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
Workplace violence is not ok. That we can all agree on.
In a parallel vein of thought, asking for people to either be kind in speaking about (or to) other posters (many already do - so great, keep up the good work) or say nothing if it is someone you dislike, feel they are saying things designed to step on your one last nerve, are not kind to you or something similar.
One of the reasons many like this blog is the posters - people have diverse backgrounds, skills, knowledge and willing to share it. Another is that it is a kind, friendly place where there are few angry words said to and about other posters. Let's keep it this way.
(thank you)
Could totally be Fergie, operating on Andrew’s behest or behalf. They have axes to grind and may think if he goes down, Andy looks slightly better and public purses may come the way of their daughters. Personally, I doubt it will work out that way.
However, was thinking more of our dear beautiful ravishing Duchess. Her immediate circle seems to include more unsavory types than you could fit into a Titanic rowboat. Markus, Mulroneys, Ron Burkle and Soho, Netflix and its Cuties brigade, the mysterious Doria with her mysterious acquisition of the house of an oddly dead relative (she always gets a pass because she is silent and attractive and dressed nicely for the cameras and does yoga, but in this game of Clue! I am no longer discounting anything or anyone - she showed up at that first Invictus event when a shocked Harry saw M and MA enter the stands, she had a funny smile when they were at the altar).
Also: Yachters who send twitter invitations, Russian oligarchs who lends houses and mortgage money, designers who pop up selling one dumb white shirt in NYC and then marry oil barons and invite ecological warriors to their lavish weddings, Hospitals willing to act coy about a royal birth, close friends who fly to Australia for a honeymoon tour and come home with a free luxury car, then sail on to easily hustle tv jobs and insult and threaten a young woman of color over social media and — get away with it.
All kinds of odd people who were asked to advise M or find her a rich Brit or pop up to prop her up at Wimbledon while spitting out ire toons at her while digging controlling fingers into her arm. LA management busily opening endless shell companies for a Z lister who Is desperately trying to drum up attention on pitiful Zoom calls, who apparently still has no fixed address Netflix can find, yet is a TIME 100 gal thanks to the (oldish, creepy) men of the Soho House network. Rumors of friendship with heiresses running sex cults. I mean: huh?!?
What other sulky untalented kid from middle class LA can boast such a weird circle of pals? What unsavory, tough little monsters they appear to be (in my opinion). A dumb, weak, confused, sedated Harry alone in LA would be no match for this lot once they bring out the knives.
The question remains — why, and for what?
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 . . . 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.
Recalling Catherine's supremely peeved expression in the car on the way back -- and how little time she and Prince William actually spent at Windsor -- I'll go with boiling anger.
Imagine knowing that your brother-in-law and his wife, who has already breached countless personal boundaries where you and your children are concerned (not even considering the breaches of protocol for a moment), blithely faked a pregnancy (a state which causes you hyperemesis gravidarum so severe that you've needed hospitalization) and that you have to go along with the lie for the good of the family . . . which you do, even dressing appropriately for the occasion, because you have been following the rules ever since you joined the family . . . only to learn that the doctored photo you agreed to pose for has already been cobbled together, with you looking like as craptastic as possible . . .
(I apologize for that run-on sentence.)
And that's just Catherine. There are many times since 2017 that I would have liked to be a fly on the wall of whichever room Prince Incandescent Rage happened to be in when he learned of certain things. But I think the room where William let loose after the fake Christening absolutely tops my list.
Sorry —should be “spitting out instructions” — though “ire toons” sounds like something from a John Lennon poem!
I just thought that the Duke looked too spruce for a ninety-nine year old in very poor health.
I think he looked the same as he did during his handing over of Colonel-in-Chief of The Rifles to Camilla -- and that was several minutes of video. If he could muster enough strength and alertness for an official event, he could surely take a photo with a beloved granddaughter.
Also, it's possible there were medical staff and equipment off camera, supporting him up to the point he had to pose and taking him back as soon as the photographer was satisfied.
Kate’s size does not make sense, at all. 80% chance she was photoshopped into the photo based on the incorrect size of Kate’s body.
Further, there are no shadows under or behind Kate, not even next to her leg (which there should be, based on the way light is supposedly hitting everyone else).
If you look to the floor behind Camilla, there is one large block of shadow. This doesn’t make sense.
Camilla’s lighting on her body is right, but her complexion is also very blurry (unlike Charles next to her). She could be photoshopped in. I’d give it a 50% chance, due to her hat.
Doria’s facial complexion is awful and much blurrier than the rest of the family members, and the lines around her body outline are blurred. She was defined photoshopped into the photograph.
William and Charles were definitely there. Look at wills facial expression! Lol.
So in summary, yes this is highly edited and false photograph presented as an official portrait. It’s a good thing they don’t have to respond about the authenticity or even state the date and time it was taken, and who was present.
1/ That's what happens when you have the nerves to demean someone who was the former Chief of the General staff!
2/ Kind of 1st warning : they (The firm + the military establishment) wants him OUT. If Harry doesn't get it : all his fake PR hero stuff will be destroyed.
I'm not as eagle-eyed as the other Nutties and royal watchers who have picked the Christening photo apart. If others hadn't analyzed it before me, I would have just noted the odd expressions on the Cambridges' faces and found Catherine's outfit kind of ugly. (The pink dress may have been all right for a family lunch and for an evening birthday party -- which is the first time she wore it -- but it was a strange choice for a Christening.)
The only thing that organically made me go "Hmmmm" was the outfit change before and after the photoshoot. It may be the weakest evidence of all, but it's just really, really odd. Has Catherine ever done something like that before?
These are the things that were immediately "off" to me.
Don't you find Kate's size next to Harry too large? For comparison I found this pic where she is next to him in a real life situation. Compare them on the pic below to the Christening pic:
https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Prince-Harry-Kate-Middleton-William.jpg
Also, Archie's christening took place on July 6. Why then two pics taken with two different cameras supposedly at the christening both show metadata date of origin as May 8, at night?
There may be a good explanation but I have not seen one and the origin date has been subsequently changed. That is just too weird.
What other sulky untalented kid from middle class LA can boast such a weird circle of pals? What unsavory, tough little monsters they appear to be (in my opinion). A dumb, weak, confused, sedated Harry alone in LA would be no match for this lot once they bring out the knives.
The question remains — why, and for what?
I'm sure the devaluation process of Harry began almost as soon as she had that wedding ring on her finger. But while Smeg may treat him like crap behind closed doors, I don't think it'd be in her interest quite yet to dismantle Haz publicly to this degree. They are still frantically trying to establish their brand Stateside and she's got to know that her 'Duchess' schtick is all she's got to offer in terms of getting these platforms to yap on. That blind on BG sounds like inside information, from people who knew and served with Haz years before Smeg was on the scene. There's no way she'd know about his exploits unless he'd confessed all to her, and would he even remember half of those encounters, or think he did wrong, and in need of a confessional? Megsie would have to be careful about lobbing the 'rough sex/abuser' grenades, considering what she used to do for a side hustle, and how she and H met in the first place.
I don't believe that allegation that Trevor abused her, either. This is Amber Heard territory. A Narc's MO is to claim victimhood for something they themselves did to others. I could more easily believe that Trevor was an abused husband.
Thanks for your input. I think you’re right.
I’m not trying to stir things up or be deliberately contrary, but do you really think the Royal family and Spencer family would allow themselves to be photoshopped into a christening photo??
I don't believe they did allow it, as such. These images are all copyrighted to Meg; they aren't official Royal releases and were unauthorized. I don't believe there was an official portrait sitting on christening day and this is Meg's invention.
What the Royal family is doing is refusing to deny the photographs represent them. Which is not exactly the same as admitting that they sat for it. I'm not sure what their long game is. This is 'never complain and never explain' taken to an extreme. It's infuriating, but it's the tack they are going with. I think the PR disaster that is Meghan completely escaped containment. The Harkles have been kicked out of the family fold, but the noxious confusion continues.
This is what puzzles me so much and prompts me to dig more. I can't believe the Spenser family and the royal family would allow themselves to be photoshopped in, but why the heck are the pics so weird then? Why gigantic Kate? Why weird digital data?
I think the point is I don't trust anything the ghastly duo does and says ever since the chaos with Archie's birth. That is why when something doesn't make sense I start asking questions and dig deeper.
Occam's razor is normally right, so perhaps pics are legit, but goodness they are odd!
If she was side by side with Harry in the Christening photo it would be fairer to judge that photo with the one you’ve sent the link for. I don’t think she looks out of proportion compared to Harry, she’s bolt sat upright and sitting on a higher chair compared to Harry, that alone is going to make her appear bigger Odd camera angles can change perspectives and give the appearance of optical illusions. It could be that she was seated further forward and nearer to the camera. We have no idea where the camera was nor how far or near they were to the mirror either.
Well, the summer the christening image appeared, I asked the best pre-press photo work guy I know about Giant Kate’s hulking gargantuan size. I couldn’t peel my eyes away from it! Strange clothes, mammoth growing Alice in Wonderland Duchess! Was it just me?
He said that if Kate stands 11 inches taller than her husband in real life, and can snap his tiny legs with her own bigger sturdier ones, he saw nothing wrong with the photo.
Perhaps you are right and this is all natural. But the oddity of the picture signals one thing to me - it might have not been channelled for release through the official royal checkpoints.
I doubt Kate saw the final product before the release. I imagine she would have something to say about how she looks. It was done fast and by the Sussexes pocket photographer, which might explain the poor job.
But the oddity with metadata still scratches me. I don't have any normal explanation for it.
I would appreciate an input from somebody who is familiar with the subject though.
It’s not unusual at all for royals to have several clothes changes a day. On Christmas Day it can be as many as 5 or more, so I don’t take as strange at all. I personally can’t stand Catherine’s dress, but I don’t think it’s a misfit for a Christening in Summer. Camilla’s dress fabric looks no thinner than Catherine’s and Doria has a jacket over a dress etc
I’m not trying to stir things up or be deliberately contrary, but do you really think the Royal family and Spencer family would allow themselves to be photoshopped into a christening photo??
I think Prince Charles would have been his usual Harry-enabling self and have pressured Prince William to go along with it.
I don't know as much about the Spencers, but if it was sold to them as a way to support the Queen, they might have acquiesced. Especially if their images had already been used. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be the whistleblower in a case like this. Can you imagine the media circus? Keeping quiet would be the path of least resistance.
I am sorry I am like a bulldog with this just can't let go. I am glad your guy also saw something strange in the photo.
