful consideration. Many different poses can work and will alter the mood and focal point of the image considerably.
The key is to know what you’re wanting to achieve and to experiment with different set ups to get those results
https://digital-photography-school.com/where-is-your-subject-looking-and-why-does-it-matter/
That is a spot on observation of that photo! Comes off so rude!
Also find it interesting this is being labeled an "official photograph" an official photograph of what exactly? their Time Talk?
I am with swampwoman. Nothing of them intrigues me. Just along for the sh*tshow
@Musty, I reopened the other thread, since I can see people are in the midst of a conversation. I didn't close it; it just aged out after the usual 10 days.
I don't envy her either.
That's exactly it. Her haters are much more numerous than her fans.
If she was really smart, she'd go for it, and revel in a love-to-hate-you type of villainess role.
I don't think even her fans really envy her. But provoking envy is still what she's going for, and she can't figure out that it's a losing proposition.
The no eye contact thing is horribly precious and pompous behaviour.
No matter how or what, Megsy can’t control what people think of her no matter how hard she tries, you just can’t make people like or admire you.
For me....roll on January for the court case and the official/unofficial yearly review. I have no time or energy I want to waste on her or him.
I'm actually looking forward to the trial in London's High Court in January and wish it were televised the way many US trials are. I'd love to see her try her nonsensical word salad during cross-examination by the newspaper's lawyers, who I can guarantee are not going to give her an easy time. She will have to answer their questions whether she wants to or not.
Instead of promoting the event the picture is promoting them. Very astute. I can only add the photo puts Megs in centre with Harry as a background, possessed and controlled by her arm on his leg.
This is not even about both of them, this is about her and her control.
You also mentioned they appear to share the joke that others will not get. It can also be understood as ridiculing others in a private exchange.
What an awful advert for the event.
What is she even smiling at? Probably nothing. It wouldn't be the last time she babbled or laughed all alone, to herself, in public because she thought it would make her look better in a photo. Never mind the lack of connection with everyone around her. They're all just props to her. She'll zoom in on the camera, though!
Incidentally, Meg's eye contact has been on my mind today. One thought I hadn't shared in the last thread was that a good "power couple" pose for the TIME 100 picture would have been them looking at each other. They would have looked more united. More together, if you know what I mean.
Along with other Nutties, I rewatched the RAF Flyover video, during which she desperately tries to make eye contact with the Cambridges.
We could go over more of her short history as a royal. Remember when she tried making eye contact with SouthAfrica!Archie, he just turned away, and her mask dropped for a second? Or how about the weird way she looked at Harry in the second Christening photo? He's looking at Archie #3; she's looking at Harry's ear. It would have been sweet for them to be looking down at Archie together. Such disconnection among father, mother and newborn. I could go on and on . . .
Interesting and I can illustrate this with a life example. We were filming a documentary about some projects our company did. This included several interviews with officials and I was included as a person working with several of the projects. We had a camera man and a press officer who helped us talk. We were told to talk to the camera, but most of officials found it easier to address the press officer rather than the unnerving black eye of the camera. I didn't know about it and, despite being uncomfortable, tried to look and talk to the camera.
When the film was ready I was contacted and asked to re-do the interview looking at the press officer. The reason for that was the comment by the Big Boss who said "she looks like the only one who actually cares"
Instead of re-filming the whole thing they just re-filmed my piece. So yes, where you look matters a lot.
I think for Meghan it would be more like DO NOT LOOK AT ME EVER and, especially for women...NEVER LOOK AT MY HUSBAND!
Your observation about Meghan wanting to be admired and envied is quite ironic: “Instead, Meg wants to be admired and envied. She wants you to acknowledge that she is better than you.”
The irony comes out of the immense jealousy that narcissists have of others. Of course, the main target of Meghan’s jealousy is Kate, partly because she married the brother Meghan would have wanted to target for herself if he had been available. Instead, she had to settle for Harry the dimwitted spare.
But even if William had been available, he’s far more intelligent than Harry and would have had her sussed in 30 seconds. In reality, he had her sussed right away as she targeted Harry. And we all know how THAT went after he encouraged Harry to take his time with Meghan and not rush into marriage.
I find it somewhat delicious that even though she was able to marry into the royal family, she will never be anywhere nearly as highly regarded or admired as Kate, who seems to effortlessly best Meghan in every category that is important to Meghan, who, even if she and Harry had stayed on in the UK as working royals, would have to face a lifetime of being second bananas to the Cambridges. But then narcs are never team players. They always want to be team captain who barks orders at the team, which is one of the reasons she was able to manipulate Harry into leaving his life for her promises of big money and big status running their own court in California.
Meghan is sort of like being the guy on the Apollo moon landing missions who flew as part of the crew that flew all the way to the moon, but was the one who had to remain in the capsule orbiting the moon while his two counterparts actually landed on and walked on the moon. You have to truly be a team player to take that job and do it well while knowing you would be in the background of history.
Thanks for the assessment Nutty. It is pointedly accurate.
May I add that it’s not a professional profile picture, at all. To me, it looks like Meghans idea of ‘let’s make sure other parents think we are relatable!!!! Both of us giggling and laughing and enjoying every minute of ourselves on this damn sofa lounge chair!!!’
Lol. I guess they forgot the professionalism somewhere in there. At least the Royals know how to look better than others without even trying, and maybe that’s part of the problem- Meg and Harry will forever be trying to regain their status as Royals, even though they abandoned their duties.
I think another part of the problem is that Harry and Meghan don’t realize that they aren’t just insufferable, they are incredibly boring. Which in entertainment is worse.
Hasn't CDAN alluded to "The Club" of Hollywood mothers who let boy children dress as girls and girl children present themselves as boys? If Meghan gets really desperate, she may decide to join it! What Archie may actually feel about it would be, of course, irrelevant.
(This is all assuming that a boy with her and/or Harry's DNA exists, that she has custody or at least occasional access to him, etc., etc., etc.)
None of this please stuff for Ms. High and Mighty.
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/blog-posts/
Sorry if someone already posted this.
Meghan will do her 'court case glam' parade ala whats her face re:Johnny Depp, oh right Amber Heard (also hard to remember her name as she is a minor celeb, but more of a celeb, via Movie Star and hubs who worked for a living, than Meghan) and it will be a complete shit show on stand. The DM has every incentive to rip her to pieces, dig up all the dirt, and prove she is avoidant dishonest. Which the judge already figured out. Secrets about Harry will come out during their cross examination. Meghan will throw him under the bus too, and convince him it was for THEIR best interest! With a maniacal laugh, as we are seeing in the Time 100 Talk promo photo (Harry! Buy my story! MuhahaHA). Megs will sell the whole court 'story' to her production company and we will see her deluded version somewhere deep in Netflix under 'Fiction and Farce'.
Beyond this, Harry will start to question his reputation in the USA besides just the UK, since US papers will pick up on the court story, and he will be utterly humiliated. Harry isn't that famous in America, but Meghan has convinced him he is bigger than their buddies George and Amal. Harry will have to convince Charles and Camilla that Meghan is American and sues left and right and doesn't understand discretion. He will then ask for $5MM spending allowance for the year "for Archie". Meghan will not be allowed near any members of the BRF due to her 'documentary' deal with Netflix. William wonders if his brother is actually mentally slow, "They said it was mental illness, Kate!" Kate rolls her eyes and continues to ignore the entire shit show.
Archie won't be seen whatsoever, and Harry and Meghan will keep pretending with long sentences of protest that they are watching him *every minute of the day! golly gee! how luuuuucky!*
Thanks for the CrownsofBritain link. It shows a solo B&W pic of H (he gets to sit down!) along with the B&W pic of H&M. H's seems to have been taken the same day as the duo one. Is there a solo of M from that day? I can't seem to see where H's solo came from.
I noticed this and totally agree. If there’s a private joke only Megsy is laughing at it. Harry’s is just smiling and it looks like a smile for the camera only.
I was very recently at my area's high-end salon for a haircut with the top stylist. She's a young mother, mid-30s, (as opposed to Markle's "geriatric" mother playacting.) She doesn't have time for celebrity gossip, and maybe catches a sporadic episode of KUWTK. Her first question was a "'eeuuu' what's going on with Megan Markle?" She doesn't keep up with celebrity gossip, but already has a tainted view of Markle just from Markle's everyday actions.
