This idea comes from reader @Happy Days.
Where will Meghan and Harry be in ten years' time - in October 2030?
Archie (assuming he exists) will be about 12 years old.
Will his parents still be married? Will they live in the US, the UK, or someplace else entirely?
Comments
Sylvia said... Harry and Meghan learned about the “Teenager Therapy” podcast a few months ago after the hosts were profiled in The New York Times'
--------------
Hmmmm. That's not what Mm said. She said in the video that they saw them online and reached out. Implying that they were randomly surfing the net and happened across these teens' podcast.
She just can't give anyone credit for anything, can she. Not even Sunshine Sachs who found the gig for her. Or the NY Times who found the teens.
Why lie and say you saw them online instead of honestly saying you saw an article about them in The New York Times?
She's gotta lie about anything and everything, even the simplest things, to big up herself. And does it so brazenly. She's a sly one.
She uses implication. She *did* watch it online, after Sunshine Sachs saw the NY Times article and told her here's an idea for a gig for you.
Apparently there is a link to Netflix on the
Teenage therapy website
screenshot was posted on
https://tattle.life/threads/harry-and-meghan-44-shes-grabbing-the-loot-and-hes-bald-as-a-coot.10099/page-19#
Good poem riff by you off of>>>
"Clarence "Frogman" Henry, is an American rhythm and blues singer and pianist, best known for his hits "Ain't Got No Home" (1956)"
https://jerseydeanne.com/2020/10/14/she-plagiarized-meghan-markle-is-accused-of-ripping-off-netflix-doc-the-social-dilemma-as-viewers-point-out-her-comparing-social-media-users-to-drug-addicts-was-almost-identical-to-quote-in-t/
"In an interview last night, the Duchess of Sussex described the Royal family as the only institution she is still a member of."
I have 2 comments:
1. I can think of an `institution' that she should be a member of - there used to be more until `Care in the Community' resulted in many being shut down.
2. A vicar I once met said that the reason for there being so many ghastly people in church congregations was that the church was the only club that wouldn't chuck them out.
This is the Telegraph's subscribers letter this week detailing the trolling Camilla Tominey has received at the hands of the Sussex Squad... even her child has been targeted for goodness sake. These people are NOT called out by Meghan and Harry and it's an absolute disgrace.
https://twitter.com/nosparklemarkle/status/1316621020804116480
I wandered across this article today. Never much of a punk fan outside of the Ramones, but I read this article about Johnny Rotten, who has led an interesting life and would make an engaging lunch or dinner companion.
The article is pegged to Rotten/Lyndon being a Trump supporter this year, but he also comments on a wide range of topics, including the RF and Meghan, He says she is a “dreadful person.”
He has been married to a woman 15 years his senior since 1979 and is now her caretaker due to her having Alzheimer disease. They have lived in Venice, CA for a long time and still have a home in London.
His wife had a daughter from a previous relationship who died in 2010 who had twin boys, who Lyndon and his wife adopted after their mother died.
This article is on the FOX News website, but the original interview was in The Guardian on Sunday, October 12, 2020.
HIS TAKE ON MEGHAN MARKLE:
When asked about Meghan Markle, the former American actress who became the Duchess of Sussex when she married Prince Harry, Rotten replied, “dreadful person.”
“Very bad actress,” he said about the 39-year-old former "Suits" star. “But she’s in a master class now.”
Rotten also claimed Markle, who is biracial, didn’t suffer from racism by the British tabloids since joining “The Firm.”
“Stop being self-righteous and smug, that’s what she needs to do,” said Rotten. “She’s hopping on a cause. There are valid cases out there, genuine people who need help.”
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/sex-pistol-johnny-rotten-trump-sensible-choice-2020-election
Prince Philip ices Harry; Regents 4 George; Meg's costs if she loses lawsuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZvPtzGvHP0
https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/meghan-markles-twitter-bot-network-the-whole-thing-is-a-bit-insane/
Hinchliffe, an Associate Editor at Fortune, can’t stop her sycophantic gushing as she devours and then regurgitates every morsel of the word salad Meghan serves up.
Fortune should be ashamed to have a syncophantic brown-noser representing this publication in any capacity as a journalist. If this Fortune’s professional standard, then it is apparent they hand out the title of Associate Editor like candy being distributed on Halloween.
On reading the comments, I found this that I think you would find interesting on Meghan's Twitter Bot Network:
I do recall reading that article last year but it was well worth another look, so thanks. :)
wow, more Harry castigation! They are PISSED at him. No prospect whatsoever of Harry playing any role in a regency should one be required.
I know! Great news. :)
KC said...
@Hikari "Frankly, I think Meg had her tubes tied years ago, during marriage to Trevor, because she manifestly did NOT want to get pregnant, be pregnant or be a mother."
KC and Hikari: My theory is Meghan would not choose a difficult-to-reverse procedure such as having her tubes tied. Plus it would leave scars, albeit small scars, on her abdomen. Not good a good look for a yachting career.
My theory is more along the lines of her having years of indiscriminate sex with dozens of partners, which could very well have resulted in repeated infections with sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea. STDs can cause a complication called Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID), which can result in formation of scar tissue inside and outside the fallopian tubes, which can block the tubes. Other complications of PID are ectopic pregnancy and Infertility.
