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
To me she's one of the World's Greatest Plagiarists, if not the very Greatest.
She graduated from North Western University in 2003, about the time that plagiarism-detecting programs were being developed, so we can't tell if any of her written work would have been digitally checked or not.
Even so, academic examiners before that should have had a good knowledge of the literature in their field and been able to recognise the work. More so if they knew the student's other written work, would be able to spot cheating by the change in style. If her previous essays had been in her Mills and Boon Romance/Enid Blyton style or her later confused verbiage, any `improvement' towards the style of an educated adult would have been immediately obvious.
It's a great shame those who knew her at this time, or could inform us about assessment at North Western, have yet to comment.
There's an excellent piece about the issue of student plagiarism at
https://wonkhe.com/blogs/a-history-of-plagiarism-and-technology/
If I knew she'd had to do written papers, without knowing the questions before hand or being able to take nothing into the exam hall except proof of ID and something to write with, with prowling invigilators, I'd be more confident that she'd earnt that degree honestly.
Was her mind clearer then? Or did she steal somebody else's work? Pay for essays from commercial essay writers?
Did she rely on sleeping with the examiners? Bribery? Blackmail? Pay someone else to sit the exam for her? Was any dissertation a cut-and-paste job?
Is North Western covering up their embarrassment because she slipped through their net?
Also, they've scored an invite to Sun Valley for next year. It's an ultra-exclusive conference run by Allen and Co, largely run for egos and vanity, in my opinion, a bit of a feel-good vacation for the uberwealthy. The main qualification is to be amongst the echelons of the extremely rich and powerful, and you know you've made it if you get an invite.
....not another suspicious Harkle “sources” release.
The Daily Mail now is running the story too.
* It is simply called Archwell and there is no 'foundation' in the name.
* The copyright notice is for Archewell, Inc 2020.
* In the UK only there is a form of charity called a CIO (charitable incorporated organization). Where is Archewell, Inc registered?
* The illusion that it is a charitable foundation has grown roots, and I am sure we can all think of ways that this can benefit the Sussexes.
* Isn't it unprofessional to go live with a website with only the front page containing very little information? What, in her deluded brain, does she think she can gain from this?
* Joining a mailing list does not give you exclusive information. Every tabloid is having at least one hack sign up, and whatever is shared via email will make it into the tabloids, and quickly be shared on social media sites.
I keep sensing an unraveling with those two. Their word salad makes very little sense, and their thinking is very fuzzy and superficial.
She’s trying to get contact emails to sell products and monitor them on the marketing side.
Since salesforce is a marketing platform, it’s no surprise she is taking this strategy with her site.
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.
...........
This is the registered address of Doria's 'Loving Kindness' care home busines!!
"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," adding that the Prince is "spouting all this rubbish which comes from her" and "he may think he believes it, but he doesn't really".
Have the scales fallen from his eyes?
"Did she rely on sleeping with the examiners? Bribery? Blackmail? Pay someone else to sit the exam for her? Was any dissertation a cut-and-paste job?"
There likely would have been no dissertation/thesis requirement at the undergraduate level in the US. There wouldn't have been a final omnibus comprehensive exam either. (Exams would be by course only, a different approach than that of the UK.) Depending on her sub-area in Theater, I suppose there might have been the equivalent of a "senior recital."
IF there was cheating, IMO one place to look for that would be in the sorority house. Apologies to any Greeks out there but both frats and sororities (and athletic teams) historically have been hot beds of cheating activities. (Paper files, old test files, test-takers in very large course sections, "proofreaders" and so on.) And, of course, there have always been male professors ready to sleep with their female students. I think that was taken more seriously by the 2000's. Still, it does go on even today.
I don't know that M would have had to cheat to graduate. She's bright enough to earn an undergraduate degree and she didn't graduate with honors so her grades weren't through the roof. Currently at Northwestern, Summa cum laude, top 5%, Magna cum laude, next 8%, Cum laude, next 12%. So M wasn't in the top 25% of her graduating class. Nothing wrong with that, but not an extraordinary academic performance either.
Also, they've scored an invite to Sun Valley for next year.
Can I ask where that information came from?
This is the registered address of Doria's 'Loving Kindness' care home busines!!
Well, well... what a coincidence!
a real press release about a real bear, from the state of California department of fish and wildlife!
Oh, dear . . . I was actually hoping Meghan had finally thought of something original and interesting!
Well, I hope everyone in the area stays safe. Yes, even our Megsie! Though I also wouldn't mind if she, casting herself in one last role, made a graceful "exit, pursued by a bear."
It’s too close to overthrow of the monarchy re:deep tech biz interests with the Harkles.
As for Meghan’s new site- I think she’s going to be shocked just how low the viewer numbers will be. It’s going to be less than 8,000 hits today, probably 800 tomorrow; and very few people will hand over their email since there is no CTA.
I wonder how she’s going to keep driving traffic. Will the DM keep reporting on updates on their site?
It's a chance to network and is tax deductible.
Misinformation is a product of A.I, and can have sinister backing via algorithms and bots.
It’s easy to do. It’s not hard. Just as several families own all the land in the world (The Queen being #1), several families own all our information online. Tech is easy to exploit if you know what you are doing.
Meghans problem is NOT that problem though. People having a dissenting opinion on one’s character due to facts that are validated through multiple sources is not a misinformation problem. That is a character problem she has and needs to accept reality.
I think that’s why we are seeing her one way of Information flow re:archewells purpose. It’s not going to be easy for her to make money this way.
It’s being set up as a for-profit business. If she has a foundation which she solicits donations at Sun Valley with all the tech billionaires, it will be used to control the narrative for her work agenda liberal left leaning policies and influence unfluence influence.
I do not see how the RF can remain tied to Meghan and Harry in any way what so ever.
It would be like if Ivanka Trump and Jared Left the White House (aka hunter Biden) and moved to Moscow and started a charity to meddle in Russian elections, and profit off of Russian people. The US government, and Trump would have to go no contact and remove any association with her and her husband.
That’s where we are at now with the Harkles. They seem to think it’s all ok or that they can hide it from
The BRF and skate by.
The reason is, if we fixed disinformation\misinformation then she herself and her businesses would be apart of that fact validation network of trust (basically, blockchain) and she would fail it.
Right now with her site she is trying to creat one way information flow, where her own truth is also not questioned and no one can critically think about the story she is selling.
It’s a bad move and it, ironically, goes against everything she is preaching so far.
Astute observation. In psychology it is called 'the shadow'. We lash out at others for that part of ourselves that we are blind to or ignore. (I am sure there is a much better definition somewhere!) Otherwise, she is a consciously fraudulent grifter and hustler who thinks she can fool enough people to prosper. Marrying such wealth and status on an international scale really tipped a relatively harmless narcissist into reckless overdrive.
Marrying such wealth and status on an international scale really tipped a relatively harmless narcissist into reckless overdrive.
Isn't that the truth!!!
We've got enough anecdotal evidence to be confident that Megsy was a narcissist from early childhood on. Growing up in Hollywood, with a dad in the business, the fact that she gravitated to acting is no stunning surprise, but her current monomania for being The World's Most Famous Person didn't coalesce into this delusional form until after she wormed her way into the British Royals. She's always used men to elevate herself, but back in the Trevor-Cory-Tig days, MM's plan for world domination wasn't that grandiose. She wanted to be a lifestyle influencer on Instagram and live well. She wanted parts in movies. She wanted acceptance into the Soho House set. Being gifted that global Princess Bride wedding and title really knocked her ambitions from 'extravagant but manageable' into the stratosphere of delusion.
Before she met Harry, the only people that had to tolerate her were her family, unfortunate co-stars & crew members, men she was bonking, those who had to serve her in some customer capacity, a few neighbors and the Toronto P.D. Her Narc range of influence was fairly small. With the advent of Just Call Me 'arry, she has become a huge boil on the backside of our collective consciousness. It appears that Narcissism is then not an either/or proposition but more of a sliding scale. Flashback to 5, 6 years ago, when Meg was friendly with Piers Morgan and trying to get a berth on Made in Chelsea. She was willing to ball any guy with a bit of dosh, footballer . .whoever. Hitting Harry must have been like hitting the jackpot and her little Narco mind just exploded with its good fortune. That's what we are seeing now--internal splatter. Seriously, how long can this go on? Why do media outlets keep enabling this? It's not that the NumFarkles are making them boodles of money .. ? Quite the opposite . . these two are the cyber equivalent of box office poison.
You get a whole tray of pastries for these gems today:
* 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? (oh, my sides . . !!!)
* 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!
Indeed. We have been spared.
I just thought of one we can add to the list:
* Will Megs try to browbeat the bear with a torrent of word salad so she can get close enough to instruct it on how to use a selfie stick so she can get photos of this 'wildlife encounter'? Because she and Handbag do care so passionately about the environment. And if this bear is a new and vulnerable young mum, Megalo will be sure to have some advice for it on how to best raise its children.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding.
Critical thinking is required to compare, evaluate and decide how reliable information is. So, instead of shutting down free speech to stop fake information and malicious gossip, encourage and help people to use critical thinking to evaluate information and thus not be affected and persuaded by it. So, don't believe everything you read, but don't take it on yourself to decide what is truth, appropriate, right, good ... for anyone other than yourself. That is basically what the woman from Stanford is saying.
Meghan is most definitely not a liberal. True liberals do not censor, want as little government/corporate control as possible, and are broad minded, so they listen to and accept different opinions and ideas. America is founded on liberalism, but severe inequality and discrimination, among other things, hampers the individual from fully exercising freedom and human rights and so social justice became part of liberal philosophy.
LOL!
Netflix shares dropped 6.65 per cent in the last quarter due to slower rise in new subscriptions. It's their worst performance in years. Welcome to the Markled club.
Yep. I think it is the Cuties' effect (people were repelled by it). In addition, not so many people are watching their terrible programs. The country has (mostly) returned the kids to school, and parents aren't needing another source of cheap entertainment. If Netflix can't come up with some decent original programming PDQ they're going to go under. I can't believe that they are pinning their hopes/monies to some wilted former royals that couldn't even act royal. Whatever the Netflix business model is, I believe it is seriously flawed or heavily influenced by illicit pharmaceuticals.
Poor quality and diminished Time still has much more pulling power than the Harkles. Archewell has zero pulling power, had to be tied in to the Time locomotive...
I think that locomotive is more a donkey pulling a cart.
The woman from Stanford can blab on and on about what she believes is the core philosophy for ‘righting’ disinformation, but that is not how technology in this space works.
You do realize it is a money game, not a feeling/moral/ethical game?
Distracting from what is the real issue with ownership of technology and the ease of bad actors defeats the purpose of talking about this subject.
There is Meghan PR (disinformation and ‘full of it’ media click subjects) there is Meghans biz and there is Meghans agenda.
None of it should be trusted.
There is a massive foundation on Humane Tech and now I think Marc from Salesforce is wanting Harry and Meghan to be the face of it.
They all made money on the way up ‘destroying society through inhumane tech’ and sold at the top, and now they will make money ‘fixing’ the problems they created.
It’s just what any banker does, but on a tech ownership scale.
And we should be aware of it. We shouldn’t be listening to Meghan, who is apart of the problem.
My two cents
They all made money on the way up ‘destroying society through inhumane tech’ and sold at the top, and now they will make money ‘fixing’ the problems they created.
Spot on.
True. Whatever one thinks of the Bible it is chock full of amazingly wise observations. It tells us the world has always been full of people who are trying to sell "darkness for light and the lights for darkness; good for evil and evil for good".
As long as people's moral compass is all right they will always see through the shallow puddles like Harry and Markle.
As for them being faces of some company or other - we don't really care how much money Harkles make, do we? Not in the slightest. And I for instance will never buy anything from those who use hypocrites and liars as a face.
@Jessica, I think your thoughts on the tech industry may be the real key to their current scramble. Great observation.
This sort of strategy (hey maybe we can luck out and she is NOT dealing with Marc and the gang - but from her associations it looks like that’s all she is doing!) can have far reaching effects. That, and I believe we’ve all pegged her as a sociopath, which is exactly the kind of person we do not need leading a movement whatsoever.
Gosh, the Harkles appear to attract all sorts!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12989825/harry-meghan-mountain-lion-loose-near-home/
That thought had crossed my mind. ;-)
Go Bear!!!
I went to the archewellcharity.com site, haha 😂 good shout. The definition of ‘gold’ ‘digger’.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/entertainment/a34429847/prince-william-reaction-palace-announcement-meghan-markle-labor/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm
According to this, William was so unhappy with the handling of the press announcement around the labor and birth of Archie that he refused to see his nephew for eight days. This was excepted from the Robert Lacey book. Which may as well be subtitled: in which we throw the duke of Cambridge under a Piccadilly Circus bus.
What, incredibly busy William waited for over a week to pay a call to Frogmore Cottage to meet a doll? I remain profoundly agnostic that there is a child called Archie who has been met by any of his royal family. Particularly not at Frogmore Cottage, which continues to present as an abandoned semi completed construction site. Going to the official palace MO of “never complain, never explain.”, William cannot hit back at these ridiculous allegations in this book, or defend himself, or say that actually, he’s never met Harry’s kid.
The christening photo is fake. That has been established. Even if we were inclined to believe it was real, in what universe would Lady Jane where is such ridiculous headgear for a formal christening in a COE chapel? The christening photo is as bogus as Megan’s pregnancy. I have had to the teeth with this phantom baby being shoved down our throats. But the royal family has to stay quiet on this matter, because they are complicit. Including the Queen. Watch that interview that Wills and Kate gave when they were ambushed by the press on the “birthday“ when they were on an engagement. There were two people in the hot seat, in possession of knowledge not being released to the public, compelled to express congratulations upon this blessed event, but not wanting to lie out right. They were both so nervous And could not get away from the camera fast enough. William practically dragged his wife away by the arm. Fishy fishy fishy fishy fishy. I don’t care how many Sussex Sycophants print egregious lies. And Robert Lacey has completely tanked his reputation as a legitimate historian. I wonder how much she was paid for this white wash job.