Thanks Sally 😘
The Crone on her Throne
By hook or by crook
Describes her new look
The cat that swallowed the canary
With her face to the side
She really can’t hide
Her profile, it’s plain, and quite scary
A bit OT here since it is related to the last thread - they are raising Archie to be a gender neutral person. So in 10yrs time, there will be a foppish long haired boy who wears dresses a la Jaden Smith.
Interesting - have they said this recently, or was it something they said around the time of the birth? For me, the most prominent gender neutral celeb kid is Liz Hurley's son Damien Hurley. Damien does seem to have a strong, if strange, connection to his mother, however. Not sure if Archie - if he exists - has a connection to anyone.
@Tricia33
I would actually say this is an old photo back in the days when Harry was actually healthier and happy. Has anyone done a timestamp on it yet?
That's a good point. He does look unusually healthy in this image. Too bad we can't see the back of his head. We could have timestamped it by the size of his ever-growing bald spot.
https://time100talksoctober20.splashthat.com/
@Lizzie
This Times link includes two more b&w photos that look like they are from the same shoot as the portrait. The one you mentioned of a seated Harry is posted there as well as another 3/4 view of a laughing Markle.
All the other participants are pictured in black and white photos as well.
I think the Harkles had these pictures taken specifically for this event. The October 6th date I found in the meta-data is probably correct.
I can see them being told by the folks at Time that there would be a b&w lay-out of the participants' pictures on the website and MM decided she wanted new photos for the occasion.
OR perhaps Time made arrangements for the photos to be taken of all the participants - this would be a good explanation for how a photo that does not flatter the Megalo got past her.
I know most Nutties think this is an older picture of Harry but his hair is so different here - it's all thinned out. Does anyone else notice that H has less hair in the Times photos?
The hook of her nose and the crook of her chin = 'man-in-the-moon' face!
I love how all their capers as well as our conversations, inspire you.
🤣🤣🤣
'Surprisingly, too much eye contact can mean they dislike you, too.
A lot of eye contact could be overcompensation for a lack of interest. NBC
Though Keyl agreed with Craig’s notion that lack of eye contact is a common sign of dislike, he also said that too much eye contact can be a sign for those not wanting others to know that they feel negatively towards them.
"Too much eye contact can signal someone dislikes you. It is common knowledge that disinterested people will look in any other direction for something or someone more interesting," said Keyl. "Since we know looking away will be interpreted as rude, people overcompensate by making too much eye contact, to ensure they aren’t perceived as inhospitable. So if someone is 'overly engaged' in your story about your trip to Yosemite, they may just not be as captivated by you as you think
https://www.insider.com/body-language-signs-that-someone-doesnt-like-you-2018-6#surprisingly-too-much-eye-contact-can-mean-they-dislike-you-too-7
This statement about Diana is possibky how deluded
MM with her narc desire to be the most famouse person in the world ..
MM has failed to grasp probably due to her deluded thinking the vast difference in (the UK especially ) publics perception of herself.
Enthralled by = Diana
Repulsed by = MM
' No public figure in living memory has enthralled the nation as much as Princesss Diana '
Taken from DM
Princess Diana's Panorama interview secrets she told Richard Kay https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8849031/Princess-Dianas-Panorama-interview-secrets-told-Richard-Kay.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-recreate-engagement-photo-pose/
A quick google of Matt Sayles finds he is based in LA and has been working on an extensive project covering Kamala Harris! More dem connections for ms Markle.
. If there’s a private joke only Megsy is laughing at it.
Some good examples of narcissistic Meg's 'false' laughing in this twitter thread.
The third post down, (with the gif) is priceless! They are obviously looking up at a screen of themselves while they are being filmed and just watch her crazy eyes before she starts her performance. Also, take note of the woman at the back on the far right who notices and gives Meg the side eye! :)
https://twitter.com/teatime2u/status/1317865736434372609
If it is a collection of people that are paying to scream "Look at ME! I'm IMPORTANT!" it seems that being "interviewed" by people that can speak of nothing besides ME would be annoying. I'd be asking for a refund. If they are there because they are championing an important cause such as prevention of child suicide from cyberbullying, they might have to tell them to STFD and STFU in order to get their message out.
https://time100talksoctober20.splashthat.com
When I look at this set of photos, NAJ AUSTIN, TRISTAN HARRIS, and MARIA RESSA have the best images for this purpose, in my opinion.
I know nothing about any of these people, but they all look intelligent, opinionated, and accessible. They appear ready to challenge me with some ideas.
RACHEL CARGLE, RENÉE DIRESTA, and SAFIYA U. NOBLE, based on their images alone, don't seem to like me. (And they don't even know who I am.)
ALEXIS OHANIAN and Meghan are both looking into the distance. They're not interested in communicating with me directly. They have something better to do.
Harry looks friendly but dumb.
It looks like she’s possessed with those starey eyes before her fake laugh routine! Megsy does have that demented laugh look down to a fine art, so many memes of her doing it! Lol
Those photos are a pretty damning record! I'm sure there are many more, too, starting back in her college days. Or whenever she got her new nose.
This really illustrates for me one narc characteristic that had stumped me. According to the profile, narcissists don't have real feelings, but they eventually learn how to ape others' emotional expressions and to produce them at what they think are appropriate times. Meghan is definitely aping happiness in her fake laugh, but she uses it so clumsily that she looks less happy than deranged.
There's a second wedding photo among the ones in the link. Again, whom is she talking to who is so absorbing that she can't bother to straighten up for the photographer?
Then there was the time she brought her botoxed face to Wimbledon with Catherine. The contrast between her smile and Catherine's is extreme. But, oh, look, Meg's the one bending over -- that must mean she's actually the happier one, right? Never mind that she's not even (fake) laughing. That bend in the waist is all we need to know her joy is legit! (Oh, what an insight into a narc's mind . . .)
https://twitter.com/Sukiweeks/status/1318272773035347973
I feel sorry for the teenager at the center of the group shot of Teenage Therapy. Wasn't there a good picture of him also looking up at the photographer?
That's the nicest photo of Prince Harry that I've seen in a while. But neither he nor his wife look very accessible. If they were random YouTubers I didn't know, I would not check out their channels. They don't look as if they care about their own message. Naj Austin and Tristan Harris, on the other hand, would get curious clicks form me. They look as if they'd love to have a conversation about the things they're passionate about . . . and maybe also the things I'm passionate about, in case there's potential for collaboration.
I was surprised to scroll down and see that Meghan got to interview Alexis Ohanian. I had the impression that neither Alex nor Serena Williams wanted anything more to do with her after her sloppy gatecrashing of the US Open, which Serena supposedly told her not to attend and during which she flashed Alexis. Even if a clueless TIME editor paired them for the interview, surely a multi-millionaire would be able to pull the strings necessary to get another interviewer.
She does look possessed!! Creepy, creepy woman.
@Enbrethiliel,
This really illustrates for me one narc characteristic that had stumped me. According to the profile, narcissists don't have real feelings, but they eventually learn how to ape others' emotional expressions and to produce them at what they think are appropriate times. Meghan is definitely aping happiness in her fake laugh, but she uses it so clumsily that she looks less happy than deranged.
Exactly! Same goes for tears... they can turn them on & off like a tap when needed.
Those `lace dress' photos are in the same league - clearly the same dress even if the lace on the right sleeves are different ways up! How anybody could imagine that Duchess C would copy that trollop is beyond me - the probability of Catherine having even heard of MM in 2014 must be almost zero.
MM is undoubted seriously disturbed - some years ago, she might have been regarded as bipolar(manic) on account of her exaggerated self-belief but DSM now considers megalomania as a subset of narcissism.
What we are witnessing may even throw light on the old question of `Was Adolf Hitler mad?'
I interpreted her performance as crocodile tears. Meagain is just the same.
Oh my God! Those two photos with her and Catherine with the same dress on (but in different colours), even with the same hair cut is super creepy. Yes, she copies others and repeatedly....how much of her do we ever see which is her true authentic self?
My last narcissist mixed tears with rage - I cannot imagine myself simultaneous expressing both emotions ever, one would extinguish the other. I'd either collapse in a heap of misery or come out fighting, verbally that is, not physically.
I have had both. It is more tears of regret that I am being constrained by circumstances (such as witnesses) and am not able to rid the earth of a major annoyance at that point in time.