After many requests for my comment on the Meghan and Harry video 'An African Journey' I am finally prompted by their talk with a group of teens about mental health to do so. This is the longest video I have ever made and I hope that you manage to stick it out...hahaha. I do not go into every word of the mental health talk though as my critique on the African documentary takes up too much time and therefor I recommend you watch @Murky Meg and her video on the same subject as she describes very well how I also feel about their talk with the teens...xx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2D5P2xFogk
HappyDays said...
From earlier in this thread:
KC and Hikari: My theory is Meghan would not choose a difficult-to-reverse procedure such as having her tubes tied....scars, albeit small scars, on her abdomen. Not good a good look for a yachting career.
True. Small but obviously there...such a detail might have made it out into the gossip world...
My theory is more along the lines of her having years of indiscriminate sex with dozens of partners, which could very well have resulted in repeated infections with sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea. STDs can cause a complication called Inflammatory Disease (PID), which can result in formation of scar tissue inside and outside the fallopian tubes, which can block the tubes. Other complications...
True again. Gross, but true. Why Your Mother Warned You......
This blind from today’s Crazy Days And Nights might be confirming the theory:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2020
Blind Item #7
The reporter who is the lapdog of the alliterate one earned his pat on the head today with the trashing of the head of the family. He did let it slip to a friend though that the house is just a rental and not owned.
KC and Hikari: My theory is Meghan would not choose a difficult-to-reverse procedure such as having her tubes tied. Plus it would leave scars, albeit small scars, on her abdomen. Not good a good look for a yachting career. My theory is more along the lines of her having years of indiscriminate sex with dozens of partners, which could very well have resulted in repeated infections with sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea. STDs can cause a complication called Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID), which can result in formation of scar tissue inside and outside the fallopian tubes, which can block the tubes. Other complications of PID are ectopic pregnancy and Infertility.
I've not had any reproductive procedures and don't know anything about the scarring involved or the recovery time, etc. Megsy is not adverse to surgical procedures or to saying goodbye to pieces of her natural anatomy forever, as we have seen. Her multiple nose jobs are not reversible, though apparently the boob job was. Rumor on the street, through Ninaki Priddy, is that the coup de grace to the Trevor marriage was Meg aborting Trev's child and buggering off to Canada. All unconfirmed of course, but I would presume that she'd have had multiple terminations, easily. It's not like it would have meant anything to her except removing hindrances to her career(s). Deciding on a tubal ligation as an alternative to pills, shots, rings or several visits a year to the women's clinic doesn't seem like a huge stretch. A child would be a useful bargaining chip in any divorce, but until she met Harry, having a child of her body would have never seemed important before. We know how she doesn't think ahead more than a couple of moves, and she didn't meet Harry until she was 36 (she says). If Meg is older than she claims and might actually be four years older, then it was even more unlikely that she was ever going to get preggers on her own at that stage.
Your scenario is likely as well. All this frantic plastic surgery and skin procedures is an attempt to erase her "Rode (real) hard, put away wet" past. What a shame she didn't make this kind of effort when she was in the Family. When I expressed disbelief that a woman of near-37 years of age (allegedly) with 'her history' could conceive a healthy pregnancy mas rapido within 6-8 weeks of her wedding, what you said is what I meant by 'history' Based on her high school pictures we have seen, Megsy learned very early to be hypersexual with males in order to get attention. She couldn't be the tallest or the prettiest or the best at acting, but she could hone her talents in other more earthy areas that wouldn't even have had to involve stripping down completely for any scars to be visible.
Most of Meg's ugly damage is on the inside where it's invisible, but we can certainly see the manifestations of that damage in her behavior.
Rumors had floated around for years about Harry potentially being infertile, due to testicular damage/surgery when he was a child. When the couple mentioned in their engagement interview that they were open to exploring adoption, I thought that was basically a tacit admission that having children the natural way was not in the cards for them. I don't have a problem with surrogacy, if everything is on the up and up and nobody's been coerced into anything. It's the audacious lie of nearly a year long that she was pregnant herself and the continued fiction (in my mind at least) that they have a 17-month old living with them however he was conceived that are so galling.
a) he doesn't want to come back to UK
b) she won't let him in any case
Thanks for the info regarding John Lydon/Jonny Rotten - he was a breath of fresh air back in the day when I was a punk, yes I'm that old lol. He never fails to say it like it is, in his mind, like it or not, the choice is yours. For me he epitomises everything that is British, even if he did sell out to make a few butter adverts :)
My bet would be H's been summoned home (hence preps at Frog Cott etc) but
a) he doesn't want to come back to UK
b) she won't let him in any case
The Queen remains Harry's sovereign, even if he doesn't give two shites about his grandmother. If she's summoned him back to London, he'd better bloody well go. A Skype call does not have the visceral immediacy and impact I'm sure HM wants to convey to the prodigal.
He can stay in Montecito in rebellion, if he chooses. Then let us see the titles all gone, the place in succession, gone . . patronages, gone and every last bloomin' cent. They can cut him a check for what remains of his inheritance from Mummy. Not a sou more.
Alternatively, HM could send some special forces guys to extract Harry for a debriefing, if she chooses to treat him as a soldier who has fallen behind enemy lines.
I'd be surprised if Meghan went, but she may only to keep tabs on him and will either not be seen in public, or will be seen and then use the backlash as more 'victim' ammo.
Someone posted about her scheming and keeping Harry her 'white knight' savior against all of the ills that transpired.. of her own doing, victim complex nonsense, well they are correct in that is her emotional stronghold pattern over the guy. So, it would make sense she'd appear for more controversy and reinforce the only way she can peacefully exist is in Montecito with his grandmother and father paying for half their bills.