When I look at Harry and Camilla I don't see anything strange, although Camilla also sits on the chair which is higher than the sofa. But the proportions are right.
The oddity seems to be with Kate's size. Well, with Jane's too casual outfit too.
I wonder if this is a situation in which the goal was, say, to destabilize the royal family. Lots of dirt has been flung at them by America’s most stunning Duchess, and she even made off with the “more popular” son.
However watching her whirling around like a bad weathervane, with no true north, changing career focuses and stories for two years, I feel we are watching a woman with issues, shall we say. We know she doesn’t take direction. She can’t follow an agenda. She can’t settle on a bump size, birth story, a house, a wig, a face.
So even if she was part of some (tin hat alert!) plot to destabilize the pesky royals to help strip away the historic soul of the UK, or grab wealth, or eliminate a debt, or distract the world from something else, it doesn’t mean she might not also be whirling along on her own as well, greedily trying to grab extra cash and prizes and fame along the way of this big hustle.
A Trojan horse with the ability to override its brakes, in other words, with a built in scooper they didn’t notice.
There is no reason to assume those who (tin hat!) brought her in or back her movements or ‘this game are geniuses. They could just be rotten people who just needed someone for their goofy plot who is absolutely amoral, say; someone without scruples willing to do anything for fame. What if they found her, but didn’t vet her well enough after she passed the yacht tricks portion of the interview to fully realize that her pathology was so intense, and her acting was so bad, and her temper and mouth so uncontrollable, that she is messing it all up. And nowthey are now just trying to complete the project fast?
It sounds nuts, but so do a lot of things. Who would believe a freaky unblinking blonde in a black turtleneck could get millions and billions from top investors to invest in her fake blood testing tech firm? But now we can read the book, and see the documentary. Who would believe a weird little jerk could end up creating Epstein Island complete with submarines?
https://madame.lefigaro.fr/celebrites/invites-du-mariage-des-sussex-amal-et-george-clooney-ne-connaissaient-pas-leurs-hotes-271020-183184
It’s not unusual at all for royals to have several clothes changes a day.
What I found strange is that she was in Outfit A in the car on the way there, in Outfit B in the venue, and back in Outfit A to get back in the car to drive home. And Outfit B isn't even that high-maintenance or delicate that a car ride might ruin it.
As I said, I know it's the weakest of all the evidence that something was up at the Christening, IF it occurred at all. (Poor Archie's entire life is one big IF.) But it honestly raised my eyebrows and is what made me more inclined to read all the analyses of image manipulation with an open mind.
"The pink dress may have been all right for a family lunch and for an evening birthday party -- which is the first time she wore it -- but it was a strange choice for a Christening."
I guess it's a matter of opinion whether the dress was appropriate for a christening. (As I said earlier, I thought it was fine.) But I do not believe this is the same dress Kate wore to Philip's evening birthday party in 2011. (I know PEOPLE mag and a few other pubs said it was the same dress but I don't believe it is.) The dress worn in 2011 was a very shiny pinkish-orange Stella McCartney dress also worn by Madonna in 2008. https://www.usmagazine.com/stylish/news/kate-middleton-madonna-wear-identical-dresses-2011146/
While the sheen could have been photoshopped out of the christening photo and the color altered slightly, personally I can't imagine Kate choosing to wear a dated shiny dress to a daytime church event in 2019 or to an extended-family formal luncheon given by the Queen at BP in 2018. And certainly no one photoshopped out the sheen or changed the color in the chest up photos we have of Kate arriving at the BP Christmas lunch. The "pussybow" (or combo bow-jabot IMO) also differs across the two dresses. Finally, the shiny dress also looked wrinkled because of the sheen (no matter who was wearing it.) Kate definitely isn't wrinkled in the christening photo.
The hem and other seams are also "crisper" than they were in the shiny dress. I think it's a McCartney remake in a matte, less orangey material. Kate has worn alot of remakes of designer dresses.
I also think she IS wearing a headband. Not a pill box hat. I know some fashion sites have IDed the creation on her head as a Juliette Botterill Pleated Pillbox Hat. I think it is a bespoke headband from that designer. The reason: If you look at the christening photo, her hair behind the headpiece (on the right side of the photo, her left side) starts high up as it would if behind a band. If she was wearing a pillbox, the hair would have to start below the hat. There would be no way for hair to be loose that high up with a pillbox, at least not that I can figure out.
@Raspberry Ruffle wrote:
"It could be that she [Kate] was seated further forward and nearer to the camera."
Maybe. But in looking at the rug design, it doesn't look like Kate is seated farther forward than Camilla.
However Catherine is 5'9" and Camilla is 5'8". Even if Camilla has lost an inch (or even two), she still appears disproportionate to Catherine.
Now things get a little odd when you start comparing how tall the people are in the back row.
William is 6'3", Charles is 5'10" and Doria (whom I would suspect would likely be wearing heels) is 5'9".
Is it a dog toy? Pretty ugly spot and not the kind of thing you want in some "official" photo of them showing off the baby. Good photographers notice that kind of thing before they snap. Or, why would they not have photoshopped it out?
Excellent find about the dress. Kate's headdress sure looks like a headband.
A question: did William change for the official christening pic? Or was the outfit different only for Kate? Anybody mentioned him changing?
The Royals do frequently change attire but normally it is done To signal a change in activities, it is not done in the middle of the same activity and then the original outfit put back on. Catherine does frequently recycle outfits, But it just defies sense that she would don one dress for a short car ride to chapel and a brief ceremony and change into a completely different outfit for the formal portrait sitting. If she were going to change, she would do it at home. Also unlikely that she would choose to recycle an outfit in July that she had worn at Christmas. The color and weight of that frock Looks a bit more summery than Christmassy to me, But why wouldn’t she have arrived in it if that’s what she wanted to wear? Blue is more suitable for a male baby and Catherine is sensitive to Color messages.
If in fact the shot of her arriving in a blue dress in Windsor was even for a christening that day, and I remain agnostic about that. Maybe the Cambridges were visiting Royal Lodge, home of Bea, Edo and the Yorks. I remain agnostic also that Harry and Meg ever lived in Windsor.
The tidbit about George Clooney not meeting Harry until the wedding day is weird. He attended Williams wedding as a bachelor in 2011… The wedding at which Hazza was the best man. He had been friendly with William for sometime to score this invite and I assumed Harry as well. He didn’t marry Amal until 2014 so I can believe the brothers had not met her. Meg either…
That's what I thought it would have to refer to. I don't question that it could be covered up; I question the durability of the cover (grin). If your media is resolute about not covering anything re any royal family misbehavior, then it would not be covered. I think that there are tabloids that would be happy to cover it, though, if somebody wanted to complain.
For example, anybody here that wants to complain about the mistreatment of Uighurs or freeing Hong Kong is probably not going to get a large megaphone due to Chinese investment in media. I consider that both cowardly and shameful.
I forgot about starting to comment on this topic and left the reply unfinished for several hours; apparently this Harry rumor has spread all over social media. I've seen a video on YouTube that Harry likes rough sex and slapping and strangling women. I wondered then if he has resentment toward his mother that she preferred the company of other men to that of her family?
A serial killer lived near us when he was a child. His mother abandoned the family and went off with another man; when he grew to adulthood, his hobby was killing prostitutes that had the same hair color as his mother's. When my mother called to tell me about it, I was astounded. No, I'm not suggesting that Harry is a serial killer, but he may have Mommy issues.
`An attempt to tear the historical heart out of Britain' - now there's a thought.
A form of psychological warfare? Destroy our sense of ourselves?
I have problems with my lungs and my adult child who has kindly been doing my food shopping and generally helping me since March has just tested positive for Covid.
I therefore also had to do 'the test' this morning and will get my results tomorrow.
Being part of this blog, (albeit in a small way) has been really enjoyable, as it's always fun to come across kindred spirits - even if you're all far more eloquent than myself! lol
If you could keep your fingers crossed for us, I would be eternally grateful.
TIA.
Miggy x
I am sorry to hear this, please know that I will be thinking of you and your son. Would you mind if I say a prayer for you both?
I am fairly sure It is the gold corner tassel of the pillow. Look at the upper corner on the same side. And yes, you are so right — we would would expect a professional photographer working on an image, especially one of some minor historic value, to have addressed that either during the shoot or in editing.
Of course, the photographer let her shove Harry into a corner and take up the center and leave that whole seating space with the dog toy-like (great call) tassel thing just lie there. M gets what M wants! And she has never had an eye for details. She probably only cared about sapping the extra bodies and making sure Kate looked huge, and lightening her skin as noted above.
I wouldn't mind at all. Thank you so much. :)
Prayers for you and your son Miggy.
I don't intend to hog this page with my problems but you're all such lovely people on here that I knew you'd all be willing us well. (it really helps to keep the spirits up)
Also hoping that I test negative... but just in case I don't and disappear, I wanted you all to know the reason for it.
Anyway, I've said my bit now.
As you were!!
Totally off topic and apologies in advance!
I have problems with my lungs and my adult child who has kindly been doing my food shopping and generally helping me since March has just tested positive for Covid.
I therefore also had to do 'the test' this morning and will get my results tomorrow.
Being part of this blog, (albeit in a small way) has been really enjoyable, as it's always fun to come across kindred spirits - even if you're all far more eloquent than myself! lol
If you could keep your fingers crossed for us, I would be eternally grateful.
Miggy, I will cross my fingers and toes and anything else that you would like. I WOULD whip up a voodoo doll and attempt to siphon the Rice Rabies to M&H, but, sadly, the only cursing that I am capable of is the profane variety.
My son had it about 4 weeks ago. He had a headache and high temperature, went to the ER, got tested, and tested negative. He was told he was negative and to return to work when his temperature went down. He went home, slept for three days, then was fine albeit for lingering fatigue for another week. Two weeks later, there was mass testing at his workplace because somebody tested positive; he tested positive then, and again several days later. He took about two weeks to get two sequential clear tests. (Moral of the story: Just because you test negative doesn't mean that you are negative...)
Did you get the nose swab from hell for the test? (I really had no idea that a swab could go up that far.)
Will let you know my results as soon as I get them.
Good night all. x
Just caught your message!
Both of us had mild temperatures last week. Nothing major at all.
And yes -boy does that nose swab hurt!!! (eye-watering!!) lol
G'night. :)
What I found strange is that she was in Outfit A in the car on the way there, in Outfit B in the venue, and back in Outfit A to get back in the car to drive home. And Outfit B isn't even that high-maintenance or delicate that a car ride might ruin it.