Hard to say. What is the authentic true self of all the 20-somethings with green hair, piercings, and covered with tattoos that say "I am an individual with an individual sense of style just like all the millions of others that look just like me!"
"Some good examples of narcissistic Meg's 'false' laughing in this twitter thread.
The third post down, (with the gif) is priceless! They are obviously looking up at a screen of themselves while they are being filmed and just watch her crazy eyes before she starts her performance. Also, take note of the woman at the back on the far right who notices and gives Meg the side eye! :)"
https://twitter.com/teatime2u/status/1317865736434372609
Thank you, that was entertaining! Caught in the act of being herself, as they used to say on the old Candid Camera show.
If that’s the case re:photo Time Website, then speakers will just submit a photo of their choice and the marketing team / creative team at Time (Events? Now?) will edit the photo so the b/w is consistent across speakers and same shade.
It is a picture Meghan chose or had taken. I’m thinking it’s an older photo since Meghans brow job doesn’t show, Harry doesn’t look just as worn down, and Harry knew from the get-go she likes to sit in front of him (I saw some comments of how he is supportive of her, yeah sure he doesn’t have a choice).
If other orgs were speaking with Meghan, or doing impromptu photo shoots, I’m sure we’d get more blinds from the set runners. I don’t think she lets anyone around her and this is when zooming all over works in her favor, otherwise her bad rep would already be extensive in news in the US by now.
Another thing, they can’t sustain a career off Time Magazine. They can try, but the Sunshine Sachs overdrive effort is only seeding other client contacts. No one else in LA is hooking up with the Harkles. The owner of Time is riding their publicity wave, and that’s all.
Remember how strict Meghan is about her ‘speaking fees’. I’m guessing this was at her request. I’m also guessing Alexis is testing the waters to see how it comes across as he’s not really a celebrity. He’s also gotten into the WOKE wave of recent. IMO, Alexis while having founded the forum Reddit, in general is not very smart. I roam in tech circles and his name has never come up. Tech has moved waaaay beyond Reddit and they’ve never been able to successfully monetize that site. It would be no surprise to myself either, that a man who made is money off ‘social media’ now starts railing against it. Ok, give the money back then talk. It never happens. I guess there is money to be made being anti-social nowadays.
If she was speaking to real Tech influencers, then I’d be more inclined to take this seriously.
I don't care how she wants to be perceived. I don't envy her, I don't aspire to be her; I'm just here for the (inevitable) trainwreck.
___________
Sums it up perfectly for me too.
Re: Joan Crawford
I think Joan cared much more about being respected than being loved. I won't get into the whole Mommy Dearest scenario, but I don't think Joan was a narcissist like Meghan Markle surely is.
Unlike Meghan Markle:
Joan maintained many lifelong friendships, including her decorator William Haines and his partner Jimmy Shields, Rosalind Russell, Myrna Loy, Barbara Stanwyck, Cesar Romero and Ann Blyth.
She also had two long term and loyal employees, Anna Marie Brinke, who was her maid, and Betty Barker, who was her secretary for over 20 years.
Joan was divorced three times and widowed once, and never really said anything bad about any of her former husbands. In fact, she even took Franchot Tone (husband number two) into her home when he was terminally ill and saw that he was cared for.
She was nice to a fault to all of her fans. And after her death, it was revealed that she was involved with many charitable organizations, donating her time and money and always insisting on anonymity.
And for what it's worth, Joan truly did have a very hard early life.
I do agree that if MM ever went into politics, she'd get crucified. All the skeletons would come tumbling out of the closet.
That photo of them together looks to me like an ad for his and hers perfume or something similar. It is marketing a lifestyle. What comes to mind is that video of Meghan driving her best friend at the time around LA and pointing out all the high-end jewelery and clothing shops. (This was just before she went to college and she was not living with or talking to her father at the time but no one has done the digging to find out why. After all, her father was still financially supporting her.) Not everyone who grows up in Hollywood is as influenced as Meghan seems to be by the glamorous image and expensive shopping venues.
Thanks for an excellent post Nutty.
Raspberry,
The tragedy of the Narcissist is that there is no authentic self under all the posturing and posing. Meg copies everything and everyone all the time because she is absolutely hollow inside. Material things and status and numbers of Instagram followers and press attention become her only markers for 'success' because inside herself is a barren wasteland. Her only drivers are money and fame; her only emotions are boredom, rage and envy. Happiness and contentment are unknown to her, but she envies people who have achieved this state she can't even understand, so she seeks to tear it down. That's the other tragedy for those around them--the Narcissist's only version of 'happiness' is when she scores points against others by hurting them and bringing them down.
Meg will never be happy. She will never be quiet. She will never go away, now that she's been given this global platform. We are in for a bumpy ride. The saga of the Harkles isn't going to be over any time soon. They will both have to be dead for that to happen.
Meg & H's fame agenda/fake & real ignorance/Black History Month/disgrace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBFaGJ4bLA8
https://gfycat.com/glamorousplasticfiddlercrab
Great post Nutty. I cannot stand this photo of Meghan. She always does this type of thing. Smiling or laughing to herself. There are many examples that I recall of her even talking to herself and pretending someone is talking to her or that something is so hysterical even though others around her are not laughing or barely crack a smile. Also the way she is positioning herself ahead of Harry is very deliberate. This pic is doing nothing to dispell any of the animosity that the public have regarding her treatment of Harry. And she does not care one bit. She is pushing her own narrative and is 100% moving forward with it. The DM had a story about how she might tone down her comments for the sake of her husband....yeah right.
Meghan still has to play Harry and play him hard. Lots of time with Archie, lots of roasted chicken, California play time, lots of patting his back telling him that he's worth so much more than his family gives him credit for, lots of sex, praise.
Even though there still seems to be plenty of these organizations willing to give them platforms, no one is watching this stuff. Only those fascinated or curious about the Harkles. So at some point this stuff has to dry up. But I agree with Hikari, Meghan is NOT going away, not any time soon.
I absolutely agree with your reply (to mine). It perfectly sums her up so thank you. She’s like an addict, but not for drugs, but seeking and looking for the next validation or score point against another. She must be totally empty and soulless.
I see the DM has an article on their TIME Talks today, and as I suspected they’re inserting the whole ‘we are parent influencers’ shtick everywhere they go. That’s what I assumed they were trying to do with the B/W photo. Look at how happy we are! Just you’re ordinary parents!
This is the wrong forum to promote themselves as parental lifestyle influencers. Once again, mud at wall.
The whole issue they have is that they don’t actually deep dive into anything they involve themselves in. Their lifestyle choices are not relatable, they are ‘royal’, it’s prince Harry ffs. They can’t just walk back their entire life choices to wake up and say”we are mr. and mrs. Jones from down the street!’ And how about the wrong forum to be discussing personal matters??!
And Nutty points out, envy is not the way to make friends or influence others.
No positive or genuine vibes from these two which is their Achilles Heel.
................
The copy of the Harkle's new photo posted on the Time 100 site still contains some of the meta-data.
It shows that the photo was taken on October 6th 2020 at 3:14pm.
I took a look at the meta-data on 3 versions of the photo which I downloaded to my laptop...one obtained from the Times100 site which I believe is where it was originally submitted, the one the Daily Mail used, and one other from a US news site (don't remember which one).
The 2 versions from the Daily Mail and the other news site are wiped clean of all info other than a title and the size/resolution of the photos which is quite a bit less than the Times version.
The meta-data on the Times100 photo has the date I posted above of October 6, 2020. It's also higher in resolution and contains a lot of info about the specific Canon camera used, the settings, and displays Adobe Photoshop(!) as the program application.
Surprisingly there is no copyright or photographer's name.
I tried changing the date in the meta-data on the Times photo saved to my computer, and I was able to do so very easily.
Whether the photo was taken on 10/6 or not, I think we can believe it was originally submitted with that date in the property details since I obtained it directly from Time100.
I use the PhotoShop Elements program myself so I took a closer look at the photo while in that application and lightened/sharpened / blew it up.
The portrait doesn't appear to show signs of being a photoshop composite with the figures joined together from different photos, but there is some weird photoshopping nonetheless particularly in the area under Harry's leg and the second chair arm.
That area is painted over using photoshop tools and it was done too thickly. There must have been something in that area that she wanted to cover over.
There are a lot of ways you can get rid of unwanted bits in a photo or digital illustration and yet the Harkles appear to have used the worst method.