H&M are digging their heels in with this "bullied online" narrative because I suspect they need it for clout with Big Tech. I think this industry is in their crosshairs now and is the next mark. They are so self-absorbed that they see no irony or just don't care that the #Squad on Twitter is utterly vicious and vile.
It is the chaotic lead up to the wedding repeating itself. TM could not be excluded just because she is cold and callous. She needed a reason for him not to be there...and she truly needed him not to be there, because it would be apparent that Harry was duped, it seems. Her father, whatever people may think of him now, paid for her expensive schooling and trips. He doted on her as a child, by her own admission. Harry might have wondered "how was she deprived then?" I think it is no accident that he never met TM. Instead she gets the future King of England to walk her down the aisle, which I believe she relished.
So once again they need a narrative. They are working overtime to rewrite history for those of us who don't remember or never followed the story. But if it is true that the Firm had her number before the marriage (which I suspect they did with the Vanity Fair article and rumors that she was photographing parts of the palace, or even W&K's kids) then it is NO surprise to us and it should be NO surprise to her that they did not routinely defend her in the press. This is some of the best evidence I believe for her personality disorder. When the sociopath sees you mean business, they go nuclear. And I am not sure what she wanted the palace to say, since some of her behavior was truly indefensible: a lavish, expensive baby shower Stateside, leaving her baby on another continent to watch tennis, clearing out seats people had paid for at Wimbledon...etc.
Also I am convinced that the RF suspected something was fishy with her pregnancy, and so they never commented beyond the "delighted at the news" bit. They were not touching that with a ten foot pole.
Northwestern professors would have had access to websites that check papers for plagiarism by the time she was in college. I never used one of those services, but it is pretty routine now. Unfortunately, it is pretty easy to spot plagiarism—papers really well researched, mature analysis and few grammatical errors. I’m not sure how many papers she would have had to produce, especially for theater or communication classes. For those I would expect some degree of performance measures instead of papers.
In any case, Northwestern is an excellent university and draws talented students from all parts of the US. Its theater major is highly rated and a draw for students who want to be in show biz. She did not have a double major in theater and international studies, or whatever she says. I saw her graduation program and i think she was listed as a “Communications” major. I’m not sure what that entails.
Just how much is she paying for these????
The most interesting part of the christening group photo to me is the out-of-proportion bodies of Catherine and Wills. If you moved Catherine over to the sofa, for example, she would be a giant. I am still shocked at what a bad job of Photoshopping the photo was.
I just finished reading Lady Colin Campbell’s book on Diana(2nd one). I was shocked at how similar Diana and MM are: Emotional instability and paranoia, unstable families, hot/cold relationship with the press and behind the scenes calls/favors to the press, bad tempers, self-focus Me Me Me, ghosting people, not being nice to staff, being “my way or the highway.” I’m overly-generalizing. I can see how MM reeled Harry in.
"She did not have a double major in theater and international studies, or whatever she says. I saw her graduation program and i think she was listed as a “Communications” major. I’m not sure what that entails."
Theater is offered in the School of Communication at Northwestern as is Dance. We don't know M's focus within the theater major (acting, musical theater, playwriting, etc) but it's pretty clear that's what she did. At least Northwestern says so. Here is a Northwestern link for her graduation program.
https://archive.org/details/annualcommenceme2003nort
(Also see link below at the bottom)
Along with 350 or so other students M earned the BS in Communication in 2003. No one in the entire spring graduating class of over 4400 was listed as majoring in theater because undergrad theater majors earn the BS in Communication. This link has the degree breakdown and shows no theater either https://www.registrar.northwestern.edu/records/enrollment-graduation-statistics/
Be sure to look at 2002-2003 because that runs July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003.
International Studies at Northwestern is not a stand-alone major. Nobody graduates with a degree in that area. It's an "adjunct major" any Northwestern student can add on to a degree that has a primary major. To me, that's not really a second/double major but apparently Northwestern begs to differ.
To know for sure exactly what M did for her degree work we'd need to see her official transcript. Fat chance of that but in the meantime multiple public Northwestern pubs say she "graduated from Northwestern in 2003 with a double major in theater and international studies" and the graduation program shows what it ought to show if the above is true. Of course, a program isn't the same kind of proof as a transcript.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/
You say that we all have labelled Meghan as a sociopath. That is not true. I do not label her as a sociopath, which is called antisocial personality disorder. Although Meghan displays some behaviours in some situations that are associated with ASPD, a diagnosis as a disorder requires serious, persistent behaviour problems that will typically emerge in childhood.
Meghan did not have a troubled school or university career, and she managed to play a supporting role on a soap for 7 years, plus stayed in a relationship with Trevor for 10 years. This is not the typical history of a sociopath.
I'm not even sure that I am correct in labelling her as having NPD, but she does seem to consistently display the traits of full-blown narcissism, and this seems to have been evident from childhood.
Lots of folk here speculate about the Harkles, and I disagree with and sometimes offer different points of view to some narratives, but we don't need a Meghan controlling/forcing us to follow a certain viewpoint and shutting down the sharing of different opinions and perspectives with statements like that.
Maybe the Sussexes are trying to find out just how much support they have and how much interest there is in them. They no longer have the credentials of followers on social media so how can they monetize popularity if they cannot quantify it?
Just a thought on what they may be doing. But maybe they had a boozy lunch and thought it was a helluva good idea to go live right now!
Well, I am glad this blog here exists to help spread the truth, however uncomfortable it might be for Meg. Seriously, it makes me sick how they seem to think any kind of criticism towards them is 'hate and misinformation'. If you choose to be in the public eye, in all likelihood you'll get thousands if not millions of people voicing their opinion on your every move. It comes with the job. And if you then talk BS and are a hypocrite, these comments won't be positive. Because people can see through you, Meghan.
Personally, I don't see the crisis of hate and misinformation, at least not in the sense that it could be resolved by these two. Do they really think they will be able to drive the agenda of the big news outlets and the powerful people behind them? It ain't going to happen.
Also, in order for people to take on board what you say or even listen to you, you need to either portray integrity or be a deranged individual that has the ability to brainwash a large proportion of population for a prolonged period of time. Meghan has neither (let's not talk about Harry). She can fool some people, but not many, and even the ones that have been fooled...most wake up soon enough. She could not fool the royal family or the British population. How all her nonsense talk about SM and truth could make a difference is beyond me.
She's a commoner, just look at the people who propagate this garbage: she's follows them. Nobody follows her.
She's always always late to the party. And never fashionably late, just late. She's pathetic.
And Harry is even more pathetic, because as much as she is a follower, he is the only one who follows her.
Instead of a prince elevating a d-list LA showbiz commoner to his level, she dragged him into the LA gutter. And he let her.
The mauling of William in the Robert Lacey book as reported by Meg’s media stans continues. According to this, and I shit you not, William was personally responsible for excluding his brother and wife from last year’s Christmas portrait of the four heirs with the Queen. Yep, that set up was totally and completely Williams idea because he wanted to “send his brother a message.”
Right-o. HM has no input whatsoever these days, she just stands where William tells her to stand. These blatant lies are really getting me down. Forget bias in journalism; The stuff in defense of the Numfarkles Which is constantly pouring out is fiction.
I think they realized without any website they're punching above their weight. I'm not sure she's a sociopath, but she might have borderline personality disorder.
I have been waiting for someone to comment on that.
If you look at the narrative that they wanted an updated picture of the one taken four years (see how he's now in long pants whereas before shorts and standing on books) before (HM big celebration year?) it was just the HM and the four heirs. No JH. And no Charlotte either.
need more coffee
The authorities must have been satisfied that her work was legitimate - does this mean, perhaps, that the years since have seen her intellectual capacity deteriorate to the point that we now observe?
The magnitude of her megalomaniac delusion still amazes me. What are her fundamental, if erroneous, beliefs? Was she visited by the Archangel Gabriel bearing news of her wonderfulness from on high? Did she find mysterious texts in the desert, on platinum of course, rather than gold, announcing that she was the Chosen One?
I echoed Hemingway when I used to tell my students that the real function of education was to give them a built-in, shockproof, crap detector. My crap detector is almost worn out from sounding the alarm since she appeared on the scene.
Btw, next week's Radio Times has provided a word which can be applied to Harry - `Quockerwodger'.
This originally was used of stringed wooden marionettes - some sort of onomatopoeia apparently - but according to Susie Dent of the OED it had a secondary meaning by 1859, when a `Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant, and Vulgar Words' as "a pseudo-politician, one whose strings of action are pulled by somebody else"
See https://twitter.com/susie_dent/status/1019149112409718784?lang=en
It would certain apply to Harry, I wonder to what extent it applies to her?
And so what if he was. It was a good idea. So cute to see how George is out of short pants.
And maybe it was a message that needed to be sent anyway. Here are the heirs to the throne. Notice that you're not one of them.
I think H was getting too big for his britches and needed to be taken down a peg.
What makes him think that he's equal to William anyway. And that his wife rates higher than the Queen.
He was included with W/C out of the goodness of W's heart, not because he was an equal to W. H should have been cut off far earlier than he was, IMO.
And so what if he was. It was a good idea. So cute to see how George is out of short pants.
Just to be clear, I was being (contemptuously) facetious there. Prince William may be #2 in line to the throne, but it's not his yet, and even his father, the #1 next King still has to defer to Mummy, which must be a drag beyond belief at nearly 72 years of age. The Queen devised this picture and William stood where she told him to stand, not the other way 'round. Robert Lacey must think that we are all morons.
And maybe it was a message that needed to be sent anyway. Here are the heirs to the throne. Notice that you're not one of them.
I think H was getting too big for his britches and needed to be taken down a peg.
Indeed. But Mr. Lacey is in error if he thinks we are going to swallow that the Queen's grandson is calling the shots as to how this message will be sent and who gets to be in Granny's Christmas photos. That message was the Queen through and through. For William's part, he is able to refuse lunch with Harry, apparently, but that was more in the line of a private message.
Little brother is an ungrateful, traitorous little gobshite.
What makes him think that he's equal to William anyway. And that his wife rates higher than the Queen.
He was included with W/C out of the goodness of W's heart, not because he was an equal to W. H should have been cut off far earlier than he was, IMO.
Indeed. See my 'ungrateful traitorous little gobshite' above.
If Harry had been able to let go of his toxic jealousy of his brother's firstborn privileges and recognized that he really was in the position William might envy--all the privileges and styles of being a Royal Prince without the crushing expectation of the Crown and considerably more freedom to plot his own course and embrace his own projects--if Harry had *truly* (not just for PR spin) cared passionately about wildlife conservation in Africa and helping the people of Africa instead of just bleating about it for photo ops, he could have had that life. He could have become a safari guide and worked with the Botswana elephant charity and Sentabale on a more full-time basis and spent half the the year in Africa, away from the flashing bulbs and pressures of the the Court. Granny would have sent him with her blessing.
Instead, he chose Meghan and chasing after American dollars and American celebrities and vapid Insta-causes. Though he's denied it, he's as big a fame-whore as Meghan, with the aim of eclipsing his brother. That's all Harry wants--same as Meg: universal adulation and a chateau full of money, all without effort. And here are these sycophantic biographers and a for-sale press PR machine that is aiding and abetting this delusional view of themselves the Numfarkles both have. The inmates are running the asylum, it seems. I just can't get over how much they are molly-coddled and fawned over in the press. The legions of negative criticism from actual viewers doesn't faze their PR juggernaut one bit. I'm just dumbfounded at this.
I meant that it didn't matter whose idea it was, it was a good one. Was a message that needed to be sent, and should have been sent earlier.
Although if H was a mature adult (and at age 36 should be) he would have been grateful for being included as much as he was up til now and then graciously stepped back and yielded to George.
I always enjoy your posts. You're far more articulate than me! And spot on with the motives behind the scenes.
if Harry had *truly* (not just for PR spin) cared passionately about wildlife conservation in Africa and helping the people of Africa instead of just bleating about it for photo ops, he could have had that life. He could have become a safari guide and worked with the Botswana elephant charity and Sentabale on a more full-time basis and spent half the the year in Africa, away from the flashing bulbs and pressures of the the Court. Granny would have sent him with her blessing.
Agree with you regarding this.
I have been saying it for years, even before Meg popped up on the scene.
He was given a choice when he married Meg to take a couple of years out like William and Kate. They wanted to "hit the ground running" instead.
I am more than peeved that the Queen etc have allowed this to go on for so long, my respect for them (Royal Family)has hit rock bottom.
"Antisocial Personality Disorder" sounds really bad, and something the layperson associates with violent serial killers. Clinically, it is said the labels sociopath and psychopath are used interchangeably, but it seems to me that there is a continuum of antisocial behaviors. Obviously not everyone with a personality disorder is going to go about killing people with axes. Meg is not psychotic nor insane, though we do like to bandy about insanity as an excuse for her often-inexplicable choices. I think she knows right from wrong, but she does not care. She exhibits both a lack of conscience or compassion to others despite her faux platform of 'humanitarianism'. She appears to struggle with appropriate emotional responses. She meets most of the markers for sociopathy .. and so do a high percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs. A degree of ruthlessness and single-minded focus on a goal (ie, making money) is pretty effective in business. Just not in personal relationships. Meg was somewhat successful in her long-term romantic partnerships (including with Harry) because she was playing a role. If we spoke to Trevor or Cory, I'm sure they would have some not-so-choice memories to share about the hurt they experienced when Meg dropped her mask with them and revealed her true self.
