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
Some of Margaret’s things are back up for sale from the collector who bought from her kids...
Those who don't have a brain fog and switch off reading her verbal salads: can you please explain what she means by "social media algorithm" and "having relations with oneself"? My knowledge of English is not enough for such pearls. Many thanks!
When H & M got engaged, before they married, there were articles stating that M had to "stop receiving alimony" from Trevor before she & H got married. There was some sort of legal thing about it. She had to get it canceled out.
I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the whole thing back then. So, of course, didn't get any of the articles. I tried to do some searches now but can't find it. I remember, at the time i thought, why is she still receiving alimony? They've been divorced, she has a job and has been in another relationship.
Or maybe ............. i don't know......... it's just been on my mind. I remembered because on LSA they were discussing how her divorce was finalized after 6 months except for financial settlement was still in progress. They brought up the memory.
I was told if I "had relations with oneself" I'd go blind.....
https://books.google.com/books?id=5TmtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT55&lpg=PT55&dq=did+meghan+receive+alimony+from+trevor&source=bl&ots=txagzGz15a&sig=ACfU3U1_HIJ2FElRz9sUoLTZPGHE0augqg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGh9P65tDsAhXLu54KHYOhDd44PBDoATABegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=did%20meghan%20receive%20alimony%20from%20trevor&f=false
If someone told me "to have relations with myself," I'd tell him to eff off, too.
How did I miss that part of her latest salad toss? I really think my mind switched off when she made "algorithmically" her new favorite adverb.
TIME ~ Alexis Ohanian And MM
Sandie, excellent comment with some great nuggets. The BRF could use your opinion for a March 2021 title-stripping reasoning document.
Sally1975, my mother has a gorgeous male Ocicat she adores. He occasionally struts around singing, and has the sort of gentlemanly aplomb of a David Niven, famous for graciously welcoming friends and family to her home. Extremely intelligent, affectionate and empathetic fellow. Not many people have them, so it was fun to read your comment and will share it with her. She thinks her cat would make a better prince than Harry at this point, too.
Yes, sounds like the Ocicat wouldn't think of biting the hand that feeds him.
I'd like to know to what extent it was manipulated and whether HM, Prince Philip and Doris really were together in the same room, at the same time, as the Harkles and the Babe/doll?
The judge rightly pointed out to MM that it was a private matter concerning only herself and ANL, and that it wasn’t a public interest crusade against the media. I believe Meghan still thinks there are millions of people on her (well, Harry) side in the matter and she will merch off this case in one way or another (she’s going to need something to pay the big settlement with anyway!).
I think she and H are way too in over their heads. Nothing they planned we their way. I’m sure they’d absolutely love to be part-timing Royals. Wouldn’t we all? Wouldn’t Will? Wouldn’t Kate? The Queen? Most professional jobs aren’t even part time, and most aren’t written into a countries’ constitution with strict rules. Her lack of understanding on this subject is astounding.
Now, will Meghan sell the email addresses? Probably. Will Meghan try to sell shit to the people that have the email addresses? More than likely. Does she not know how hard it is to make money this way? A ‘Meghan’ candle? Really?
I still think they are way in over their heads. To go from the lux life in the RF to needing a $5MM yearly income all on their own merit. Meghan must be stressed.
This is why you check everything out before you quit your job.
It occurred to me that, perhaps:
1. Serena is one of the "five friends"
2. Serena is refusing to publicly support MeGain (as it could have a negative impact on the non-tennis part of her career
3. Ohanian (ie the husband) takes one for the team so that Serena does not have to testify (?)
Anyway, thought struck me that this might have been a "this is the best we can do for you" for MeGain.
AnT said...
Sally1975, my mother has a gorgeous male Ocicat she adores. He occasionally struts around singing, and has the sort of gentlemanly aplomb of a David Niven, famous for graciously welcoming friends and family to her home. Extremely intelligent, affectionate and empathetic fellow. Not many people have them, so it was fun to read your comment and will share it with her. She thinks her cat would make a better prince than Harry at this point, too.
..................
That's so funny!!... I do believe my oci would make a better prince than Harry as well! It's quite possible that my boy is more intelligent than Hazza.🤣
All kidding aside my Ocicat is very intelligent as well and so so loving and cuddly. I call him velcro-cat as he is always attached to me and follows me all over. They are an amazing breed. Very athletic. Mine 'flies' all over my house leaping great distances with very powerful hind legs...and he's 17 years old!! Still acts like a kitten. I've had him since he was 8 weeks old and I'm crazy about him. I'm sure your Mom enjoys her Ocicat boy!
However, it does seem to have missed the small contact between MM and Alexis at Serena’s match at the September 2019 US Open. You know, when he sat in front of the uninvited M (who was seated next to a deliciously unimpressed Oracene). And then, when he happened to stand up front of M, the world’s most elegant and mentally normal American Duchess. Upon which Meghan, seated in these very public family seats, chose to beam up at him, raise a bare knee, hike her skirt up, sprawl out her legs (with their twin bruised kneecaps) and seemingly invite him to burrow in under her J Crew frock.
There was a lot of talk about this at the time, as many of us will recall. The talk then shifted to Serena’s surprise that M left her newborn just to fly across the ocean and watch a tennis match that she could have watched on television.
That is what made it odd that he appeared with her in the Time bore fest, not just that he’s the founder of the trolly reddit wankerville. I would have thought that Serena and her marvelously canny mother would have rolled their eyes at the suggestion he speak with M on any subject whatsoever. It made me wonder why he agreed; threats of a bad ugly PR dive, even though he’s innocent? I wonder why Harry Markle didn’t connect those dots — though maybe he will in future posts.
Swampwoman — indeed, my mom’s lovely cat is far smarter than Meghan’s hissing mangy ginger tomcat!
Ocicats do well with other cats. I had a few cats at once which I raised together and they all got along so well. Sadly after 17 years I only have two left now.
The last two really cling to each other as well as to me!
Your Mom's hind-walking story is so cute!
Main Coons are cool cats as well! Are US breeds readily available in the UK? I had to drive a long way out of state to get my Ocicat.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8879367/Prince-Harry-discusses-racism-interview-GQ-magazine.html
Harry doesn't elaborate on "especially then living a day or a week in my wife's shoes.'" (in her 4 or 5 inch stilettos??). He doesn't say how this made him change his outlook or what triggered the change, it's all very vague. He's been obviously brainwashed and trots her rubbish out.
Calculated blackmail, to judge from the American Open footage? Not that anyone seeing that would have mistaken her for an unwitting ingenue.
It looked as if the Tournament wasn't the only thing that was `Open' that day...
I suppose SS finally wrestled AO to the ground via dangling Time, and he agreed in order to get word out about his new business interests. As you say, happens all the time. I chuckled at the suggestion this was a set up for extra curious views waiting to see a train wreck, and can well believe that would factor in to it from the side of a snarky clever interview booking team. Brilliant, except that being associated with with a self-absorbed dimwit with a 13-year-old’s grasp of the world as lived in the 90s doesn’t seem very....elevating? Plus Time isn’t much anymore, is it? It seems like a news world fossil, clamouring for attention with the Person of the Year shtick the way Victoria’s Secret kept throwing a diamond studded bra out there year after year on its old annual televised lingerie modeling program.
However, knowing the impulsive venomous snake potential of our captivatingly gorgeous yet highly intellectual American Duchess to Markle everyone she goes near, I am still surprised AO agreed to the conversation....
At least she didn’t wrap her thighs around the computer’s camera, as far as we know.
You reminded me that a few years ago, a friend in the US p, in Chicago, had to wait months on a list to acquire her family’s Ocicat from a breeder somewhere in Pennsylvania—I recall her family drove out there to pick her kitten up and rented a big fancy motor home for the trip to be sure their new kitten was comfortable as it bonded with their two daughters.
Funnily enough, a few weeks later they were stopped at a light on Michigan Avenue, which is Chicago’s famous swanky high rent shopping street, on a wet cold sleeting bustling pre-Christmas Saturday morning, when her husband spotted a grey kitten darting around on the sidewalk outside their car at the busy Water Tower intersection as shoppers tried to catch it. He barked “go!”— my friend leapt out and managed to net it in her wool scarf with cars beeping and a police officer shouting at her husband. Quickly ascertained it was no one’s and jumped back in. They took it home, ran ads and reported it to local vets and shelters and surrounding hotels and condominium towers, but no one ever claimed it. A little Russian Blue kitten. They kept it and he’s grown up as the beloved best pal of the Ocicat. Her husband jokes they got the Ocicat for a roundtrip price of several thousand, and the Russian Blue for a hundred dollar traffic violation which the judge excused.
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gq-heroes/article/prince-harry-patrick-hutchinson-anti-racism
I'm guessing the fact that it's been re-used for something else means that it must have been one they submitted themselves to Time? I know it was discussed previously whether the B&W pics were taken/chosen by Time because it wasn't a flattering photo of Meghan, but if that was the case wouldn't there be restrictions on their use for other things? Is it possible it was used for GQ without permission?
"Prince Harry talks to Patrick Hutchinson about anti-racism, education and mental fitness"
Prince Harry and mental fitness in the same sentence? I couldn't get past this headline.
Megsy knew that if she did all these beauty treatments in London and UK, that this would leak out to the DM and others and would be blown up. Megsy would blow up too.
Patrick was talking about his mother, how strict she was, how he got into a few little troubles and goes on to say something how if you don't do anything wrong, the question becomes something along the lines of have you really lived.
JH comes back with: "Everyone gets themselves into trouble at some point. It's how you learn from it."
And I'm thinking: What exactly has he learned?
That would be a good leading question at the review.
Talking about the review, do you think both will show? or c/would she leave it to JH?
I encourage them to run for office, then they can represent a group and all this nonsense they spew can be qualified.
British public told what it thinks about every member of the British royal family when they behaved badly, including Charles, Camilla, Edward, Sofie, Andrew, Sarah and Harry. Excluding Megsy from fair criticism because if her skin colour or heritage is bigotry.
Harry is stupid and this is something that can't be cured.
Serious question.
FROM THE STORY
As a 36-year-old white man with a unique story, no one more than Harry himself knows the privileged position he has found himself in: yet he has made the decision, critics be damned, to address these notions head on. As he tells Hutchinson, Harry is “both feet in”.Whatever the costs, the Duke is unwaveringly committed to help eradicate the structures that protect and empower institutionalised racism, both in Britain and further abroad. This conversation with Hutchinson for GQ is just the beginning of the committed, long-term mission of the Duke and his charity, the Archewell Foundation.