They could have used the clone tool or bandaid to cover over smaller spots or used layers to replace that whole section, etc etc.
It looks like they just sampled a shade of the gray from the B&W version of the photo and used the bucket or paintbrush to thickly cover over that whole section. It's very unprofessional as it not only shows up as a different type of surface (painted rather than photographic) but it also covers part of H's thigh and the wooden arm of the chair! They did the same thing under M's hands but with a lighter shade of gray.
Regarding the outfit MM is wearing...
According to the Daily Mail:
"Meghan is re-wearing an Alexander McQueen Grain de Poudre suit—blazer $1,995 (£1,544) and trousers $795 (£615).
She was first seen in the suit back in February 2018 when she attended the annual Endeavour Fund Awards."
I took a look at photos of the Harkles at the Endeavor 2018 event. I don't think the current pictures are from the same night. Markle wore her hair shorter, straighter, and parted off-center for that event. Harry wears a tie in 2018 and I think MM's blouse may be different.
________________________
UPDATE:
I just saw a video of their Time100 event and it looks like they are dressed the same as the portrait.
I guess the photos were taken the same day they taped this Time event? October 6th?
Does anyone have any idea what shampoo/conditioner Catherine uses? Her hair always looks so bouncy and shiny
Meghan Markle says the 'bad voices' on social media are 'so loud and damaging' - after claiming she quit her accounts for her own self preservation.
This afternoon the Duke and Duchess of Sussex hosted a special edition of TIME100 Talks about the 'state of our digital experience'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8860319/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-say-theyre-embracing-moment-spending-time-son-Archie.html
Also:
The Duke of Cambridge has made a private Zoom call to a Liverpool restaurant owner after he spotted her crying on Channel 4 News about the devastating impact the pandemic has had on her business.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8860123/Prince-William-consoles-distraught-restaurant-owner-private-Zoom-chat.html
This is what H&M could do to make themselves useful but the cause is not trendy enough. They prefer naive teenagers.
https://pagesix.com/2020/10/20/meghan-markles-pinky-ring-is-a-custom-lorraine-schwartz-design/
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020
Blind Item #5
The alliterate one is desperately trying to testify virtually in her upcoming trial. She doesn't want to travel and she doesn't want to have to deal with the crowds of press. If she does have to be present for the trial, she wants a waiver of the 14 day quarantine period so she doesn't have to spend Christmas with the in-laws. The month of January is going to test the limits of the marriage.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/10/blind-item-5_20.html
I can tell that the mental health aspect is something H really cares about. What he is saying actually makes some sense as opposed to M and her word salad, where she is just throwing words around trying to sound knowledgeable.
Now i'm at the part where she is going to talk to the Reddit guy (Serena's husband) and she looks different than the intro video. Hair seems a bit different and her make up too? Is it just me? Or is the filter different for her alone vs her & H?
I've watched it (for my sins) and yes, they set it up.
So you contributed to the staggering number of viewers everybody is laughing at?
I admire your bravery. I can't stand any more of "having relations with yourself", "Grassroots" and "algorithms" spilled from the screen by the woman with crazy eyes.
Megs should make a Halloween duet with Greta. They will frighten the heck out of the whole world together.
I skipped large chunks of it.. but it was painful to watch 'boring' Harry flapping his hands and arms about, rambling and pulling weird faces. Meghan, as usual, interrupted him constantly.
Meg & Greta? That doesn't bear thinking about!!😆
Harry can't really speak to mental health issues, challenges and resolutions, while sitting next to, and choosing to be married to, that person. IMO.
From what little I saw, Markle seemed quite pleased with herself.
And Alexis Ohanian seemed less than warm and somewhat aloof for someone who is supposed to be an old friend. He appeared to want to be all business but I didn't watch the whole thing.
I can't stand how contrived she is with the careful placement of her woke book collection in all her videos. The DM has a funny article about how the books get moved around and staged differently in the various videos.
These people seem to think everyone believes 100% everything they read on FB. That everyone gets their news from FB. Um, no i don't think so.
Harry lecturing about who has the "responsible hands" for information. Is he thinking he and M are the responsible hands it should be in? The one woman he's talking to was arrested by Cyber Libel in the Philipines.
Harry & his question - what is the effect of disinformation - he and M are experts at misinformation. They put it out all the time. All the contradictions etc.
Ugh - time to stop watching this garbage.
My guess is that his fingers were caught 'dangling' awkwardly in the original... so they covered them up.
On that note - Goodnight all.
@Sally
Hook/crook, exactly what I was alluding to 🧟♀️
@Maneki
Megbeth
“By the clicking of her thumbs, something wicked this way comes”
Mere minutes after posting my last comment, I read this.
"My guess is that his fingers were caught 'dangling' awkwardly in the original... so they covered them up."
You might be right about why Harry looks like his hand has been cut off. But Harry was clearly posed. Didn't the photographer notice his "dangling fingers" at the time? And why was the photoshop repair so poorly done? It was not done in a way (IMO) to remove fingers only as the area painted over is so large. (Wouldn't dangling fingers have stopped higher up?) These days I'd think most professional photographers would have better Photoshop skills than what we see here. Maybe somebody at Time "fixed it" instead?
------
Re: Diana's watch
It was a gift from her father. Not Crown property (& I don't think Kate's engagement ring is either myself.) Will chose the watch and Harry the ring. When Harry gave Will the ring for Kate, maybe Will gave Harry the watch. Regardless, unless it was Will's personal property, if M has it, nothing the RF can do about that. Same with any of Diana's other jewelry IMO unless it was a piece that belonged to Will. And if that was the case, how would M have gotten it? Think this story (absconding with Diana's jewelry) is false.
Hold on I have lost the link… BRB
The murky water in the vase of ‘weeds’ behind them
needs changing.
Much like Archie’s nappy...
If this is true, GOOD.
I have read in more than one place that they made demands like NDAs in the past. They have trashed the British press without realizing the American press will not show them the respect they got in the UK. They are bullies.
They have saturated us with ridiculous Zoom calls over the past few weeks with a rather schizophrenic approach to PR. They bleated on in the UK about privacy and access and yet it seems here in the States they'd talk to Chik Fil-A if they were paid.
Of course, if this was supposed to be a live uncut video, not sure how that movement happened.
@Sally 1975: Perhaps Alexis was worried that Meghan might flash him as she reportedly did last year when Meghan showed up to watch Serena at the tennis tournament.
This 'broadcast' was advertised a week in advance, as well as a day in advance through all of Time's social media, Elle, DailyMail, Vanity Fair, ETC ETC.
Total views after posted live? 30,000 which includes anyone who goes to the Time channel, as it is on autoplay, and anyone that goes to check the comments on the video (like me, I showed up to pause the video and see the commentary since that's all the entertainment I feel they are good for, disappointed to see they had their bot army in full force there).
If you go to the Time channel, you will see 30,000 views barely broaches any audience size for the reach of Time, who has a million subscribers. If you go to most watched videos, over 100 are in the millions of views category.
Epic failure.
Yes, Skippy clings to the view which appears to be unique to herself, that hairy is a deep undercover agent working on the behest in on the behalf of the royal family to discredit Markle... The woman he married in front of God and man and his entire family, seeing as only her mother was present from her family, and who has followed her around by the invisible ring around his gonads. How can Harry be working against his own wife when he is the one who introduced this parasite into his family to begin with?
Affection for Diana’s cheeky redheaded youngest dies hard, Because we all swallowed his PR for all those years. The truth is that Harry is as big a tool is Megan, just a lot stupider. I don’t doubt that they are together, somewhere in North America, but I am Increasingly convinced that they are renting Mudslide towers by the hour for these curated zoom videos. They may just as easily be in Soho house Or a guesthouse of some woke celeb pal. But Meg has never met a photograph that she didn’t want to tinker with, even when just allowing a natural picture would be more to her benefit. Even if the photos and the meta-data match up And both halves of the couple were side-by-side on the sofa, I don’t think she could resist the urge to tinker with it to make it just a bit better in her eyes. Narcissist have a compromised aesthetic sense, and Markel never goes natural when she can help it so 2 think she’s mucked around with all these images because that is how she rolls. She wants to see natural and effortless and perfect, But she can never leave anything alone.
Hikari, my opinion is that is Skippy’s grift. If she says, yeah Harry is with her and Archie in California, her readership probably drops. As it is now, half her content is “Other than HAMS.”