It's not going to stop. What other billionaire status family will she marry into? The answer is none, and I think she knows that.
So claw must be firmly kept in place on Harry, when he's not in Montecito that is.
It seems the Lacey book is claiming the Harkles left the royal family/UK to "protect" their son...
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Quit Royalty After 'Impact' to Baby Archie, Book Claims
https://www.newsweek.com/baby-archie-battle-brothers-1539334
And here is a very interesting post from an excellent commenter on LSA regarding Archie and the latest Harkle story...
Rae St James said:
I have two theories: the first is that Harry strongly expected the Queen to issue an LP making Archie a prince before he was born, at least up to when they presented him to the Queen, and shared that expectation with Meghan.
The Queen not issuing that LP strongly emphasised the difference between him and William. William's children are princes/princess, his son wasn't going to be one. His son would have a lower status than William's children. His son will not be entitled to taxpayer-funded security and other privileges associated with being a HRH. This is what makes their position unbearable for them. This, to Harry, is evidence that he is being sidelined. His level of entitlement is off the charts.
In true Harry fashion, he threw a tantrum and refused to give his son his courtesy title, and refused to share normal details re the boy with either the family or the public.
Their thinking: If you're not going to make him a prince, we're under no obligation to share anything about him and will not.
I suspect the Queen, Charles, and William knew exactly why Harry was throwing his tantrum and knew that it was in relation to his son not having the status of William's children. They also knew that Harry was deliberately trying to overshadow William in protest at this and other things he found untenable, including the separation of households, and the banishment to Frogmore. The fight had been going on for a while - see the articles below.
The second, related to the first, is that Archie's protection is the excuse they deployed in turning down the Africa secondment and making a break for it. The BRF (aka William) was going to send their beloved son to the dark African jungle and endanger him. Remember the farce about not wearing her engagement ring to SA and the exclusive reveal of Archie?
I've said it before that Harry was in a rush to marry Meghan and timed his engagement to align with when William became full time because he wanted to ensure he didn't get sidelined but rather use his popularity to demand concessions. When that didn't work, they started being disruptive in order to overshadow William and surround him (and the BRF) with chaos. They requested roving royal roles based in either Canada or Australia which were mooted by the palace, instead plans were drawn up to move them to Africa.
These two articles by Tim Shipman of the Times is worth re-reading again in light of all that has happened. This was issued on Easter day 2019 before Archie was born and shortly after the move to Frogmore.
Tim is a political journalist with a lot of contacts in government. His articles are well sourced.
Inside the rift between Harry and Meghan and the future king and queen | News | The Sunday Times
Revealed: palace’s Africa plan for Harry and Meghan | News | The Sunday Times
(Note from me, Sally - To read both the articles Rae St James recommends, here is a link to her post where you will find both articles pasted under "spoilers"...
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-5610#post-63772136)
He acknowledged here that they were banished to Frogmore to contain them. The palace though, went to a lot of effort to accommodate them but Africa was a step too far. Once they had Archie, they had a good excuse but played along with the tour, knowing they had no intention of relocating to Africa but needing the time to come up with alternative plans as well as setting up the narrative for why they had to step down i.e. press bullying and BRF neglect as depicted in the documentary and the Harry's statement on the MoS suit. This was all drama to establish an excuse for why they had to step down.
Unfortunately for them, they overestimated their own importance and found themselves out of the BRF.
Speculating freely here, one of the few things I think Robert Lacey got right is that this is really a battle between the two brothers that started in earnest August 2017 when William came on full time to assume his rightful position, and be groomed for his role. Harry recruited Meghan, William recruited Simon Case and we know where the story stands. Mission accomplished, Simon Case is back at the heart of government, William's eyes and ears, ready for the next battle. Where again is Harry?
Consider what was being planned for them and where they are now, and understand how supremely incompetent both of them are.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/10/prince-harry-meghan-markle-return-to-uk
It also reinforces how fortunate the world is that William was born first and got all the brains.
Thanks for the LSA post. Interesting!
One place I disagree with the LSA poster. She hypothesized "Harry strongly expected the Queen to issue an LP making Archie a prince before he was born, at least up to when they presented him to the Queen, and shared that expectation with Meghan."
While Harry may very well have had that expectation and if he did, certainly he would have shared it with Meghan, I don't think he had that expectation quite so late as the Archie presentation to the Queen at Windsor.
After Feb 2019, H&M's behavior changed. While we'd been watching the very odd and tacky "Meghan Pregnancy Show" for months, things seemed to go to s**t in March. That's when we got the series of bizarre-o KP announcements. For example, one said they might not even tell the public when their child was born for a few weeks. That they'd bond as a family first. Then an announcement saying maybe they'd say when M went into labor but maybe not. An advance refusal to do a hospital steps reveal (while criticizing Kate for doing it.) We also got lots of articles about M's desire for a water birth, a home birth, a doula. Those may have just been speculation (we got the home birth story about Kate with Louis) but given what we think we know now about M planting stories, it probably wasn't only speculation.
I think Harry and Meghan knew no LP was forthcoming well before May 6.
Even babies need to socialize.
So far MeMe is "too famous" for Mommy and Me play groups, hasn't leaked any "play group" stories except the porky about Archie gravitating to other red headed babies while in UK.
At this age (18 months give or take) toddlers want to be around other toddlers (not just adults). Its called parallel play. They want to socialize by playing alongside but not necessarily with other toddlers.