COMMENTS
There was a part in the interview where JCMH and Patrick discuss what lockdown has been like. And Harry says smth along the lines of "this lockdown is even worse for men because men already have a tendency to self-isolate"....... And I was like *insert LSA's WTF emoticon*..... Is he talking about himself? Is he actually referring to how isolated he feels in California? Cause he then asked Patrick "how did you cope not being able to see your mates?"
So he's blaiming his 'upbringing and education' for his lack of awareness?
Yes, he was of course raised in a very white, upper-class environment, but that's no excuse whatsoever. He would have had non-white colleagues at Eton. His mother took him and William to homeless shelters when he was a child. He served in the army, which is very multi racial, and caused a minor international incident with the racism he himself directed against his comrades. He did charity work in Malawi and other African countries. His work with Invictus and other royal patronages allowed him to interact with people from all races and walks of life.
Yet he never took the slightest interest in race issues until he married a vapid, highly privileged biracial woman? Does he really think this makes him look good?
What will he do then
I wanted to respond to this comment you made on the earlier page, but hate to post on my phone . .what a laborious process.
My ongoing interest in this saga doesn't have much to do with what kind of money the Nummies can grift in America, selling candles and copies of Meg's engagement ring and pimping themselves out on Zoom chats. For me, the (very) shaky foundation of her con is All about Archie.
Some time ago, I postulated that if there really is a child born of her/their machinations (regardless of its genetics) then it has never so much as entered UK airspace. It was conceived in a US lab, was carried and then born in the US.
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?
Well . . .much did go wrong seeing as she DID simulate a pregnancy--a very high-profile and amateurish fakenancy shoved in our faces every day for 10 months. The 'birth' likewise faked and that whole circus . . the fake documents, etc. We have yet to see Archie's legitimate birth certificate. We have only seen a computer-printed copy of a document that bares no actual human signatures on it.
I can totally believe that Megs self-confidence was such that she thought she could fake all this, with a real baby lodged somewhere on another continent. But if that's what's happened--HMTQ and the entire Royal family is complicit in a monstrous fraud. The Queen has acknowledged another great grand . . not that I believe she has ever actually seen 'him'.
Have any of us, ever, seen 'Archie'?
This con has got to unravel pretty damn soon here. A year from now Master Archie will be old enough for preschool. How many celebrities can be paid off to lie about meeting, holding, and having play dates with Archie, with the tufts of red hair? Not that any of the kids we have seen passing as Arch have tufts of red hair.
Fudging an address is one thing but fudging an entire kid, in the public eye? This seriously cannot be allowed to go on.
A way forward: MM needs to polish up her appearance and go back to modeling a line of clothing curated by her, as she did with Reitman's in Toronto. She needs to quit being a woke spokesperson or pseudo intellectual. Somehow, she has forgotten that an reliable income requires consistent work where she can apply her name and limited talent--I don't mean yatching either.
Megs is living her best possible lie at Marvelous Mudslide Manse. Hapless must be digging living his best possible lie in LA too. With the bonus that Lad's Vegas is so close by.
Too many homeless living in the fresh outdoors air. BTW No homeless get Covid19 there. Figure that one out. Giving Los Angeles that Calcutta vibe the Gruesomes could not deal with, after all they are (pseudo-pretend) Royalty from England.
So the skedaddling ultra-libby Duo
That Oprah sent
Went to rent to buy
Their Russian Muddy Mansion
Their pie in the sky
In the sky in Montecito.
Daniel just emailed:
“So this f***ing chapstick two dollar prince and his sh** Old Navy wardrobe is really making these sounds? For GQ? Look it up. GQ has just jumped to dead over. Literally everyone is pissed. They couldn’t hire someone qualified. Chapstick third white husband of white passing Z-list b**** with their ski slope white kid in rich white Montecito on the lap of white granny Gloria is qualified to teach GQ readers what racism is because he once bought some passing sorority b**** budget a** in CANADA and someone got photos? And she jumped off the yachts and Hallmark to say she is really not Italian, surprise, but is a secret suffering Black woman so upset, watching that tennis with her white besties and spooning her white mess Canadian twin, and on her third white husband and flying with George Kentucky Clooney and pink Elton. And meanwhile Mr Africa didn’t ever notice racism, never in all those years even “working” there, not until he walked in her sorority stilettos. And In spite of all this stupidity and the way she treated people on their tour, now he is the CN world spokesman. He Is uneducated. He can’t get dressed. But yes ma’am, his 45 year old fake sorority pick-me wife has paid to crown him the GQ 2020 racism guru, so now bow down everyone and take notes. F*** their act and CN and 2020.”
So, that’s another opinion. (I actually cleaned it up.)
From the moment of birth he or she will be a slave for the entirety of his or her mortal existence, his or her children will likewise be slaves and so it will go on after his death. The slave will however for the entire period of his life be fed, clothed, housed and in other ways (health care and legal services) be provided for by his or her owner. Slavery has now been abolished but there is one small area where it has not. I refer of course to Royalty for he or she is also from the moment of birth treated as Royal as will be his or her children and is provided with food clothing and housing and indeed every other contrivance that may be required. Slaves are sometimes subject to manumission and the same can occur to Royals. When a slave is freed he becomes no different from any other freeborn male or female, the same happens or should happen to Royals. The Harkles tell us that they have found freedom and want privacy yet their actions tell us the opposite. One really cannot expect any better from Markle but HarryFKAP's behaviour brings the Monarchy and thus the nation into disrepute. One cannot be half in and half out as a slave and the same applies to a Royal. Harry should learn to STFU and apply for a job in Walmart or Burger King.
Glad to see we haven't driven you away yet! :)
Is there anyone else who finds Harry Markle unreadable? I commend her work but the execution in my very humble opinion leaves rather a lot to be desired - and she is apparently ghost writing an autobiography for Yankee Wally (oh what a naughty girl she was). Do it yourself dear, I say.
I commend Harry Markle for being one of the first . . possibly 'the' first, to smell a rat with Harry's new girlfriend. She has been on this con like stink on poo since before the engagement was announced. Before I discovered this blog, Harry Markle's 'Timeline of the Harkle Debacle' provided quite a few hours' worth of head-scratching entertainment. By the time I stumbled into this community, I was well-primed to be suspicious of Megsie. MM's pre-Harry life seemed pretty enviable (of course, we've learned since that it was all self-promoting gloss and she paid several firms a lot of money to concoct both her persona and the Tig blog. Even before I knew what a mental liar Meg is, I could see the landmines inherent in having an American actress join the British Royal family. For about 5 minutes, I believed the Hallmark soft-soap Meg and Haz were selling us about their (show)mance. That engagement interview set off the first alarm bells and that's what drove me to Harry Markle.
It's obvious she's got legal training, because her skills at research in uncovering official documents are superior. She's usually got first scoop on papers relating to a number of the Harkle scams, including extensive plans/permits for Frogmore Cottage & all the bogus charities and companies that have been registered by either Harry or Megs. Her posts are all structured like legal arguments. As time has worn on, I find her tone getting increasingly angry . . one might say, unhinged. She also tends to be very repetitive and could probably trim her post lengths by half if she didn't repeat herself so often. I think in the early days, it started as a hobby, with more frequent, brief posts or sometimes just photographic snippets. It has now become a crusade with her and has all gotten too earnest and angry for me to enjoy as formerly. Her diatribes read a bit like she's stumping for a seat in Parliament on an Anti-Numfarkle Platform. She's not wrong in her conclusions . .she just plows a lot of the same ground over and over.
Do check out her archived material, though . . going back to 2016 if I'm not mistaken, including The Harkle Debacle Timeline and her thoughts about the arrival of Archie.
The Crowns of Britain blog (posted by blogger Saffy) is a sporadic but infinitely more entertaining and conversational entry. She used to post every Sunday, but since the pandemic hit, it's down to every 4-6 weeks. I used to follow #NotMyDuchess (Lady Greyhound) on Tumblr but she seems to have given up her blog. There has been zero new activity since May when Markle donned her Lady Madonna pose to 'speak' at the commencement of her old high school. I hope the Deadly Sussex Assassination Squad hasn't gotten to her, but her radio silence is concerning. At the moment TheDeceitfulDuchess on Tumblr yields some good stuff. My favorite YouTube vlogger on this subject is According2Taz . . .a Londoner of approximately Meghan's own age, who is always refreshingly candid. There's another male vlogger I have only recently found who I am enjoying but I will have to come back with his site after I've found it again.
I still think HM walks on dangerous territory with Meghan and Meghan loves to sue. She’s made her identity know via GoFundMe for that book she is writing, so Meghan can find her if she gets that $$$ desperate. Or if HM becomes more successful after the book.
I just looked on Google and apparently, the Sun said "BLM makes an application to become a political party" but the DM says BLM denies launching a UK political party after application is made". I haven't seen this info in other papers (yet).
After Megs endorsed the FF book and didn't sue Omid for it any lawsuit against any other book will be very questionable.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8880781/George-Amal-Clooney-claimed-didnt-know-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-wedding.html
I could not shake off the impression that the early Harry Markle was a different person to the person now writing. I have no idea why she might describe her blog as Satire; I can find no trace of that style in her writing. I often read that she is a lawyer: I fail to see any evidence that she is legally qualified.
I may be sounding catty but what disappoints me I think is that she has such excellent material but fails to make the prima facie case that is there to be made. I just think she needs an editor with a good supply of red ink.
Has anyone else noticed that the latest video interview Harry is doing is minus the books on the sideboard.
................
@D1
I too noticed that!
I suppose those books are MEGHAN's branding tool only and she doesn't share! One book subject was 'women' but I don't see why they couldn't stay in the background for Harry's interview! And don't they own any other books?
I thought it weird that he was not at least supplied with some books to personalize the setting. Books about Africa would have been great. Or how about some books on the history of the British monarchy???🤣
Are they trying to say he doesn't read?
I can't help but think this is another sign of Harry's lower standing in this relationship.
I was wondering if they were library books and had to be returned.
I think "How to be a prince" would be a good book for him to start with.
I am so embarrassed for him, he's thick as two short planks.
@Sally1975
I was wondering if they were library books and had to be returned.
I think "How to be a prince" would be a good book for him to start with.
I am so embarrassed for him, he's thick as two short planks.
...............
LOL! I too cringe with secondhand embarrassment!
I don't understand why he is so blind!
https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la23-steven-yearwood-vs-the-duchess-of-sussex-429037
I find the business/commercial law stuff indigestible but that may be because the subject itself is way beyond me.
---
HM & Archie:
The Buck House statement about that birth was worded in such a way as to suggest that the Queen had heard that a baby had been born - it almost sounded as if the report was regarded as hearsay and lacking veracity. Also, the Christmas Day broadcast did not refer to the latest `addition' to the family by name; has she done so, it would have been acknowledging that the child actually existed, instead of being more like Schrodinger's Cat.