She likely is very well aware they are together and this is the real harry and there is no deep fake, but if she admits that, then what would her website’s point be?
My opinion. Skippy is FOS. no one needs to agree with me.
Ironically, nobody in their target audience wears a watch (unless its a health monitor type)--they all use their phones.
"Also heard that the boys chose from Diana's personal jewelry not from items Prince Charles had given her and paid for. This would mean Diana's ring would go back to Charles or have become Crown property so Harry could not have asked for that ring but maybe another. I think the first born would have the option of giving his mother's ring to his wife unless Diana had specified otherwise. But again this is just rumour and not to be relied on."
I've never heard any of that. Could be true but I've never ever heard it. If Diana didn't really own the jewelry Charles gave her, why did she get to keep it after the divorce? It seems to me that's when it would have been returned to the Crown if it ever was going to be.
If Diana didn't own gifts from Charles, does that mean Kate and Sophie don't own jewelry gifted to them by their husbands either? If they do own the items, why? Obviously neither Will nor Edward has money independent of family money.
I could understand items going back that were historical items. But items from a modern jewelry store? Like all Kate's Kiki McDonough earrings really belong to the Crown? Unless they were Middleton or non-royal friends' gifts?
I believe that Skippy is sincere in her beliefs, albeit Blinded by affection for Harry. She gets really unhinged when it is suggested that he wants his current life, or thinks he does. It may have been plausible when they were still part of the royal family, that he had regrets about marrying her and was not as sold on her vision for their lives as she was. However, it defies my belief that’s
Skippy. could continue to defend him After the multiple debacles of the lion king premiere Where he pimped out his wife After blowing off the Marines, debacle of the South African tour and the Tom Bradby interview, fleeing to North America with her, And the petulance exhibited at Sandringham summit. It’s easy to make Markle the bad guy here, but Harry has allowed all of this. And if he is too emotionally compromised to have full autonomy over his decisions, to the point where he really belongs under the full-time care of a psychiatrist, possibly in an institution, well, his family has let him go. So they are complicit as well. Despite being a full grown man in the eyes of the law, he is quite obviously not fully capable of adult decisions, and his own family has left him to his fate And his own obstinacy. Charles has created this mess and it’s going to black his reign For however long that is.
If you go to TIME's youtube channel, you can filter by 'most viewed'. That will bring up all the other videos they have posted that reach huge numbers, and the viewer count with each video.
Hope this helps.
Diana's Panorama interview marked ‘the beginning of the end’ for her place in the Royal family
This was her biggest mistake and the ties she lost then were the ones that could have ultimately saved her
By Camilla Tominey
Part I:
It was the explosive interview in which a doe-eyed Diana, Princess of Wales, appeared at her most dangerous.
Determined to capitalise on Prince Charles’s confession of infidelity, the then 34-year-old hoped her hour-long chat with Martin Bashir on Panorama would finally bring the “War of the Waleses” to an end.
Yet as a Channel 4 documentary is now set to reveal, that interview set in progress a chain of events that eventually led to Diana’s downfall.
Diana: The Truth Behind the Interview, will claim that the mother-of-two consented to her epic sit-down chat while in a fragile state of mind, following an elaborate plot involving forged documents designed to show that her family was being spied on.
Bashir is accused of commissioning two phoney bank statements, which he allegedly showed to Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer, to suggest that a former member of staff was acting as a paid informant.
The BBC insists the princess never saw the documentation, saying she met Bashir before it existed and that it “played no part in her decision to give what was, and still is, one of the most iconic interviews of the last half of the 20th century.” Bashir was unavailable for comment.
What is not in doubt is that the airing of the sensational programme on November 20 1995 had huge repercussions for Diana and her role within the Royal family – and took her down a path she might, had she been able to see the bigger picture, have swerved altogether.
Little wonder, then, that she began to question whether she should have taken part in the programme even before it was broadcast on a windy Monday night to an audience of 23 million.
According to Patrick Jephson, her former private secretary and contributor to the new Channel 4 documentary, she “deeply regretted” the interview.
Diana described Charles’s camp as “the enemy”, said the monarchy was in desperate need of modernisation and discussed her depression and bulimia – as well as claiming that she wanted to be the “queen of people’s hearts”.
Jephson subsequently revealed that she had only told him about the interview a week before the broadcast and was “not at all confident about what she had done.” Soon after, he quit Kensington Palace, having spent eight years as Diana’s right hand man.
The princess’s nearest and dearest still believe Panorama played a part in her heightened sense of paranoia – highlighted during a meeting with her personal lawyer, Lord Mishcon, in which she claimed the Queen would abdicate in April 1996. She also suggested she would be murdered, in a plot masterminded by her estranged husband.
According to veteran royal reporter Phil Dampier, who covered the interview for national newspapers at the time, the interview marked “the beginning of the end” for Diana.
The Queen was horrified by what her daughter-in-law had done and called it a “frightful thing”. She ordered Charles and Diana and the Duke and Duchess of York – who had also separated in the so-called “annus horribilis” of 1992 – to get a “double” divorce.
“Panorama was the watershed moment when the Queen finally decided enough is enough,” says Dampier. “Diana then became increasingly isolated and started to fall out with the people closest to her.
“She fell out with her mother, her brother, Fergie and other close friends – seemingly convinced she was being spied on. Her former butler Paul Burrell described how she made him rip up the floorboards at Kensington Palace looking for bugs.
“Because she died as this iconic young woman, people tend to put her on a pedestal but actually in the run up to the Paris car crash she was an unguided missile.”
An increasingly detached Diana then embarked on a series of relationships with men, including Dodi Fayed. This led to a flaming row with her mother Frances Shand Kydd, who Burrell revealed had accused her daughter of behaving like a “whore”. He told the inquest into the princess’s death that the “dreadful” conversation took place in June 1997 — just two months before Diana’s death. It followed her disastrous decision to get rid of her Scotland Yard bodyguards following her divorce, against the advice of her royal protection officer Ken Wharfe.
“If she hadn’t done that, she might still be here today,” added Dampier. “If it wasn’t for the Panorama interview, who knows what might have happened?”
For reference on what to expect, my husband runs marketing for a smaller 'channel', albeit a more specific subject matter, and they will get hundreds of thousands of views to any new content they post. They have less than 200k subscribers (and they don't make any money from views FYI).
He also used to work at Twitter, FWIW.
So, I come at this with great expectations for the news coverage Meghan and Harry get. The fact they translate so poorly to real viewership or any action will decimate any opportunities they are seeking to attract. It astonishes even him.
Of course, you'll respond by "cut off his financial support" but Charles and the BFR are in a unique situation where the eyes of the world are upon them. Throw in the problems with Diana, and Meghan's talent for blackmail and scheming, and I doubt they could behave much differently than they are.
My response is this: clearly the Palace is hamstrung about Harry. Given what we have seen over the last year, their inclination is NOT to cut him off without a penny. He will probably most likely retain his titles as well, because the queen simply does not have the stomach to cut off a family member that completely. Let’s be honest, Harry is not the full quid. Well before the loss of his mother, I think the family knew that intellectually and emotionally he was never going to be fully self-sustaining or be a credit to the family without constant propping up. He is a hollow man. He will continue to be a prince and get support from his father for as long he lives, which at the rate he is going, I give possibly five years but not as much is 10. Harry is the tragedy of this generation. His family could have intervened in his life more than they have, but I think they were hoping for the best possible outcome, that he would rise to his responsibilities and find a niche he could work within. He got entangled with Markle and I think he is a lost cause. Chronologically and in the eyes of the law, he is an adult man. Realistically and practically, I think he is a mental deficient with the mental age of about 14. I don’t think his life expectancy is long. I am sad about this but resigned.
Thanks for the info! Sounds to me as though the originator of the story (not you!) is just trying to find reasons to claim Diana's personal jewelry wasn't really her property.
Charles paid-- So what? Lots of royal husbands buy jewelry for their wives. Does Camilla not own the jewelry Charles bought her either?
Diana would have been a Queen (if not divorced and dead besides)-- So why give her a "life interest" in the jewelry when divorcing?
"Historic" Maybe. But The Ring was picked from a tray of modern rings sent over by Garrard. No historic jewels were involved.