As I said, I know it's the weakest of all the evidence that something was up at the Christening, IF it occurred at all.
...............
I agree with you that Kate's dress change is mighty strange and I remember this being talked about quite a bit at the time. IMO this is good evidence that something odd was happening at the "Christening".
Another oddity is that despite the tabs being on the lookout for any hint of info about the event, they didn't capture much in the way of evidence of it having taken place. Nor did the fans who were camped outside the church. Other than the W&K car rides, the paps only got photos of Tiggy.
Here is an article which shows all the people gathered hoping to catch sightings of anyone attending:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1150001/archie-christening-pictures-meghan-markle-news-prince-harry-royal-family-fans-windsor
Hope all goes well.
---------
Chris Allerton bills himself as a "fashion and portrait photographer." On his website he displays alot of his work but the Archie christening photo (which is on his website) is the only formal group portrait. Most portraits are of single people with a few of couples. While some are location shots, in many cases there is a studio backdrop of black, white or gray. Maybe keeping up with details in a visually complex room plus the facial expressions and poses of 9 people and a baby was a bit beyond his skill set.
the pain from a swab up your nose is bonding. Those swabibing were unrelenting @ a major hospital in Washington DC. I wanted to hit the person. It was so invasive.
Sympathy to all who have taken the test.
We're rooting for you! I shall a say a prayer for your intentions, too. <3
My polo experience is limited to Myopia Hunt Club and the Palm Beach Polo Club, and a few larks in the UK as guest. A guest spectator at the first, and as a guest and some photo shoots during matches at the others. My friends are much more into that world. I asked one once about injuries, and was told that once a rough Argentinian rider was warned, then shunned, then given a beating at a another club by those who hadn’t forgotten. I was happy to hear that, frankly.
That’s all I know, but I don’t know if would apply to a rotten royal. Someone else here will certainly have better intel.
Does anyone here know what this is about?
..................
From Twitter:
Courts correspondent for London Evening Standard
Tristan Kirk
@kirkkorner
Sep 29
All parties & media forced to attend court in-person for judge in Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers to read out her judgment this afternoon.
Idea of a videolink for some observers was rejected in advance.
We're in a pandemic, we have the technology, & we're not using it
What's even more infuriating is some reporters were shut out of today's hearing on space grounds.
No option to videolink in was offered, and this room could comfortable - with social distancing - have accommodated at least another seven people.
I won't be reporting from this Thursday's hearing in the Meghan v Mail case.
Not through choice - I've been denied access to the courtroom. I'm not alone in being shut out.
Social distancing is tricky, but video technology - which the court can't/won't use - would solve this.
New blind gossip..which is very shocking!
Majority says the answer is Harry
xx
There's just no walking back that sort of behavior. They cannot maintain their current trajectory of 'woke' preaching. That thought alone makes me think it's Meghan, who might be bailing on Harry and setting him up. Perfect victim narrative, will score many interviews and book deals for her.
If real how will either of them cope with the public fallout, which will be far worse than Randy Andy's antics.
Either way, no other public profile fits the blind and Harry has known anger issues. This also affirms his constant need to talk about how mentally messed up he is. No kidding, Harry, most people with that sort of mental issue end up in prison. I think he does struggle immensely with who he is. And I think Meghan knows everything. I don't know who is leaking this and why. We are only a few months from the review. There are a number of theories that make sense.
Sending all good thoughts and wishes to you. Everything crossed you’re fine. :o)
All the best to you and your son, fingers crossed you'll both be all right. Do you have anyone who can do your shopping and help?
***************
Re the christening photo
Like Raspberry Ruffle,I'm not convinced about the photoshopping but I checked Charles's and Doria's heights, which Elsbeth1847 said was 5'10" and 5'9" respectively, which Google confirms. Doria, however, is wearing a turban type of hat and presumably high heels, so should look taller than Charles yet she doesn't. I thought she wasn't particularly tall and if her official height is as true as Meg's is - 5'7" - then they've both supplied false information. If you look at photos of Doria & Megsy together, MM, not the tallest of women, is noticeably taller than her mother:
https://www.eonline.com/news/973992/meghan-markle-s-half-sister-slams-the-duchess-mom-doria-ragland
Fingers crossed for you .
If you Google pictures of the wedding including the posed wedding party and family shot, it appears even in heels Doria is at least 3 inches shorter than Charles is in his dress shoes. No way she's 5'9". Looks like she's about 3 inches shorter than M at the wedding and M is at least 3 inches shorter than Harry who is 6'1" I believe. In stocking feet Doria can't be over 5'5".
You're absolutely right, that's what I meant, maybe I didn't make my post clear (as usual!), no way is Doria 5'9".
@Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells
Yes, 5'8" for Charles might be nearer the mark. I can't say I've actually met him but I saw him once where he was very near me and he isn't very tall.
@Miggy
Love to you and your son X
@Maneki
The only thing tall about Megs and Doria
are the tales that they weave...
My son has now lost his sense of taste and smell, (which apparently is one of the most common symptoms) and if I wasn't aware that he has Covid, I would simply presume he has a very bad cold, with chesty cough and a few aches and pains. There's been no raging high temperature, (so far) and his appetite has not suffered at all! I'm hoping that it won't progress to anything worse and that he will also test negative after his quarantine period is over.
As for me, they will keep checking to make sure I don't develop symptoms and if I do, I'm to notify them immediately. For those who mentioned VitD3 tablets, - luckily, I already take a high dose, (D3 + Calcium) due to having Osteopenia. I also have Aspirin, which I am taking for my frequent headaches. (no doubt caused by stress!)
We're also taking all the necessary precautions to keep us both as safe as possible around the home.
Thank you to @Elsbeth1847 (whose post I missed last night) and to EVERYONE who has since sent prayers and good wishes our way. They are still needed and very much appreciated.
A huge THANK YOU to you all. x
Such a relief to hear the test was negative! Phew. Stay safe and healthy and sending good healing vibes for your son, and hope he feels better very soon. :o)
@Musty, I've had some personal stuff going on but I'm hoping I'll be able to be more active going forward.
@Miggy, we had home tests arrive this morning too; I suddenly lost my sense of taste yesterday which has never happened to me before (it was so weird, my first morning coffee was fine, by the time I made my next around an hour later I couldn't taste a thing - hoping it beggars off soon). So pleased you're potentially in the clear, I'll keep my fingers crossed that you continue to test negative and your son recovers quickly :O)
Great news! Prayers work😊
Will continue praying for your son
Diana was 5’10 and towered (in heels or near flats) over Charles who’s around 5.8. I’ve met him too and he’s a small man, much like his Uncle David. The boys don’t take after him for stature nor height.
I think both Doria and Megsy have lied about their height. Catherine is 5’9 and even if they both wear 3 or 4 inch heels, Catherine still always looks much taller etc than Megsy.
I suddenly lost my sense of taste yesterday which has never happened to me before (it was so weird, my first morning coffee was fine, by the time I made my next around an hour later I couldn't taste a thing.
When my son couldn't taste his favourite jalapeño peppers - he definitely knew he had a problem!! :)
Fingers crossed for you that you test Negative too.
Please not to forget that after the age of forty men decline in height by an average of half an inch a decade and I presume the same for women. I follow Sumo and the height of the wrestlers (who are tested for weight and height) can vary across their relatively short careers. Height thus is not set in stone. Reaching an age when I have to look up to people even women is a horrid experience.
I wonder if one of those spine decompression hanging upside down things would help? I'd be afraid of not being able to get back up and having to hang like a bat until I could be released, though.
Oh, snap, I've wandered so far off topic that I'm somewhere in a parallel dimension. Sorry, y'all! I blame the peppermint mocha latte.
I met Charles in early 1979, I wasn’t very old, but old enough to see he was a small man and he wasn’t shrinking in his very early 30’s. Lol
So glad your test came back negative! Now, all good wishes for your son!
Megsy'a applying for a summary judgement in place of full trial in Jan 2012 - an attempt to wriggle out of coming to UK.
"Duchess of Sussex in bid to postpone High Court trial of privacy action
By Sian Harrison, PA
PA Media: UK NewsWed, 28 October 2020, 11:38 am GMT
The Duchess of Sussex is bringing a bid to postpone the trial of her High Court privacy action against the Mail On Sunday over the publication of a letter to her estranged father.
Meghan is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), publisher of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, over an article in August 2018 which reproduced parts of the handwritten letter sent to 76-year-old Thomas Markle.
There have been a number of preliminary hearings in the case so far, and a hearing to consider costs and case management issues was due to take place on Thursday, ahead of a 10-day trial due to start in January.
But instead of that hearing, Mr Justice Warby will now hear an application by the duchess for the trial to be put back to a later date.
Duchess of Sussex
The duchess is seeking damages from Associated Newspapers Ltd (Simon Dawson/PA)
According to a court document seen by the PA news agency, the application will be considered at an online hearing – the first part of which will be in private.
Sections of the letter were published in the newspaper and online in February last year, and it was announced the duchess would be bringing legal action in October.
The headline on the article read: “Revealed: The letter showing true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with a father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces’.”
The 39-year-old duchess is seeking damages from ANL, the newspaper’s publisher and operator of the website, for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.
ANL wholly denies the allegations, particularly the duchess’s claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning, and says it will hotly contest the case.
Following the latest preliminary hearing last month, a judge ruled the publisher could rely on a recent biography of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, called Finding Freedom, in its defence of the claim.
Meghan is suing Associated Newspapers over five articles, two in the Mail On Sunday and three on MailOnline, which were published in February 2019 and reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to her father in August 2018."
* She wants a postponement as including FF means extra work. I hope the judge was hell no, there is more than bought time already.
* She is appealing the decision to include FF. This indicates to me that she has not handed over all her devices and social media accounts for the MOS lawyers to peruse.
1. She is using the Stalingrad technique, which is to appeal and challenge everything so as to avoid actually having to be tested in a trial.
2. She obviously does not want her friends to testify, and she does not want MOS to have access to anything. She also does not want Scobie unraveling on the stand.
Her stans will always peddle whatever fantasy she puts out there, but I think most folk and a lot of media people, both tabloid and mainstream, have seen through her games with this case. Even if she does continue and wins the copyright part but loses the rest, much damage has been done and continuing will cause more damage.
Do you think she will cut her losses and withdraw (privacy, protecting my friends, with overdone victim poses)? Or is she deluded enough to keep going and believe there is some huge victory waiting for her? She wants to control the press and social media, so which action would she think would enable her to achieve that?
As for Harry, he seems to have handed control over his life to Meghan and a bunch of showbiz lawyers.