That's why I'm so interested in whether any more information can be extracted from that image of HM apparently looking at a baby/doll. It looks so fake to me. Or is MM's `private photographer/MM herself too dim to realise that what was needed, from her point of view, was a picture of HM engaging convincingly with the almost-new-born?
Put it another way, does the metadata on the photo confirm that it was taken on, or about, the date of the babe being revealed? Also that it hasn't been manipulated to any extent?
Lack of metadata, however, would be as telling as if there was a mass of info showing it's a melange of images.
I'm not sure that HM could have acted otherwise, without being seen as a latter-day Herod.
I raised this now because we've had some deep sleuthin' about the company data and I was hoping a fresh set of eyes might be able to discover more on this conundrum.
"https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la23-steven-yearwood-vs-the-duchess-of-sussex-429037
STEVEN YEARWOOD VS THE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX
Case Summary
On 08/22/2019 STEVEN YEARWOOD filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against THE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERRY GREEN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending."
Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation that's strong stuff!
https://www.globallegalchronicle.com/steven-yearwood-v-dr-will-ferrel-et-al/
The Plaintiff was Steven Yearwood.
Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant whose hobby is suing celebrities for kicks. This is exactly the sort of abuse that the anti-SLAPP statute was intended to protect against.
So there.
Photo is in this article.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7005497/The-Queen-meet-Baby-Sussex-today.html
Sally1975, there are just a few Ocicat breeders in the UK. My mother adopted her little fellow through one of her veterinarian’s techs actually, about a year after her previous cat had passed away at the age of 20. I think the tech’s relative was a retiring breeder.
..........
@Ant
I've so enjoyed trading Ocicat stories with you and I hope my guys make it to at least 20 as well. I can't seem to find my original lengthy post about "caterwauling" and am confused about what happened to it.
Absolutely. A side-by-side comparison of the birth announcements of Meghan's alleged child and that of all the other royal births stretching back to Charles is subtly but profoundly different. "HM is delighted at the news that the Duchess was safely delivered . ." vs. "The Duchess WAS safely delivered . .'. The latter is definitive. This event happened, with witnesses testifying thereunto--see, here are our signatures! The former case sounds like a bit of backyard fence gossip. "We heard that she had a baby" . .but no one can be found willing to sign off that it actually happened.
That's why I'm so interested in whether any more information can be extracted from that image of HM apparently looking at a baby/doll. It looks so fake to me. Or is MM's `private photographer/MM herself too dim to realise that what was needed, from her point of view, was a picture of HM engaging convincingly with the almost-new-born?
That odd little tableau is staged in such a way that the only figures in the composition who have actual visuals on the bundle in Meg's arms are MM and her mother. Ie. the ones who would most definitely be in on the con, assuming there is a con. The three royals in the room--Harry and his grandparents are so far back, relatively speaking, that all they can testify to is that Meg is holding a white blanket. A picture of the Queen smiling down on the bairn, or holding him would have been a coup that would have shut everyone up. But that's not what Meg gave us. The effect is to hold HM and PP at a distance. Kind of like when, asked for a better look at the baby by the reporter at the press briefing, Harry moved the blanket incrementally away from his face and immediately Meg's hand flew up to obscure the view. On purpose. Yeah, things that make you go hmm.
Put it another way, does the metadata on the photo confirm that it was taken on, or about, the date of the babe being revealed? Also that it hasn't been manipulated to any extent?
I believe cyber sleuths among us have determined that the metadata on the presentation photo AND the christening photo show that both images were created on 8 May 2019. So I envision a photo shoot that happened that day, with multiple changes of outfits, to stage two tableaux for our benefit in which the ONLY figures in those settings in Windsor Castle were Meghan, Harry and the photographer she hired. That's it. No Royals anywhere near this baby-cum-dolly on either occasion. The Royals in both pictures were pasted in from other photographs taken in the castle, at other events altogether. Maybe that's why Camilla looks half cut, with wet shoes in the christening photo, and Charles does not appear to be looking at the camera at all. And why Kate looks so gargantuan in relation to everyone else--wearing her Christmas outfit of the Christmas prior, btw, and why Lady Jane Fellowes appears to be dressed for regatta, not a Royal christening.
This is my theory, but I am comfortable with it. I do not believe that 'Archie' has ever been seen as a living child by any of his Royal relatives--other than Harry, of course, who is in on this charade. Kate caught a glimpse of Megsie holding a doll at the polo, which is why she looks so bemused. She was looking at a mental breakdown in progress.
Then why would the RF allow these staged photos to be dispersed amongst journalists and media?
Here are some clips of HM at the shows
https://images.app.goo.gl/Sfkt6nfuJQ355k547
https://images.app.goo.gl/xRMjynzLj89H8i6e6
I'm curious about why you would think HM would be a target for MM and not this blog/NuttyFlavor or any other similar ones. If MM wanted to bring defamation/libel/cyberbullying charges against this blog Google would have to reveal the IPS of the blog owner and I'm sure she/her lawyers would be able to learn the identity of the owner. Also, if Markle was going to launch a suit against HM wouldn't she have done so by now?
_____
One would think the Duck And Duckess of Zoom would start with a massive lawsuit against LSA. I know that's where I would start if I were them and inclined to go there.
https://pin.it/2s891Hn
wear a panama casual type hat and clothing at a Royal Christening ?
She usually has style in hats and dresses smartly ?
It does seem very odd
pictures below of Jane's wearing hats looking smartly dressed
https://images.app.goo.gl/MhomHvQhowB8CvPTA
https://images.app.goo.gl/ZLEVC3tARpBLZK5s6
https://images.app.goo.gl/6RhPC2dBFJSfxXaK8
Many years ago I read a book by Quinton Hogg in which he discussed fakes. He wrote that what may not be obvious to comtemporaries is only too obvious to later generations. In that regard I believe it was David Hume who observed that despite what Jospehus wrote does anyone now (and this was circa 1750) waste so much as a second on the assertion that touching the cloak of the Emperor Vespasian would heal them of leprosy or some such other affliction. The Flavians were long gone and thus Jospehus had nothing to gain from a false assertion. The fake photo of The Queen and her consort bumping into the Markles with added child at Windsor is thus water off a duck's back to the Royals who simply fail to comment and then memory hole. By the way am I the only one who suspects the photo of the Queen and her Duke at the recent wedding (Eugenie?) was pasted in?
When it comes to Archie one needs Occam's razor: given his fame-obsessed parents which is the more plausible? that Archie is alive and in their custody but never seen or that he Arcgue is a fiction? - and who would name a royal child Archie! Oh purrrleeese.
While the topics are well researched, I have noticed that the writing is very slapdash. There are are grammatical mistakes, typos, words repeated and all this shows there is no proofreading. I'm guilty of typos etc myself but don't write a blog. I am not criticising, merely making an observation.
Here we have Doris dressed up to the nines whereas HM looks as if she might just have come in from the stables/dog-walking/horseshow.
I can't imagine her demonstrating such delight at a child she could hardly see. As for horses, well, that's completely different.
`both images were created on 8 May 2019, Archie was born on 6th...' Is there any data for individual parts of the image? I thought nobody saw the child until a bit later...
So even this slender bit of `evidence' for the child's presence in the UK falls apart when examined closely.
Meghan doesn't understand what grand people wear, for what and when.
The queen seems to be in the same blue sweater and white blouse as at the Horse Show- can't tell for sure about the skirt. Camilla is in the same outfit she wore to Louis' christening even to the necklace she has on and Charles is in the same suit he wore that day down to the pocket handkerchief and some red pin on his jacket.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8848089/Harry-Meghan-recorded-podcast-luxury-400-hour-beachfront-rental-property.html
@jesicca,
Photo is in this article.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7005497/The-Queen-meet-Baby-Sussex-today.html
............................
Here's something weird I found regarding the "Her Maj meets Archie" photo...
At the link Miggy provided which includes the photo in question, the article actually states that QEII attended a horse show just prior to meeting Archie! They even show a photo of HM at the horse event dressed in a hooded raincoat and state the following:
"Her Majesty this morning attended one of her favourite events of the year, the Royal Windsor Horse Show which is taking place in the castle grounds.
Despite the wind and rain, she beamed as she watched the horse show ahead of seeing her great-grandson.
She was at the show as the new parents introduced Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor to the world."
So at first, I'm thinking - gee maybe Her Maj was legitimately dressed casually if she did indeed come from a horse show before meeting her great-grandson.
HOWEVER - I then did some searches for images of the Queen at horse shows AND I found pictures of her wearing the SAME EXACT OUTFIT as seen in the "meet Archie" photo...BUT these photos and that outfit are from a horse show held in 2016!!!!!!!!!
Unless Her Maj dressed the same way under that raincoat at the horse event in 2019, then that is an image lifted from 2016 and photoshopped into the "meet Archie" photo.
Here are the photos of QEII dressed in the "meet Archie" outfit while attending a horseshow 3 years before Archificial was born:
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2016051231388/the-queen-prince-philip-royal-windsor-horse-show/
If you click on the gallery link you'll see additional photos. IMO that is the same blouse, pale blue sweater and skirt. After coming indoors the Queen would have removed the scarf and vest.
What do other Nutties think?
. . . why would the RF allow these staged photos to be dispersed amongst journalists and media?
Echoed by Ron:
. . .why did the most senior members of the RF allow their images to be used in this way ? Is it the never complain/ explain thing ? Too embarrassing to put out a statement saying Sorry but they’re photoshops ? Part of giving her enough rope ? Just let the idea that there was a child fade into history? None of it makes any sense except to say that the photos are real but just very, very bad...
Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Buck House and able to fly at will to Sandringham & Anmer Hall to hear what was discussed behind closed doors in the run-up and during the aftermath of the 'Debut of Archie'.
I have no bloody idea at all why the Royals would allow such a fraud to be perpetrated upon the entire world, if that's what's happening here. But if it's *not* happening, and Meg *was* safely delivered of a bouncing baby boy on May 6th and every time thereafter in which she's shown or mentioned him, she's really just the epitome of devoted and entirely natural motherhood . . .Why is everything surrounding this child so weird?
I don't have a degree in digital media, nor am I a neonatal/gestational specialist, but I have some idea of how a normal pregnancy and developmental milestones in early childhood progress, and also my eye can tell when things are 'off' with a picture. The photos we have of 'Archie' with his Royal family members are so amateur as to be embarrassing. Those wouldn't get very good marks in a high school photography class.