HG Tudor calls her a 'Mid-Range Narcissist', which means that she's not as highly-evolved at manipulating people without giving herself away as a truly top Range Narc would be.
It'd be interesting to get a gander at her school records, but it is doubtful in the extreme that Meg has ever gotten any official diagnosis of a personality disorder. But based on the 11-year-old girl who appeared on the Nickelodeon video, she has been antisocial since childhood. Wonder if any of the family pets were ever mysteriously hurt? ASDs like to exert control over weaker beings, and for a child, the only ones weaker around the house are younger siblings and animals.
********************** (from Healthline.com)
A sociopath is a term used to describe someone who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). People with ASPD can’t understand others’ feelings. They’ll often break rules or make impulsive decisions without feeling guilty for the harm they cause.
People with ASPD may also use “mind games” to control friends, family members, co-workers, and even strangers. They may also be perceived as charismatic or charming.
To receive a diagnosis of ASPD, someone must be older than 18. Their behaviors must show a pattern of at least three of the following seven traits:
*Doesn’t respect social norms or laws. They consistently break laws or overstep social boundaries. (check)
*Lies, deceives others, uses false identities or nicknames, and uses others for personal gain. (check)
*Doesn’t make any long-term plans. They also often behave without thinking of consequences.
Shows aggressive or aggravated behavior. They consistently get into fights or physically harm others. (check)
*Doesn’t follow up on personal or professional responsibilities. This can include repeatedly being late to work or not paying bills on time. (Has Meg ever paid her own bills, fully? She stuck out her uni degree and Suits, but has a pattern of quitting/not showing up for other commitments. She never finished her internship with the Argentinean embassy. She bailed on a number of jobs obtained for her by Gina Kruger-Cowne: the One World Summit, principally. Bailed on Reitmans halfway through her modeling contract. Bailed on her marriage. Bailed on Cory. Has already been successfully prosecuted for tax evasion by the IRS. I can hear them gleefully sharpening their pencils for a second round.) And, oh yeah--Bailed on her royal duties after one year, give or take, of slapdash effort.--big fat check.)
*Doesn’t feel guilt or remorse for having harmed or mistreated others. (check)
Other possible symptoms of ASPD can include:
*being “cold” by not showing emotions or investment in the lives of others (check)
*using humor, intelligence, or charisma to manipulate others (well, we 'try'--check)
*having a sense of superiority and strong, unwavering opinions (Hello, Tungsten! Check)
*not learning from mistakes (obviously--check)
*not being able to keep positive friendships and relationships (check)
*attempting to control others by intimidating or threatening them (check!!)
*getting into frequent legal trouble or performing criminal acts (MM hasn't been arrested but she skates close to the wind and has a lot of agencies covering for her--check)
*taking risks at the expense of themselves or others (mostly Harry, but check.)
*threatening suicide without ever acting on these threats (MM thinks too highly of herself to threaten suicide but Harry certainly checks this box. Multiple threats. That's why we are here today, probably. In addition to the R card, he threatened harm to himself over not getting his way with the wedding. MM just makes other people want to die to get away from her .. a gift unique to the sociopath.)
*becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol, or other substances (Harry ticks the box here, too. I think Meg is an enthusiast, but one who can regulate her usage more than H can--check.)
With regards to Lacey, I am reminded of Christopher Hitchens apothegm: that which is asserted without evidence maty be equally summarily dismissed.
Bipolarity would explain the wide swings between looking pulled together and relatively calm one day and the next day, an unkempt and wild-eyed harridan. (Drugs would also). Whatever is driving her mentally, she's not stable and was the worst possible partner for Harry, who needs a caretaker/nurturer. Meg is completely out for herself, but insofar as she can let Harry have the brunt of the blame when her plans go sideways, she will. Insecurity and overweening ego are the twin bedfellows of the narcissist, but she seems to have these wild mood swings too. If this couple were more stable, their press coverage wouldn't be so schizophrenic, but I don't think from day to day they know what their message is. It's completely exhausting for normal minds to follow what passes for their thinking.
Notice that their cause-du-jour of 'Humane Tech' is going to be the focus of Archewell, the 'foundation' that for a year now has only had a name but no reason for existing. They didn't know what they stand for, but by god, they got that domain registered.
What about Travalyst, Harry?
If you ask me, Archewell is going to go the same way in a few months' time when the Narkles lose interest in it. They really should just set up a GoFundMe page for 'Archie'. It would be ever so much more honest. 'Please send money for Archie so that we can begin the process of turning him into a real boy.' The sugars would donate.
I remember reading that she abruptly told Suits producers she was leaving. No idea if it is true but it fits the pattern of bailing once something better comes along.
Definitely no respect for boundaries. Serena's coach made public remarks insinuating that MM should not come to the match, and she did anyway.
Repeated digs at the HMTQ and DoC in the press suggest wild defiance and no regard for feelings or boundaries. Posting on IG during Camilla's speech after being specifically asked not to. Interviewing Alexis for Time after the pictures of her allegedly flirting with him were everywhere. I'm surprised he agreed to it.
https://www.humanetech.com/
What I read about her departure from the show was that Meg's co-star/love interest Patrick J. Adams announced that he was leaving, and after he'd made his decision, Meg's character, Rachel was phased out. She was an appendage to his character, and was never a fan favorite or anything other than a supporting player. I gritted through 20 minutes of one episode on Hulu, just to get a gander at her 'acting'. I believe she was fourth-billed. So, not the 'star' of Suits, however she may have promoted that to Harry and others. She was a small, and not-popular part of an ensemble. So I envision that the producers told Megsie her contract was ending after seven years and thanks for the memories of all the on-set meltdowns and times she wouldn't come out of her trailer.
Meg likes to frame negative decisions that do not go her way as all completely her own self-empowered idea and does this over and over again. No invitation to Balmoral? "She and Harry will be enjoying a lovely private Christmas as a family, because, you know, Archie is too young to travel." So I bet she's propagated the idea that 'she' announced that she was leaving the show. It must have crisped her bacon good that after seven years' worth of continually harassing the writers and the director for more scenes or more 'empowered' scenes for her minor paralegal character that she was released with a pat on her weave because the co-lead was moving on and there was zero interest in 'Rachel' without him.
I've always wondered whether the character of Rachel Zane was already named when Meg was cast, or if they chose the name after she got the part. Because it seems inevitable that that Meg would view the fortunes of 'Rachel' the character as echoing hers and she'd be enraged.
She must have seen the writing on the wall because for some time before her contract ended with Suits she was trying (without success) to get cast in British reality TV. Had she been able to score a berth on Made in Chelsea or hooked up with a celebrity footballer for deluxe support, she would have told Suits where to shove it. She didn't get either of these things so she had to finish out her contracted season. When she moved to London for Haz she was already unemployed, so so much for 'giving up my career' for love.
What I find hysterical is that apparently Hazza was so overwhelmed with excitement to have his American booty call permanently installing herself in his life that he didn't even send a car to pick her up and she had to get her own taxi.
This relationship has been bogus from the off.
Yankee Wally mentioned this on her twitter feed.
So does saying she was going to be hawking cheap jewellery on QVC aren't far off the mark.
https://twitter.com/yankeewally2/status/1319310569879556096
"Grammaw! I want popcorn. Grammaw, I want butter, I don't like popcorn!" "I am not going to give you a stick of butter for a snack!" "But I LIKE it!" "NO."
"Grammaw, what's on your elbow?" "I fell and scraped it on the concrete." "You hafta be careful, Grammaw, or daddy will take you to the doctor place and get it sewed up!" "Honey, it's just a scrape. It's okay." "Daddy will take you and you will CRY." (Is this about the butter? I think it IS.)
I am seeing nothing overtly salacious. Well, nothing that hasn't already made the rounds. Plenty implied gross stuff but all names redacted. Andrew can breathe easy 🤷♀️
What I find hysterical is that apparently Hazza was so overwhelmed with excitement to have his American booty call permanently installing herself in his life that he didn't even send a car to pick her up and she had to get her own taxi.
This relationship has been bogus from the off.
For awhile I was wondering whether he's gay or bi, she knew about it through her contacts at Soho, and she proposed the cover relationship. *shrugs in puzzlement* I believe that the RF would prefer him to have a nice, polite male partner rather than her.
http://effervescencegroup.com/introducing-royal-home-style/
WELCOME!
We are a media company specializing in content curation, brand partnerships and blogging strategy. We share upscale lifestyle inspiration with our loyal reader-base, the international press, and with brands looking to expand.
Currently live websites include (but are not limited to):
Meghan’s Mirror
What Would Kate Do?
Dress Like a Duke
The Refined Side
Kate’s Royal Closet
Royal Home Style
A COLORING BOOK INCLUDING:
You’ve been called on to be a royal stylist – all you need are some art supplies!
Featuring 22 pages of exclusive royal ladies in a new colouring book designed for the fashion or royal enthusiast who wants to add a little colour to their life… royal style.
This book includes royals from around the world, including, in order of appearance:
Princess Anne, United Kingdom
Princess Beatrice, United Kingdom
Queen Letizia, Spain
Duchess Meghan, United Kingdom
Queen Maxima, the Netherlands
Crown Princess Mary, Denmark
Princess Marie, Denmark
Queen Margrethe, Denmark
Princess Madeleine, Sweden
Duchess Camilla, UK
Princess Charlene, Monaco
Princess Diana, UK
Princess Eugenie, UK
Duchess Catherine, UK
Upon purchase, you will receive a PDF of the ‘Colouring the Crown’ Book, ready to print or be put onto your favourite electronic book reader for perusal or digital colouring.
Due to the nature of the item, all sales are final.
Better give up the butter🤣
I am seeing nothing overtly salacious. Well, nothing that hasn't already made the rounds. Plenty implied gross stuff but all names redacted. Andrew can breathe easy 🤷♀️
I was curious because I remember Andrew saying that she could exonerate him. I was impressed, because I can't remember what happened at specific dates and times last week, let alone several years ago. Then I started thinking that she probably had secret notebooks recording the who, what, when, where, and how (ewww) of pimping in case she needed some protection, but then again, those are things that you don't want to record that people can find to prosecute. Surely she had to know that some of the victims were going to show up again. I think Epstein's death had more to do with what he knows than what he did, and she better spill everything ASAP.
Haz has cut quite a swathe through the lassies over the years; a lot of photos of him and Chelsy being cozy. The infamous Vegas 8naked pool party and rumors of a girl in every port as it were. Some of Haz’s “relationships” were just one night long. I pretty much think this is how it started with MM. Markus had a roster of local talent he called up whenever he had a solo male guest in his hotel that requested companionship during his stay. But it has crossed my mind that Markus has collected video footage of certain party activities on the premises that were illegal or contradictory to Harry’s image as a playboy with women. He could be bi. A lot of that Soho House crowd consists of gay men. If H is one that would be a further argument for Fauxchie being via surrogate if he exists. And, possibly why long term relationships with Chelsy and Cressida never went anywhere. Fishbowl palace life would be a convenient cover as an excuse.
Shortly after Meg and Harry got married, William went on the record as saying, sort of out of the blue that he would fully love and support any of his children if they were gay. I always kind of wondered if that were a coded message to Harry.
Meghan's Mirror now selling Meghan candles.
Wonder if they smell like Megsie's vijayjay?
I can't even.
Inside Duchess Meghan’s Launch Of Archewell And Why She’s Speaking Out Amid 'Distorted' Political Criticisms
Meghan and Harry's work is focused on racial injustice, gender equality, education access, and more, and the couple is careful not to be controversial.
https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a34441814/meghan-markle-archewell-work-political-comments-feature/
I wonder how these sugary articles actually get written?
Do the Harkles PR people put together the info they want out there and then submit it to willing authors? The types of articles always seem to try to excuse or explain whatever current questions come up over the couple's behavior.
The royals had their first gay marriage in 2018. In between Meghan & Harrys wedding and Eugenie & Jacks nuptials. I too think they would preferred a gay/bisexual Harry to a destructive Meghan.
most of the report is her denying any memory or anything or everything and calling Virginia a liar.
IMO anything MM "has" on the RF relates to Andrew and his "shenanigans" I also do not doubt she has Harry in some less than flatering scenes but my money is on Andrew. That, to me, would be far more damaging to The Crown than Harry getting his gay on.
Also too kind of explains why H&M never much mention PA or otherwise "shine a light" on his shit, as surely they could have used him to deflect . Just my opinion,
Stenchmarkles.Con
The launching of Archewell
Gives off a very bad smell
Based on deceit
Top notes, sickly sweet
It reeks of yet more merde to sell
The stenchmark of hypocrisy
This White Paper ( 'Online Harms') therefore puts forward ambitious plans for a new system of accountability and oversight for tech companies, moving far beyond self-regulation. A new regulatory framework for online safety will make clear companies’ responsibilities to keep UK users, particularly children, safer online with the most robust action to counter illegal content and activity.
This will be overseen by an independent regulator which will set clear safety standards, backed up by reporting requirements and effective enforcement powers.
Although other countries have introduced regulation to address specific types of harm, this is the first attempt globally to address a comprehensive spectrum of online harms in a single and coherent way. (end quote)
The above is from the UK Government site. In the same way that Markle claimed not to know there was a Black History Month in the UK ( a claim later proved to be a lie) it appears she also has no idea about the very thorough consultation and pre-legislative process for the Online Harms Bill which is set to become law in the next 2 years (give or take due to covid)
The UK will become the world leader in 'humane tech' and it will not be left up to the tech giants to self-regulate and fix the harms they have caused.
She could have stayed and become patron of one of the very many UK ngo's and charities that are part of this radical overhaul of tech and who are lobbying/researching and working with the Government to ensure the legislation will be the best the world has seen. ( I declare a vested interest in this)
They are just so so stupid.