@Razzie & Maneki,
Diana was 5’10 and towered (in heels or near flats) over Charles who’s around 5.8. I’ve met him too and he’s a small man, much like his Uncle David. The boys don’t take after him for stature nor height.
The official Palace stat for Chas is 5'10" but I always assumed that was a bit of the same genteel fiction which movie actors in Hollywood engage in . . ie, it is an accepted custom to fudge one's height upwards 2" for official purposes. All kinds of tricks in play on camera to make people appear taller, including casting shorter actors around them. Robert Redford slid through his entire career claiming 5'11 or so but people who have stood near him in person say it's barely 5'9". Of course he looked taller next to Dustin Hoffman. Paul Newman was a smaller guy too.
In the Waleses' engagement photo where Chas is standing a step above Diana, she still had to scrunch down to lay her head on his shoulder. This is why the poor thing had to wear flats for her entire marriage. A recent photo of Charles and William shows the gap to be a whole head, maybe more. Unfortunately for him, he took after the pocket-sized branch of the family. The Queen at 5'4" towered over Queen Mum and Margaret . . I think Margo was 5'1" and Queen Mum even more tiny.
I think both Doria and Megsy have lied about their height. Catherine is 5’9 and even if they both wear 3 or 4 inch heels, Catherine still always looks much taller etc than Megsy.
You mean Mugsy lied about being a supermodel with 'legs a mile long'? ROFL. It is true that her limbs are disproportionately gangly relative to her overall height. That photo of her in the white leotard doing a yoga contortion makes me a bit ill to look at, frankly. She looks like a praying mantis. So, so odd that someone with a SpongeBob-shaped torso has these spidery-looking arms and legs. The parts don't match. It's like she was assembled from random parts off of different bodies. Do we think the yoga has stretched her out to the point of near-deformity? Because as a child, she appeared, if anything, a bit chubby.
Doria is demonstrably tiny. I'd say 5'3" for Doria and Meg, out of heels . . .5'5" would be quite generous. I'm 5'5" myself and I know all too well the travails of pants that are too long. Even with 4" heels, Mugsy's pants legs still drag in the dirt. Most standard-length trousers are cut for women over 5'7". When Mugsy was pictured walking beside Harry in the infamous 'Refugee Mother in a Tent City' olive green bivouac tent at the polo last summer, she was in flats and it was quite shocking how tiny she was in relation to Haz. Harry is 6'1", and in flats, swamped by that 'dress' Meg looked no more than 5'4", max. No evidence of mile-high legs anywhere. 5'4" is the average height for an American woman, but Mugsy of course doesn't aspire to be average . . she aspires to be Kate, who is 5 inches taller than average and weighs 115 pounds. (Wedding day weight, but it does not seem to have increased any after 3 children.) Kate has the supermodel figure and Mugsy . . doesn't. If she'd just accept the figure she's got instead of insisting that she's actually built like Gisele Bundchen, it'd go better for her.
So--the story's true. I don't think WhatsApp counts as official communication befitting the Captain General Royal Marines (in abeyance). He also claims he never received the official communication from Lord Dannatt. This might be possible . . they've moved around so much in the last year, the letter may not have caught up with him. A copy is on its way to Montecito . . which since that is their 'Forever Home!!!!' he will certainly receive.
Harry is a liar; a little tosser who is still making excuses for not turning in his homework. What a pitiful excuse for a human being.
Let's see if Schillings issues any more 'warnings' re. the allegations of abuse of prostitutes during his Army days. Let us just see about that. He's all butt-hurt over having his medals taken away, but will he deny absolutely that he put women in the hospital with sadistic acts?
If this case was suitable for a summary judgement rather having a full trial, she would have asked for this from the beginning and saved on costs for everyone.
We will see if this judge can be manipulated.
Meghan will ask judge to grant her victory in High Court privacy battle against Mail on Sunday.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/meghan-duchess-of-sussex-high-court-battle-mail-on-sunday-a4573259.html
Oh, my. I'll get the popcorn ready as this straight to TV really awful movie plays out. Which wine goes with popcorn?
A: All of them. :)
May I suggest going with a dry red for the savory varietals (e.g. cheddar) and a white for something like caramel corn? For your basic movie theatre butter, it's really up to your preference.
Re. Meghan will ask judge to grant her victory in High Court privacy battle against Mail on Sunday.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/meghan-duchess-of-sussex-high-court-battle-mail-on-sunday-a4573259.html
BWAHAHAHAHA!
So, the judge is supposed to grant her victory 'cause she's cute? If plaintiffs could just demand the judgement go their way ahead of a trial, we wouldn't need the judicial system at all.
Justice Warby isn't your dad, Meg. He won't be manipulated that easily. Not even if you offered him some of your special skills in his chambers.
Sung to the tune of 'London Bridge'
The house of cards is falling down, falling down, falling down,
The house of cards is falling down . . .Montecito!
I think the time is coming in which Harry will wish that a mudslide just bury him rather than face up to the absolute b*****ks he has made of his life.
Good news on the test, please take good care! I hope your son recovers quickly.
All Nuttys must take care. We rely on you!!
What do you want to bet that she will just refuse to appear. Just won't show up, no matter how many times the judge holds her in contempt? If she hasn't turned over any of her devices or e-mails, it's because she knows they are full of evidence that she initiated this entire scam with the '5 Friends' and the letter in the first place. She will cite fears about COVID, and of being a 'vulnerable new young mother' to an 'infant', etc. etc.
If there is an Archie, he's nearly 2 years old and she hasn't been 'young' for more than a decade.
She's running scared. When she brought the suit in the first place, she obviously thought the Mail on Sunday would just roll over and give her cash rather than go to trial. She can't even withdraw at this point because the defendant will not allow it. If she doesn't show up to testify, the judge will award the judgement to the Mail and she will have to pay all the court costs and damages besides. The Mail isn't just standing up for itself now; it's striking a position for all its fellow papers who have been printing her lies for the last three years.
Megsie always cuts and bails after creating carnage. She never expected to have to take the stand. She figured that she'd just be believed and rewarded, because she's a vulnerable new young mother! And a Royal! Note the dead silence from BP about any of this. If the judge levies a huge penalty against her and we see those figures, I wonder if the Palace will pipe up to say 'We are not paying any of that; that's all Meghan.'
I doubt it, but we can hope.
Wow . . .even for all of us who smelled a grifter when they got engaged, it has imploded incredibly fast. It only took 2 years for her to completely ruin Harry's life and fortunes. That is some insanely fast work. I myself gave her about 5 years before their were real problems. She has exceeded my wildest expectations.
Megsie just does not think things through.
Until then, `her jaiket's oan a shoogly peg'.
The British legal system aims to be just but the Courts don't take kindly to plaintiffs who mess them around.
You're welcome. :p
It's not up to the level of a Magatha original, who I hold in awe for the way she rips off those gems . . .I appreciate poetry but my mind does not easily work in such short and zippy forms (obviously . . .says everyone in the room. . .Yeah . . novelist, me. lol) But it just popped into my head.
I don't enjoy "London Bridge" any more since learning that "London Bridge has fallen" is code for the death of ER.
It's a surety that the next few months are going to be very interesting. I pray often for the continued good health and vitality of HRHs HMTQ and PP. Philip must be taking it one day at a time now . . I want him to celebrate his 100th birthday. My mother is 83 years old; the Queen has been on the throne since she was a 16-year-old in high school. It is going to be a terrible day when we lose them. I hope all this crap with the Suxxits isn't shortening their lives through stress.
Just so happy you're back and understand completely about life happening. As John Lennon once said: "Life is what happens when you're making other plans"
@Miggy.
Sending my best positive thoughts your way. Lots of COVID where I live and its nothing to take lightly.
@Swampwoman
I look forward to a popcorn/wine pairing discussion. I think they make crisps (chips to Americans) now that are meant to pair with different wines.
At least the Harkles sideshow is keeping us all entertained during this pandemic (although my liver needs a time out)
Stay safe Nutties!
Also: @Lt. Ohura. I miss reading your comments. Please come back.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-crime-cult-idUKKBN27C34W
Meghan beware!
Only in the 4" heels she favors! Standing beside Harry in flats last summer, she looked really small. Even less than 5'5". I think she's somewhere between 5'3" and 5'5", tops.
She was the smallest person on the stage in 'Deal or No Deal', and the discrepancy wouldn't have been that obvious if she were 5'7" before heels.
I agree with the judge about showing up in person. If Covid19 quarantine is an issue M and her friends can get a Rapid Test done. No need for these "young mothers" to be separated from their children. Had it not been for the pandemic, they would have had to show up anyway. Zoom, allows for recording and technical difficulties making it harder to exam the witnesses body language, if anyone is on the other side of the camera, ear pieces, etc. Everyone should get tested and wear a mask and Social distance in the court room. After all,the Sussexs have been delivering food, and handing out packages to kids, planting forget me not in a school yard, interviews on the lawn etc. No excuse for them not to show up. Safety is not the issue.
I wonder if the 5 friends were even aware that they were the 5 friends?? M has masquaraded as her own assistant before.
Charles's birth announcement is firmly in my mind, as is the death of the King, such a brief reign, dominated by the war.
The spectacle of the Coronation was quite something - I can't imagine we'll ever see the like again. At the time, I lived in a village which had once been a royal manor, with a Yorkist palace in the Middle Ages, and we had a very traditional celebration on the 3rd JUne - a whole ox was roasted up on the Common and we all had a taste.
Apparently, there are strict rules about this - there has to be an established tradition. This is a film about Ledbury in Herefordshire and its Coronation Ox Roast, to give you some idea of life at that time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix1OLZ_l0_U
Meat rationing was still in force, so the farmer who supplied the ox (a castrated male) would have been in deep trouble had he sold it.
Megsie always cuts and bails after creating carnage.
Yep, it does seem to be a pattern with her. The closest she ever gets to face-to-face confrontation is a letter.
Diana with 5'10 was level to Charles' 5'10 and I have pictures to prove it where she is wearing flats
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b2/84/f5/b284f5d88bfac7621caf1eae1797c53f.jpg
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/12e984ef0e177ad3b918b07b8fe2d13a92775054/c=0-81-2997-1774/local/-/media/2017/08/06/USATODAY/USATODAY/636376130332310298-AP-BRITAIN-PRINCESS-DIANA-92802043.JPG?width=660&height=373&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Charles could have lost an inch since that time but he is still nearly as tall as Kate
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4d/13/ac/4d13aca7c9111bf6e0da2df6dcb5a4c1.jpg
Based on these pics I think we can safely assume he is between 5'9 and 5'10 now. So Doria who is lower than Charles even with her turban and presumably heeled shoes can't be anywhere near his height. I would say she is 5'5 max, and that's generous.