This socializing is key in a child's development.
Being trotted out twice a year for photo ops but never really interacting with other children may lead to low social skills, few friends, and a very lonely life. But hey, he was supposed to be the game changing bread winner.
Retorical question: will MeMe think less of her son because he isn't the big draw she thought he'd be?
https://64.media.tumblr.com/539d3a1cc7f367a5b8926472d2d1a264/01449357c510f9b2-32/s1280x1920/b0a439be009a403cd308b2c2a6811e2c02bef5c3.jpg
http://www.royalhistorian.com/queen-elizabeth-decrees-that-all-of-the-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridges-children-will-be-princes-and-princesses/#:~:text=George%20V's
the letters Letters Patent granting the title of prince/princess to any Cambridge children were dated 31st December 2012; George wasn't born, though, until 22nd July 2013.
I don't recall when it was first publicly mentioned that Duchess Catherine was in an `interesting condition' but I assume HM would have been the first to be told.
If even a peasant like me got the idea that the LPs are a great privilege, a sign of royal approval, not an automatic right, it is a sign of profound `learning difficulties' for it to have escaped H's understanding.
Any hope they may have entertained of their `children' becoming so honoured flew out of the window when they announced the `extended pregnancy' in such an unorthodox way, eventually demonstrating that they can't even count up to 9 correctly. (I wonder if either of them could pass the basic test for dementia - repeatedly subtracting 7 from 100 (100, 93, 86 and so on) to see what, if anything, remains?).
Whether they understand the truism `if you always do what you've always done...' is another matter. It's something that the narcissists I've known don't grasp, so certain are they that they are In The Right that they can't connect their bad behaviour with undesirable consequences for themselves.
Hey Diddle, Diddler
Hey, it’s no riddle
They’re both on the fiddle
Mad cow made her Megxit too soon
How hard we all laughed
Quite loud, unabashed
As the b..ch ran away with her goon
@WildBoar
Now that got me thinking, numbers were never my thing!!!
Happy to report I’m still all there, just 😉
@XXXXX
Thanks, was listening to 50’s/60’s music Clarence “Frogman” Henry
“Ain't got no home” popped up, gave me the idea!!
Megs needs to recharge her broom
Get them out of that gloomy room
The walls, bleak and bare
Match her, and the ex spare
And just adds more doom, to their zoom
We've almost got a repeat of the `Hush-a-bye, Baby, situation' as it is, given that that rhyme was aimed at the `Warming Pan Birth' - but `Jack & Jill' might offer something.
No amount of bed-rest, nor vinegar-and-brown paper, will mend Harry's head though.
Re: Timing of LP
Kate's pregnancy with George was publicly announced the first week of December 2012. It was announced early because she was hospitalized with HG. So it was publicly known she was pregnant almost a full month before the LP date.
It must have been a really miserable time for her.
Megs Multiple Organisms
Megs and her multiple “isms”
Is now spouting about algorithms
Just so you know
It’s all part of the show
And par for the course re- her schisms
Cheers WildBoar
Harry appears to have no knowledge of the intricacies of his own family.
He presumed his child would have a title,
Megs also, all set to be “Madonna and Princeling.”
Must have been a shock, to both, when told no.
No witnesses to the modern day “warming pan birth?”
For WildBoar
Slush a fund baby
On Riven Rock
The fact we can’t see you
Is losing Meg stock
When Harry breaks, the Sussex will fall
Down will come Megsie, Doria and all
No Bible scholarship required, nor sincerity, just a good script cobbled together by plagiarism.
I've just read the Wiki entry on Elmer Gantry - it's them to a T:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry
In short,
He is a narcissistic womaniser...unethical... manages to cover up sexual indiscretions...Thrown out of the seminary... because he is too drunk to turn up at a church where he is supposed to preach.. contributes to the downfall, physical injury, and even death of key people around him... Especially ironic is the way he champions love, an emotion he seems incapable of, in his sermons, preaches against ambition, when he himself is so patently ambitious, and organizes crusades against (mainly sexual) immorality, when he has difficulty resisting sexual temptation himself.
Remind you if anyone?
It can be such a lucrative activity for the amoral - `Meghan, Saviour of the World, shining her Divine Light into the Darkness, leading us along the True Path of Enlightenment...'
And the music - `Meghan bids us shine with a pure clear light'
`What a Friend we have in Meghan'
`Meghan calls us o'er the tumult'
and so on ad nauseam.
To be followed by `Brother Henry will now collect your Free Will Offerings'
She'll try faith healing but the jury's out as to whether she'll go for snake-handling.
The sermons need working on but she's already practising the easy stuff.
I betcha.
Hahaha
How about “ Abide with Megs”
No worries about the snakes, she’s handled plenty...
Whilst singing “ Markus wants me for a Megbean”
Megs could ‘lay her hands’ on a billionaire.
Our prayers would be answered
Ameg
Thank you @Puds
Bit naughty, but nice 😉
Archie does have a title he can use, as do the children of Edward and Sophie. He would not be an HRH or Prince, but he could use the title Viscount Dumbarton. I assume if Archie had been a girl, she would have been entitled to use the title Lady. After all, Diana's father was an Earl, not a Duke and certainly not a royal Duke, and she was Lady Diana.
When Eugenie and Beatrice were given the titles HRH Princesses, along with perks like taxpayer-fnded security, Andrew was 4th in the line of succession and it was long before the changes were made to 'slim down' the monarchy. Anne refused titles for her children, and they were genuinely on offer but would have required special letters patent to make that happen, and by the time Edward had children, the rules had changed.