We know many of Queen Victoria's jewels are in the private sector including some not only paid for, but designed by Prince Albert. For example, her Emerald Tiara, designed by Albert, is owned by the estate of the 3rd Duke of Fife. Pieces of Queen Mary's jewelry have also passed out of Crown control. Those women were actual Queens and one was a Queen Regnant; neither was only a temporary "Queen-in-Waiting."
You asked:
Thanks for the CrownsofBritain link. It shows a solo B&W pic of H (he gets to sit down!) along with the B&W pic of H&M. H's seems to have been taken the same day as the duo one. Is there a solo of M from that day? I can't seem to see where H's solo came from.
I have not seen a solo of M from that day, i mostly see a lot of the B&W one of them both. Maybe that is part of her pulling back after ghe objections to her and Harry's political talk. He gets the limelight all to himself for a day or two.....
You are not alone in your thinking.
I noticed long ago that you seem to think that Harry is not long for this world.
I disagree. I know lots of people who are married to the most horrible narcs and manage to survive for decades. I think Harry is a narc himself, but with fewer narcissistic tendencies than Meghan. He admires her for pushing the boundaries of narcissism and her chutzpah.
He isn't going to leave anytime soon.
Thanks! Please do.
They’re not walking the walk
With their pillow talk
Just tossing more salad, white noises
To cushion the blow
I’ll say this real slow
Megs, your bad choices
Have caused your bad voices
I hope to be proven wrong about Harry, but I wouldn’t say the odds are in his favor. Aligning himself with Markle and breaking from the royal family has made it even easier for him to indulge in a pernicious drug habit which I think he struggles with daily and being in LA, with his means and with an enabling partner who’s interest it is in to keep her malleable and under her control, Besides being a nose candy enthusiast herself, is making it even easier for Harry to destroy himself. He is not a person of self discipline, to put it mildly. I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility, nay, probability, That Harry will succumb to his indulgences. Or, alternatively, being a fragile mental health in the first place, when he is cast off by his Narc, That he will lose the will to live. Despite shitting all over his family, he’s going to need them in the future, and this is why they are giving him a very long leash.
I would like to be wrong. I don’t see a happy future for Harry, Nevertheless I hope he’s around for it, whatever it brings.
I have no idea about the titles. I think since he is the only sibling to William they may be inclined to keep them considering Harry will get divorced and remarry eventually, ridding of Duchess of Sussex from Meghans claws, anyhow. They might be hoping spouse #2 ends up just as Camilla. Gracefully taking up her duties and supporting Harry.
Now from Meghans POV, none of the money from Charles is going to HER bank account. She has no rights to that inheritance.
Apparently she figured this out, and is desperate to use Harry as her marketing puppet to drive business to ‘their entities’ while she remains married to him during Archies younger years. Then she can divorce him with a small settlement she couldn’t get the BRF to give her upon her exit. This is why she was so hung up on her ‘financial independence’ in her Megxit letter. None of Harry’s money would or could go to her at the time. I think she gave Harry the ultimatum right then btw, why would she hang around a do nothing Prince, when she’d get good child support and could try to bag another guy in LA?? Harry hung on for dear life but I do believe she tried to ditch him back then. Why bother with all this? It doesn’t make sense. He forced the issue and called her bluff (remember how toxic they are).
She’ll leave but not until she gets what she feels is her ‘payday’ from the work with Harry. And good luck to her lol.
@lizzie
You asked:
Thanks for the CrownsofBritain link. It shows a solo B&W pic of H (he gets to sit down!) along with the B&W pic of H&M. H's seems to have been taken the same day as the duo one. Is there a solo of M from that day? I can't seem to see where H's solo came from.
I have not seen a solo of M from that day, i mostly see a lot of the B&W one of them both. Maybe that is part of her pulling back after ghe objections to her and Harry's political talk. He gets the limelight all to himself for a day or two.....
................
@KC and Lizzie
There are 3 black and white photos of the Harkles for the Times event. One of the two together and one of each by themselves. The individual portraits are posted on the Times 100 website for the event. They were apparently requested by Time for the layout they did on all the participants. I wrote about this in an earlier post on October 20, 2020 at 10:54 AM...
Sally1975 said...
Here is an update on the Times100 event:
https://time100talksoctober20.splashthat.com/
@Lizzie
This Times link includes two more b&w photos that look like they are from the same shoot as the portrait. The one you mentioned of a seated Harry is posted there as well as another 3/4 view of a laughing Markle.
All the other participants are pictured in black and white photos as well.
I believe Harry already received his inheritance from Diana.
I've read recently that some Megxiteers think Markle is holding out until H receives another inheritance that is supposed to be coming his way.
Does anyone know what this could refer to - could it be money he may inherit from Her Maj or Charles? Or is there something else he hasn't received yet?
@Sally 1975: Perhaps Alexis was worried that Meghan might flash him as she reportedly did last year when Meghan showed up to watch Serena at the tennis tournament.
................
LOL! I wouldn't blame him for being afraid of Maneater Megalo!
Greasylocks and the Three Heirs
Papa Heir did groan
Greasy, get off that throne
It’s mine, and mine alone
Brother Heir cried
Greasy, get out, corpse bride
You’ve cheated, and lied and lied
Baby Heir gave a scream
Greasy, you’re not what you seem
This must be a very bad dream
The moral of this tale
Stale, pale and male
Is it’s right, and it’s fair
Greasy was left with the spare
"I've read recently that some Megxiteers think Markle is holding out until H receives another inheritance that is supposed to be coming his way.
Does anyone know what this could refer to..."
There seems to be a persistent rumor that part of Diana's money to both Will and Harry was delayed until they turned 40. I don't think that's true but lots of people do. But Diana's family/executors did screw around with her last wishes. And I know there was an earlier delay via court action (maybe 25 to 30, I can't remember exactly) but no evidence I know of to suggest another. And I'm pretty sure altering the terms of a Will is a public record-- the earlier change was public. I'm also not sure how M would think an inheritance would become community property even in CA.
-----
Thanks to both @KC & @Sally1975 for answering my earlier question about M's solo Time pic.
I believe that people think MeMe is holding out for HM and PP to pass thus giving Harry a big inheritance, while married to her.
@Hikari
Again I agree. It is rumoured that both HAMS are big time nose candy enthusiasts. With the best available and no one to say "NO", I too believe that something awful will happen. Its only a matter of time.
Royal wills, I believe, are excluded from the rule about wills being public documents, although details may be released.
Nevertheless, I expect her to continue circling like a vulture around the possibility of H benefitting from 3 juicy bequests in the not-too-distant future - HM, Prince Philip and, a little later perhaps, King Charles.
(Btw, another reason my narc ex hung on to me was that he had his eye on my potential inheritance from my parents. He gave himself away very shortly after we were married by being too interested in what their house was worth - whereas they told me they'd cut me out entirely rather than risk him getting a penny of theirs.)
But I’m pretty sure it’s all passed down in trusts anyway. She can’t really touch that either.
You could be right about royal Wills being private. Of course, I'm not sure Diana's Will was technically "royal." Certainly lots of details were released including those about Diana's mother's and sister's trips to court to change the terms of her Will.
I presume any RF inheritance due to Archie
will be tied up till he’s thirty?
By that time the hooded claw will be on husband no 10?
Re: Harry's possibly dangling fingers
The first time I saw the photo, I thought that a husband with a warm, close relationship with his wife would, if posed similarly, put his right hand on her shoulder. In fact, I'm a little surprised the photographer didn't ask him to do that. Surely the photo shoot took several minutes so they could try a few variations on the pose. I joked in the last thread that perhaps his hand would have got in the way of merching the jacket, but perhaps that is the actual reason it was either moved away or edited out!
https://time100talksoctober20.splashthat.com/
The Harkle mug shots are ostensibly by Matt Sayles. Apparently, he's a celebrity snapper from LA - has photographed just about anyone notable.
The double portrait, however, appears mainly without credit or with `Press Agency', so I trawled through the images that came up when I googled
`press.agency+latest+double.portrait+meghan.and.harry'
and found this:
`Fans Think Meghan Markle Wore Princess Diana's Carter Watch in Stunning New Portrait With Harry'
Good Housekeeping
Chloe Foussianes
Good Housekeeping16 October 2020
which was reprinted in a Singapore paper at
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/fans-think-meghan-markle-wore-192000588.html
This has a double image of Di with the Cartier watch and the H$Ms double portrait, credited to Getty Images/Matt Sayles.