As for her education; if you go back to her earliest Wikipedia entries in around 2009 there is this very ambiguous statement following the description of her time at Northwestern: Meghan would eventually go back to Northwestern for her Master's in International Diplomacy.
This is later changed to 'Meghan would LIKE to eventually...etc
The inference is clear. The earlier entry was worded in such a way as to not tell a lie as such but make it seem she had got her Master's in International Diplomacy.
There is probably a wealth of information on her Wiki in terms of altered facts. Her humanitarian profile certainly only appeared a year or so before she met Harry.
There is a bigger issue here. Wikipedia is meant to be the 'best' of the internet; the spirit of democratised shared knowledge, unencumbered by commercial pressures or bias.
It's a sad fact though that PR firms use Wiki as a profile page for their clients and those who edit the site are having to constantly monitor it for such activity and delete where appropriate. The additions and deletions on Markles page run into the hundreds.
She's up to her neck in the whole 'fake' news, fake persona, post-truth, neoliberal world, driven by who's got the most aggressive PR and the most money to bury the bodies. Her whole persona is one long lesson in twenty first century hype.
She is complicit in perpetuating the online harms of fakery, manipulation and loss of integrity. She's not sick, the world that produced her is sick. She's just a cipher, a symbol of forces much bigger than herself.
It is supposedly an American site so it is all the more surprising.
Some of her patrons were also mentioned frequently - Oprah, Ellen, George Clooney.
I don't think one can turn that around.
@Hikari said:
Meghan's Mirror now selling Meghan candles.
Wonder if they smell like Megsie's vijayjay?
I can't even.
________________________________
If the candle scent is called: "Musty Yacht"
"If the candle scent is called: "Musty Yacht""
Hey now! Too close for comfort. How about "Moldy Yacht"??
If I could do one of those laughing/crying little faces I would put one here!!
@WBBM
I think your idea of a Markle panto is brilliant, with some Magatha limericks thrown in!
Just went to the Murky Meg site and she has a link to the actual scent of the candle (this is unbelievably funny):
...features an earthy salted scent with top notes of fig, coconut and salted sea air blended with light floral base notes...!
Refer a link to these on LSA - Aussie Ladettes go to finishing scool in Britain. It is fantastic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLwUQbsBIfvulDPsMrOmsPjP3wN8q7mV5q&time_continue=936&v=8l5_thwwKBM&feature=emb_logo
Enjoy !!!
That many fragrances would make me sneeze
Enjoying everyone’s recent posts and depth.
If you go to the IRS tax page you can look up Meghans case from 2009. Oh, sorry, Rachel’s lol.
Murphy- I am not for censorship, but the things my small children come across in Roblox (pedos) fortnight (grifters, con artists) dischord, Reddit, and YouTube (anime porn) is overwhelming for me. I did not know the disgusting ways of the internet. I hope they solve that issue, but I’m at a loss as to ‘how’. I suppose more investment in oversight and an online ‘police force’, where behavior online is also ruled by the law of the land?? I have thought through this problem, so much.
It’s also why I really despise Meghan’s quick grab for cash at Sun Valley. Oooooh so you’re in tech now....riiiiiight. She made her ‘case’ about Hate Speech. That is not the real issue, that is the personal problem she and Harry created for themselves.
Unearthly, Unsavoury
Moi, Moi by Madame Markle
They’re now shining a light
Flogging more useless shite
HRH flaming candles
The ‘nose’ and her wick
With their scent of sea sick
Will undoubtedly lead to more scandals
@Crumpet@Musty
“Whiff of waves” “Ducking and Diving” 😉
@Jdubya
“Ladettes” ah, I love Rosemary Shrager
I might re-watch!!
I remember watching the series of the 'ladettes' (UK ones included) going to finishing school. These girls often changed completely, I think some were just lost and needed direction.
I too love Rosemary Schrader.
+++++
@Fifi LaRue
Not sure Harry is gay, this is pure conjecture (in my opinion). Charles was rumoured for years to be gay. I take these rumours with a large pinch of salt.
The Swelling Plaice
Megsie yelled, ship ahoy
Come on gels, grab a buoy
Trawling on the ‘old’ poop deck
Hoping for someone to feck
As Megsie tied them up in knots
The call came out, beware of Thots
The answer, my friends, is blowin’
The mistress of cable
Was too willing, and able
Much to Prince Philips chagrin
You don’t marry an actress
Her skills on the mattress
Would lead to much blowing, shagging..
Message to Megsie
For goodness sake
Please, take a long break
Each day we are pounded
With tales, much unfounded
Of the wisdom, and the wonders of you
We can’t take anymore
Of your slights, sent off shore
Shut your mouth, and we’ll do the same too!
Naughty naughty but very funny as always.
........
In the DM
"Prince Philip has 'walked away' from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after the 'great shock' of Megxit and his grandson's 'alien behaviour', a royal expert has claimed."
Frankly, who could blame him?
"It comes weeks after Ingrid said Prince Philip is 'very, very disappointed' by Meghan Markle's failure to 'support the monarchy' and her husband." Let's hope the disappointment is shown at the review.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8870221/Former-Sex-Pistol-John-Lydon-tells-devotion-wife-Nora-Forster.html
For the Lydons, home this year has been California, which is now also home to Harry and Meghan. Their split from royal duties has recently seen them controversially encourage Americans to vote, appear in assorted video chats and, in Meghan’s case, make a surprise appearance on the America’s Got Talent finale.
‘I don’t get it at all,’ says John. ‘If they don’t want to be part of that [royal] institution, then why don’t they completely give up their titles and get a council flat and a job? Making guest appearances on trashy TV shows and expounding their virtuous opinions — there’s nothing virtuous in it at all. They’ve decided not to do something, so why don’t they move on and leave it alone?
‘It’s a shame about Harry. He didn’t have to go that way. He had the promise of being quite a hardy fella, but I’ve seen a few interviews and he seems really depressed. Not at all happy in whatever it is he’s got himself into.’
Does he think that Harry perhaps didn’t marry the right woman? ‘I don’t think she’s the right person for anyone. She seems like a narcissist to me and they’re very destructive.’
Moreover, he says, the couple ‘aren’t considering the hurt and damage they’re doing to his family just as regular people, without the throne bit.’ The royals, he adds with a twinkle, ‘are human beings after all’.
Can it be true? Has Johnny Rotten, who once sang ‘God save the queen/The fascist regime’, softened on Her Maj? It appears he has, though not without certain reservations.
A few years ago there was ‘a hilarious situation’ where the idea was mooted that John should be knighted by the Queen. He grins. ‘Do you think I’m going to kneel to her,’ he says, ‘when she’s got a sword in her hand?’
"Prince Philip has 'walked away' from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after the 'great shock' of Megxit and his grandson's 'alien behaviour', a royal expert has claimed."
Frankly, who could blame him?
"It comes weeks after Ingrid said Prince Philip is 'very, very disappointed' by Meghan Markle's failure to 'support the monarchy' and her husband." Let's hope the disappointment is shown at the review.
Yes, indeed, that would indicate that Harry has gotten on the royals' last nerve and they are completely over him.
That nasty old sod Robert Lacey
Has been paid by Megflix, I see
I’m not putting him down
But his work on the crown
Makes you realise he’s all about hearsay
We can see that she regarded being royal as a way of securing cash and attention but what else apart from that, assuming that she was simply using Harry without any emotional investment in their relationship.
Did she intend to pave the way to the UK becoming a republic?
Or was she being medieval about it - usurping the heirs who come before Harry and being Queen herself?
Or was it simply to get use it as a stepping stone towards the Presidency?
How do any of the hypotheses fit where they are now?
I believe if she had been allowed to merch, set up Sussex Royal, and stay in the Firm, they would have. They left, in my opinion, because they were told no merching. She did not even stay for negotiations. That shows you what a coward she is and how she didn't even care what the terms are.
She is back in the States, probably living off of PCs generosity and doing whatever she wants, shamelessly using the titles. She has a following of misguided Millennials who laugh and say "stay mad" whenever people point out that she is a middle aged woman who abandoned her duties, disrespected both the UK and Canada but expects to keep a title from the family she scorns.
I'm still ruminating on what she really meant by `modernising ' the Monarchy.
I think we can conclude that she meant "It's time England had an American woke Queen!'
I would bet a million dollars that Meg knows nothing about English history or of the United Kingdom whatsoever. She's so whip-smart, all the arcane rules of primogeniture and precedence just sailed over her weave. All she sees is Catherine on the top tier and she wanted to knock her off. Is still trying, despite being on a different continent.
Meg is all for 'equality' so long as she still gets to lord it over everyone else. She believes herself to be superior to the Queen of England in every way possible. 'Cause she' young, gorgeous, not boring and certainly doesn't go in for that stiff upper lip stuff that is so damaging. (Even though it won countless wars and prevailed over austerity, the influenza and Covid.) I go back and forth as to whether Mugsy meets the markers for psychosis. While her thinking and presentation isn't quite that disorganized, her grandiose self-concept is off the charts and other folks who exhibit that grandiosity to the degree she does are usually inpatients in a psychiatric facility. Due to Covid, the Internet has taken over people's lives to an even greater degree, and Meggy's contending fo the crown of Queen of the Zoom chat, if she can't have an actual crown. This is only feeding her monstrous ego more. Because if the Numfarkles had landed in Hollywood without this pandemic going on and show business carrying on as usual, do we think that Haz and Mess would have secured the million-dollar speaking gigs and red carpet premieres they were obviously counting on?
Bob Iger put the word out on the street that Meghan is 'too controversial' to work with. And, well, her performance in the Elephant documentary is out there for all to listen to for themselves. Inviting her (and Halfwit) to participate in these virtual events represents a very insignificant investment for the organizers. In some cases, Meg paid to be included. The Harkles provide their own tech (such as it is) and location (wherever that may be), styling (erm) and (word salad) content. Most of these appearances are as part of a larger slate of celeb speakers, all of whom are the actual draw, not her. She is in every way, an add-on. But that's very simple to do in this medium. If she were harassing organizers of live ticketed events for inclusion and top billing, I don't think we'd be seeing her face everywhere.
In America, all little children are told in school that they can aspire to be the President one day, if they are willing to work hard. And this is constitutionally true. All American-born citizens over 35 years of age who are not convicted felons are eligible to serve in that office. "Eligible" and "Qualified" are not synonymous, and for the most part, current occupant excepted, all aspirants to the Oval Office have decades of public service behind them in increasing posts of responsibility. Local city council to state representative to Member of Congress or state governor or judge. Most high-level politicos started out as lawyers. Some have been military heroes, like Ike, who commanded the Allied forces in WW2. He was the latter-day Washington. We've got our political dynasties: the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Bushes. I guess we could say the Adamses, going way back--the first father-son duo to serve as Presidents separately.
Meg's resume for President:
*B.S. in Communications (I have a Communication Arts degree myself. It's not the heftiest degree going. Political science and law are the normal tracks for aspiring politicians. Not a requirement--Ben Carson was a doctor--but a bachelors degree in theatre just would not be considered adequate education for that strata.)
*Failed to complete a 6-week internship at the embassy in Buenos Aires, choosing instead to get sexually involved with a local dignitary (who was married)
*Failed the Foreign Service exam
*Opened a suitcase in her negligee and F-me heels for half a season on a game show
*7 seasons as the office sl*t on basic cable & various photo shoots and burger-grilling commercials
*Documented enthusiasm for controlled substances. Does passing out bags of weed as wedding favors constitute 'dealing'?
*Does she think the 'yachting' allegations are going to go away? In 1988, Gary Hart, U.S. Senator and favored Democratic nominee for President saw his campaign crash and burn after a photo of him and his secretary, Donna Rice on a yacht surfaced. He admitted to having an extramarital affair with her. As with Bill Clinton 10 years later, American culture is unforgiving, brutally so, toward sexual indiscretions. It's our Puritan beginnings. Mugsy's past as a yacht girl would be rigorously scrutinized.
Meg is just saying she wants to become political in order to get attention from all the liberal Wokie celebs around her in California. She couldn't handle the criticism or the hard work that comes along with political campaigning. And any other aspiring celebrity politician would think twice about associating with her. The Harkles are box office poison on every level. Time and Netflix will found out what they should have known before getting into bed with these two.
Can it be true? Has Johnny Rotten, who once sang ‘God save the queen/The fascist regime’, softened on Her Maj? It appears he has, though not without certain reservations.
A few years ago there was ‘a hilarious situation’ where the idea was mooted that John should be knighted by the Queen. He grins. ‘Do you think I’m going to kneel to her,’ he says, ‘when she’s got a sword in her hand?’
I love this guy. Prince Charles, despite his toff exterior, has always harbored secret anarchist leanings, I think. Mild ones, but for a Royal, quite daring. He turned 21 in 1969, so he's Woodstock Generation . . or would have been, had he not been born Crown heir to the United Kingdom. The clashes between Charles and his father are that of the Boomer generation clashing with the Greatest Gen. The Sex Pistols were charting during Charles's playboy prince period in the 1970s. I bet he secretly had a couple of those records, even if he would have denounced attacks on his Mummy as a 'fascist regime' publicly. King Charles might be up for a Sir Knight Lydon. William is too young to have appreciated the Sex Pistols in their time, but he might do it, too. He gave Sir Rod Stewart his knighthood, and if a Scot can be knighted, why not Johnny Rotten?
I believe if she had been allowed to merch, set up Sussex Royal, and stay in the Firm, they would have. They left, in my opinion, because they were told no merching. She did not even stay for negotiations. That shows you what a coward she is and how she didn't even care what the terms are.