Even though it was clear before she married him that this was the case, I suspect that Meghan and Harry were expecting letters patent to declare that their children would be HRH Prince/Princess. After all, the Queen had done so for the Cambridge children and had changed succession rules so that girls and boys are now treated equally.
The narc rage must have been immense, because, as many have pointed out, inside and outside the Palace, the Sussexes have a huge sense of entitlement.
No way was Meghan going to have her child called Viscount Dumbarton! She managed to overcome the problems with the history of the Sussex title, but Dumbarton was a step too far!
Maybe Archie will choose himself to use the title that he actually can use when he becomes of legal age?
H & M to host “Time 100” talk on digital experience,
according to DM.
Another platform for their facile word salad.
Is that hosting, or ghosting, depending on who they are interviewing?
`Meghan, Saviour of the World, shining her Divine Light into the Darkness, leading us along the True Path of Enlightenment...'
So funny! (I just hope she or Harry don't read this, they'll be even more delusional). You forgot 'Saint' before her name. She will have to be canonised.
....................
@Magatha
Not sure what you had for breakfast/lunch/dinner but you're in flying form once again. Keep it up!
her in the street or airport, yelling 's--t' or 'w---e' just to snap her reaction. it's a cringing collection and made me marvel at her poise at such a young age. If Megalo had faced even a tenth of this torture she would be storming up to Oslo and demanding a Nobel prize for being 'the biggest paparazzi victim in the world.'
Jan Moir's piece on DM today celebrates Kate's calm approach during these turbulent times. If there were a Duchess Olympics, Kate would win gold, she states. Somewhere in a mansion in Montecito, shrieks are issuing with alarming regularity!
Yep, the Sussexes are pushing ahead with this.
Who decides what is compassionate, safe and trustworthy?
Is this not censorship and control of freedom of expression? Of course, no society has complete freedom of expression.
Surely a better solution to online bullying and abuse and threats is to strengthen people's coping mechanisms? How far will this 'snowflake culture' go before we realise that facists have taken control of the world? (I lived in a repressive society with extensive censorship and control of all aspects of human behaviour and I assure you that there will always be those who fight for freedom or flee oppression.)
Here are some suggestions from me about how to cope with the downside of freedom of expression:
# If it is your website/forum, you have a right to moderate, but should have a clear statement about that on the site.
# If you do not agree with what moderators allow on their site, or even the site itself, scroll on by!
# If you think a site has dangerous content/ comments, you can engage with a different viewpoint or start your own site to offer an alternative.
# If an 'untruth' is published about you or an organisation with which you are associated, you do have the right to reply, but can also sue for defamation of character and various other things.
"...by the time Edward had children, the rules had changed."
Not sure what you meant there. But I'm pretty sure Edward and Sophie's children are HRHs because they are the grandchildren of the monarch through a male line. Edward and Sophie asked they not be styled that way though.
The situation with Anne's children is different as they are not through a male line. And while sometimes people claim Beatrice and Eugenie should not have been "given" titles (as though it was somehow unusual for them to be HRHs) it would have been much more unusual for them not to have been given titles as the Queen's grandchildren through a male line.
IF Charles had been king when Archie was born, it would have been unusual for Archie to not be a HRH, but at least the slimming down idea is already out there. And as you point out, it certainly wasn't when Andrew's children were born. After all, look at how much the Queen has relied on her cousins to do royal work over the years.
One has only to remember the treatment meted out to JK Rowling and Jenni Murray when they presumed to deviate from the current approved view of what now constitutes `a woman'.
She is her own deity. Veneration is not good enough for her - she demands worship.
Roses and lattes to you for this one . . . you keep outdoing yourself.
Slush a fund baby
On Riven Rock
The fact we can’t see you
Is losing Meg stock
When Harry breaks, the Sussex will fall
Down will come Megsie, Doria and all
@Sandie
I suspect that Meghan and Harry were expecting letters patent to declare that their children would be HRH Prince/Princess. After all, the Queen had done so for the Cambridge children and had changed succession rules so that girls and boys are now treated equally.
The narc rage must have been immense, because, as many have pointed out, inside and outside the Palace, the Sussexes have a huge sense of entitlement.
No way was Meghan going to have her child called Viscount Dumbarton!
We were all expecting a title for Harry's firstborn. As the grandson of the future monarch, he should have more status than Andrew's daughters. So the fact that they 'declined' a title for their child--VERY likely after the Queen had already declined to give it--is a huge indicator to me that the whole 'pregnancy' and provenance of Archie is suspect, and the Palace knew it, early. We could attribute the subsequent handling of the birth announcement and refusal to show Archie off in the usual ways as a form of Narc retribution over the lack of title, but I still think it was because Meg had not given birth herself and availability of a baby to show was not under her control. Hence the insistence on 'privacy' and 'bonding as a family' after the birth . . and then trotting 'him' out at Windsor Castle only 48 hours later. She'd gotten a baby to use or her parcel had arrived from Amazon.
Because let's face it--no matter how angry she may have felt over the titles, the new family shots on the steps outside the hospital are iconic. She'd have wanted to emulate Diana and show up Kate, and if she'd had a bundle of joy in her arms on the day, she would have done it. The siren call of the cameras is just too strong for her to resist. So if she refused to do it, there was a very compelling *practical* reason why she had to.
if Archie was/is really a surrogate baby and publicly known as such, the tabloids would likely call him that every single time even if they liked Meghan. And when he went to school, it would be ammunition for some mean kid or kids to bully him. Harry would not want that.