So why is the double portrait such a dog's dinner, if Matt Sayles is responsible for it? Has he been handsomely rewarded for risking his reputation or is it just a mistake?
Madame and her Eunuchorn
The stage is set, the cushions plumped
Haz must act, before he’s dumped
What comes next.. a touch of porn
For Megsie and her Eunuchorn
Top billing on her own MegfliXt
“The defrocked prince and his NarcissiXt”
Engagement rings are supposed to be given back to the husband if a marriage breaks up as they are tokens of a `plighted troth' that has been broken.
Wasn't the story that the boys had been allowed to choose one piece of Diana's jewellery each - Wm went for the ring, Harry for the watch? In any case don't grand families often have engagement rings that remain in the male line, being passed down the generations to later fiancees?
Btw, re tiara and Duke of Fife - his ancestor married Louise, Princess Royal, eldest daughter of Bertie, Prince of Wales (later Edw VII), grand daughter of Victoria. I guess the tiara has come down through the family, it's not as if it's been bought.
I also found info on Matt Sayles which I had posted above:
Sally1975 said...
This People article claims the Harkles had the photos taken by Matt Sayles at their new home in California:
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-recreate-engagement-photo-pose/
A quick google of Matt Sayles finds he is based in LA and has been working on an extensive project covering Kamala Harris! More dem connections for ms Markle.
October 20, 2020 at 11:41 AM
It sure is a puzzle why the double portrait is so sloppily photoshopped. And we're not the only ones to point this out - I've seen people mentioning the issues with the picture on other blogs as well as Twitter.
"Greasylocks and the Three Heirs" 🤣. This is one of your best if not the best!
Re By the 'clicking' of her thumbs: see daemonology and the weird sisters 🧙♀️
Their spectacle de merde is so boring now, at least it used to be more entertaining so keep those creative juices flowing.
`Harry and Gretel or Beauty becomes the Beast'?
Little Harry gets lost in the Forest of Life but finds someone who will help him, the Beauty. Alas, the moment he declares his love for her, she transmogrifies into the Wicked Witch and removes his important appendages and turns him into a frog. She then takes him to her nose-candy house, stuffs him into her oven and turns up the heat when he doesn't do as she says.
She also has the capacity to become the Bad Fairy who turns up, usually at Christenings, but here at every other special occasion inappropriately dressed in black.
Whenever the Good Princess is on stage, the Beast emerges in a copycat outfit and the audience have to yell with all their might `She's behind you!!!'
Whenever the Beast claims she is a World Leader/the Most Famous Woman in the World they shout `Oh no, you're not!!!'
Yet when they have to clap to show they believe in Archie, they stay silent and the mirror illusion that has been used to `prove' he exists ceases.
Scooby would have to be the Dame, Markus the Demon King/King Rat - these characters need working on.
There'd have to be a Quest to find Little Harry's lost family jewels and the denouement would consist of the Good Princess revealing herself as the Good Fairy who finally renders the Beast as no more than a puff of smoke, blown away on the wind, along with the Dame and Demon King.
Little Harry is rescued, and given a kind Nanny to look after him, in hope that he doesn't become Idle Jack.
The Good Prince and Good Princess become the Good King and Queen and live happily ever after.
I may be wrong, of course.
@Maneki
Glad you enjoyed “Greasylocks” Metoo!! 😜
"Engagement rings are supposed to be given back to the husband if a marriage breaks up as they are tokens of a `plighted troth' that has been broken."
I have never heard that. I have heard that if the marriage does not take place, the engagement ring is returned because it was given conditional upon the marriage taking place-- not conditional on the marriage lasting, but on it occurring at all. I have also heard some say if the giver of the engagement ring is the one to break off the engagement, the ring doesn't have to be returned. But I've never heard engagement rings (or even wedding rings) are automatically returned in the case of a divorce. In the case of heirloom rings and an amicable split, they may be returned, of course.
I thought the pledging of the troth occurred as part of the wedding vows, not as part of the marriage proposal.
I've never heard anything about what happened to Diana's wedding ring. That might have been returned, I guess.
Yes, WildBoar
Harry could be old Dame Twanky.
We know he loves hanky panky
And Meg surely suits
The role of Pussy in boots
Whilst we all cry “She’s there, and She’s skanky”
Greasylocks and the Three Heirs deserves the Nobel Prize in Literature! Hats off to your creativity and ingenuity!
It sure is a puzzle why the double portrait is so sloppily photoshopped. And we're not the only ones to point this out - I've seen people mentioning the issues with the picture on other blogs as well as Twitter.
I think it's done on purpose. When you are nothing and have nothing of interest to create a buzz around you, what's a girl to do? Any attention is good attention when you are a grifting narc like Markle. The goal is to keep people talking about you.
That's how it's done in Hollywood. So many of today's stars are horrible, disturbed people, yet the public is still interested in them. Bad or good it doesn't matter as long as they keep people talking and reading and clicking about them.
Markle knows this. The conflicting stories - where are they living, are they really together, amateur PhotoShops, William and Kate rivalry, the lawsuits, 'Archie', and on and on. All by design.
She's stirred everyone up online with all these stunts and is now using the evils of social media as her latest platform. Good or bad attention is all the same to a narc. They don't differentiate.
Cheers Enbrethiliel
I enjoyed it 😉
Hahaha WildBoar
Think of it as the “fringe on top” 🤭
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1350298/Prince-Harry-latest-meghan-markle-political-activism-royal-family-news
Prince Harry ‘incredibly unhappy’: Biographer says Duke ‘hooked to a political activist’
EXCLUSIVE: A royal biographer has called Prince Harry "incredibly unhappy" and claims he has been "hooked by a political activist".
By PAUL JEEVES
PUBLISHED: 07:40, Wed, Oct 21, 2020 | UPDATED: 07:40, Wed, Oct 21, 2020
In damning criticism of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Hugo Vickers said Harry was mesmerised by "beguiling" Meghan - whose marriage has catapulted her from a minor actress to Hollywood superstardom. Speaking exclusively to the Daily Express ahead of his appearance at the online Raworths Harrogate Literature Festival, Hugo said: "If you unwind it all you see an ambitious young woman who was a minor star, an actress who could dazzle him [Harry], and that's exactly what she did.
"He, no doubt, thought he had found himself a very exotic and glamorous wife out of the norm. Actresses can be very beguiling. Unfortunately, he finds himself now living in California, away from his family, friends, his work, and the Army, and all the things he had known.
"He looks incredibly unhappy and has been hooked by a political activist as far as I can see."
Hugo said Harry is "spouting all this rubbish which comes from her" and "he may think he believes it, but he doesn't really".
He added: "When Meghan said, 'they are getting at me', as a small boy he felt people were getting at his mother and he was too young to protect her.
"So when this girl says she needed protection he jumped to her side. But she's not a victim at all. Now you have a situation where Netflix has basically bought a member of the Royal Family and that's very unattractive."
And Hugo will be watching the latest series of Netflix's The Crown with "pen poised", saying: "I have written a whole book called The Crown Dissected, in which I forensically take it apart episode by episode. It is beautifully filmed, well-acted, well-written, but it's fundamentally dishonest. People are taken in by it."
My emphasis.
From the article...He added: "When Meghan said, 'they are getting at me', as a small boy he felt people were getting at his mother and he was too young to protect her.
I wonder how much as a young boy how much he really knew about his mother's relationship with the press. I don't recall hearing anything about Harry's worries about his mother until Markle came on the scene.
Her soiree that night
As Dame Megs, whose now white
Places all on her Dick Whatacon
He’ll take all the blame for all that is wrong,
To boo her seems apt, and so right
Engagement rings - I looked at that and the lawyer said that it can actually be kept sometimes if it had been a very long engagement (think years but somehow the marriage never happened. I don't remember if he said anything about "fault" like cheating. If it was a from "the family" the honorable thing was to give it back.
Sounds like another `planted false-memory' to me.
Btw, I also read then that she resented that she was expected to walk 2 paces behind Charles because her outranked her. I daresay MM does what she thinks Diana should have done.
@Nutty
I feel sorry for the teenager at the center of the group shot of Teenage Therapy. Wasn't there a good picture of him also looking up at the photographer
While in the Time100 picture of the group he is looking down so you see mainly the top of his head, in the pic with the sussexes his face is entirely covered. I think this is by deliberate choice for the teen's own reasons.
That may be the case. Thanks.