As for Megs she is a dwarf without her stilettoes, with very short legs.
I can't think that the geometry of reflection is correct for it to be Doria's hat (backview - which we haven't seen. It's an Oscar de la Renta custom-made job, so no photos available. AdlR is her favourite label it seems. Who paid for it?).
It's not Chris Allerton's head, is it? Or is it? When he was photographing an empty room?
I always thought it was the back of the sister's hat (not the Panama hat, the other one)
"THAT photo again - there is something reflected in the right-hand side of the mirror, after all. It's at the bottom, a sort of dome-shape."
If I understand what you are pointing out, I think it's supposed to be the back of Sarah's pink hat. (You can see the seam connecting the top.) It doesn't line up right to me though.
Yes, it could well be.
Best wishes to you and your son.
I'm sending positive thoughts and prayers your way!
The Netflix series The Crown has captivated me (the first two seasons, anyway) and spurred me on to learn more about the Royals. I was 16 when Diana got married. She was only 4 years older, so it was easy to identify with her as a sort of glamorous older sister. I was not that interested in the generations before her back then, but I have gotten to be so. King George VI is a particular favorite of mine--the second brother triumphing over adversity to lead his people. I think the Queen favors him in looks and also in duty. It is truly heartbreaking that Bertie could not live longer to reign . . . his loss so early has had great repercussions for the nation and the family. How different things might be in the House of Windsor now-for the better--had Elizabeth and Charles had time enough for their children to grow up before she had to assume the throne? I think there wouldn't be so many messed-up marriages and individuals in the ranks, really. The Charles-Diana match was a disaster, but it gave us William, and so we cannot be entirely sad. I used to say 'And Harry' in that sentence, but I have since removed him. I hate to say it but I think it would have been better for everyone on a number of levels if Harry had instead been the girl that Charles wanted. Look at Anne--a girl in second position--she's been an asset in every way to the Firm, not a whiny drag. There wouldn't have been the same level of competitiveness with William if that's how it had turned out. Maybe if Diana had borne the longed-for daughter, they wouldn't have split up. Who can know? All we know is, Harry doesn't bring anything much of worth to the table, sadly. The revelations get worse by the day.
The spectacle of the Coronation was quite something - I can't imagine we'll ever see the like again. At the time, I lived in a village which had once been a royal manor, with a Yorkist palace in the Middle Ages, and we had a very traditional celebration on the 3rd JUne - a whole ox was roasted up on the Common and we all had a taste.
I imagine the coronations of Charles and William and George will be significantly reduced in scale. Though perhaps not. Charles has been waiting such an awfully long time for the job, he may want to splash out, and bugger the optics. I don't imagine William cares about that sort of stuff as much. I'm trying to envision Wills in the regalia . .the crown of State, the ermine robes . . having a hard time. I expect I will be around to see William ascend, but probably not George. If I'm still alive when George takes the throne, I will most likely have lost all my marbles by then. We should all reach the age of 95 years looking as well as the Queen!
Have you seen the film '84, Charing Cross Road'? If not, I recommend it. The action opens in 1949, when an American writer and a London book dealer strike up a correspondence over antiquarian books. Helene (Anne Bancroft) wants to come to London for the Coronation, but circumstances prevent her. Instead she sends a food parcel which Frank (Anthony Hopkins) shares out at his Coronation viewing party at home. He is very chuffed to be able to offer his guests ham sandwiches made with 'real' ham.
When Helene sends the food parcels are my favorite bits in the movie. All the denizens of the book shop write to her privately to thank her for their share in the parcels. We are really spoiled here in the States with the amount of food which we waste. I never appreciated eggs properly until I saw that movie. I don't even like eggs, but I realize how valuable they can be when you don't have any. We had rationing here during the war years, which my mother remembers, but we were not terribly deprived, compared to Europe. If we were rationed, it would help cut down on the American obesity, which is out of control!
If the Queen had been able to be a regular Mummy when her children were small, Charles at least certainly would have had a different experience growing up.
@Sally...someone recently posted a blind about M requesting a waiver for 14 day quarantine or allowed to attend via video. Not sure what date the hearing was actually on or if UK has rapid cover tests available, but she apparently didn't want to stay in the UK that long.
.............
Thanks for the response.
I was starting to think it was old news as the date in the tweet I posted was off.
LSA folks have now posted a lot of updates and info re the latest on the case.
Personally, I really can't picture Harry slapping a woman around. Even if she's a hooker. I see him more as the sort of guy who will sob after sex, if drunk, wanting her to console him.
It might be a plant as other have said, just as a future insurance.
MM is obviously a narcissist, and I know them, very well. A narcissist can push you to insanity, to your limits, so this Trevor slapped her story, makes me think. I don't know much about Trevor, in fact I know nothing. But I know a lot about Meghan, and she's a gaslight, a manipulator, a provocateur and a total and utter nasty bitch. She will lie in your face, and double down when caught out, call you names, insult you, your family, and everything you stand for, and then double down when you refuse to apologise for things you haven't done.
She will poke and poke and poke and poke until a person looses their mind. Then she will cry victim.
It's textbook super narc 101 and anyone here to who's a total narc will agree.
Frankly, I'd absolutely love to give her a slap or two myself.
The difference between Meghan and actual success stories from Tinsel Town is that no one wants to play along with Meghan's fantasies any longer. No, we won't pretend that you knew nothing about the British Royal Family when you met Harry -- or that you were pregnant -- or that you gave birth when you said you did -- or that Archie is the same baby in all the photos you've shared -- or even that you're 5'9. Cruise may be the world's most annoying Scientologist, but he's also a movie star whose big budget films make money. Meghan announced her pregnancy at another woman's wedding, publicly disrespected a Queen, and called an entire country that had embraced her "racist." And her last offer to appear in a movie came from Tara Reid.
Some of you Nutties need to be forensic analysts! I see nothing wrong with Archie's christening pic other than the world's best facial expression on William's face. Kate literally looks like she's sent to spring up and bolt out of the room the minute the photo is taken. Meghan looks as smug as ever. Meghan also loves to include the Spencers in things. It's not because she particularly likes them or is nice to them, it's just all a show. The 'I Am Just Like Diana' Show. Plus it pulls Harry's strings, which is what she is always trying to do!
I am so curious to see how this DM lawsuit will turn out over the letter to her father. If she loses the suit, which she is likely to do, she will be furious and take revenge out in some way i am sure!
I did get a chance to see 84 Charing Cross Road (loved the movie - went by myself and had a much better time than going with someone who really didn't want to see it). Read the book too. My mother talked about rationing during the war (mainly about the breaking the capsule for coloring of margarine to look more like butter).
Glad to hear the update Miggy.
This would have been an endearing counterpoint to Nutty's old suggestion that Meghan do a tour of her new country -- not just for her to get to know Britain, but for the Britons to get to know her.
The catch, of course, is that Shawty Markle was never any of those good things. Perhaps that's why she had to pretend to be tall. It was easier to fake height than to fake all the rest of it. Later she would pretend to be pregnant, finding it easier to fake the physical changes than to fake a maternal nature and real love of children. That's the sad thing about being a narcissist: You're a bottomless pit of nothing covered up in a pretty tarp.
Tom Cruise and Meg have a lot in common in their mental makeup.
Both are Narcissists with an overwhelming need for control. Both came from broken homes. Both grew up with dysfunctional/absent/compromised parental units. Besides this, both overcame additional obstacles in childhood that left them with chips on their shoulders and insecurities which left them with something to prove--Tom grew up in poverty and profoundly dyslexic. His father was the parental unit who was absent and his free-spirited (hippie) mother was unstable, usually unemployed and dragged her kids around the country.
Meg was biracial, with an absent mother and while not 'poor' by normal standards, by Hollywood standards of the kids she went to school with, they were lower-middle class and her dad was in the unsexy technical side of the business.
Tom Cruise had a much rougher childhood than Meg. It left him vulnerable to being recruited by a cult. The only cult Meg recognizes is The Cult of MeMe.
Tom has always been self-conscious of his height. He was slightly taller than Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man who's listed t 5'6", so he could be 5'7". 2 inches above the actual height is usually what the 'offical' stats say for the under-6' footers.
Clinton Kelly of What Not to Wear is 6'4" and he actually expressed the wish to be 2 or 3 inches *shorter* so he'd be easier to fit for men's fashions. M
In the movie 'Knight and Day' opposite Cameron Diaz (a former model who is 5'9"), there's a kissing scene in a doorway between her and Tom. Their heads are dead level. We can only see from the the shoulders up pretty much, so either Cam was standing in a trench or else she had to scooch her body down to a half-sitting position to achieve this effect.
Why is MM in such a rush? This is from the ES:
As well as an adjournment, the duchess is arguing her case is "overwhelmingly strong" and is suitable for a summary judgment, and is urging the judge to strike out the Mail on Sunday's defence arguments. If successful, this would end the case and deliver victory to Meghan without the need for a full trial
It sounds as if MM wants the whole thing to be over had done with now.
@Sandie said "She is appealing the decision to include FF." Again, why? Maybe because the content of the book is too close to the bone?
Prince Harry’s actress wife, who was advised to drop the court case before her reputation is damaged, is suing Associated Newspapers etc. I don't remember reading the bit in bold (my bold), does anyone? In any case, I think her reputation was severely dented well before she started the court case.
Magatha, this calls for a poem or two, should you feel inclined 😉.
I have no doubt that Meghan probably learned about Will and Kate suing that mag that took those long lens pics of a topless Kate. That suit cost the magazine a fortune and sent out a stern warning that W&K wouldn't tolerate that type of thing and can and would sue with their considerable influence. The problem though is Meghan's suit was based on utter bullshit all the way around, all of which she orchestrated. William and Kate were sitting on a private balcony on a private vacation oblivious to the fact that they were being photographed. It didn't occur to Meghan that she would lose and now that it's eminent, she'll likely be a bit panicked.
Because she's gonna get her butt pads handed to her in court and she knows it.
It would have been customary to ask for a summary judgement at the start, not wait until 8 weeks before the trial is set. She brought this suit more than a year ago now.