Well, we've got to hand one thing to Prince Harry, then: There isn't a clear choice of taunt for schoolyard bullies (or the tabloids) to hurl at poor Archie. All the weirdness surrounding his mother's "pregnancy" is much too sophisticated for children -- and I guess the media is muzzled by a superinjunction.
Also, assuming Archie does exist, California is probably the best place for him to grow up. There is already so much weirdness there, especially among the very wealthy set, that he won't stick out like a sore thumb. And as hard as it is for us to believe, his mother may turn out not to be the biggest narcissist at future PTA meetings!
Credit where credit is due, Hazza!
Thanks for that feedback re. HRH Prince title for Archie.
The Queen did issue letters patent so that Charlotte and Louis, and any other Cambridge children, would be HRH Princes/Princesses.
Princess Anne could have had titles for her children if her and Captain Mark Phillip's had accepted a title for him when they got married. Princess Margaret's children have titles because of that very reason.
James Wessex is still entitled to style himself as HRH Prince James, and his parents have said that when he reaches the age of 18, he can decide for himself. The Queen issued a press release to say that the Wessexes choose not to use the HRH Prince for James, but he has not been deprived of it.
There are rules, and there are exceptions. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to consider that there was an expectation.
There was no Letters Patent from the Queen to prevent Archie from calling himself Viscount Dumbarton until he inherits the royal dukedom from his father. Meghan and Harry do not have the authority to deprive him of that right. Unless he decides to sue his parents, they are his legal guardians until he is 18 so probably do have the right to decide if his title is used or not.
Almost regurgitated my coffee...guess what!! Mugsy and Harry are to moderate a TIMES100 platform, wherein they’ll also,participate and ask questions. What a way to begin my day. I think I’ll begin to call her Smugsy, for that’s what she is...completely smug. Each day she produces more bile in me, and for the life of me I cannot understand her appeal to these forums. Surely everyone cannot be deaf, dumb and blind! The world has gone mad, I believe...the more so with the respect given these two morons.
I know . . . It really is the Empress (in Her Own Mind) Has No Clothes time, isn't it? I could have understood one or two virtual events inviting them for the novelty factor but after their zonked-out, word salad performances, liberally sprinkled with Narc rage and plagiarism, it's beyond comprehension that they keep getting offered more and more of these. I think Sunshine Sachs is pushing, pushing, pushing . . and must be collecting favors left and right. Maybe a lot of these events are actually having trouble filling their roster of speakers because everyone is just so burnt out on all the Zoom stuff. For a couple of months it was a novelty and now it's just tedious and hollow and annoying, no matter who's talking. With the DumNarkles, it's just that much worse.
It's all about ratings . . . (which in this platform translates as views). The NumFarkles aren't being invited because their opinions and speaking acumen are respected. They are being invited because they are a notorious trainwreck in progress. I suspect popcorn is being popped by the bucketful and Meghan's Narc Salad outings are being turned into drinking games all over the country. It's really amazing what paid PR can do--THAT is the drug that Mugsy is addicted to. Also, it should be borne in mind that Meg is actually *paying a fee* to be included in some of these events, and anything she's earning back is minimal.
If it weren't for this pandemic, I think we'd be seeing a whole lot less of them both, if they had to rely on invitations to in-person industry events and charity galas. There would be more staged papp walks, though. Since she can plaster her face all over the Internet in live video now, she feels less of a need to get pictures taken.
Why was she asked to host a digital conference about social media having just said last week that she doesn't use social media?
__________________
We need a Like button around here.
That is a good question.
“It’s beautiful and spacious, but not too over-the-top,” the insider explained at the time they moved in. “The house has a Mediterranean vibe to it — French doors and archways and a pool.”
According to the source, the handsome royal “has been FaceTiming friends from the garden” and has even “given a couple of them a tour of the house.” This includes showing off Archie’s “enormous” playroom, which features family “pictures on the wall.”
The Duke of Sussex, 36, and the former Suits actress, 39, moved to the Montecito neighborhood in early August. Since purchasing their new $14.7 million property, Harry already started “teaching Archie to swim” in their luxury pool and “he and Meghan are about to start potty-training him,” the insider adds.
There was no Letters Patent from the Queen to prevent Archie from calling himself Viscount Dumbarton until he inherits the royal dukedom from his father. Meghan and Harry do not have the authority to deprive him of that right. Unless he decides to sue his parents, they are his legal guardians until he is 18 so probably do have the right to decide if his title is used or not.
The Saga of Archie is just getting started, really, For all the contortions and obfuscations they have gone through to hide their baby and the origins of their baby, he's not yet 2 years old. It's going to become more difficult, not less, to keep a growing, active school-aged child continuously out of the public view. I foresee that once he's about 8, they can claim that he's at a boarding school in an undisclosed location. Ie, just the kind of stiff upper lip institutionised schooling/childhood which Mugsy says is so damaging and which she claims to want to avoid.
When Charles ascends, he will become the legal guardian of all of his grandchildren as the monarch, just as Elizabeth was the legal guardian of her grandchildren until they came of age. So it will be interesting to see what happens viz. Archie at that time. Certainly he will still be underage at that time, unless Elizabeth Regina proposes to live and reign until she is 110 years old. His guardianship and the matter of his titles will then be a matter for Charles to oversee. He could issue a letter patent granting Archie HRH .. presuming that Archie is, in fact, a legitimate Royal baby--a subject still under dispute.