I don't know why. "Never complain; never explain" runs hardcore deep with this family. Nothing can be seen to ruffle the serene ship of state. How many years after the fact was it that we learned, for example, that Diana had thrown herself down the stairs while pregnant with William? Or about her bouts of self-harming, bulimia and all the scary stalker s*** she pulled on the wives of her married lovers? Meg's behavior has all the indicators of a profoundly disturbed mind . . but to issue statements to that effect and/or try to get her into treatment would unleash more howls of racism than they have already contended with. Pretending everything is fine and all the uncomfortable bits will just Go Away is a time-honored MO. We'll be the last to know anything they do not wish to be made known.
Who are these two kidding, for real. It’s beyond Fergie levels of embarrassing at this point.
I am an idiot when it comes to photoshopped images but I find several things very strange:
Kate is bigger than Harry which is not the case in real life. I found picture where Kate is right next to Harry. Compare the below link to the christening pic where Kate in gigantic next to Harry, despite they are in the same front line!
https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Prince-Harry-Kate-Middleton-William.jpg
Second Kate and Camilla: Kate is taller than Camilla, but after seeing them together below Kate is too big compared to Camilla in the Christening picture again:
https://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/2019071775418/prince-william-kate-middleton-celebrate-duchess-cornwall-birthday/0-366-482/kate-middleton-and-camilla-t.jpg
And the weirdest thing: if you look at the mirror behind Harry's aunts you will see a fragment of something that is not in the actual picture. Looks like the top of a bold head
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article17482011.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200b/5_Royal-Baby-Christening.jpg
Does anybody remember who actually released the christening picture?
'Does anybody remember who actually released the christening picture?'
@Fairy Crocodile
photographer Chris Allerton
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex released the photos, which were taken by photographer Chris Allerton in Windsor Castle, on their official Instagram account on Saturday afternoon.6 Jul 2019
And the weirdest thing: if you look at the mirror behind Harry's aunts you will see a fragment of something that is not in the actual picture. Looks like the top of a bold head.
What you see as a bald head, is actually the reflection of the top of Sarah's hat.
@Lizzie,
And the weird the gold fingers grabbing Jane!
It's part of the gold clock.
https://blindgossip.com/famous-son-got-very-rough/
Blimey!
A new blind gossip item has been posted and it is rather shocking.
I doubt that the army would have just looked the other way. Someone somewhere would have made a fuss if this were true.
But, stories like this are going to flourish. How the Harkles thought it was safer and better for them and Archie to leave the family and set up in California still befuddles me.
And what is with this new 'focus' on 'humane tech' and 'unconscious bias' racism?
You may be right but in this case we should also be able to see a fragment of Jane's wide brimmed hat to her left which would be partially obscured by the gold clock, Jane is taller than Sarah. Also look at an odd angle of Meg's foot compared to the angle of her body.
I am not saying it is entirely photoshopped but it feels wrong, especially Kate.
I agree the fingers are part of the clock. But I also think it's a particularly bad composition as they do seem to be carressing Jane's cheek. I've done things as bad taking casual snapshots... poles coming out of people's heads, etc. But I'm not a professional photographer!
The hat reflection doesn't seem to line up right with Sarah's hat to me but that must be what it is.
I'm not sure whether to believe it or not. 'Blind Gossip' has been fairly reliable and I do think Harry would have been shielded due to his membership in the RF. But I don't know if I can imagine him being so violent. And why hasn't this story ever come out before? Perhaps MM leaked it to set up some future storyline she plans to put forth?
I suppose we all see different things when we look at a photograph but I do agree that this photo was very badly composed; almost although it was rushed so they could all get out of there pronto! lol
I also concur that Kate is HUGE! (very odd)
I too echo "blimey"! One of his former girlfriends hinted every so slightly ("sometimes he's not very nice") perhaps referring to this? The RF PR machine could have kept it very quiet (look at Andrew) especially if it was in the UK.
The question is why now? Is MeGain setting up an exit with an expected huge settlement and massive sympathy PR?
Has the BRF given up cleaning up after Harry, since he has given up on being a working Royal?
Does Harry fully understand now the shielding he had in the BRF?
Hope MeGain in the bedroom was worth it.
Every single one of the images of Archie which we have received are the copyrighted property of Meg via Sussex Royal. The presentation photo and the christening pictures were taken by Chris Allerton, who was megs employee at the time. Here is more evidence of her control freakery Because pictures of a royal baby and other events featuring the Royals taken within the walls of a royal palace I shot by official palace photographers and therefore those images our property of the Queen. Meg’s pictures are not. Reading between the lines, along with the extremely vague “we are delighted at the news, which we have heard from a third-party, that the duchess of Sussex gave birth today“, tell me that in legal terms, the palace has entirely distanced itself from anything to do with Archie. The palace did re-disseminate those photographs as part of their official announcements however, which is puzzling in the extreme, but the alternative is to admit to the public that Meg is insane and they don’t know how to handle her. Apparently that embarrassment is greater then the lie of going along with these pictures as legit. The queen could have said, Any images which feature us, our consort and our direct heirs must be taken by our official photographer. I think Meg pulled her usual clandestine tricks. She specifically waited for a day in which her Majesty was away from Windsor, being at Balmoral. The Archbishop of Canterbury was also absent, presiding over a COE Conclave in York. With all the adult supervision absent, Meg and Harry staged their photo shoots and released those photos as “official” without authorization. With only staff on the premises, who was going to say no to the Duke of Sussex? If the digital data proves that all of those photos were taken on the same day, then it stands to reason that neither her Majesty nor Philip were in residence that day. Let’s not forget that prince Andrew took advantage of a similar absence to Show Ghislane, Maxwell and Kevin Spacey—Two pedophiles—round at Buck Housecand let them sit their foul asses on the thrones of England for a jolly. When ER is in one of her many castles, she does not always know what the kids are up to in another house hundreds of miles away.
I will add an additional layer of tin hat and say that I don’t believe the baby’s maternal grandmother Made not one but two special trips to London to be photographed with her grandson. Those images of Doria could have easily been inserted from her earlier visit to London for the cookbook launch. The christening image could have been emailed from her home in Los Angeles. Seriously. If she did come prior to the birth to help out for what was four or five weeks, she was never spotted arriving or leaving from any airport in the United Kingdom or LA. It doesn’t seem very likely at all that she would’ve flown to London in April, stayed until the end of May only to fly home and come back about a month later, does it? I wouldn’t say so.
Also, answer to a question above, the photo itself was tagged as “Chris Allerton/Sussex Royal PA” in the lower left hand corner when released on Harpersbazaar.com on July 6, 2019. Precious moments indeed.
Looking again at the image, there is additional weirdness going on at these points:
* where Meghan’s right shoulder overlaps Harry’s left side
* where Charles’ left arm merges in a blurred way with Doria’s right arm
* where giant Kate’s right arm is layered over her husband’s form with a straight black line
Nothing can make me believe this one isn’t a chop job.
As for the one in which the Queen and Prince Philip are supposedly seeing the baby for the first time, I also call photoshop with the doll. And i still want to know why the handle of a walking aid is visible at the bottom of the image in front of the Queen, and far from Philip.
Well done for finding the photos.
@Natalier
I think the tartan print on the Queen's skirt is the same but the photo is sharper, hence the print looking darker. The cardigan is a slightly darker shade of blue too.
........
I've compared the Queen's hair on the photo at the 'reveal' and the photo at the horse show the year before and her hair does seem slightly shorter at the horse show, especially the back and the side above the right ear.
If the Queen was at a horse show just before meeting a new grandson and didn't bother to get changed, then she didn't think the occasion was important.
(My tin hat addendum: ....Especially to help with the arrival of a plastic doll.)
Apparently Harry didn't find these occasions that important either. Note that he is in his brown suede shoes with black socks and a light colored suit. At Louis'christening he has on dress shoes with his navy suit.
My thought on why this story is coming out is this, though: the BRF definitely knew about this if it happened. William and Charles would know, certainly. So perhaps this is the sort of thing Meghan uses to hold over him, so the BRF decided to let the ugly truths spill out to render her blackmail chip useless so the cash grabs and threats will fizzle out. If they have to sacrifice his image, who cares — he is gone, it is a reason to strip his titles for good, it evenmakes Andy look like the slightly “nicer” family creep. It washes their hands of the ginger scourge.
If on the other hand, this was released by Andy by way of Fergie to make himself look “better” (please know I am using these comparisons very very loosely as we are talking about serious abuse by both men either way) — he was only sweating on teens, not hitting them, Mumsy! — well, it still might kill M’s hold over Harry and totally ruin their woke stock. She would divorce him and run and he would be ruined utterly, the final punch at Charles for dismissing the York girls.
Hope this reasoning makes sense? It may be way off, but it struck me as I read the blind item.
Doria knows which side her bread is buttered on. But she is being exploited in the same way the royal family is being exploited. She is useful because she is black. That’s why Mugsy imported her to Give her street cred With the women of color who were at the cookbook launch. I do think her visit then was legitimate, but her outfit for the presentation photo was awfully similar to what we saw her wearing in October of the previous year. She could’ve easily purchased or been sent That pink suit she’s wearing in the christening photo. That may have even been taken at a church event stateside and imported because it was useful for the christening sham. I don’t think Meg had any relationship with her mother until she got engaged to Harry and it was useful to have a black maternal unit. Doria has been very quiet, and is content with her cut of whatever shifty proceeds are coming for her complicity. She did look lovely on the wedding day, but I do not believe she has been to London more than twice.
To add more confusion to the pile, I don’t think the two christening images released at the same time show the same baby. I have studied those pictures for hours. The infant in megs lap in the color photo in the green room at Windsor Is South Africa baby. This baby is more delicately framed and has brunet coloring. The black and white photo of the holy family does not depict this baby. I will never believe that. This child is larger, with a larger rounder head and blond fuzz. The blonde is very noticeable in the sun even though the image is black and white. The baby and Meg’s lap in the color photo is quite delicate. The second baby appears significantly larger… And blond. I think he is the baby we know as duck rabbit Archie. I think Meg has used 3, possibly 4 baby models for Archie. New Year’s baby would be a third, and Frank and baby of the Christmas photo, the fourth. I think the child in megs arms exiting the plane in South Africa was blonde duck rabbit Archie, wearing a very unseasonable wool outfit and hat to obscure his features. There are strict rules governing working hours for infant models that young. To my eye both of these principal babies have distinctive features which are not like each other’s. Growth alone does not explain their different coloring, strabismus an officer eyes or very different bone structure.
I would be interested to know what nutty thinks, since she is on team Fauxchie.
I have been a children’s librarian for 20 years. I am not a pediatrician, but I have spent hundreds of more hours around the diversity of infants than has Meg. Archie’s ever-changing appearance, Plus her insistence that he has tufts of red hair as vouched by Ellen DeGeneres and numerous celebrities, when none of the babies we have seen is remotely redheaded, sticks in my craw. Do I believe megs paid PR and Doctored pictures, or the evidence of my own eyes and gut?