The merching was definitely part of it . . .she had been hammering away at this idea of Sussex Royal almost immediately after the wedding. It was January 2019, I think, when the Palace issued the public statement regarding their desire to set up a separate 'Sussex Court' and the firm quashing of that idea. But Mugsy is determined to have her way regardless, in the face of 'no', a hundred times no, and she would have kept pushing and pushing, probably convinced that she could wear them down to her way in the end.
The abrupt fleeing to Canada within weeks of the conclusion of the South African tour tells me that something else happened to light the fuse, not the being denied the merching only, which had been an ongoing issue since the wedding. I'm sure that Palace staffers in charge of monitoring the Sussexes' Internet activities was well aware of Meghan's Mirror.
I think the shite all hit the fan when they got back from South Africa and had the riot act read to them over their shambolic and incredibly embarrassing behavior. The media was spinning it into a positive tour, on the whole, and then they release the joint snivel-fest of the documentary/Bradby interview. You don't air your grievances and dirty laundry in public in the BRF. It's what ultimately got Diana S-canned from the family--whining that nobody cared that she wasn't OK. But not even Diana had used the backdrop of starving people and genocidal violence as the canvas for her whinefest. I think they both got called on the carpet and had their asses chewed out over that travesty. I also think that they were told to choose somewhere and take some time out to think about their futures within the Firm. They went off mad and said, "Fine. If this is how they are going to treat us, we'll show 'em." And they went to work on their Manifesto of Grievances.
The other piece of this puzzle, and probably the biggest one is Archie. If they were threatened with having the lid blown off their scam of the pregnancy and birth announcement and doctored documents, etc., that would have lit a fire under them as well. If they aren't avoiding a return to the United Kingdom due to the problems inherent in their non-possession of a fraudulent heir to the throne, then it's down to a colossal hissy fit of butt-hurtness from both of them. If Archie is real, and is Harry's biological child, I do not think these two mentally compromised people would have been allowed to take him out of the country. The case could be made that a child in the custody of these two tossers is in actual physical danger. There is nothing maternal about Meghan at all, and Harry is a case of arrested development himself and more likely than not, partaking in drugs on a regular basis. I don't believe they've got any staff working for them, wherever they are. I think they are renting Mudslide Towers by the hour for their video projects. I see it has a '10 hour minimum', so they might bring several changes of clothes and do a number of these at a pop. $7000 a day seems a moderate price to buy Megsie a Kim Kardashian lifestyle for a hot minute and they can probably use the pool while they are there.
This transient rolling tumbleweed lifestyle of these two squatters is not a wholesome one for an actively growing young man of 18+ months who is interacting with his environment and learning to walk and talk. Mudslide Towers does not look remotely child-proofed.
Btw, congratulations to the expectant parents, the Brooksbanks, on their second anniversary just past. You are a breath of fresh air and normality amongst some pretty f-ed up s*** going on around you. Congratulations also to Eugenie for her new patronage of the Scoliosis Foundation. Let us hope that we have turned a corner with the invasive element gone, and that Eugenie and her sister, and others of the junior Royals will be recognized for the contributions they also can make to the Firm. William is on good terms with his cousins and I think will encourage those ties to grow even stronger. Charles has got to be realizing that without his second son and wife sharing the workload, he's going to have pass some charities out to the non-fulltime members. There just aren't enough bodies to go around otherwise.
I have time to do the social media thing because (a) husband is retired, and (b) he has health issues so my time in public is limited so I have time to play on the computer. 'Misguided Millenials' that are ardent (and even crazed) followers/fans of hers are very likely to be as entitled and lazy as she is. Anybody her age that has unlimited time for social media isn't accomplishing much.
Meg is just saying she wants to become political in order to get attention from all the liberal Wokie celebs around her in California. She couldn't handle the criticism or the hard work that comes along with political campaigning.
I'm sure Meghan would love to give politics an actual try, IF a major party threw its weight behind her without her having to do anything else to earn it. Narc entitlement, etc. And she probably believes she'd do a fantastic job, too. It's all just waving at adoring crowds and serving up word salads on TV, isn't it? Yes, there's grunt work, but that's what underlings are for, right? Luckily for her, she will never learn the cold, hard truth, because no one will ever support her as a candidate.
But this is also a bad year for wokie points. The game seems to be more about avoiding "cancel points." A celebrity's political involvement isn't worth what it used to be. (When supply goes up even while demand remains high, the value goes down.) But this is for celebrities with the "right" ideas. J.K. Rowling had one controversial opinion on biological women and suddenly people who used to gush, "She was my childhood," decided they wanted nothing more to do with her. More recently, Chris Pratt
didn't take part in an MCU reunion Zoom in support of Joe Biden -- and that was enough for social media users to, uh, assemble against him.
Meghan's word salad paid her "woke tax," but that's it. She didn't and will not get any more credit.
This transient rolling tumbleweed lifestyle of these two squatters is not a wholesome one for an actively growing young man of 18+ months who is interacting with his environment and learning to walk and talk. Mudslide Towers does not look remotely child-proofed.
Yes, she is certainly an illusionist par excellence. Perhaps she should be trying to cut into some of David Copperfield's $$$ for his spectacles. Look at all the things that she has made disappear, a prince, a royal lifestyle, a child, her family, her friends...
Meg's narcissism hinders her intelligence, I believe. She shows little capacity for analytical thinking. Because if she did, she'd realize that what she was called upon to do as a senior working member of the Royal Family *was* politics of a kind--soft politics. The Royals do not compete for office in the traditional way, but what they all do is high-level public relations. They are constantly on campaign to stay relevant in the 21st century, and to be valued as an institution, and so they are constantly courting the people's good favor with a display of caring and style. This is a valuable function--not just for the survival of the monarchy but, with sincerity and kindness, these incredibly privileged people can touch the lives of those they presume to 'lead' by example, however briefly. Royal service is about being seen to give back to the people, not just an opportunity for glamour shots to merch the latest outfit. Meg never understood that. Everything she hated about Royal appearances--shaking hands, making small talk with people, feigning interest in the topic of the visit . . are all inherent to American politics, too. As is making constructive working relationships with staff, constituents and fellow party members you work with. And being cordial and adult around the opposition.
Meg flunked out of her not-very-onerous Royal duties, where all she was required to do was dress nice, look pretty, smile, take flowers and not be offensive. She could not do it. If she ever tries to run for political office here, she will be a spectacular failure. And her critics will be a lot more brutal than the soft-soap she got from the British media.
Boomers receive a lot of flack these days but as one myself I have the greatest sympathy for The Prince of Wales in dealing with his Greatest Generation father. My parents (for whom it was always 1937 - you see), based themselves on Liz and Phil and there was no way that I could relive WW2 when we were the free-love, make-peace-not-war generation. Drove me up the wall when every sentence they uttered contained the phrase The War. I once observed to my Mother that she gave the impression that she liked WW2. Ooh, she cooed, it was wonderful - well it was for her as it enabled her to go out to work and escape being a companion to her own mother who - get this ladies - informed my Mother a decade earlier that no woman in the family had ever gone out to work and Mum would not be the first.
Everyone in Britain starts out as anti-Royal but like Lydon comes round to seeing its excellence. Another musician Peter Maxwell Davies wrote Eight Songs for a Mad King - a pretty pointed barb, really - in the 1960s (or was it 70s) - dreadful piece, yet after the millennium is appointed Master of The Queen's Music with added Knighthood, speaking in glowing terms of Her Maj. I must be the same: so fed up was I by the silver jubilee celebrations of 1977 - my parents draping the largest Union Jack I have ever seen beneath my bedroom window - I took my Mini Cooper down to Dover, crossed the channel and spent the next few Royal-free-days in northern France - picked up two birds on the return ferry. These days I am with Herodotus: the best form of government is Monarchy (sorry about that Americans).
His knighthood was withheld for a couple of years or so on account of his staunch support for the SNP and, as the writer of the piece below remarks,
"...The resulting caricature is of a patriot who will do anything for his country except live in it. Brian Wilson, Scotland's former Minister of State, dismisses Connery's regular interventions in the nation's affairs as "the view from a Marbella saloon bar", and the local press is frequently merciless."
(I gather Connery now lives in the Bahamas)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3615226/A-rough-knight.html
Nevertheless, he grabbed the chance to be knighted by by Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland when it was offered.(Yes, IIRC, the Nationalists objected when the then GPO installed postboxes marked EIIR, rather then ER, north of the Border.
Charles as a secret anarchist is an intriguing thought. I can came across a report from his younger says when, during an interview, he was asked about what thought of his life and replied something like `It's bloody awful.' Or words to that effect.
Of course, he wasn't taken seriously but he replied almost with a wail, `No, I really mean it!'
MM's delusions are truly off the scale, as you say. I imagine the medics have informed the RF that she easily meets the criteria for long-term incarceration in a `facility' but the politicos have said `Don't even think about it... Even if she were 100% Caucasian it'd be a PR disaster but as it is...'
She will certainly go down in history but not in the way she expects. Her name will live on in every textbook of psychology and psychiatry for as long as there are medical students. I bet she didn't foresee that legacy.
I can't think of any other pretender to the throne to match her. In the past, she would have met with an `accident', whether by poison or drowning in a tun of Tignanello, or else formally executed for treason (I wonder if she'd have qualified for beheading, as a noble, or being hanged, drawn and quartered as a commoner? Or for an even worse way of death, reserved it seems for women, which remained on the statute book for a very long time).
See http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/timeline.html
She doesn't realise just how lucky she is.
So much simpler than having it in the UK - she have to be `pregnant' with the RF at close quarters, have to fake the birth and get around the difficulty of having to have it verified - then face possible custody problems if they wanted to take it out of the country when there was no guarantee that Granny would live long enough for them to clear off without custody issues, while the wain was only a great grandchild, rather than a grandchild of the Monarch.
What could possibly go wrong?
I've yet to see anything that challenges this idea - has anybody?
I do hope that someone in the Security Services did keep copies of what they removed from the Internet, `just in case', even though it's no longer available for public view.
I saw your first comment here the other day and am I right in thinking that you have just recently joined us? Welcome to the madhouse. I am sussing by your mention of picking up two birds on the Dover ferry that you are of the male persuasion? Can't be too careful assuming things these days . . but we are sorely in need of some Y chromosome around here. We used to have a male poster called 'Vince' who has not been back for many a moon. Maybe all of our estrogen scared him off. Deconstructing the Harkle saga, and indeed, Royal watching in general, seems to be a predominantly female past time. It's all a grand soap opera, so that's not too surprising.
A male perspective is useful because, while we all can divine easily what Megs is in this for, Harry's motives are a lot more opaque. His penchant for 'exotic birds' has got him into trouble big time. He didn't learn his lesson in Vegas, and now he's gotten himself stuck into the middle of a quagmire that he can't seem to get out of.
I blame Her Maj for allowing the marriage in the first place; from the moment I first heard of the proposed marriage to Markle I thought it a dreadful idea. My Constitutional Law is pretty rusty these days but I do not see how The Crown would or could prevent The Harkles from removing little Archie first to Canada - a country where Her Maj is Queen - and then to the U.S.A.; not that I believe there is an Archie to be removed.
The marriage was allowed to go ahead, despite reservations on every single member of the grooms' side because: 1. Harry was a grown-ass man (at least in the eyes of the law) who was determined to have his way and 2. He and M had already seeded the 'Racist' narrative and were holding that as a weapon. We see that they unleashed the Kraken of 'Racist Bullies!' anyway, despite the extravagant Princess Bride wedding, several colossally expensive tours abroad--a mark of high favor to a newlywed couple--and then of course, the never-ending Fount of Charles vis-a-vis her million-dollar wardrobe and the multi-millions spent on their grace and favor home of Frogmore Cottage . . despite the ongoing confusion as to whether that property has ever been occupied by them or even finished. And 3. They may have presented the Queen with a fait accompli after a quickie wedding in Botswana.
Never was so much money spent to so little effect . . and STILL she lobbed the R word at her in-laws. From my perspective, it would have been better for everyone to have bitten the bullet three years ago and taken the 'Racist!' hits then. Because the grievances of Harry's current lay-du-jour (and he's had lots of those, according to legend), this American actress with a spotty employment history and not one but *two* former husbands could have been dismissed a whole lot more easily for what they were--the ammunition of a grifter on the make--than after that big wedding and bestowal of titles. Now that she's the Duchess of Sussex, she's got a much bigger bullhorn and HM has given it to her.
I differentiate between the 'marriage' and the 'wedding spectacle'. ER could have said, entirely justified: I cannot allow you to have a wedding on the scale of William's in a COE chapel. Not because Meghan is biracial; because she has been married twice before and she is not our subject, nor is she a member of the Church of England. You may wed in a civil ceremony followed by a chapel blessing and a family lunch at Windsor. This was good enough for your father when he wed a divorcee and it is all I can offer you. Also, because Meghan is not a British subject and retains her American citizenship, it is not suitable that she be gifted with a title. If she decides to become a British citizen and demonstrates her commitment to this family, we shall revisit this question later. Surely the true love which you both profess brought you together is enough for you both.
I have a feeling the huge showy wedding was for Harry . . and the title, too. Of course, he'd never been married before--but ER has bent all her principles to the point of breaking for her wayward grandson and his American actress, all to keep Harry on-side at any cost. There is precedent for an American actress joining a European monarchy with success--Grace Kelly, who left Hollywood at 26, to us now a tender age but in 1956, considered on the cusp of over-the-hill for an ingenue. She was at the zenith of her stardom, having already won an Oscar. Megsy fancies herself a latter-day Grace Kelly mixed with Diana. She's so wide of the mark, she's not even in the same orbit. Prince Phillip summed up the problem with actresses in his inimitably blunt way. Beyond the loose behavior which is rife in show business (it is said that Grace Kelly's parents, very wealthy and well-connected scions of Philadelphia society, where anxious to get her married off and 'settled' before her promiscuous behavior with her male co-stars got to be universal knowledge. The Kellys were a prominent Catholic family and their show biz daughter was sleeping around with everything in pants. Megs is no Grace Kelly but they have that bit in common anyways.