If the 12-month review period ends with Harry and Meg definitively out of the Royal family and insisting on life as 'private citizens', then I do not expect any further statements about anything having to do with Archie to be forthcoming from the Palace. I'm totally expecting it to go that way, because after this year just past, I can't see any tenable way for the NumFarkles to return to the BRF in any capacity. If Harry and Meg split up, I expect he will go back to England, but never again in a high profile working role. He will be like Andrew . . not seen, not a part of the public face of the Firm any longer. If/when the Narkles do separate/divorce, Master Archie's welfare and whereabouts are going to be at the forefront of public interest. We are not done asking probing questions about Harry and Meghan's elusive child, lest she thought decamping to America was going to shut that speculation down. Since they are outside the protection of the BRF now, the speculation is only more intense.
Seriously! I wouldn't call Harry handsome, that's arse kissing.
Apart from thinking that Archie is slow regarding potty training, isn't it too much private info being given out.
This stuff stays on the net, he's going to be a very embarrassed kid at school.
'The handsome royal' . . .oh, my sides!!
Harry was a bit handsome--10-15 years ago, in his 20s, when he was healthy and had hair. Now he looks like a patient at a methadone clinic.
"a couple of them a tour of the house" . . the 'source' is singular--so who is this 'them' .. and since 'they' noted Harry's handsomeness, are 'they' female? Could be Marcus, I suppose. Maybe Marcus and Ed came over for a bi-curious orgy in Monte. Hope Archie didn't bust in on any of these festivities, seeing as he is such a very active toddler.
Thanks for the additional information. I had not heard Edward and Sophie quoted as saying James (and Louise, of course) could decide at 18 whether to use their HRH titles, but had assumed that was the case. Lady Louise turns 17 next month so I guess we'll know her decision before too long.
I don't doubt H may have thought there'd be a LP. And obviously some people here thought there would be. Personally I wasn't so sure. There had been such an emphasis on the idea of slimming down. If some people thought the York daughters shouldn't be HRHs even though they were born as the granddaughters of the current monarch, then why would the grandchild of an expected future monarch be made one at birth? I mean, it's not impossible Charles will never be king while B&E's grandmother has been the queen for their entire 30+ year lives.
@Jdubya,
Thanks for the link.
So Archie has an “enormous” playroom, which features family “pictures on the wall.”
If that's true (big if), it sounds pitiful to me.
"Hero Harry" definitely had appeal -- but it was 10% youth, 10% fitness, 5% the military uniform, and 75% Edward Lane Fox's efforts. Overlapping with Prince William's "Bill Middleton" years, this version of Harry did seem like the real marital catch among the brothers, even if his wife would never be Queen.
Around the time of William and Catherine's engagement, I read a post from a blog dedicated to "sexual market value" and related concepts. All the male commenters on that post unanimously agreed that Prince William, despite being the direct heir, was the clear "beta male" among the brothers. And that was nowhere more evident than in his choice of bride. (The objection to Catherine seemed to be that she was much too old for him.) The commenters also said that we'd see what a real "alpha male's" wife looks like when Harry finally got married. Gosh, what I wouldn't give for a DeLorean big enough to take all those commenters into the present. Or even just to 2018.
“It’s beautiful and spacious, but not too over-the-top,” the insider explained at the time they moved in. “The house has a Mediterranean vibe to it — French doors and archways and a pool.”
Hunh. It would be the very definition of "over the top" for a young couple with one young child and no guaranteed income.
@Jdubya,
Thanks for the link.
So Archie has an “enormous” playroom, which features family “pictures on the wall.”
If that's true (big if), it sounds pitiful to me.
Sounds like somebody has been reading this blog questioning where the family pictures were. Convenient, isn't it, that they will be in private parts of the house? I would ALWAYS keep family pictures in the playroom where they could get hit by thrown toys (picture my giant eye roll that may result in permanent eye damage).
since 'they' noted Harry's handsomeness, are 'they' female?
I was so distracted by Harry's handsomeness that I forgot I wanted to reply to this, too.
By now, I assume that any source about the Harkles who also has insider information about Archie is Meghan herself. So of course she'd brag about having a handsome royal husband. Never mind that he may lose his titles in a few months and the rest of his looks soon after.
And I agree with @Lizzie that the "enormous playroom" with pictures of estranged family members on the walls seems sad rather than sweet and homey. Especially after she called those family members "the institution" a short while ago. (Well, I'm assuming she means the British Royal Family. She certainly wouldn't have the Markles on the walls. Or are the photos just of Harry, Meghan and Doria? Or just of Meghan, Meghan and Meghan? If Archie doesn't exist, then the playroom probably doesn't exist, either -- but I'm still curious about how her narcissistic imagination pictured it.)
And my cynicism doesn't stop there . . . When I got to the part about Harry teaching Archie to swim, I wondered whether that would be the cause of baby Archie's tragic death. Not an accident with Harry around, but a crucial unattended minute in which the toddler wanders off to his new favorite place and falls in.