I know all of this sounds absolutely cuckoo, but we have to ask ourselves: is Meg capable of this kind of deception, has assed, offensively so, at that? The answer has got to be a resounding YES.
Let’s not forget, that is huge as she was, and overdue in terms of natural pregnancy by at least three weeks, Archie was barely 7 pounds in birthweight? And also that he made his debut in the world at the precise time to the minute as sunrise that day. That synchronicity would certainly appeal to someone who loves striking perfect warrior pose at dawn on the African savanna.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TASD1db0MAc&feature=emb_logo
Love this - Reese on Ellen talking about meeting Kate and being so excited because "she's a princess". ha ha ha ha ha
@Sally1975
I too echo "blimey"! One of his former girlfriends hinted every so slightly ("sometimes he's not very nice") perhaps referring to this? The RF PR machine could have kept it very quiet (look at Andrew) especially if it was in the UK.
The question is why now? Is MeGain setting up an exit with an expected huge settlement and massive sympathy PR?
Has the BRF given up cleaning up after Harry, since he has given up on being a working Royal?
Does Harry fully understand now the shielding he had in the BRF?
...................
@Musty
I too think it might be a false story being used as a set-up. The blind makes it seem as if the violence continued for quite some time. I just don't know if I can believe that...I think there would have been some hint of a story that sensational while it was happening.
I'm surprised that the US tabloids haven't gone after them more. The tabs and mags seem to still be tiptoeing around the duo. I wonder how long that will last?
I don't believe it is about Bidens son as they are too many Meg refrences sprinkled in ..the writing notes etc and blind calling "X" fun likeable one.etc etc
also as noted, harrys old girlfriend(s) said he wasnt always very nice. i took that to mean he was moody and tempermental, but not violent, rough sex.
interesting though because his GF’s and MM didn’t appear to be bruised up ... but that can be hidden thru clothes and make-up.
also interesting that Camelia, has in the last year or so, been an advocate against Domestic Abuse victims. she must know as must PC and PW that Harrys been violent in the past. maybe if Harry controls his drinking, his Mr. Hyde side stays hidden? and thats why MM is keeping him away from his Brit drinking buddies and Adele? just speculating.
if the Firm has covered up stuff in the past, it could very well come out like Randy Andys indescretions. And he’s got nobody to cover up for him now ....
I've just found pictures of the Queen at the show in 1982 wearing a very similar plaid skirt so this is apparently a long-time favorite for morning appearances!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8314625/Unseen-images-Royal-Windsor-Horse-meant-start-today.html
I've learned that she often changed outfits for different appearances at different times of the day showing up in the evening horse show events dressed more formally. She wore 3 different ensembles on the day Archie was born.
Also, the show is a multi-day event.
He has children from a previous relationship. No way it's Hunter Biden.
With respect, I think sloths are much more intelligent than Harry. They are slow, but I think this gives them a lot of time for thinking. I would probably liken Harry more to a quokka, An Australian marsupial With a genial face like an animated cartoon character, who are so self centered and stupid that they abandon their babies at any perceived threat and run off, Leaving the defenseless Joeys to be eaten by predators.
I don’t know what to make of this latest blind gossip tidbit about Harry being so rough in the sack that he puts prostitutes in A&E. Harry is full of rage and I could see him punching walls or yelling profanities. But the fact that he is so dominated by Meg does not indicate a personality that is dominant with women or anybody. Harry is the beta in every relationship he’s ever had... first with his brother, now with Meg. The sad sack we see before us now doesn’t seem to have the gumption to use women like punching bags. If Harry does have this kind of behavior on his sheet, Perhaps the queen allowed the marriage is the spirit of getting him off the market so he couldn’t ruin a nice English girl from a good family. Harry has spent most of his time since he was 13 or 14 around coked up girls for hire. Meg was the latest in a long line of professional entertainment. Harry’s family has released him To his gutter level.
Let’s see if there’s any lawsuits issuing from the Sussex camp over these allegations. If it’s radio silence, maybe we have our answer. If there’s any truth to it, then H deserves every bit of misery that he’s enduring now. Taste of his own medicine.
@Miggy and Sally
Well done for finding the photos.
@Natalier
I think the tartan print on the Queen's skirt is the same but the photo is sharper, hence the print looking darker. The cardigan is a slightly darker shade of blue too.
I've compared the Queen's hair on the photo at the 'reveal' and the photo at the horse show the year before and her hair does seem slightly shorter at the horse show, especially the back and the side above the right ear.
.................
@Maneki
Thanks for the response. I actually downloaded the pics of HM dressed in the similar outfits to my computer in order to take a closer look at them.
I guess the tartan/plaid skirt and sweater is a type of uniform for her when in casual dress at the Windsor Horse Show as I have found pictures of various plaid skirts (many similar) from multiple years.
IMO QEII is wearing the same outfit in 2016 as the “meet Archie” photo.
The 2018 outfit is a different skirt with what looks like the same blue cardigan.
In 2019 the photos the DM claims were taken just before she meets Archie show her in a raincoat. However, if you scroll all the way down at this link (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7005343/The-Queen-smiles-attends-day-one-Royal-Windsor-Horse-Show.html) you can see one picture that shows just a peek at QEII’s skirt below the raincoat. It looks to me like the same skirt once again.
I still think the photo appears to be a compilation but it seems like the outfit could possibly be correct.
I don't think the photo could have come from the 2019 horse show since it was raining and HM kept her coat and headscarf on.
Perhaps the image is from the 2016 horse show?
One of my bosses invited me to his home to meet his wife because we had some similarities. He was the nastiest, meanest, most sadistic piece of work I have ever met. My co-worker, who had worked for him for a few years, had a 3 inch thick HR file about him.
I was amazed to see that at home, he was a meek and submissive husband, catering to his wife's every whim.
People are like onions. They have many layers and although we think we can predict their behaviour, often that is not possible unless we know them very well, and even then, people can very much surprise us.
@ Sally 1975: BG has proven to be very reliable when it comes to the Harkles, so I'm inclined to believe it. When Harry was very young, he once deliberately drove his bicycle into a palace staffer, which I think shows a certain meanness. LCC says that Diana, who witnessed the incident, scolded Harry but didn't punish him, and she thinks that's been his problem ever since childhood: he was never disciplined, never heard the word no, was never held accountable for his actions and never faced the consequences of his bad behavior. The result is a man who can blackmail his elderly grandmother and father into agreeing to a disastrous marriage to a woman who is out to destroy his family.
.............
@Barbara
I do remember that story about Harry and the palace staffer. I respect everyone's opinion on this but I think it's a big leap from what a little boy might do to what is described in that blind. It's just too extreme for me to believe it's about Harry. I thought the complaints Chelsy and Cressida had were more in the line of his cheapness and cheating. I lean more toward believing it is something MM made up.
I agree with you about the variety of babies used in the photos and videos. It has been laughable. Big, small, delicate, hearty, male, female, blonde blonde blonde. My husband has extensive family and I have watched twelve years of babies grow up side by side. I mention this because theirs is a strong blonde Irish gene pool and among the 10 young children, there is an unusual, striking family resemblance from one to the next. But each is absolutely distinctive of course, just as these actor babies are absolutely distinctive and clearly not one child.
And each of our nieces and nephews did not change individually in this wacky manner over the first couple of years of life. Their features are specific to them in spite of the strong family traits.
The christening photo baby in the four color image is clearly not the one in the black and white images. In my work we do some retail branding shoots for clothing and some flights involve kids. We do many casting calls. Facial and size differences are pronounced and looked at carefully in test shots, so maybe the differences in these stunt babies are glaring to me for that reason as well, just as you see them more clearly from your experience as a children’s librarian (my dream job!). The boldness of her/them passing off all these babies as Archie is truly disturbing and makes me shakes my head at the BRF.
That she (narcissism trait) thinks she can get away with all this baby sleight-of-hand shows a measure of lunacy best left on a comic television program. Frankly, if there is an Archie, and she was forced to present him to court, I think she would not be able to pick him out of a line up, because my guess is he is barely distinctive to her as a human. She wanted baby Princess Diana, it didn’t work out, and now just as she hops from husband to husband, country to country, faux cause to faux cause, wig to wig, this baby rental is part of her pathology.
Doria......I agree there is probably a financial arrangement there and she is used for M’s gritting plan. Yes, she looked beautiful at the wedding and I do think she came for the Grenfell cookbook launch. I meant that I don’t think she reappeared after that, popping over again to deserted Frogmore for holidays, to check decor of “her” granny wing, or to pose for christenings. As you say, no airport sightings and I doubt the Clooneys were jetting her around along with surrogates, baby shower guests and handling M’s demand to attend the US Open. I think she is a canny woman and quite possibly was handling M’s grift stateside, with direction from MA and others. Where M has that jumpy sloppy hysterically laughing bent over double hand waving demeanor that results in endless foot in mouth errors, Doria is cucumber cool and secretive, plays her silent role well, and yet is also surrounded by a nimbus of strange rumors.
It’s not that some things don’t add up. It’s that nothing does.
Bullies can be out-bullied.
Whatever M brings to a fight behind closed doors must be awful, considering the letter written by her brother, the warning Samantha put out about keeping her away from children, the peculiar awful fates of her cat and at least one dog, the wreck that is H, the way she trashed her own father after using him. Some people lack the Viking warrior blood or whatever spark it takes to fight back against someone like her, or they leave it up to God or karma or the courts or the next victim. But I have seen a stronger bully make quivering emotional mincemeat out of one of the worst people I ever knew. So yes, I think even if on planet blind gossip H abused sex workers, he might be unprepared for the wrath of an even more unhinged, more volatile, more ruthless person.
Last news of Thomas was also months ago. He had moved in with his mother.
Meghan has been successful in silencing her family and flooding the marketplace with psychophantic biographies. Even criticism of her portrays her as strong and independent.
The strange thing is that Samantha and Thomas were right about her, and her actions and speeches reveal what a self serving hypocrite she is. I actually feel sorry for her because she hustled her way into fame and wealth that she can't handle and, now that she is without palace guidance and support, there seems to be no one to give her advice that is best for her. She wouldn't listen anyway!
They must know he’s not coming back, and has chosen this path with Meghan, so all bets are probably off. It’s very very sad but I do think the RF will want Harry to really hit rock bottom and learn the lessons on his own this time. They have done enough entitled hand holding and it didn’t work.
By the way am I the only one who suspects the photo of the Queen and her Duke at the recent wedding (Eugenie?) was pasted in?