It's mostly the clash of expectations that makes a union between a British royal prince and a Hollywood actress doomed to failure. Meg is not just divorced and biracial and an exhibitionistic show biz type . . she's not even British. Harry dated British actress/model Cressida Bonas for 2 years shortly before crossing paths with Mugsy, and one did not hear outcries from PP or anyone else about how she was unsuitable as a Royal bride. Growing up British, she would have known what was expected in Royal culture. Meghan could have taken the trouble to learn, had she had any intention of doing so, but as we see, she didn't. Living in the confines of the Royal family was always going to be a short-term gambit for her. But by granting her that global wedding and the title, HM elevated this grifter to their level, at least in the eyes of the public. It's not going to be easy to ever get rid of her now. She's going to be a thorn in their sides long after Harry's grandparents have passed on. We can see how it's going to go, if this current situation is her version of going quietly so she can have 'privacy.'
The Harkles will be King Charles's problem and then William's. I foresee it getting worse before it gets better. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor gradually faded into obscurity, becoming objects of quaint curiosity and mild ridicule on the party circuit . . but Mugsy and her Handbag have got the Internet to keep them shoved in everybody's faces constantly and won't be fading away anytime soon.
Along with Aberfan and her handling of the aftermath of Diana's death, allowing Markle to infiltrate the Royal family must count as one of Elizabeth's rare regal blunders--One that will outlive her for decades into the reigns of her two heirs to follow. She played hardball with her sister, when Margaret's choice was unsuitable according to canon law. She bowed to modern pressure to not do that to Harry, but the whole family is going to pay the price for years to come for that softening of her moral principles. Forget 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!'--it's equally 'What Harry wants, Harry gets!' I'm sure there was no question at all that he'd have agreed to a low-key wedding in accordance with taste, decorum and canon law. Sod that. He wanted as flashy a 'do as his brother the future King got, and was overly invested, in a most unbecoming way, in the whole matter of which tiara his wife was going to wear. It was all a status play against the Cambridges and 'twue wuve' had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Spot on! I have always believed the big showy wedding and tours were for Harry, to keep him pacified. Doesn't get much more spoilt than millions of £ spent on someone who then turns around and disrespects (at every chance) the giver.
What an asshat he is.
As I understand it The Monarch's permission is required for the solemnisation or legality of a marriage involving an heir to the throne. Without that permission any marriage contracted into by such an heir would be void (or perhaps voidable). Of course, if such an heir returned to say las Vegas and married there then although The great State of Nevada might recognise the union that would have no impact on the British Courts. Say I go to some state which recognises close cousin marriage and marry a close cousin, such a union would not be recognised in England. Or say: two men contract marriage in England and then move to Zimbabwe (or some such place where such arrangement is not recognised) then in that country there is no marriage. We are told by the Beatles as well as the LGBTQ enthusiasts that all you need is love, but that is surely not correct.
Well of course the press would have accused the Queen of hating black people (even though Markle has spent her entire adult life in whiteface - funny the way brown red and yellow people never have a history month nor who have lives that matter) and even though Her Majesty has spent her entire reign - in Boris Johnson's eloquence when at the Spectator - basking in the warmth of cheering crowds of smiling piccaninnies with watermelon smiles and even though she in one Xmas broadcast was singing the praises of multi-culti London, but that is now what she has to face with Markle on a daily basis. She should in my respectful opinion have said No. Blackmailers always return for more: the anti-racist crowd are never satisfied and will like sharks smelling blood circle.
Boomers receive a lot of flack these days but as one myself I have the greatest sympathy for The Prince of Wales in dealing with his Greatest Generation father.
The Netflix series, 'The Crown' may be largely fiction (I prefer 'dramatisation', since it is unimpeachably based on actual historical events and personages of Elizabeth's reign, and in the hands of Peter Morgan, a Royalist, serves to humanize these often chilly and remote figures. Just as he did in 'The Queen', he provides a sympathetic portrait of the real people waving from the balcony. He has had to imagine conversations that may have happened, but I don't think he's entirely inventing feelings, but giving voice to them through his actors--feelings the real principals would not publicly admit to. Charles tried the 'encounter' style interview with Jonathan Dimbleby in 1993 and it sure didn't go his way.
Charles, perhaps of all the Royals, ought to be grateful for the the image rehabilitation provided by Josh O'Connor's portrayal of him in Season 3 . . and before that, the young actor who portrayed Chas as a student at hellish Gordonstoun in the 'Paterfamilias' episode of S2. I have recently researched a lot more into the Prince of Wales's early years thanks to the show. He is a sensitive and creative soul. A talented artist and a rather unexpected hambone on the boards, given how awkward he often appeared in public as a younger man while on official engagement. I don't think most of the public knows the real Charles at all, and I think his reputation has suffered unfairly due to comparisons with Diana and what she said about him not being fit for the top job. But long before she came on the scene, he'd heard that more or less daily from his own father. The chasm that separates Charles from his father is generational, societal and cultural and not simply personal failures and weakness on Charles's part. Additionally, he's got more of his mother's temperament and probably also from his Grandfather Bertie. Philip doesn't seem to realize that Charles's more intellectual and artistic sides are from *himself* and appreciate that accordingly.
Charles is far from a perfect man, but he's been visionary in a lot of respects and remarkably resilient and tough, for someone continually dismissed as a self-pitying wet weekend. He's had opposition all his life from within his own family . . a father who considers him a big girl's blouse and an non-starter has got to be incredibly painful. But Chas stuck to his guns re. the sustainable farming and other visionary pursuits that got him labeled a nutter . .and he has been vindicated. He stands up to Mummy too, at times. After Diana's death, he insisted that he go personally in a Royal jet to collect her from Paris . . "unless you want her brought home in a Harrods van."
I think Charles would have had a happier life without the burden of waiting around for 72 years for a job that has yet to materialize. I am glad to see that his relationship with his eldest son at least appears to be in a better place these days. The damage that the ill-fated marriage to Diana has wrought continues to echo down the next generation, with Harry. He is kind of living out, in reverse, what his mother's life among the celebutrash surrounding Dodi Fayed might have looked like for his mother, had she lived.
It was not a good look on her and it sure looks terrible on Harry.
Everyone in Britain starts out as anti-Royal but like Lydon comes round to seeing its excellence. These days I am with Herodotus: the best form of government is Monarchy (sorry about that Americans).
A monarchy can work brilliantly--so long as those who reign are truly excellent of character and ability . . or at least temperate, sane and hard-working. Were I a Briton, I am confident that I would vote Tory . . but I'm guessing Herodotus was not around during the reign of Emperor Nero. My ancient Greeks are a bit spotty. Were Herodotus among us today, the question I would put to him is--is monarchy still the best form of government if the King is mad?
I for one am very grateful to be living under a Republic that forces our leaders to vacate their thrones after 8 years, max, or 4 if they have done a really poor job of it. A King for Life over here under the current regime would not be good for the United States or anyone else. With respect to you and Herodotus, I think my founding fathers were wise to stipulate that no one man ever be installed as King of America. They wanted to crown George Washington King, and had our first leader been a man of greater ego, they might have succeeded. He was right to refuse; we waged a war of separation in order to form a completely different system of government. It is not perfect (particularly this year) but in its purest form, it gives every citizen the same right of access to the seat of power, and does not rely on bloodlines or primogeniture. And we change our leaders frequently so that no one gets too comfortable in power. The White House is on loan only and the President is answerable to all Americans for his performance. It's our House he is living in, by our leave.
Elizabeth has been a great friend to the U.S., as her father before her, and a world without her and Philip in it is inconceivable. Americans are captivated by the pomp and history of England's regal past and present . . England is our motherland as a country, even for those of us, like me, whose forbears came here from other countries.
I think it is for the best, though, that our young country does not have a King or a Queen. We've got some political egos that are already too big for themselves without a coronation.
Everyone in Britain starts out as anti-Royal but like Lydon comes round to seeing its excellence. These days I am with Herodotus: the best form of government is Monarchy (sorry about that Americans).
A monarchy can work brilliantly--so long as those who reign are truly excellent of character and ability . . or at least temperate, sane and hard-working. Were I a Briton, I am confident that I would vote Tory . . but I'm guessing Herodotus was not around during the reign of Emperor Nero. My ancient Greeks are a bit spotty. Were Herodotus among us today, the question I would put to him is--is monarchy still the best form of government if the King is mad?
I for one am very grateful to be living under a Republic that forces our leaders to vacate their thrones after 8 years, max, or 4 if they have done a really poor job of it. A King for Life over here under the current regime would not be good for the United States or anyone else. With respect to you and Herodotus, I think my founding fathers were wise to stipulate that no one man ever be installed as King of America. They wanted to crown George Washington King, and had our first leader been a man of greater ego, they might have succeeded. He was right to refuse; we waged a war of separation in order to form a completely different system of government. It is not perfect (particularly this year) but in its purest form, it gives every citizen the same right of access to the seat of power, and does not rely on bloodlines or primogeniture. And we change our leaders frequently so that no one gets too comfortable in power. The White House is on loan only and the President is answerable to all Americans for his performance. It's our House he is living in, by our leave.
Elizabeth has been a great friend to the U.S., as her father before her, and a world without her and Philip in it is inconceivable. Americans are captivated by the pomp and history of England's regal past and present . . England is our motherland as a country, even for those of us, like me, whose forbears came here from other countries.
I think it is for the best, though, that our young country does not have a King or a Queen. We've got some political egos that are already too big for themselves without a coronation.
For what it is worth I showed several pictures of the pregnant Markle to my mom who is a gynaecologist and obstetrician with many years of experience and asked for her opinion.
She hovered over several pictures and especially over the one of Markle in cream dress and cream jacket where you can see the outline of something over her midsection and said: "this woman is wearing something over her belly. She may or may not be at the early stages of pregnancy but she is wearing something in this picture that is at odds with a typical pregnant woman's shape"
I may think Markle could have worn a fake bump to appear more advanced as some suggested (how sick is that?) but her changing shapes and sizes leave few doubts she was wearing something.
I am firmly in the surrogate camp.
Oh yes, Hikari, Scots can and are regularly dubbed as Knights. Mind you, the case of Sean Connery is interesting in this respect; in fact, I can see quite a few parallels with MM.
I knew they were . . but there seems to be a whiff of 'selling out' for a proud Scotsman to accept this sop from the oppressive English overlords, nae? Some in Northern Ireland. Peter O'Toole resolutely refused a knighthood. Kenneth Branagh, being from the Republic may have knocked bystanders out of the way to get to his. He was a shoo-in, of course, and was made a knight at the very tender age of not-quite-50. Un infant terrible!
I was a bit surprised that Rod Stewart would have been so keen. Or that he made the list, frankly. Do we think that HM and PP used to queue up 'Tonight's the Night' before a frisky evening? I've heard tales about how sexed-up those two are. :p
Hilarious observations re. the 'view from a Marbella barstool'.
Charles as a secret anarchist is an intriguing thought. I can came across a report from his younger says when, during an interview, he was asked about what thought of his life and replied something like `It's bloody awful.' Or words to that effect.
I've gone back and revisited the tapes of Charles's investiture and interviews he gave during that period. Charles was most unhappy to be forced to leave Cambridge for a term, where he had found some pals and some affirmation for the first time ever in the Dramatic Society to go to Wales to (the university town with the unpronounceable name) to learn enough Welsh to be invested Prince of Wales. By all accounts the young Prince was most impressive with his linguistic skills. There was some concern expressed at the time that Charles was perhaps demonstrating a bit too much sympathy with the cause of Welsh independence. He expressed those views in an interview with the BBC ahead of the ceremony. I have no way of verifying this, but according to The Crown, Charles got in hot water with Mummy when she read a translation of his Welsh speech in which he aligned himself with the pro-Wales movement and 'allowing their voices to be heard'. It was clear that he was comparing himself to Wales in the sense that both were having their voices quashed by the English monarchy. Quite bold, for someone who was himself the embodiment of that monarchy.
By all accounts, Charles's speech was well-received and it was a triumphant day for him. Maybe the Welsh people could see what I saw through that footage--a sheltered young man who was nevertheless doing an incredibly brave thing . . and who above all, wanted to be liked and accepted. Charles has not had much of that in his life.
Mr. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.
This is why Harry's behavior is so weird and inexplicable. He thinks he wants to be King--what William has, and what William will have--even when those who are the heirs know the burden that is coming and haven't always wanted it--but the several sandwiches short of a picnic hamper #2, with his non-existent work ethic and hedonistic bent thinks that 'he' is entitled to the same perks that go along with that job . . even though he could never do that job himself.
So beware - i'm not going near that site.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/10/23/the-time-100-talk-and-the-archewell-launch/?fbclid=IwAR2GMmC-4n2C5GHWQp5X7a8ZjtrL7dX2s9erkn4C3zAv0-uTBkaDu6yF7A0
go look at what they've uncovered before you venture any where near that site
Nothing we have seen or heard thus far is proof she carried a child, or that there is a child that is part of the BRF bloodline. Nothing. Fake certificates and a range baby actors, bumps of various absurd sizes and shapes even in the same day, etc. Her lack of skill with any infant placed in her vicinity and each baby’s lack of interest in her. The total lack of a bump when she went out in NYC to party with MA. A doll on a polo field and hanging sideways weightlessly off her body in a sling Canadian public park path. The faked christening photo. No photo of Archie held by MM’s best pal and money source, Charles. An absurd royal name, registered right after the wedding. Endless secrecy. Crazy tales of child development timing. Left behind for a tennis tournament and last royal appearance. Referred to oddly in a way parents don’t refer to their babies or toddlers. And, tossing those used — or tellingly unused? — baby clothes at the women in Africa she demeaned by forcing them in sit on the floor.