I think it's done on purpose. When you are nothing and have nothing of interest to create a buzz around you, what's a girl to do? Any attention is good attention when you are a grifting narc like Markle. The goal is to keep people talking about you.
And then she can use it as proof that she's incredibly in demand. Why else would something not at all newsworthy garner so much attention? It's a similar rationalization to what she said of her latest comments on voting: "If you listen to what I actually say, it's not controversial."
I also have to wonder how much of this she really understands. Is she also lying to herself, believing that she doesn't really deserve all that attention or controversy, ergo the fact that she does means she's super in demand?
Or does she know that she's basically doing backflips for attention these days, because she's actually the most boring person in the room? That has got to hurt. But if you can get the same thing the truly interesting people are getting, perhaps you can feel good enough.
Venturing deep into psychology, I think Meghan's fake persona unconsciously reminded him of his mother and so he thought 'she was the one for him'. I wonder if he now sees Meghan for who she really is but believes he must stick with her, all because of buried and unhealed memories of his mother and his parents' marriage?
Diana would approve of the Cambridges' marriage. She would be on the phone to Charles and Camilla saying 'we must do something' about the Sussexes. What everyone forgets is that Diana was frozen in time when she died, and the Diana of today would not be the mother Harry had and does not remember.
I think chaos is her marketing plan. She has no real skills - acting, singing, beauty, nothing that makes her a player in Hollywood. All she has is the royal thing, which hasn't worked out how she had planned.
So she creates all this daily confusion, which leads to discussion and gets her the attention she needs to stay relevant. These Zoom sessions show just how desperate she is.
How far will their manufactured and illusionary image take them, and why are they still being supported by people who should know better?
The woman from Stanford supposedly spoke the most sense. She said something about the tools of critical thinking and strength of character are needed to counter fake information and bullying. The Internet did not invent fake news, malicious gossip or bullying. They have always been a part of human behaviour. Actually, the Internet makes it easier to teach critical thinking, to be exposed to a wide range of information and opinions, and to find coping tools for the stresses of life.
Harry was almost 13 when his Mother died, so why he can’t remember her is beyond me. Maybe he’s blacked her out, or just lying for attention seeking etc., something he’s caught off Megsy.
The bear was spotted at the edge of the Harkles’ property, where its den is.
The California Fish and Wildlife spokesman says it poses a grave danger to people and pets, as it is searching for food and was currently attracted to chicken coops in the area.
According to an article, Ask a Bear, in Backpacker Magazine in 2017, black and brown bears can have an extremely adverse reaction to being looked at in the eye, bristling at direct eye contact! They may take it as serious aggression, or a threatening challenge.
So, with this stunning coincidental news:
* Will Megs make eye contact with it anyway and tame it, proving she is way better than William and Sir David Attenborough?
* Will the bear mistake her chicken legs for lunch?
* Will Megs dub it The Widowmaker, and keep sending Harry out to pick her some berries in the woods?
* Will a plastic doll be found in its den, coinciding with tearful December press releases about Archie going missing while playing soccer by himself in the yard late at night while his parents were busy making sandwiches for the poor, leaving them too distraught to travel,to the UK for court, but okay for a Zoom series on powerful cartoon women and the jewelry they wear?
* Will the bear think her giant wig is one of its cubs, and go to great lengths to retrieve it?
See how dangerous it can be to look a crazed animal in the eyes? Perhaps we have been spared!
You're right, William and Harry did say that:
"William and Harry initially told filmmakers they couldn't remember much about their mother Diana". DT 25 July 2017. This was the headline, the rest is behind a paywall.
Harry, however, said he remembers her laugh: "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, remembers one thing about his mother, the late Princess Diana, very vividly.
He remembers her laugh.
Prince Harry explained in the 2016 documentary, Diana, Our Mother: Her Life and Legacy, whenever he’s asked about memories of Princess Diana, her laugh comes to mind.
“All I can hear is her laugh in my head, and that sort of crazy laugh of where there was just pure happiness shown on her face,” he said in the documentary. https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/memories-princess-diana-prince-harry-mind.html/
Perhaps you could adapt the Golden Goose and its moral to fit our greedy duo.
"The Duke of Sussex called opening the bonnet of a car 'popping the hood' during an appearance yesterday as he swapped English for Americanisms after seven months living in the US."
Harry was talking to Alexis Ohanian during a special edition of TIME100 Talks: 'When driving a car and all the warning lights are going off, there is smoke pouring out of the hood. You are not going to keep on driving.
'You pull over. In the olden days, you'd probably pop the hood up, have a look under it and maybe fix it.'
'But now, every single one of these new cars has a shield over top so you can't fix it - you've got to call experts in.'"
I didn't know Harry was a mechanic. And he's already using Americanisms - no wonder, having MM yapping away in his ear all day.
She is cunning, I'll give her that. When they first started dating in 2016, she realized that her sex-kitten image would deem her an unsuitable partner for a member of the BRF, so she reinvented herself as a humanitarian, staging photo-ops in Ghana and India. Her next move was even more cunning: she pulled out her biracial heritage and dusted it off, and by convincing JH to issue that infamous warning to the press in November 2016, she ensured that any criticism of her would be perceived as being racist.
That last tactic is still working, at least among some people. When an incumbent Republican congressman wrote to the British ambassador in Washington demanding that the Harkles stop interfering in the US election or have their titles stripped, his Democrat rival took to Twitter to complain that he had "singled out" MM as a "woman of color" (he did no such thing).
However, cunning only takes you so far, and MM is slowing learning the limits of what it can do.
Your "Eunichorn" is the wittiest thing I've seen in weeks. Kudos!
I am certain that Megsy is behind any negative commentary regarding Diana's ring and William having "stolen" it from Harry.
She wants that ring. With every fibre of her being.
https://twitter.com/andrewlawrence/status/1318863816218841088
It's being posted by her sugars on Twitter.
Btw, I also read then that she resented that she was expected to walk 2 paces behind Charles because her outranked her. I daresay MM does what she thinks Diana should have done.
That's interesting. And it actually humanizes Meghan a little. Haven't we all experienced wishing we could advise a real-life tragic figure? Or believing we'd do better in their place? Not that "Just push ahead of him then!" would have been good advice for the younger Diana.
If I could say anything to 1980s Diana, it would be to count all her blessings and to stop focusing so much on the things she didn't have. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, think of what you can do for people who have much less than you. She likely wouldn't have listened. She seems to have lacked a lot of emotional resources. But for me, AIDS activist Diana was peak Diana. Meghan's choice would probably be Bashir Diana.
Archwell up and running? In what capacity? I looked for a website and only found this which is very very clever.
https://www.archewellcharity.com/
I think chaos is her marketing plan.
I've read that narcissists can't see anything nice without wanting to throw it into chaos -- whether it's a friend's marriage, their child's birthday party, or even their own wedding. Apart from a marketing strategy, she's just doing what's organic and natural to her.
Agree. They destroy everything. Even the good.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8864185/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-launch-Archewell-Foundation-website.html
It's archewell.com
Joji, Bedford Falls, United States, 22 minutes ago
The mailing address on the website is for Traction Media: "Traction Media is an independent film production, packaging and sales repping company founded in 2002 by the partners of entertainment law firm, Stone, Genow, Smelkinson, Binder & Christopher, LLP." Sure doesn't sound like a nonprofit charity to me.
According to San Francisco news site sfgate.com this week, a deadly black bear weighing up to 39 st has moved back into the area nearest the homes of Oprah’s and the Harkles.
Wait. A real bear or a press-release-for-attention bear?
The George Lucas connection could have been milked for a few weeks if it hadn't been killed after two hours. This might be a quickly improvised Plan B. And a bear wouldn't have publicists to defend it from lies.
Arche as in greek word meaning "source of action" and Well - a plentiful source or supply; a place we go to dig deep.
to sign up you have to provide your email.and allow them to send emails
info@archewell.com (notice .com vs .org) Archewell.inc 2020 all rights reserved. Mailing address in Los Angeles.
i, for one, will NOT be giving them any kind of email address. I don't want to "join" to add to their numbers. Which they will definitely use to inflate the interest in them.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/stone-meyer-genow-smelkinson-&-binder-llp
# of employees = 11-50
I do NOT have a Linked In account but you can "see all 7 employees" if you do ???
http://www.traction-media.com/projects/feature-films
and now i'm off to run some errands