Do you mean Princess Beatrice? I don't know if you're the only one who thinks it, but this is the first time I've encountered it and I read a bunch of royal blogs.
Now that you've brought it up, though, I find it interesting that it took this long for someone to raise the possibility. Most of the comments I heard about the picture were about Prince Philip's age, the lack of masks, the imprudence of having two elderly people at a party during a pandemic, and the like -- but everyone seemed to accept it was 100% real. I guess this says a lot about how trustworthy the public find Princess Beatrice, despite the issues with her parents and her husband.
Meanwhile, Meghan could release a totally authentic (ahem) photo and people would pick it apart forever, just because she has lied too many times in the past.
If the blind does refer to Prince Harry, then it supports the theory that he married Meghan because she was the only woman willing to do "for free" what one normally has to pay prostitutes to do. A you-know-what in the sheets and a humanitarian on the streets, who didn't mind living in the fishbowl of the BRF and kept telling him he was so much better than his brother who would be king. Harry must have genuinely thought he had the perfect woman. ("For free" is in quotation marks because the price she ultimately charged was so much higher.)
As for the 'fake photos' of Harry, Meghan, Doria, the Queen and Prince Phillip with Archie in Windsor Castle ... real photo and real baby.
1. The Queen and Prince Phillip are not going to ruin a life of service by ending their days allowing a fake photo like that to be published.
2. Too many people would have to be 'in on the secret'. It is a castle, a huge castle, full of staff and offices.
Archie is real and is their baby. The Sussexes have this bizarre habit of telling lies or obsfucating the truth to play games with the media and 'to be private'. It just feeds the gossip and speculation, so I think they subconsciously love the attention. That Archie does not seem to have a loving bond with either of his parents seems to come across in the photos. In that video of Meghan reading to him, the kid obviously has someone doing active reading with him as he knows about turning pages, but it is not Meghan.
By the way, I saw a video clip of Meghan walking the dogs and Archie in the forest in Canada. The way that kid is dangling is bizarre ... everything is bizarre in that scene. Crazy woman! (just my opinion)
Great job you all. To sum up
1. The pic was done by the Harkles pocket photographer
2. Was released in a fashion/gossip magazine Bazaar (correct?)after first showing on social media - Sussex royal IG
3.The strange absence of the Queen is possibly due to the fact she was informed about the intent to sell the image.
4.Jane's inappropriate outfit is too strange, given she was married to the Queen's private secretary and is Very aware of protocol
5.Kate is disproportionately huge in the pic
6.Kate's outfit was blue in the morning of the day at the church (more appropriate for the christening of the boy) and yet she is in a pink dress on the pic, suggesting she changed from a formal appropriate one into casual less appropriate within a very short time, which makes no sense.
7.Some people also said metadata, later amended, shows the picture was not taken when announced (not completely sure about this one, can't find proof)
Too many strange things in one place.
I saw that video too and it is bizarre. Archie's leg is swinging so violently it almost looks like an inflatable balloon in the wind - or the child is about to slip out and fall.
No wonder they hunted this video and tried to ban it everywhere.
wondered as soon as I read the Blind Gossip item whether Meg was putting out stories that she might use in a divorce...it just seems odd, we've all read about Harry being immature and petulant in the past, but never abusive.
The reason my first guess was Hunter Biden was that this story doesn't line up with the awful things we do know about Prince Harry. It does fit Harry more closely than Hunter, though. Although I believe the theory that Meghan hooked him with her willingness to participate in the bedroom, I always thought it was something unspeakably bizarre rather than downright violence.
@Barbara from Montreal
BG has proven to be very reliable when it comes to the Harkles, so I'm inclined to believe it.
This. When it comes to the Harkles, BG has been the exact opposite of the Girl Who Cried Racism. So I'm also inclined to believe all their blinds about the Montecito Merchers.
It could be that Meghan has figured out what a great mouthpiece they are and has sent them a sneaky "leak" of her own, to damage Harry ahead of the divorce she is already planning. But she has never been a good strategic planner. Her way of bringing him down is humiliating him in public, preferably with cameras around. Unless she tries to milk this to make herself look better at his expense -- such as by suddenly becoming interested in the rights and protection of sex workers -- I just find it hard to believe this comes from her.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry
https://www.hillspet.com/cat-care/nutrition-feeding/toxic-foods-for-cats
How old was she when she did for the cat? What would it say about the probability of her growing up into a sadist/psychopath? How does H compare with her? Which might be greater deviant?
Btw, I did read a report that the young Andrew had hit a pony across the legs with a stick and the family did nothing. The grooms chucked him into the muck heap though.
--------------
Regarding the RF's passivity - there are 2 maxims they might go by:
`Least said, soonest mended' and `Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.'
---------------
Thanks for all the comments on the `Queen meets Archie/Darren' photo. I've long been suspicious of it and it's good that we've had another go at thrashing it out. There is an abundance of photos of HM in that rig at the 2016 event for MM to choose from (I haven't fund the exact one though - plenty of her beaming at horses and even one of having won some money, not, I think, an expression used for hearsay babies).
Is there a time stamp on the image as a whole? I'm thinking/hoping that, if it was early, it could absolutely rule out the possibility that HM was wearing the same rig under her mac and hadn't bothered to change when she returned to the castle.
Another thought: if there was a `meeting', it would have to have been arranged at short notice, to have taken place within, say, 60 hours of the birth. I didn't think HM did things at short notice, disrupting her day for Meghan and her bloke. They'd have needed an appointment.
Like Hell! Of course she wouldn't.
Nobody tells a narcissist what to do. Meghan is superior to HM anyway.
Yet another thought:
Is HM the `right size' in the photo, given that she's close to the camera? I can't make up my mind.
She used to be 5'4", in 2019 5'1".
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1142471/Queen-elizabeth-ii-height-how-tall-is-the-queen-shrunk
Also, wasn't there a CDan blind item a month back about a frightened nanny calling the cops because her employers fight had escalated to a point where the husband was threatening violence? I can't recall the exact wording but many posters here were wondering if it was the Despicable Duo.
I personally don’t think Harry has ever attacked Megsy. I think he likes the fact she’s the dominant one in the relationship, wears the trousers and pulls the strings. All that said I think they are also very alike too. He has power and jealousy issues which has caused him problems between his brother, family etc. He may have a happy go-lucky public persona (or did have), but I think his private persona is much darker (which we see more of now) and he’s very probably not a very nice person. I’ve known a few men who are/were admired and extremely well liked publicly, but who they were behind closed doors was another person entirely.
I don't remember that photo of Archie with longer, ginger hair. Have any Nutties seen it? Apologies if the photo has been widely published and I missed it.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/books/a33571636/why-meghan-markle-prince-harry-fired-night-nurse/
If the BG item is about Harry then he is even more despicable than I could ever imagine. Maybe he attacked MeGain in their early days when she was just a hot date and that is the hold she has over him?
Also, wasn't there a CDan blind item a month back about a frightened nanny calling the cops because her employers fight had escalated to a point where the husband was threatening violence? I can't recall the exact wording but many posters here were wondering if it was the Despicable Duo.
If there were a nanny, that would mean there is a child there. I believe that it was ultimately believed to be somebody else in the CDAN gossip?
Regardless, I read the BG item. Just in case anybody couldn't figure out who it was, the forearm connected to the fist was covered with red hair, unless my screen color is faulty, and there was the little dig about the wife writing them inspirational messages.
I wonder in which country these alleged offenses took place. The BRF would certainly not want any sort of "Royal Prince abuses sex workers!" stories coming out, and it is certainly not in the military best interests, either, lest innocent soldiers get set upon when they are out in public. The only places that I've read about Harry being outside the country as a military member was in Canada for training, Australia, and Afghanistan.
There is *no way* that a royal prince is going to be wandering around drunk off base in Afghanistan plus the girls(?) wouldn't be calling the police there (child prostitution is common in Afghanistan, both sexes, and the police are allegedly the pimps).
I just can't see the other countries putting up with repeated abuse of their citizens. I can't see the military enabling it (despite the delicacy of working with a prince). Word would definitely get around and the blackmail opportunities would be tremendous.
* the pink dress etc worn by Giant Photoshop Kate in the christening photo happens to be the same ensemble she wore to the Queen’s pre-Christmas luncheon a few months earlier
* Charles and Camilla both wore the same clothing to some other outdoor event a few weeks earlier and someone here pointed that out, adding only that his tie pattern/color was different, and that her shoes bore marks of walking in grass.
* the missing rear chair legs (Giant Kate’s chair) - possibly the angle, but...
* someone on another blog at the time pointed out that several of the black and white images of M seemed to be photoshopped off similar posed images of Kate, with blurred join marks and dress details, and noting the baby in the black and white images looked nothing like the christening group shot baby
New Harry Markle today 27/10/20
But at two private embassy events, one in Jamaica and I think one in Belgium, they were required to help de-escalate and cover up some sordid behavior involving a British Royal. In the Jamaican instance, it was a private house, party in full swing, the police were called and there was a flurry of hustling the Royal out and helicopter evac and days of meetings to silence everyone. None of it hit the press. It was sordid enough that she felt somewhat disillusioned to say the least, and further conflicted because she got promoted for handling it so well. Her starry eyed junior ideals were wiped away.
So, unfortunately, I can believe it.
The BG article I believe would be referring to when he was based in the UK, which he mainly was. I don’t think it’s meant to imply when he was training in other countries and most certainly not when in Afghanistan on operations (the base is nowhere near to civilians).
Also, every time Harry would've left the base to go out with his friends, he would have had RPO's with him. Although they would let him get away with a lot of things (drinking excessively, naked billiards), I seriously doubt they'd let him get away with beating a woman. If they personally did not stop it, they would've reported it and his chain would've been yanked hard.
Do you think Kate would hang out with H if she knew he had beaten some women? Eugenie and Bea? Those 2 would've taken him aside and beat the crap out of him themselves.
And i feel there would've been rumors of it earlier, years earlier.
Can H be an obnoxious entitled drunken jerk? Yup. They had Randy Andy, the party prince, and i think H learned how to party hard. No consequences just like PA. But being physically abusive to women? No, i don't believe that.
Your friends story I truly believe. Joe public are purposely kept in the dark, I’m guessing the closet is chock full of covered up stories and secrets, hoping to never see the light of day. It would be completely naive to believe the royal family are transparent in that way. We’ve had a few stories regarding Harry over the years....just the tip of the iceberg and nothing like what has truly gone on with him and others within the family.