I personally, for all these reasons, think there is no Archie. Narcissists as you know are liars, and unbound by normal ethics or rules of behavior, so... and as a nothing unknown z lister until she and Markus acquired Harry, she has possibly gotten used to being able to lie about everything without anyone ever caring enough to examine her silly stories — she was unimportant for decades, an anonymity that supported any gritting, any number of husbands, any previous kids.
But if there is one Archie now, male or female, I agree that he or she was developed and lodged in the US or Canada. And I think it is still lodged far from them. I think its fate rests on the whim of its mother, who views it as a tool or an annoyance or a forgotten puzzle piece, depending on the day.
Kindness and family values indeed.
In my travels for work I spend (or spent, pre Covid) lots of time in airports and various cities, working with lots of people and making friends and seeing family. I have seen men who looked like both men, from nose to coloring. I even worked on a project to and there was a guy who looked a lot like a Harry clone doing graphics for us. He’d endured lots of joking, he said.
And, a neighbor’s son looked like the baby in the Archbishop Tutu video, down to the eyes.
So I can’t even climb on the “looks like” evidence bandwagon. Especially with all the rest of the bizarre stuff around this child’s existence.
The day they are interviewed with the Queen and Harry looks her in the eye and swears there is a child and presents it to her on live tv with Dan Wootton and Piers Morgan and hmm, that Believing Bruce body language expert, I may be willing to consider that there is one,
About a decade ago, I created an e-mail address just for signing up for stuff. I was tired of getting spammed, so I figured I would give my personal e-mail address to friends and the "fake" e-mail to everyone else. I'd only log into it if I needed to click on some link to sign up for something. But all online promotions sent to it just went unread. I know enough people who do the same thing to believe it's a common practice in my generation. And I got this advice from someone who heard it from his school-aged son -- so it's presumably even more widespread among the younger people who are the Harkles' target audience.
This is why I don't understand why Meghan seems to think getting the e-mail addresses of Archewell (sp?) subscribers is such a coup. How else would she be able to use them?
Non-profits often buy lists with too little investigation and much trust. This may be their target if this is what they are doing, and from Harry Markle’s research, it seems likely. Random overseas new markets are other targets.
Many of the worst lists contain dirty data that hasn’t been groomed. And lists that contain new user emails, invented as you describe, can even seem to have unique value too if promoted as fresh targets by some list sellers. It is a crazy business for which there are always a naive buyers, unfortunately. Though smarter firms will be able to use filters to cross reference and check to suss strange data and bad lists out.
So this may be scam aimed at an unwary bottom group of buyers, from nonprofits to start ups. People who wont know they bought bots and shills, if the data is being sold and is indeed of poor quality.
Couldn't agree more on your "Where's Archie" write up. The evidence of fraud is astounding. Particularly, which I had never really thought much about either is,
"Left behind for a tennis tournament and last royal appearance." When Serena was interviewed and acted stunned about 'Archie' not being with Meghan so early after the birth the response she had of, "I could never do that." was a woman contending what she thought was the reality of what we all now know was a Sunshine Sachs friendship between the two.
What really happened was that Serena only knew what was also in the press about Meghan: The 'narrative of Archie'. That alone should confirm the PR-friendship and non-existence or removal of Archie from M&H. Even her 'BFF' with a huge public profile was caught on tape trying to rationalize her friends decision.
That must be when Serena was like, "no, I'm done with this, this is crazy."
If that's the case, why did Alexis do a tech interview with Meghan? To calm the PR waters between the families?
Still no video of baby Olympia with 'Archie'.
My husband runs a business, online, that does ok. They do several MM$'s in revenue. The COO used to work as an SVP at an 'email list' wholesale company. He admits and knows the lists are absolute garbage. Please avoid buying those.
Now, the difference here is that people are offering up their emails to Meghan's site, basically asking to receive correspondence. Most online marketing starts and ends with massive email funnels put into effect via tools such as *ding ding ding* Salesforce! Megzy's BFF!
From those emails you can try to get people to 'subscribe' or buy products. By subscribing to services, you need an email for billing etc, much like Netflix and the rest.
My husband's email subscribers are around 300,000 users, with 14,000 of those being active paid subscribers to their platform. They follow each address and behavior (they monitor all your engagement with their emails, from clicking it open, to reading it, to purchases etc to hyper target and segment user profiles and market to them even more!).
They do around $6MM in revenue due to email addresses. It's the most reliable source online for marketers (not social) and they DO NOT buy lists, these are people signing up looking for the service they provide.
Meghan, just asking for emails is hilarious because why? She will get press inquires, sugars (her aim), and a few people here for the car crash. She has no 'call-to-action', with this ask.
She does business backwards, hoping to land right-side-up, but her methods are 10 years dated.
They didn't get many hits to their site (under 30k, and today it would be in the hundreds...if they're lucky) and probably so few email addresses it shocked them.
What they needed to do was follow up after the presidential debate with a video or content on their site, to bring people back. Their 'site' isn't built out, and they don't even seem to know what it's use is.
What this says to me is that they are still throwing mud at a wall, hoping it sticks.
It's hardcoded, not wordpress, and a slop job of 'copy-paste' code.
They also use the most basic email tool, Mailchimp. They don't have it attached to Salesforce or Hubspot. They don't own their SEO, they have zero paid media around it, but do have the google analytics tool set up. My theory that they were massively disappointed at how many people actually went to their site stacks up, because that's the only thing they are looking at. He said they probably didn't do more PR this week after the 'launch' of the site because they blew their PR spend on the effort already. He laughed about this.
So, it looks like they paid some junior developer to start their 'site' that is completely bare-bones.
He said he doesn't pay attention to Meghan and Harry because what they are doing is so 'low-level' in terms of PR/Ad/Marketing that it just doesn't even matter. They are going to struggle making their point, financially.
Excellent work on his part re the coding, btw! I read “MailChimp” and laughed out loud. Wow. This is a bottom-feeder effort, isn’t it.
PS - excellent point on Serena’s reaction, I’d forgotten about that. I remember thinking at the time how organic and natural her reaction was, she was dumbfounded as many of us were. She is clearly a great hands-on mother, and knows how bizarre Meghan’s travel antics were at that time. And yes, where is that image of little Olympia and Archie??
I think H and MM may actually like, in their twisted way, the fact that Covid provided them with a reason to hide “Archie” from the world. They have been fleeing place to place with their small shrouded bundle, behind fences and hedges and fake rentals blurry Zoom lenses. The clock is ticking on how long they can play this out. If they fly to London for their court case without the child or on a private jet, again using the Doria is the nanny excuse,it will just be another big reason to doubt any child exists.
look at the quick look of pure evil Meghan gives this reporter.
I could well be wrong because what do I know? But he doesn't sound smart or wily enough to fake interest in others if he truly is a despicable narcissistic person, just my opinion.
As for this gem: * 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?
LOVE IT lol!!
Narcissists are some of the most beloved people you know at work, in society, in politics, and in church, etc.
Posts by Unknowns are no longer allowed on this blog. I respectfully ask that you please change your name to prevent deletions.
I will make an exception for your recent posts. However, going forward your posts will be automatically deleted if you continue to post anonymously.
Thank you for your cooperation.
5 Types of Extreme Narcissists
The Know-It-All Narcissist
This person is always eager to give her opinion, even when unsolicited, and believes she knows more than anyone else, no matter the topic under conversation. She likes to lecture, and she has a hard time listening because she’s too busy thinking about what she wants to say next.
The Grandiose Narcissist
This type more clearly demonstrates a familiar kind of narcissism we all recognize: He sees himself as more important, and more influential than everyone else. He touts his own accomplishments, exaggerates their importance, and wants to elicit your envy or admiration. He believes he is destined for great things. When charismatic and driven, his achievements may actually match his ambition and you may find yourself drawn into an admiring orbit around him.
The Seductive Narcissist
Unlike the other types of Extreme Narcissist discussed here, this one manipulates you by making you feel good about yourself. At first, she will appear to admire or even idealize you, but her ultimate goal is to make you feel the same way about her so she can use you. She wants your support and admiration and will flatter you in order to get it. But when she has no further use for you, she’ll give you the cold shoulder.
The Bullying Narcissist
This is the man who builds himself up by humiliating other people. Though he may share common traits with the Grandiose or Know-it-All Narcissist, he is more brutal about the way he asserts his superiority. He often relies on contempt to make others feel like losers, proving himself a winner in the process. He will belittle and mock you, and when he needs something from you, he may become threatening. At his most toxic, he will make you doubt yourself and your value as a human being.
The Vindictive Narcissist
While it’s possible to co-exist with a Bullying Narcissist, provided you don’t pose too obvious a threat, once you become the target of a Vindictive Narcissist, she will try to destroy you. You may have challenged her superior status in some way you don’t even recognize, and as a result, she needs to prove you the ultimate loser by destroying you. She’ll talk trash about you to friends and family. She might try to get you fired. If she is your ex-wife, she might try to turn your children against you and spend years tying you up in family court.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame/201509/5-types-extreme-narcissists-and-how-deal-them
Yes! I think the fact that he can connect in a NATURAL way is key. Also IMO he is arrogant but I don't think he is conceited and vain like Markle.
https://twitter.com/TheToadours/status/1319836583735054336
I think Harry displays the lines of covert narcissism. He’s had to perform his entire life. There’s a reason he was attracted to dysfunctional Megs and it normally runs on the emotional scale, this sort of dance they are doing.
I think YankeeWally must be wrong on this...I just checked Zillow and it shows the house is not currently for sale and that it last sold in June.
Thanks for posting that info about extreme forms of narcissism. I can see shades of Megsy in all 5 types!
Just to add a bit about `proud Scots' - Nationalism has divided Scotland in a most regrettable way - there are plenty of proud Scots who prefer the status quo and see the flaws in the idea that Scotland could join the EU in its own right, as evidenced in the referendum. Unfortunately, others have the mindset that it's impossible to be a `Real Scot' without embracing nationalism.
On the third hand (!) my husband, born in Edinburgh, of Border and Lowland folk, considers himself English by assimilation.
Thanks for explaining! I had to smack my forehead a little when you said the Harkles might actually know the list is worthless and fully intend to scam people. That definitely sounds like them!
@Girl with a Hat
I can see why your friend's e-mail list would be worth that much. If she communicated with clients through those e-mails, then they'd definitely be active! And I'll bet that is what the Harkles were hoping for, but on a much grander scale. But I still think that people who'd give their real e-mail address to a B&B would use a "fake" one if they just wanted to sign up for something. So the Harkles' list would be the "dirty" and "ungroomed" data that @AnT has mentioned.
@unknown
What a detailed answer! Thanks. Your theories and your husbands insights are gold!
I actually haven't been to the site, but I'm a little shocked to hear that, beyond the request for an e-mail address, there's nothing on it. Getting on the TIME 100 list made them a bit "hotter" than they've been a while, and it was a perfect moment to launch something with real content that their supporters could engage with. Well, there's that opportunity wasted. They might as well not have paid for all that promo in the first place! If they could have marketed "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's e-mail list" to a gullible buyer, they might have been able to break even. But I agree with @unknown that they probably got too few e-mail addresses to even do that.
I've seen that before! Here's a link to the full clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHtRHSFLl38&t=28s
As far as I can tell, all the reporter/host did was ask her, "Do you know how to pour the perfect pint of Guinness?" And she was furious that she had to admit she couldn't do something!
Before the slip of the mask, she actually gave a gracious answer, shifting the focus from herself to the bartender. But a split-second later, we saw how she really felt about: a) pointing out a perceived deficiency in herself; and b) having to share the spotlight with someone else. She has her face more in control when the host says they'll be having a pint off to see which of them can pour a better pint, but it's pretty obvious she's not happy that she may lose something.
Jeez. A normal person would be relishing the chance to pour some Guinness in Dublin, Ireland -- and would be perfectly okay admitting he'd never done it before. And so what if an Irish person shows you up in Ireland? Invite her to the US for an avocado toast off or something!
That is what is so bizarre about the story ...
They had a spot on the event to announce the list. That was their 'sitting on a bench talking about the USA precedential election'. It was pre-recorded, probably anticipating they would be on the list.
They got to present a special segment for the Time100 videos. That was the spiel about censoring the Internet. Their video was not popular.
Some Time bigwig called them the most influential couple on the planet, or something like that. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.
They were not on the list. They are not getting the viewing numbers to even be considered influential for any market.
Is what we are seeing a version of 'fake it until you make it'? Contrary to their story about wanting privacy, to protect their son, to be independent, and whatever other nonsense, they have relentlessly sought platforms for exposure (they never shut up), seem to be spending money but not earning any, and have isolated rather than protected Archie.
I am not sure that this is some kind of psychological pathology, but perhaps a case of two very stupid people with too much wealth and privilege and attention.
Although Time is treating the Harkles as if they were on the Time100 list, they did not make the list.
Appropriately enough, I was sipping some hot tea when I read that!
I guess PR can only go so far. Sunshine Sachs couldn't get them on the list, but it got them a slot as announcers, interviewers and "curators." And it made them seem as if they were on the list. How many people who paid any attention to the TIME100 would bother to count the participants or check up on the Harkles' status?
But if, as @unknown theorizes, they had to use copy-pasted code on their Web site and have zero content to push because they had already run out of money, perhaps they just couldn't meet TIME's price. (I'm sure some people do get on the list on their own merit, because their inclusion means clicks and ad revenue; but basic, boring people like the Harkles need to pay to play, if I may use that expression. And I guess they didn't couldn't even pay enough to buy a slot in the league they wanted.)
This excerpt from the Lacey book was shared and discussed on LSA.