From a legal standpoint, it would have been far easier for her to get a summary judgement if she hadn't also rushed to get 'Finding Freedom' in stores. The MoS were confident that they were going to be exonerated from the very beginning, and have said as much. If there were any doubt in their minds that she had any sort of case, they'd have agreed to pay her off and avoid bad publicity. They have dig their heels in and refused to let her drop the suit--quite nearly unprecedented for the *defendant* in a legal action.
She was bluffing, with a poor hand and they've called her bluff. The judge knows she's lying as well . . .he was all too happy to allow FF into testimony . . .he denied her request to have the Friends excluded from testifying and has demanded to see all of her emails, letters, texts, call logs, etc.
She's trying the patented Mugsy Dodge to get out of the consequences for all her lies. Thanks to the media frenzy surrounding this case, we've all got seats in the gallery. I think she's shortly going to be spit-roasted. If she refuses to comply with the judge's orders, not only will he award the MoS the moon and stars, but she will be in contempt of court and will banned from entering the country again unless she wants to be arrested.
This is gettin' good, as they say.
“She feels her case is overwhelmingly strong...
Whatever she’s paying her lawyers, they deserve double the poor buggers. I’m convinced she’ll do a Heather Mills-McCartney as in sacking them and representing herself, due to their negativity and incompetence .
I’m behind reading blog comments, my apologies with late replies. ;o)
How do we know she changed back when she left? Unless there is filmed footage of what she was wearing when arrived (for the christening) and left, for all we know the photos were all taken when she arrived and she changed at Windsor Castle. Even if she did change back, there could be numerous reasons...she was off to somewhere else and didn’t want to be in that dress, she changed for practical reasons, maybe the material snagged easily we can’t really tell from a photo to be fair. ;o)
Hikari, the London Bridge ditty is now jammed in my head but I love it as much as I love Magatha’s brilliant takes! It will get me through the rest of my long stupid day.
A friend’s aunt saw M in person at some early event, before the wedding I think, took a pair of elderly neighbors there etc. She felt M was no more than 162 cm, or about 5 feet 4 inches tall. She said she was put off by her “darting” eyes, lol. Also: it is said Tom C wears lifts!
I can’t believe M’s lawyers are actually heeding her bossy 13-year-old tantrums and asking for a summary judgment. They’ll never get one. She’s sunk, FF and her endless word vomit and games can’t be rolled back from view. Mr AnT is a litigator and once offered to throw an out of control M type client out of his 27th floor office window if they didn’t shut up and let him do his job! He is sort of a Mike Tindall, so they shut up. Makes me wonder what her attorneys are thinking,
How much popcorn are all of you stocking up for January? A ten day trial, I think I read? It will be like Christmas after Christmas.
"Meghan Markle is asking to delay her High Court case against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, and has requested a court order that could see her win the case without going to the High Court.
In what has become an increasingly complicated lawsuit, the Duchess of Sussex has today applied for an adjournment and a summary judgment, the latter of which, if granted, would end the case and potentially deliver victory to Meghan without the need for a full trial. She has also filed an appeal to have the biography Finding Freedom removed from the hearing; last month Judge Francesca Kaye rejected her request to make the book inadmissible in the case. Associated’s attorneys have argued that Meghan and Prince Harry participated with authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand in writing the book, which the Sussexes have denied.
Applying for summary judgment is a bold move on the part of the duchess, who has told friends she believes she will win her privacy battle against the Mail on Sunday’s publisher; her lawyers said today that the request shows a belief in “an overwhelmingly strong case.” The court order is intended to bring litigation to a prompt close without the need for an expensive and lengthy High Court trial—or for Meghan to potentially come face-to-face with her estranged father, Thomas Markle, who provided the letter she wrote him to the Mail on Sunday. She is suing the paper’s parent company, Associated Newspapers, for copyright infringement, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act.
There is a precedent for the royals using summary judgment during litigation to avoid a public court case. Prince Charles successfully applied for summary judgment in his historic 2006 legal case against the Mail on Sunday, which he successfully sued after the newspaper published excerpts from one of his travel diaries.
Meghan’s lawyers will put forward the new applications in what was meant to be a virtual case-management hearing scheduled for Thursday. “Applying for summary judgment could potentially bring the case to an earlier conclusion and wouldn’t require a full trial, which would be the preferred option,” said a source close to the duchess. “What started as a lawsuit over a private letter has escalated into something much bigger, and there is a feeling that a line needs to be drawn.”
The duchess is said to be concerned about the number of private individuals who have been dragged into the case and Associated Newspapers’ request to use Finding Freedom in its defense case. The judge previously prevented the Mail on Sunday from revealing the names of the five friends who spoke to People in defense of Meghan, but the possibility remains that other people close to the duchess could be brought in as part of the trial.
The duchess is hoping her appeals will be successful, but if she is refused summary judgment, she will return to the U.K. for the court case in January.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/10/meghan-markle-tabloid-lawsuit-summary-judgment
I read this as `Meghan thinks she'll win, as it's an open-and-shut case, but her lawyers don't necessarily see it in the same way.
Offal, aka variety meats, were not rationed but the village butcher made us take our turn. He divided his registered customers by alphabetical order of surname, almost like the London Telephone Directory of the time perhaps( A-D, E-K,L- R, S-Z), only it may have been a 5 or even 6 week cycle to ensure everyone had a chance.
Mum would rejoice every time it was our turn; with luck, she could get some bacon from the grocer to go with our liver.
So an unrationed slice of roasted Coronation ox, in a roll, was a real treat! The dinner at Buck House may have had Coronation Chicken but, for the rest of us, chicken had to be something special for Christmas.
Let's look at this:
She fails to comply ... the MOS gets awarded big bucks ... contempt of court ... banned from entering the company ... potential arrest
sounds like a squeeze play of PC for money to save them all the way around, contempt (well only if that kind of thing bothers you/how you see yourself and wouldn't being banished, threat of arrest be a thrill (on some level of maybe even seeing if they really would), lots of publicity she can add to her reputation (one way or the other it is still more lines of ink) when her picture is taken at any point in the future AND the perfect reason to not ever have to visit his side of the family.
He has just tweeted in reply to a Times article headed, "Meghan seeks to dodge witness box in Mail on Sunday privacy case."
No she's not: she's seeking summary judgment because she thinks she has a powerful case. A pretty grim untruth from a media which hates anyone who won't play its game - and God alone help them if they're female and BAME to boot.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1321532708162543617
Copyright infringement
Breach of privacy
Misuse of private information (data protection)
All are related to the publication of part of a letter she sent her father, which her father only made public, through MOS, when People published an article with 5 friends defending/praising Meghan, and one quoting from the letter her father sent her and the letter she wrote to him months after that correspondence. Her father had, in his various interviews, not even mentioned the letters. The People article defamed him and gave him no opportunity to defend himself, but it did not infringe on copyright in that it only quoted a sentence or two of her letter. MOS reproduced a huge chunk of the letter, way beyond what can be claimed as within the bounds of fair use. However, unless Meghan wanted to publish the letter in a memoir, she cannot claim financial
damage. Also, at the time, she was a full-time working royal being very generously kept in the lap of luxury by the British taxpayer and the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall. Since her position was soley due to being married to a royal, the MOS article made no difference to her position or lifestyle. She should have no claim for damages.
Her other two claims are a stretch and MOS think they have enough evidence that she fed information to the press and Scobie, so they are prepared to defend themselves vigorously.
To complicate matters, Meghan herself then included more than a handful of articles that she claims were not true, or whatever. At the time they were published, she issued no denials through her staff, and we all had a great time then concluding that all the rest must be true if she did not present them as evidence!
Messy Megsy now does not want to hand over her devices (phone logs, messages, emails) and does not want her friends and Scobie to testify, so she is looking for a way out. It makes no sense to ask for a summary judgement at this point and comes across as arrogant, especially as MOS is now in a stronger position than they were at the beginning, unless there is no evidence to be found to support their defence. I would guess that she has not handed over what she was asked to, and coaching of her witnesses is looking more risky (they probably did not do well in initial prep), so she is looking for a way out.
The game is getting complicated and Rachel wants people to follow her script, even the judge. I hope he does not give her that at this stage.
Does anyone know why the first part of this hearing was private?
"Struggling to think of anything more unedifying than the ongoing national bout of Fourth Estate foot stamping and lip quivering at Meghan and Harry's dignified choice not to dance to its silly tune."
Haz and Meg dignified?? Since when??
The case is about copyright, period.
If it goes to trial and the MOS loses, they still win. Again the click money more than covers the legal costs. And any "damages" will be very small compared to what a US jury might award.
If MeGain wins she still loses. Much can come out in trial. Her "five friends", if they exist, have been put in a very precarious position. I am sure none of them want to (and I would think have been legally advised not to) perjure themselves.
If it goes to trial, her dirty laundry just may be aired.
She already looks pretty bad in the public's eye, can you imagine how much worse she'll look having her father essentially go on trial? She did nothing but sing his praises, until she met Harry.
MOS will have a field day with her as she attempts to drag an ailing parent through the mud.
Swampwoman is in charge of wine, everyone else bring your own popcorn!
If Catherine wore Outfit A for a short car ride to the venue, Outfit B for the photo shoot, and then an Outfit C that was the same color as Outfit A for the car ride back, I'm afraid I'd side-eye the Christening photo even more than I already do!
I was kind of whistling out of my hat up there . . I do not know the minutae of what happens when one is in contempt of court. I know there can be heavy fines. Is it a jailable offense, particularly in a civil suit like this one? Perhaps technically, but in reality, never actually carried out. I don't think there'd be a bench warrant issued against Meg for failure to appear/contempt of court in a non-criminal trial. Perhaps one of our lawyer Nutties would ring in on this. Impossible to prosecute her for it as long as she doesn't set foot on British soil, but she'd possibly be flagged at customs if trying to reenter the country. 'Duchess' or no, I don't think she'll be welcome at any future family gatherings of the Windsor clan. If she's stripped of that title, there wouldn't be any further diplomatic protections coming her way.
It would look very bad, though. It would certainly boost the idea that Meg is a vexatious litigant who instigates suits without merit and is furthermore too cowardly to face the music which she set to playing. Terrible optics for the Royal family. I feel certain that Meg is dragging her heels in the hopes that Charles is going to come to her rescue and pay all her fees.
Meanwhile, her belief in the Divine Right of Meghan Markle remains unshaken.
Meghan seeks to dodge witness box in Mail on Sunday privacy case
Valentine Low
Wednesday October 28 2020, 5.00pm GMT, The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/meghan-duchess-of-sussex-seeks-to-dodge-witness-box-in-privacy-case-against-mail-on-sunday-m07ss25rw
The Duchess of Sussex has applied for a summary judgment in her legal action against The Mail on Sunday that would mean she could avoid going into the witness box.