Thank you for the additions to the list. I myself can add that Samantha openly accused Markle of faking the christening. I also managed to find the analyses by gofakeyourselfmeghan blog who did the camera EXIF data check, which shows the group pic was indeed taken on May 8, not on July 6. The link to the data is below. Not only that, the intelligent person behind the blog also managed to establish that the black and white photo of the duo and baby taken with a different camera, also has exactly the same origin date and time!
https://gofakeyourselfmeghan.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/archies-christening-photos/
After reading the post above I have little doubt the images were tempered with. The extent is open for debate, of course.
Notice how quickly and noticeably relations between Wills and Harkles broke starting from the time around "birth" and "christening". To the point the Harkles had to run away abruptly and cowardly.
Again, I have no doubt something related to Archie sealed the breaking down of the relationships in the family.
Megsy wrote uplifting (patronising) notes to sex workers on banana’s, I don’t see how this could fit anyone else apart from her. :o/
I just don't know. I'm off to the dentist. I'm so excited.
I am wondering if M makes a habit of making accusations (gee, ya think?). If she told her father that Trevity slapped her and that's why she divorced him and then how her friends told Lady C that her father did the "worst thing" a father would do. We know she loves the victim role. Anyway - here is the info:
final post before dentist - had LSA open and saw this post by Eustacavye -
I’m not sure what to think about the blind that’s being discussed. But as soon as I read it, I was reminded of this one from a couple years ago.
Slappy Engagement - BLIND GOSSIP
https://blindgossip.com/slappy-engagement/
People were guessing H&M but......... what if she did plant this current BG rumor?
Forgot to add another observation re the group christening photo. Royal protocol pretty much demands hats for official occasions. Charlotte, George and Louis Christenings all have women wearing proper formal hats - including notoriously "informal" Megsy.
I will never believe that Kate with her accurate following of protocol would have chosen an informal headband for the official christening photo of Archie.
Forgive me, but I think you’re confusing BG with CDAN. It’s the latter that’s mostly incorrect. BG show their solved blinds on their site, there’s masses of them. ;o)
Harry's face turns red a lot. This could be due to a problem with histamine which causes this issue and may also cause the person to become irritable, angry, depressed, and unable to sleep.
Many types of alcohol have high levels of histamine or else they cause the body to release histamine, which would cause the person to become even more irritable and/or angry.
I've witnessed this myself in someone who was ordinarily well mannered but as soon as he had 2-3 beers, became very angry and violent.
"I will never believe that Kate with her accurate following of protocol would have chosen an informal headband for the official christening photo of Archie."
But Kate wore what was really an oversized headband to Louis's christening.
(I do agree there was something funky about Archie's christening.)
I don’t think anyone wants it to be true, well no-one in their right mind would. No one should be above the law, no-one whatsoever, but the truth no matter how unpalatable is that it happens.
What makes the alleged incident so much worse is that it’s about an unelected public official whose taken millions of pounds from the British tax payer, whose (equally taking tax payers money) family have covered his back for his entire life. The blind doesn’t indicate that’s it’s a planted story (they usually do if that’s the case).
Good luck at the dentist! :o)
I will gladly accept I am wrong but I am beginning to believe Kate was not a part of this group in reality.
Hence her strange dress and strange headdress. I just can't accept she, who never flaunts protocol and propriety, chose a barely acceptable outfit for the formal royal occasion.
https://blindgossip.com/famous-son-got-very-rough/
it's not a Meg item, it's a Harry item. Soldier, years ago, way before they met...
Wonder if true or a plant to build up a story for any future divorce settlement...both, neither?
@ OKay
Forgive me, but I think you’re confusing BG with CDAN. It’s the latter that’s mostly incorrect. BG show their solved blinds on their site, there’s masses of them. ;o)
_______________
No, no confusion. BG does show their solved blinds, but do you have any idea how many never see the light of day again after being run? Exactly. (And frankly, even when they're "solved" a lot of the time they don't necessarily prove anything.)
Fairy Crocodile— excellent sleuthing of that data! And I agree, the rift between the brothers seemed to really launch in a strong way dating from the oddness over the pregnancy and birth. I think that was the last straw for Will and Kate, who are the parents of real children and who went through real pregnancies. And I agree, the choice of the headband seemed very off for Kate, who follows protocol well. That, and the weird fedora image of Diana’s sister, would have been overlooked by, say, an incompetent self-absorbed outsider who hadn’t bothered to study the rules, traditions and protocols of a family she was already planning to leave. Someone who would squash her royal husband into the corner of a loveseat so she can have the center spot with a bemused rental baby, for example, yet call the result an official portrait.
This awful story could certainly be a divorce set up put out up M, or more likely, for a “confused, scared wife forced to sue people by her mean abusuve husband” defense in the upcoming court case perhaps. A way to sell more press stories if she is moving on to abused women groups.
Some narcissistic types might even do this as a way to throw the onus onto another party for abuse the narcissist himself or herself actually performed at one time (for example, if the narcissist was reputed to be in a dead man’s little black book as a player, or working as a procurer for a sex cult that brands its victims). The narcissist might also use and embellish old unproven small rumors against their victim, for example, a famous son of a famous family — all for more control, or for sympathy as they are dumped BY the victim, or for a PR cover story to sell scripts, etc.
Or the narcissist, failing, disliked publicly, and losing everything, might do something like this just to strike first and destroy people in a family the narcissist has always rage-envied. She can’t be Diana, she will destroy Diana’s sons with innuendo. After all, they say that sometimes all the plastic surgery in the world can still leave a bitter angry self-loathing unattractive unimportant child festering inside the resculpted rebooted exterior.
But, if it is M behind this drip of ugly gossip info,I think she needs to expect the BRF team will discover who is behind the leak, and will repay her by withdrawing all titles, ending all monetary and security support, and releasing the File at a most inopportune moment.
Not only the child's fingers are strange. On the colour family photo look at the Charles' fingers on the back of the sofa. They look weird.
Also, both Harry and Megs wear light coloured outfits. Where her sleeved arm is against his suit appears an odd black line which shouldn't really be there. even if the light is from the right. This may be a result of tinkering with sharpness and contrast of the image but the overall impression is strange and unprofessional. The whole thing just feels odd.
I will gladly accept I am wrong but I am beginning to believe Kate was not a part of this group in reality.
Hence her strange dress and strange headdress. I just can't accept she, who never flaunts protocol and propriety, chose a barely acceptable outfit for the formal royal occasion.
I think the only living figures in that picture are Megalo, Harry and the rental baby. That's it. They are in a vacant room otherwise, and the 'group' pasted in. I absolutely believe this. The composition is completely whack, for something arranged by a 'professional'. Meg's own foot looks like it's screwed on at a weird angle. The figure of Gargantuan Kate is a bit of Narcissist Revenge, I think--Meggy is driven insane with jealousy for Catherine . . statuesque, slender, athletic, beautiful skin and hair, three lovely natural children . .her future throne, of course. A bit of petty revenge to make Kate look enormous in that photo.
It may be a fabricated story to harm H, absolutely, and time will provide the “why” of the matter. If fabricated, I think we know who the source might be: someone who has pulled stunts like this before, someone with a weird gang of unsavory or unscrupulous friends.
I think there is a chance it can be true, as I said above.
Here’s another reason I say this: when I was young and beginning my career, I was invited to work in a key top role on a fascinating rebranding project with some impressive people. I was thrilled. My team was amazing and we have remained friends. That said, the second in command of the project, who presented herself with a warm, motherly, funny, friendly “we are a family” kindness and positivity front, was a woman who had many violent behind the scenes rages. One day, she stapled one of my employees hands in a fury, sending her to the hospital. Next, she screamed at and shoved and hit another team member in the offices so aggressively he (only 30 years old) suffered a mild heart attack and an ambulance was called. Along the way, she was so vicious to three women, they ended up on tranquilizers and In therapy. I witnessed all this, and went to HR and the company president, who did nothing - they turned out to be in her coke club, basically. She then began attacks on her boss, our Sr VP, a gifted man from France who was a brilliant but gentle man, and who became rather shocked and frozen. Everyone feared her; I simply saw a dumpy witch who stole work and was off her nut, a braggart who let info of her crimes slip when she was high or drunk, basically most afternoons. She shoved a pregnant woman off her feet, and I decided to journal it all.
My team and I hunkered down for the duration. Four quit after being similarly abused, even though we were winning awards and sales were up. After two years, I accepted a great offer and left, as did my main counterpart. Two months later, I received an hysterical call from my old team: this woman had hit an intern so hard, his head smashed a dented hole into the wood of her office door. They asked for help. They were terrified. No one would believe their motherly kind sunny boss who worked on human rights charities could do this.
I told my wonderful new boss what was up; he knew of her, and said go do what you have to do, because that is ridiculous, and I will make some calls. I was 25, no one, but I was furious. I marched in to my old department, cornered this woman in her office, locked the door, let hell hounds rip, and told her I was standing as witness to any abuse case any staffer brought. I used her desk phone to call and tell the Sr VP what I knew..... he came in and I showed him where she hid reports she stole from his office to climb over him, and contracts she was creating to ruin him. She cried, he vented fury on her, she scampered in terror out of the place, and was gone forever two weeks later. Meanwhile, my new boss apparently saw to it that her options in that city were done. I think she fled back to her hometown.
It took two hours of my time and all my volatile latent Viking genes, but I had enough, and I unmasked her. I think she faced four suits.
Anyway, my point is, you never know what lurks beneath. I’d met this lunatic at conferences and would never have believed it until I lived through it. That said, it may not be H —- it may be M, projecting. Time will tell.
Curiouser and curiouser, we did get video footage of the Cambridges' car arriving at Windsor that day--at least that is what we were told. Catherine was definitely wearing a blue dress. Why would she wear one garment for the ceremony, only to change her frock less than an hour later for the picture? Certainly she would not have required a fresh change of clothes in the approximately 20 minute car ride from Kensington to Windsor. Glimpsing them in a car in Windsor on the alleged day of the christening is not in itself sufficient proof that they actually attended a christening that day. One wonders if the Archbishop of Canterbury hopped on a helicopter from York for the occasion . . maybe Haz flew that chopper himself, hey!
One can only speculate at the reaction of the personages thus pictured. Laughter at Meg's audacity? Boiling anger? They aren't saying either way.
Lawyers.
We live in a world where a majority of the wealth is owned by 8 families per continent. The shares in companies that we work for, and the land we walk on. Our worldwide society is all about money and power. It is less about lawfulness, as that changes from one jurisdiction to another. Unfortunately, you and I here at this blog are held to account almost exceptionally faster than the elite few. These families can, basically, afford to get away with whatever they want for the most part.
Under that fact, it’s even more surprising that Meghan, being a prominent member of one of those families, is left to her own devices. They don’t like her and they want her gone. It’s as simple as that.