There is no reason why the Cambridges should be immune to nasty stuff written and shared about them, and they seem to be thriving. Lacey really does get nasty, though. So far, the only criticism of the Harkles I have seen him give is to say they felt entitled and were not team players who would listen to advice, and really believed their own PR (which Lacey has been pushing anyway in interviews).
What motivated Lacey is what interests me. The book is not a huge success. It contains no in-depth analysis nor new information. It seems to be an opinionated rehash of tabloid articles and rumours. Is Lacey desparate for money? He seems to have hashed the book together really quickly and even a medium seller will put cash in his account. Was he asked by Netflix to write the book to keep the Sussexes in the headlines?
Has anyone being watching The Crown? I only watched the first two series and Lacey was not the historical consultant for them. There were historical inaccuracies, but have these increased with Lacey taking over?
@Sandie
The fact the RF returned Laceys book, unopened,
speaks volumes.
Title: Harry & Meghan want your IP address for Cash and to control Social Media
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Vzdt_zQFE
I am looking forward to season 4 next month, where we will be introduced to Diana.
News about Netflix this morning: after it released Cuties, new subscriptions fell dramatically and many subscribers cancelled their subscriptions, leading to miserable third-quarter earnings for the company. I can't help but think that Netflix has been markled, even though MM had nothing to do with Cuties. It seems she has the exact opposite of the Midas touch; everything she touches turns to disaster. Perhaps we should call it the Markle Touch?
Harry Markle new post. And info on the new website - apparently there is no "unsubscribe" button and you cannot opt out. They apparently clearly state they will use your info and sell your info.
So beware - i'm not going near that site.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2020/10/23/the-time-100-talk-and-the-archewell-launch/?fbclid=IwAR2GMmC-4n2C5GHWQp5X7a8ZjtrL7dX2s9erkn4C3zAv0-uTBkaDu6yF7A0
go look at what they've uncovered before you venture any where near that site
________
I remember reading how the NumFarkles (thanks Maneki for the best one yet!) used this ploy on their royal IG website. It was alleged that they were harvesting email addresses. The press made a big splash about their site, so when lookie loos went in there to see what's up, the data was harvested. Anyone else remember seeing this?
Bravo for the Time 100 and the Duo not making the list! Lol lol
Their desperation and chutzpah is both hilarious and oddly laudable! Most people wouldn’t have the audacity to hijack an event not only once but two or three times?
Cringeworthy. It doesn’t say much about Time magazine though if they don’t bother to check who’s on the list and/or call-out the Duo.
It would only apply to anyone outside the UK or EU. Anyone in the UK or countries in the EU viewing websites etc., have an opt out option so sites can’t steal your data or viewing info. The updated data protection law came into force in 2018. ;o)
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-telecoms/data-protection-online-privacy/indexamp_en.htm
I saw the article too. ;o) Netflix is using The Cuties film excuse to cover their backs with their shoddy ill-thought out deal with the ghastly Duo. Serves them right.
Instead of rating something if someone in their s@mple viewed 70% of the program, they allegedly switched to a ridiculously low viewing threshold: if someone watches one of their programs for merely two minutes — 2 minutes! - before switching away, Netflix counts that brief skimming glance as a successful view to plump their viewership numbers.
To say that is a low threshold... and it suggests to me a possible Netflix need to make programs appear more successful than they are.
Also, a reminder - Lacey is a a paid historian employed by Netflix for The Crown.
Peas in a pod.
Chatting with Lady C - further Meg & H's claims in Funding Freedom exposed for what they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyBzzm8dT2U
To say that is a low threshold... and it suggests to me a possible Netflix need to make programs appear more successful than they are.
So I guess Netflix and the Harkles are two peas in a pod when it comes to claiming they're hot stuff. A wonderful match made in Montecito!
I would imagine DoC & HMTQ would be appalled at being included in such a cheap product and unfortunately I think that's the point. Was it Meghan's idea? I don't know, but the best evidence for me that she's involved with the Meghan's Mirror site is that they haven't been slapped with a lawsuit.
For a few years there have been rumors floating around regarding the actual solidity of Netflix as a business, with rumors about its books, funding or survival against numerical logic. Whispers about the spending of millions and millions on high profile partnerships and past productions and publicity, all done in excess of surmised profits. (Was Cuties a desperate move to grease cash in from a new segment?)
Knowing that the duo landed here in the shadowy Netflix funnel makes more sense every week.
Agreed. The woman has no shame, nor does her husband apparently. The HRH sweatshirts alone should be cause to remove the titles. Talk about selling the monarchy.
MeGain does not care. Money is money. Handbag may care but I fear he has such easy access to "hobbies" that he is seldom sober enough to realize what a putz he has become.
Harry, I said it, you ARE a putz. And an embarassment ( a bare ass?)to the UK.
It’s a mysterious enterprise, but I don’t think they make money. I think Meghan, sorry I meant Harry, funds it.
Who does Meghan influence? No one. Influencing bots does not sell merch.
Meghan is all about appearances. She wants her image to look like people give a damn about her (staged everything prior to Harry), and even now we only really *care* about Harry. Meghan doesn’t have a market and wasn’t in the BRF as a senior working royal long enough to boost her profile enough to even attempt to break even at the antics she gets up too.
@ Musty not to mention the merching of the HRH sweatshirts (disgusting) and the recent candles (Meghan, Kate, & Elizabeth).
@CookieShark: HRH sweatshirts? Where did that info surface?
From the Lacey book:
"This time the prince [Harry] completed his full eighteen-week tour at the battlefront without interruption, enjoying military success with his combat unit that was averaging two Taliban kills per week. Harry was proud to have made his own first kill within a few weeks of arrival, attributing his success to his skill with computer games. It was "a joy for me," he explained in his pooled press interview, "because I'm one of those people who loves playing PlayStation and XBox. So with my thumbs, I Iike to think I'm pretty useful."
secrets about Meghan's interactions with Netflix
1. when they have something delivered to Meghan, the delivery person never sees her coming out of the house. She always meets them at the door.
2. Netflix has not given Meghan any money yet
3. Netflix just wanted Harry but Meghan said no
4. Meghan wanted to be on the Netflix David Letterman show and wanted his number but Netflix said no and said we'll tell him you're interested
5. they still don't know what they're going to do as a show - documentary, children, reality, etc. Netflix cannot pin them down.
I guess her idea was to put an obligation in writing, like a first look deal, talk about it publicly and then move on. Running a production studio takes time and work, and is where the money has to go (which must be what she is hung up on- how to angle to keep the cash). I don't think Meghan has it in her, and Harry doesn't know what the hell he is doing.
She's too busy trying to run her tech company and start a charity, posting one-page websites, then editing them and posting 'privacy clauses' so people don't sue her, all while angling for title of 'Queen of Zoom' with her every other day chats. Only after, of course, she rearranges her living room 29 times, and unpackages all her 'woke feminist' books and reads them to Harry before going over his lines. Arranging product placements, hair and makeup, set rental...All of this in between being there for every development and happening of 'the little one'.
LOL! I mean common. Give me a break, Netflix must be, shall we say, surprised about the development and promotion of her 'Humane Tech Co' Archewell this week, considering their recent contract that Reed Hastings came out and publicly defended himself!!!! How embarrassing!
Meghan holding Harry hostage to demand her keep as his agent is par for the course.
How he hasn't looked at her on a phone call 'negotiating' his appearance fee for him and looked at 'Archie', picked up this child, and walked out the door never to return is beyond me. I think we are getting to that point. I think, as things don't pan out it's going to become so obvious what happened/is happening in his life, especially with Doria hanging around starting businesses with his lawyer. Maybe Reed will call Harry himself. My guess is that more people will start to speak up as they get closer to the train wreck that is Meghan. They want Harry. Everyone knows this.
The delivery guy says MM made him uncomfortable? No surprise there, many past show runners and people in communication with her have said this.
So, has the media been Markled in regard to the Montecito house? Would not surprise me at all to learn they don't live there.
Nothing about the Netflix situation they have found themselves in surprises me. All they had to do was call Iger to ask what he thought about them.
Apropos Netflix - I don't have one of those new-fangled televisual devices - is Cuties the new Lady Chatterly? or rather the new Mini Pops. A friend of mine was the MD on that show and told me that the producers fear that the children would not get into character as their favourite pop stars failed to materialise. In fact the problem was to stop them going too far. Is Cuties the latest middle-class moral panic?
Let's see if I can successfully post this.
Welcome to the madhouse! ;o)
Re Internet Gremlins. Can you not type your comment in Word or Notes etc., so if the blog eats your comment you can just copy ‘n’ paste again and re post your comment again? :o)
Thanks for the piping hot Netflix tea!
If the contract is still a work in progress, does that mean Netflix can still wise up and walk away? (I agree with @AnT that Netflix + The Harkles is a case of like attracting like, but I also think that Netflix is the lesser villain. And I'd give the entire company the same advice I'd give anyone entangled with a narcissist: Go no contact NOW.)
I know this comment will be considered a bit off topic but I hope Nutty & friends will forgive me as it does make a point (of a sort).
Whilst I have been preparing a pan of chilli for supper, I have been listening to a programme about the comedian/satirist Barry Humphries and his alias, Dame Edna Everage (housewife, superstar).
I suddenly thought of how it would have been if MM & JH could have been star guests on one of Dame Edna's American Emmy-award-winning chat-shows. Can you imagine how it would have played out? It would have been absolute carnage!
I think JH would have gone along with it but I doubt if MM even knew who Dame Edna was.
Dame Edna, with those gimlet eyes and acerbic wit, would have skewered MM and torn away any and every pretension she had and made her a laughing-stock of the world. Would MM have sat there and pretended to be amused or would she have stomped off the set? Who knows? One thing I do know is that I would have paid good, solid cash to have seen such a show.
MM is always caterwauling about being "authentic" - Dame Edna would have really stripped her down and shown us MM's true authenticity. It wouldn't have been pretty for the Dismal Duo but, OMG, it would have been so funny for the rest of us.
Its all over Tumblr who got it from LSA, but I saw it on Deceitful Duchess blog. I can't cut and paste it, so here is the link: https://youhavebeenmarkled.tumblr.com
Its on The Independent if anyone has a subscription. Its behind a paywall.
https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/long-reads/meghan-markle-misunderstood-book-sean-smith-biography-prince-harry-b1181902.html
The Deceitful Duchess also gives us the delightful monikers: The Knight in Whiny Armour, and the Damsel Not in Distress (I kind of prefer the Damsel in This [awful] Dress) but I digress.
Welcome Opus! We do need more men on the blog. It adds richness to the conversation. Or should I say: The masculine worldview shines a light on the patriarchal experience of royalty in the abstract as well as the concrete while simultaneously offering a new vision of global understanding of the role of former (yet current) senior royal family members on the world stage.
While MM lacks Martha's good taste and sense of style, not to mention authenticity, she still would do better than hawking candles and sweat shirts. As I see it, MM does not have a way forward when it comes to merchandising because she has no expensive items to sell. Just think of the array of furnishings, art treasures and other stuff she could have marketed under Sussex Royal. With the pandemic, her lower income customers lack the resources to buy tacky stuff.
In addition, her unpleasant personality proceeds her and further reduced merchandising deals. It is hard to imagine what she can merchandise through Archewell.
did you see the post I made about her selling copies of her engagement ring in First for Women Magazine?
My opinion:
The gossip and petty criticism and fake stories about the royals is not ok. I saw videos recently of how the paps hounded Catherine and Diana (not only dozens of cameras clicking right in their face, but being pursued and insulted). Meghan never had that and had to call the paps, who most of the time could not sell the photos because she was a minor actress and blogger that people were not interested in, even though she relentlessly promoted herself anyway she could.
However, Meghan was not singled out in the tabloids and media. She was different in that, instead of co-operating with the family and staff and behaving like a mature adult, grateful for her immense privilege, she whined and threw tantrums about wanting special treatment. She actually had a far easier time with the press than Camilla, Diana, Catherine, Charles ...
Meghan's university education does not make her special. Charles, Edward, William and Catherine all had university degrees long before Harry even met her, and they had the additional difficulty of media attention while they were studying. I think the royal wives Sophie and Autumn may also have higher education qualifications, but they did both have careers and were self supporting before they met their royal husbands.
There is another actress in the royal family ... Frederick's wife. She is far more successful than Meghan ever was and has continued in her career, and has never done the tacky stuff that you will find in Meghan's CV. She is at royal weddings and on the balcony for TTC, and dresses and behaves impeccably.
Meghan is not the first royal spouse of colour. One of the Queen's cousin's daughters married a Maori, and, yes, while they were still married, he joined the family on the balcony for TTC, and attended royal weddings.
The way she has behaved has shown that Meghan is not smart, has no diplomatic skills, has no philanthropic or charitable credentials beyond embarrassing hype over what is normal (volunteer work as a teenager, writing a letter about a social issue ...). Everything she is worshipped for (the speeches, the visits to India and Rwanda), were all to build an image for herself because once she had done the photo ops she moved on.
I am sure the regulars here, and any newcomers or lurkers, can help by filling in the gaps for what I have missed ...
Meghan hustled her way into global fame and immense wealth and privilege, and then could not handle it. And now she has no talent to fall back on other than her usual hustling and self-promotion .. even her word salad is disintegrating.
It is not unusual for someone to become very famous and then unravel. The remedy is to take time out, disappear, sort yourself out. Shut up and go away, Meghan, and quietly and humbly build something worthwhile, starting with strong foundations and then doing the hard work of commitment and follow through. You are not important, nor special, nor a victim, and your track record in relationships and behaviour and actual achievements is something I would not be proud of at all!
Just think. If MeGain had channeled all the time, money, and energy she spent hustling into actually becoming a respected working Royal she'd actually be what she can now only aspire to be.