Lawyers for the duchess will argue in court tomorrow that a judge should rule on the case without the need for a full trial.
The duchess is also requesting a postponement of the trial if her application for summary judgment is unsuccessful.
Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers, publisher of The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online, in the High Court over an article from February 2019 that reproduced parts of a handwritten letter sent to her estranged father, Thomas Markle, 76.
There have been several preliminary hearings so far, and a hearing to consider costs and case management issues was due to take place on Thursday before a ten-day trial starting in January.
However, instead of that hearing, Mr Justice Warby will now hear an application by the duchess for summary judgment. The first part of the hearing will be in private.
A source close to the duchess said they were making the application because they believed they had “an overwhelmingly strong case”.
The source said: “We do not believe that the defence’s case has a chance of succeeding, and do not believe there is a compelling reason for trial.
“We are confident in our case and therefore believe it should be determined on a summary basis.”
That would involve the judge making a ruling based on the cases submitted on paper by the two sides, without the need for witnesses or further evidence.
Legal experts speculated that the duchess might be seeking to avoid going into the witness box, where she would be subjected to cross-examination.
It is also possible that her father could be called as a witness if there is a full trial.
When the Prince of Wales sued The Mail on Sunday in 2006 over the publication of a leaked journal in which he described the Chinese leadership as “appalling old waxworks”, he successfully applied for a summary judgment. The judge ruled in Charles’s favour, a result which was upheld after the newspaper appealed.
The duchess’s lawyers are also seeking permission to appeal against the ruling that The Mail on Sunday can rely on Finding Freedom, a biography of the duchess published in August, in its defence. The newspaper argues that she co-operated with the authors, Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, to set out a version of events that was favourable to her. The duchess denies collaborating with the authors.
If that appeal is unsuccessful, they will seek a postponement of the trial in order to prepare their case with Finding Freedom included.
The duchess is suing over five articles, two in The Mail On Sunday and three on Mail Online, which reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to her father in August 2018.
The headline of one article read: “Revealed: The handwritten letter showing true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces’.”
The duchess is seeking damages for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act. The duchess’s lawyers are also applying to strike out the defence to the privacy part of the case.
Associated Newspapers denies the allegations, particularly the duchess’s claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.
I didn't think she had a chance but I'm worried that 'magical royal treatment' may end up coming into play and allow this horrid woman to get her way once again.
___________________
Yeah, that's definitely it. She's desperate to avoid trial because she's utterly convinced she is going to win.
*eyeroll*
Unfortunately, I cannot find a more reliable source than Yahoo! with the same article.
The annual Christmas walk at Sandringham is to be cancelled and HM will not attend church at St. Mary Magdalene amidst talk of a 'staff revolt' at which the Queen is said to be 'furious'.
This comes after royal staff objected to the prospect of having to forgo the holidays with their families if they were to be on lockdown at Sandringham in order to serve at the Royal Christmas. New restrictions in the U.K. restrict even family gatherings to no more than 6 persons.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/royals-skipping-annual-christmas-walk-132100591.html
If the Queen were 'furious', I doubt that it would have reached the ears of Yahoo News, and also . . at her great age, the Queen would be furious about missing church but not about what Meghan and Harry are doing to the institution she has spent her entire life serving and protecting?
Even if the Sandringham staff were totally fine with going under house arrest in order to serve Her Majesty, the Christmas walk always brings out masses of crowds and it would be reckless for it to go ahead. On the plus side, Andrew could walk to church this year and probably wouldn't be noticed.
Reason A Finding Freedom with its uncomfortable private information, possibly Scobie at the witness stand
Reason B. Thomas Sr in a witness box. According to the British law the owner of the physical object (letter) should seek the author's agreement before making the letter public. I have said before her case is really against her own father, who passed her letter to the media willingly.
The judge will consult the defendant before his ruling and do you guys see MoS backing off from this to please the Harkles?
Reason C - The identity of the 5 friends will be revealed and they will have to testify.
Reason D - MM doesn't want to be cross-examined.
Reason E - MM doesn't want to go back to the UK.
Reason F - MM doesn't want to lose as it will weaken her stand on cyberbullying and the "bad voices" and spoil the alleged lawsuit themed Netflix production we heard hints of.
I expect the MOS to continue to be fully invested but I don't know how Prince Charles won a summary judgment in his case. Will keep my fingers crossed!
What is Summary Judgment?
Summary judgment is a court order - judgment - which brings litigation to an end early.
The legal proceedings are brought to an end when at a hearing of a summary judgment application a court finds that the claim or the defence:
•has no real prospect of success, and
•there is no other compelling reason why the case should be allowed to proceed to trial.
Courts say that summary judgment is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all: Lord Woolf in Swain v Hillman (1999), the Court of Appeal
The judgment avoids a close examination of all the evidence which might be produced at the usual endpoint of litigation, which is the trial.
The parties are saved significant time, expense, worry, and the distraction of enduring the entire litigation process through to the trial. There is no point.
Applications brought at the right time end proceedings in weeks or a few months, rather than after many months or years.
Why Summary Judgment?
Summary judgment entered on the merits of a case.
It’s a case that can't succeed in law. It’s clear to the court that the claim or defence advanced by the party is unsustainable.
That can be for a variety of reasons, including:
•it’s bad in law: it doesn't disclose a cause of action
•what a party says in its evidence to support the claim is untenable, and that is not going to change throughout the proceedings.
Courts take the view that when a claim or defence is bad in law, the sooner that is ended, the better.
The claim sued on is disposed of fast:
•A successful claimant will be able to move on to enforcement far more quickly.
•A successful defendant dispenses with hassle of the following stages of legal proceedings: disclosure, preparation and exchange of evidence, further interim hearings and the trial.
The Legal Test for Summary Judgment
To defeat an application for summary judgment it is only necessary to show that there is a "real" as opposed to a fanciful - think fictional or self-deceptive - prospect of success.
So, a litigant, to successfully defend an application for summary judgment:
•must have a case which is better than merely arguable
•is not required to show that they will probably succeed at trial
•have a real prospect of success, even if it is improbable that their case will succeed
The test whether summary judgment should be awarded is a kind of reverse test of success.
It’s not if the respondent will win their case.
It is more that the respondent has no hope of winning, or they are doomed to fail.
To put it another way:
•a legal claim or defence advanced in a court must be recognised in law. The facts alleged in the relevant statement of case must disclose a claim or defence, or
•evidence should exist to support the claim or defence:
-whether or not it before the court, or
-unlikely to come out prior to the trial.
It has been put in these terms by Courts when parties have been sued:
•the respondent must show it has a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success: that's Swain v Hillman
•there is nothing of substance in the claim or defence
•The criterion for summary judgment is not one of probability: it is the absence of reality, on an objective standard
•A "realistic" defence is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means the claim or defence that is more than merely arguable
There must be an absence of a serious triable issue of fact or law.
It's not for determining points of law or fact which requires extensive argument and citation of an extensive number of legal authorities.
If the issues in dispute require more thorough exploration than was realistically possible at the hearing, then summary judgment is not the likely outcome.
Overall, it is a summary procedure for summary assessment of cases.
Yes, all your reasons too. And isn't it too late to demand a summary ruling? She has already lost twice on two aspects and still tries to appeal the use of FF as evidence in court.
I can't see how Megsy can deny cooperation if Omid in his notice to the book himself admitted he talked to them "where appropriate".
Scorpiotwentythree has described Tom Cruise as a "good narc," in the sense that he worked really hard to get to where he is now and he consistently delivers. No one really wants to be part of his family, but a savvy colleague could get something out of working with him. If only one could say the same of Meghan.
>An article in the Daily Express on the latest views of Graham Smith, CEO of the Republic group, and how he doesn't appreciate the Harkles using their royal status and titles for personal gain.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1351693/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-news-Duchess-of-Sussex-Duke-update-video-Royal-Family-latest-vn?utm_source=knewz
>The latest update to the YouGov Royal Favourability tracker sees Harry and Meghan’s scores reach their lowest point to date (LOL!)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2020/10/28/royal-popularity-harry-and-meghan-drop?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_questions&utm_campaign=royal_favourability
One can’t help wondering how Tom Cruise might be different had he not gotten sucked into Scientology. I think a lot of the features which render him interpersonally difficult stem from his brainwashing in that cult. He was introduced to it as an up-and-coming actor by his first wife, Mimi Rogers. He was in his early 20s and was her boy toy being significantly younger. She was the bigger star when they met, but that changed incredibly quickly, after Top Gun. She became a non-entity after the 1980s and he swiftly moved onto the A list and another wife. Both of his subsequent wives were younger than he, and as he got more powerful in Hollywood and in Scientology I think that’s when his control issues really went off the charts. On a personal level, he’s a freak, but professionally it’s hard to find anyone who does not praise his work ethic and what he brings to each project. I think he’s incredibly hard-working, and I think he treats everyone he works with well, down to the lowliest crewmembers. So I agree that he is not a narcissist on the level of Meg. He is also undeniably talented at his profession, which is also something else we cannot say of her. Whether or not one is a fan, his signature charisma is hard to deny, at least when cameras are rolling. The women who have been married to him have other stories to tell, but he seems very able to compartmentalize his personal beliefs from his work on set. I have seen him participate on the Graham Norton show as one of several guests on the couch, and he laughed along with everyone else and did not try to monopolize the conversation. Meg would not be capable of sharing the spotlight, and if a star of the stature of Tom can do it, That’s just more proof about her delusional MM is about herself. And Tom is also capable of apology. You probably remember when Brooke Shields spoke candidly about her struggles with postpartum depression after the birth of her first daughter and how she took medication for it. Tom criticized her reliance on drugs because Scientology does not believe in psychotherapy or psychotropics. In a war of words ensued. But when Brooke gave birth to her second daughter, Tom sent flowers and a note to her room. I IRC, Katie Holmes was in the same hospital giving birth to Suri. I think things are mended now between the two of them, and that was a classy gesture of which Meg would also be incapable. Meg never apologizes, because she is never wrong!
@ Sally1975
Yes, all your reasons too. And isn't it too late to demand a summary ruling? She has already lost twice on two aspects and still tries to appeal the use of FF as evidence in court.
I can't see how Megsy can deny cooperation if Omid in his notice to the book himself admitted he talked to them "where appropriate".
..............