So I had a look online and found this:
https://whatkatewore.com/2019/07/06/its-stella-mccartney-for-archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsors-christening/
This discusses every aspect (almost) of the outfit. It's a pillbox hat, not a headband; like the Jane fedora, it doesn't seem appropriate for a summer christening, more like something for a winter duty.
The dress is terribly `mumsy', (Margaret Thatcher did for bows at the neckline). Given that it was reported that Duchess C wore blue that day (for a boy?) did M find the least flattering photo of her to paste in, on a chair which is one or two legs short of a full set?
Come off it, whoever said that clock had a dead battery! Had it been one of the very early experimental electric clocks, I'd have expected it to be mentioned in the RCT notes as a point of interest.
It was supplied in 1811 and given a new movement in 1834. Surely it would have been traditional clockwork one - ie mechanical?
It's equally unlikely that the member of staff responsible for winding the palace clocks would have let it run down/run slow or stay on the mantel if it needed further attention.
See https://www.rct.uk/collection/30013/mantel-clock
The mirror - I found a photo of Meghan & Harry's wedding where it clearly shows reflections of the back row of guests, and of the clock.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/776378423237274599/
Yet in the christening photo there are no reflection as far as I can see, confirming that Megsy, or her photographer, took a picture of an empty room.
Either that, or the guests at Archie's do had become vampires...
Indeed, hence Megs complains against social media. This is pretty much the only place where people freely exchange their opinions of her. I am not talking about vicious comments, but about normal opinions about her behaviour. This is also a place where people can share information they dug out - like that christening picture metadata or early unattractive pictures from her "modelling" days she wants to bury.
She can't control us and we are mostly beyond the reach of her lawyers, so we are a hated and despised beast.
When she hastily switched from royal rota to social media she didn't expect to be called out for her conduct and neither did Harry, who is fully used to be yessed to.
Our groups and DM comments came as a shock for them.
Everyone in the office laughed at me for reporting it, and the women would approach me and say "Oops, sorry, i don't want you to report that I hit you".
Then the co-worker started hitting the other women. The women would be jumpy and get a very bad startle reaction at the slightest noise.
She continued working there for months, until management could find a way to fire her without her coming back to the company and shooting everyone up. Oh, they fired ME after I came back from a 1 week sick leave after she reported that she hit me, for causing trouble.
Come off it, whoever said that clock had a dead battery! Had it been one of the very early experimental electric clocks, I'd have expected it to be mentioned in the RCT notes as a point of interest.
It was supplied in 1811 and given a new movement in 1834. Surely it would have been traditional clockwork one - ie mechanical?
It's equally unlikely that the member of staff responsible for winding the palace clocks would have let it run down/run slow or stay on the mantel if it needed further attention.
Wonder if you saw this article the other day? In Britain, the clocks went off Summer Time last week-end, and this article featured Windsor Castle's Horological Conservator (ie, the guy who tends to the clocks) during one of his busiest times of the year. He works around the Windsor estate exclusively, and has a colleague at Buckingham Palace who does the same there. One supposes that Sandringham and Balmoral also have horological conservators on site. Turns out there are a lot of clocks to tend to; this young man spends about 16 hours changing all the castle and estate clocks back and forth. The current occupant of this post just started the job recently, as this was his first time-change . .but his predecessor would have been sure to have the clock in the Green drawing room at Windsor Castle in fine nick for any official Royal portrait sittings.
I'm sure in between time changes twice a year, there is plenty to keep the Horological Conservator busy, constantly checking to see all the clocks are running well, polishing delicate parts, doing repairs and suchlike.
Here in America, we go off Daylight Savings Time this coming Sunday, November 1st. It will get dark at 6pm in my time zone, but on the upside, the sun will come up well before its current time. Getting up at 7:30am to blackness outside the windows has me feeling like a mole.
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-54387428
"I will gladly accept I am wrong but I am beginning to believe Kate was not a part of this group in reality."
"Hence her strange dress and strange headdress. I just can't accept she, who never flaunts protocol and propriety, chose a barely acceptable outfit for the formal royal occasion."
I do agree with you lots of things seem off in the Archie christening photo. And Kate looks huge! But while I've never been a fan of the headband-as-hat look, I'm not sure Kate would consider wearing one to a COE christening a protocol violation. During her headband phase, besides the elaborate headband hat she wore to Louis's royal christening, we saw her wear headband hats to church services several times (with the Queen also attending) and to Sophie Carter's COE wedding.
As to whether it was ok to wear pink, I think it was. (Ironically, when Kate was first seen wearing that dress to the Buckingham Palace Christmas lunch [same earrings, no headband], the color was seen as a protocol violation at Christmas!) But then I'm not crazy about the notion that one must wear baby blue for a boy and pink for a girl. After all, Carole Middleton wore navy and gray to George's christening and tan to Charlotte's,
and Camilla wore blue to Charlotte's.
I do wonder though what Lady Jane was thinking! She's been royal- adjacent for so long via the Diana connection as well as her husband's. That "walk to the village store" outfit was quite casual for a christening.
------
@Opus,
I don't think TQ and PP were pasted into the photo taken after Beatrice's wedding. Lack of masks means nothing. They were outdoors and socially distanced in the photo and no one was wearing masks routinely in the UK then. Certainly no one wore masks later that day at the knighting of Capt. Tom Moore.
Thank you for finding the info that Kate is wearing a pill hat and not a headband in a pic.
Reflection in the mirror could have depended on the distance and the angle of the camera. the green room is big, and people could have been quite far. Look at the queen and kids in front of the mirror opposite to the mirror of christening pic (reflecting it with the clock on it). There is no reflection of people either:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cglu1P_WMAA6wJa?format=jpg&name=small
Having said this I find the lack of reflections strange, as the mirror is very large. Here you can see where exactly the christening picture was taken, in the corner to the right near the window:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/05/22/13/4C8643DA00000578-5756881-image-a-24_1526990868449.jpg
Weird and odd details about the christening pics remain, especially the metadata. The photographer, when asked about it by bloggers, chose to remain silent, or at least I am not aware of the contrary.
@Puds, it was what I call my first moment of feeling strong lol. What you witnessed sounds horrible. I wonder if many of us who dealt with narcissist abuse somehow smelled it on the air with H and M, and ended up here, discussing it as it played out.
@OKay, this actually happened in a big US corporation skilled at covering staff issues and making things go away with payoffs or forcing people out. Happens every day. Workplace law can be very murky, young stuff are frightened to bring up issues for fear of ruining their careers, plus legal help can be too costly for many. So people just quit and move and these people keep going until they implode — usually they end up caught failing to produce. Some land in jobs working with and for similarly unpleasant types. I think the company intervened and offered settlements to several people after dismissing the woman, but yes, she got away with it — though her career skidded out and her reputation suffered badly. I have heard of and seen other crazy situations when we go in to consult with companies in three countries, and I think much gets shoved under the rug due to “culture” and nothing is done and people leave and productivity goes down and until it is very rocky, nobody at the top asks what the hell is going on, then some issue a survey! I think it may be all lawsuit based, as the average person can’t win against a big firm that spins out a trial: they don’t want shareholders to know there is a mess.
I have noticed a spate of amplified shi**y management behavior on the increase, but, someone ends up noticing: it costs a lot to replace people. And lunatics (even those who fail upward) inevitably hurt the business or brand. Younger staff will walk right out, which gets noticed.
I often say the next tell-all books will come from fed up workers, instead of whinging M types. Stuff that would be easily prosecuted on the streets or in a domestic violence capacity is buried in workplaces, though some groups are trying to change that.
These horrid types have always been around. A business school professor actually did a lecture about it for us naive students years ago, and I am thankful he did, He was a global consultant from to companies and governments, a man who’d seen it all. He said those people/management groups inevitably trip up. He called it business karma. Know when to be a warrior, know when to watch them hang themselves, and take your vitamins basically. The world filled with desks is not the world outside.
Thank you for the additional details re Kates outfits.
That is why it is great to have so many fantastic people commenting here, we can always have somebody to keep our wildest conspiracy theories in check.
I entirely agree with you gigantic Kate is an alarm bell. She is so out of proportion next to Harry I can't quite get how it was allowed to be released. In real life Harry is taller and bigger than Kate
Re. the Blind Gossip story
It may be a fabricated story to harm H, absolutely, and time will provide the “why” of the
matter. If fabricated, I think we know who the source might be: someone who has pulled stunts like this before, someone with a weird gang of unsavory or unscrupulous friends.
You are talking about Fergie, right? It would be to Andrew's benefit certainly for Harry to be unmasked as an abuser of women. Take the heat off himself a bit. No one else in the family would think it beneficial to strip away another layer of Harry's rancid onion . . not when they have exerted so much energy to keep it buried. Ultimately, it's the Royal family--the Queen and Charles--who get the heat for this, in their complicity for creating Harry and then covering for him all of his life. To have this come out is a worst-case scenario for everyone but Andrew.
I have just read that blind about Harry on the BG site again and read through some of the comments. A lot of people are saying Hunter Biden, who is currently in the crosshairs for his unsavory activities . . but the clues don't make any sense for him. Biden has no Army service; his dad pulled some strings and got him a commission in the U.S. Navy Reserves, which Junior promptly tanked by testing positive for cocaine. He would have already been in his early 40s when his father assumed office, and it's hardly likely that goodtime girls would consider the Veep's kid that much of a desirable client, unless he would've provided them with free blow. Few enough people can even name the Vice President in any given year, much less know who his kids are.
Even for people who are disenchanted to downright P'ed off at Harry for his behavior, this is a whole other subterranean level of awfulness. If Harry is capable of abusing horses and fellow squaddies, it's not that far a leap to hurting women, I guess . . especially women he's 'hired' and therefore might think he 'owns' by the hour to do with as he likes. Working girls have to tolerate some rough stuff in the course of their work, but if they have to go to the hospital with injuries afterwards, that's beyond 'a bit rough'.
Cocaine and alcohol . . maybe even steroid abuse? Too much drinking would also fuel rage if it resulted in not being able to perform.
Can Harry have morphed from a sexual sadist into a sexual masochist, the abuser finally having met his match and become the abused?
Harry, Harry, Harry . . .what can we possibly say?
Once we were on site working on some creative rebranding for an extremely vile pair, a man and a woman. Every day they began to shriek at some poor person, railing and cursing, on some power trip. After a week of this, I butted right in and offered them each a piece of chewing gum, like a twinkly loud nanny. Over and over. After a few weeks they were like dogs. They’d get red and angry and automatically turn to me for gum. It shut their mouths and they’d wander off. (This genius trick was courtesy of an old mentor.) We finished the work but dropped the client. The staff told us they kept using the gum trick whenever the rage began. I don’t know why the gum works, but it does.