I too would think it was too late to ask for a summary judgement - they have already spent so much time and money on the case! I would assume that means the MOS has a triable defense or I'm guessing the courts would have stopped the case before it started. It seems like MM already tried to avoid a trial in the beginning when she attempted to wrestle a settlement out of the MOS. I've also been wondering if UK taxpayers' money is used to support the court system. And I agree that notice in the FF book is a big deal yet I don't think we've seen that mentioned in any of the MOS's arguments!
Perhaps Barbara and/or AnT can provide us with some legal info/updates.
The Archewell Dodger
With all her conniving
Claims of not thriving
She’s bitten off more than she can chew
Trying to keep it all sealed
Fearing all being revealed
Megs must now rue
Her action to sue
You had me at "Archewell Dodger"!!! How do you do it, ma'am???
Cheers Enbreth
I’ve replaced the wonderful Margaret Rutherford
with a new pic
The “ Poison Dwarf “ 😉
"According to the British law the owner of the physical object (letter) should seek the author's agreement before making the letter public. "
Interesting. Thomas Sr. apparently has texts etc showing that she would not return his calls (pre wedding) so there is an argument to be made that she refused contact initiated by him so how could he get permission.
Yet they don't mention the SJ nor her plan to fight the FF book inclusion. Could she have been told already that both of those battles were unworthy of a fight? Maybe her lawyers got through to her? I would think that if the judge allowed ANL to expand their defense with Finding Freebies then there wouldn't be much chance of an SJ. Also very interesting to note that the DM is not allowing any comments on this article.
Here are some excerpts from the DM article:
The Duchess of Sussex is bringing a bid to postpone the trial of her High Court privacy action against the Mail On Sunday over the publication of a letter to her estranged father.
There have been a number of preliminary hearings in the case so far, and a hearing to consider costs and case management issues was due to take place tomorrow, ahead of a 10-day trial due to start in January.
But instead of that hearing, Mr Justice Warby will now hear an application by the duchess for the trial to be put back to a later date.
According to a court document, the application will be considered at an online hearing - the first part of which will be in private.
ANL wholly denies the allegations, particularly the duchess's claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning, and says it will hotly contest the case.
Following the latest preliminary hearing last month, a judge ruled the publisher could rely on a recent biography of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, called Finding Freedom, in its defence of the claim.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8888531/Meghan-Markle-bids-postpone-High-Court-privacy-trial.html
Love your latest witticism AND your avatar!
That short and stumpy Markle sure is dwarf-like isn't she?
You made me think of Dallas and Lucy Ewing!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-8888873/Meghan-seeks-postpone-trial-privacy-suit-against-paper.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-8889067/UKs-duchess-Meghan-seeks-delay-court-battle-newspaper.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-8888417/Duchess-Sussex-bid-postpone-High-Court-trial-privacy-action.html
IMO, It looks like Meghan's team wants to delay the start date due to all the prep they need to do to defend from Finding Freebies. It has to be a lot of work to verify and prep for. I imagine her lawyers are concerned they will be unprepared. I doubt Meghan is cooperating.
At this rate, it also could be Meghan wanting to delay the start date just so she has more press, longer. She's always hoping to snag that one deal off of all of this publicity. If the case ends, what other thing can Meghan constantly be in the papers for? We know she can't even afford this case as it is and wanted a documentary on it.
@Sally @SwampWoman
Cheers
@Hikari
Loved your “ London Bridge “
The Poison Dwarf
“Ascent of a Bogan”
AND
“...the Duchess is said to be concerned over the number of private individuals dragged into the case.”
From “ Meghan Markle is asking to end her lawsuit early” by Katie Nichols for Vanity Fair, Oct 28.
Is that something else that has escaped her attention?
"What might happen to the proposed Netflix drama, were the case to come to an abrupt end? My guess is that it would be a complete bore-fest."
Agree. However, she may think her whining on about the "unexpected" involvement of private individuals in the case strengthens her PR whinefest. "It was so unfair. They were the ones who did wrong but we were hurt again and again. I had to make the hurt stop for the sake of my friends, my husband, and my child."
But they didn’t.
She likely thought the MOS would fall all over themselves to quickly settle with her for a hefty sum while reinforcing her self-created victim narrative and come out smelling like a rose.
But that hasn’t happened either..
Instead, it looks like her attempted manipulations are blowing up in her face. She has opened up a pandora’s box by dragging her five friends, Omid, her father, and possibly editors from People magazine, Carolyn Durand, Meghan’s public relations team that actually sent the letter to Thomas, plus palace staff who, from what I have read, were both (her P.R. team and palace staff) were told by Meghan that she expected the letter would be published, into this mess.
Even if it ends today, I think Meghan ends up looking bad in front of all the people in the previous paragraph and the public in the UK and the US.
If the judge says it needs to go to trial, then I think Meghan is going to be in way over her head and she stands to lose far more than she thought she’d gain.
And on top of it, she could still end up paying hefty legal fees to look bad.
Words of wisdom: Don’t bite off more than you can chew because you might choke on it.
Let's say Megs loses 100% against MoS. This means she will also paying their legal bills. The Duo are setting themselves up for a multi million Pound loss. If Megs could turn back time I doubt she would have sued. She tried to copy William/Kate who did successfully sue French paparazzi.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3462050/kate-middleton-topless-pictures-closer-magazine-france-trial-appeal-meghan-markle/
Plus she risks far more being revealed about her than she might wish, to say nothing of the effect on the March Review...
Unbelievably stupid behaviour. Such a pity she doesn't adopt `Never Complain, never explain' or `Least said, soonest mended'.
On the copyright issue, that is an interesting angle ... that Thomas could not get her permission because she had ghosted him. I know from publishing days that if we could show that we had made every attempt to contact a copyright holder we would be covered, and we would add that disclaimer in the book. However, Thomas would have to prove that he tried to contact Meghan in every way he could. I doubt that he did. He could have sent a letter to her KP office. That would have been interesting and would have perhaps made a better story without MOS crossing the line in reproducing a huge chunk of her letter, and they would have been free to publish huge chunks of his letter and him talking about her letter.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/315687-body-language-expert-decodes-kate-middletons-tense-demeanor-at-archies-christening
Hope everyone is well. Not around alot but i do lurk 👀
Great news for you Miggy. I hope your son recovers soon as well. I hope Cass is ok too. Haven't seen her lately.
Be well!!!
At first I wondered whether the most significant difference between Tom Cruise and Meghan is that Tom can (sometimes) be grateful. He is loyal to Scientology because he believes it cured his dyslexia.
But then I remembered Leah Remini saying that being in Scientology gives Cruise so much power -- countless servants, in fact -- that it would be incredibly hard for him to leave. I don't know if I'd still say he's grateful for the power, but he's certainly not dumb or impulsive enough to mess up what must be a really cushy situation for him.
Now I wonder whether Meghan would have been happier (inasmuch as a narcissist of her sort can be happy) as a prominent Scientologist than as a royal.
I do my best these days to stay as far away from civil actions as possible and of course the case of the Duchess against Associated Newspapers is not one of my briefs, however with regard to Contempt of Court this is what I would say: Contempt of Court is not rudeness or incivility but a deliberate flouting of the judicial process. Should a litigant fail to appear in her own case that is not contempt of court. If however the Duchess were required by the Court by way of an Order thereof that she attend and then failed to do so that would be contempt. As I indicated however the court would especially in these Covid times and given that the Duchess is on another continent bend over backwards to exonerate her behaviour. In my experience the Judiciary are regrettably impressed by celebrity and the higher one goes up the Judicial pole the worse it gets but I trust Warby J. is made of sterner stuff.
The application for Summary Judgment at this late stage is very curious and presumably designed for some ulterior purpose perhaps to avoid having to produce the five friends.
"there is an argument to be made that she refused contact initiated by him so how could he get permission."
----------------
I'm not sure this argument would hold water in law. MM's barristers could claim that that since permission was unobtainable then consent couldn't be granted. Just playing devil's advocate.
That is what sticks in her craw. I don't think anyone is ever as interested in her as she wants them to be.
The smallest coin of the realm (a farthing, one quarter of an old penny) was awarded to Whistler when he sued Ruskin so perhaps 1p would be about right.
We could than say that the Court couldn't give tuppence for her case...
Like Whistler's case, it'd go down in history.
If Markle had been contacted and issued a strong objection to her letter being used then MoS is in a weak position.
If she ignored them as I think she did they can argue they approached her and got no objections.
They can also argue Thomas informed them that all attempts to contact Markle failed and she had been avoiding him by changing her number, which the article says he did. Thus both ways of contacting her were shut.
https://mobile.twitter.com/chrisshipitv?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
I wonder if her (sick) plan is to try to delay proceedings until her father passes away from his heart ailment, and cannot testify?
Perhaps she needs time to win back alienated “friends” and isn't making headway.
The judge is giving her rope to hang, in my opinion — if she fails to show a solid realistic “can win” reason for making this bid for a summary in January, it won’t go well. This judge isn’t stupid, and he isn’t playing. And I doubt her team can meet requirements. This is just a stall tactic, more mess, and he knows it. AN and MoS are probably laughing and ready to double down.
Such a trivial for a lawsuit, surrounded by such antics (PR, nonsense claims, FF, Omid’s on-camera remarks about her creating the letter with public view in mind) — she is digging that hole.
ugh...9 month delay? I was sort of looking forward to the January show. Maybe the summary judgement will go against her.
At this point the summary judgement is just her crap shoot right? She is risking everything, but doesnt have to call witnesses who will make her look like a fool.
What do you see as the MOS win?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13051096/meghan-markle-wins-privacy-battle-court-delay/
The decision comes after 76-year-old Thomas said he wanted to get the trial done "as quickly as possible" due to his ailing health - and was planning to travel to London for the High Court showdown.
In a statement to the court, the dad said none of his male relatives had ever lived beyond 80 years of age, saying: "I am a realist and I could die tomorrow. The sooner this case takes place the better."
The elderly man, who currently lives in Mexico, also detailed his health concerns including struggling to walk 40 steps without getting out of breath.
I think the demand for witnesses, questions, cross-exam, records and phones, has actually shocked and infuriated her. Little bratty teen Meghan was never questioned! Ever! She was just given what she wanted, damn it! And isn’t a judge just like a doting daddy? So what’s all this then? I don’t want to play anymore! ....Delusional.
This is going to cost her a fortune. A fortune. And we all think they are running low on cash as it is. Remember, too the rumor in LA as of a couple of days ago is still that Netflix is getting increasing displeased that the Harkles haven’t turned in their contracts or their pitch homework. They haven’t sold anything, they haven’t been paid, it is rumored.