Oh, I concur. Harry circa 2010--active duty, clean-shaven, follicly abundant, smart uniforms, robust--had his own unique appeal. He has never been conventionally handsome in the way that William was considered conventionally handsome, pre-hair loss. Harry's features are a bit too quirky (being Charles's via Philip), then of course the ginger, with the pale complexion to go with it. But Harry projected an air of butch, hale energy and he seemed happy in himself, all of which were attractive. You never had the plethora of smacked-bum sour faces we've been subjected to until these last few years. That picture taken several years ago, pre-Meghan, of Haz having some kind of toddler meltdown in the stands of a sporting event while Catherine tried to jolly him out of it--THAT was the 'real Harry' that has been leaking out ever since, methinks. Part of the trouble is those extremely blond eyebrows . . .they make him look like he is always scowling . .but of late, he *is* always scowling.
I might go with: 25% youth and fitness; 15% military uniforms, 10% Ginger (being kind of rare, that is its own appeal) 10% cheekiness and 40% ELF. *Some* of what we saw had to be intrinsic to Harry, before he allowed his bitterness to eat him alive.
@Sally 1975: Thank you for all the copying and pasting of the LSA post. Good theories from it.
lizzie said...
@Sally1975,
Thanks for the LSA post. Interesting!
...................
I'm glad folks are enjoying the LSA theories. I've been reading with interest everyone's thoughts on them and appreciate how this group here has really sussed out every angle along with the history of the titles/LP within the current members of the royal family.
Although many of the people commenting on LSA's 'Markle Unpopular Opinions' thread believe Meghan could have used a surrogate, most of them think that Archie does exist and that he is living with them. I thought the idea that H&M were 'punishing' the RF/UK for the lack of the prince title by withholding the child to be interesting. Although it's not a new theory, this particular post was well articulated and manages to bring a fresh perspective to the Archie mystery...especially in light of the recent claims that the Harkles left the family to "protect" Archie.
@Lizzie - I do agree based on their behavior during the last stages of the pregnancy that the Harkles either knew or strongly suspected long before the birth that NO title was coming their way. I suppose they could have still held out hope thinking once their SON was born her Maj would soften.
Although I recognize that Harry has shown himself to be quite an entitled person, IMO Markle would be the one to consider the prince title very important and probably influenced his feelings on the subject. As many others have stated, I believe Megalo pushed all the right buttons with Harry and weaponized him against his own family. The lack of title would probably not be such a big deal to Harry if he had married and had a child with someone else like Chelsie.
I actually wonder where the Harkles would have gotten the idea they would be granted the title for their son?? We really don’t know the RF's motives for not making Archie a prince. It very may well be that even if H&M had been model members of the RF that the title would not have been bestowed.
Andrew's daughters were made princesses while he was the son of the monarch. Harry is the grandson and not the eldest son of the current heir. They have expressed a wish to slim down the monarchy. I can believe that the Letters Patent for the Cambridge children were planned for Will’s children only.
I can also believe that Markle may have found this unacceptable and manipulated Harry into seeing this as a betrayal.
By the time he hits his second birthday, it will be clear that he has received the gift of prophesy, as well as a thorough understanding of Latin, Classical Hebrew, New Testament Greek and Aramaic. He will shortly be engaging with leading scholars to argue about how the latest ancient writings to emerge from the Middle East should be interpreted.
If they are being paid, how is this not a violation of their Megxit agreement?
She was NOT getting this kind of work before she married him, no matter what the stans say. She owes these opportunities to the "Institution" she scorns and disrespects, and she was part of it because of who she married.
She retains the title, but doesn't even live in the UK anymore and does nothing to benefit the people of Sussex. Is this not weird for other Americans?
Around the time of William and Catherine's engagement, I read a post from a blog dedicated to "sexual market value" and related concepts. All the male commenters on that post unanimously agreed that Prince William, despite being the direct heir, was the clear "beta male" among the brothers. And that was nowhere more evident than in his choice of bride. (The objection to Catherine seemed to be that she was much too old for him.) The commenters also said that we'd see what a real "alpha male's" wife looks like when Harry finally got married. Gosh, what I wouldn't give for a DeLorean big enough to take all those commenters into the present. Or even just to 2018.
It's a good think I was done with my lunch prior to reading that, or I would have snorted poblano turkey tacos right out my nose and it would have hurt.
William, the Beta. How very, very droll. Even though Wills did start to unfortunately go bald in his very early 20s and increasingly start to resemble a suburban dad, particularly with his embrace of the Middletons, he never gave off the aura of Beta to me. Heck, no, William has been commanding the room since he terrorized the assembly for Harry's christening back at 2 years old. Not for nothing was he nicknamed 'Basher' at his nursery school. One wonders what sort of teacher reports get sent home about the future King of England, to the future King of England.
William has a more sensitive and deeper side to him than Harry has, that is certainly true. That goes along with greater intelligence, self-confidence and being a nicer person generally. Harry apparently was a bit of a bully at school and in his military unit, despite his cries of victimhood. Victims do not fling racial epithets around and think it funny. Brutality and a lack of depth do not make one an Alpha. Those are the earmarks of a lesser man trying desperately to play the role of a natural leader.
My good friend E., a gay man, had favorable things to say about Harry, circa ten years ago. Harry did fill out his uniform nicely in those days. It may have been mostly beer, but his former gaunt and shambling self is a shadow of what he once was. We are all older of course and losing our youthful appeal by the day but I doubt very highly that E. thinks Hazza a lust-worthy object any more. Ick.
Catherine is 51/2 months older than Wills, with a January birthday to his June. They were in the same class at St. Andrews, so it's not like he's got to help her take her teeth out at night, sheesh.
Quite another matter over there in Montecito. I am agnostic about Meghan's birth certificate, though I wouldn't put it past her to shave as much off her age as she thought she could get away with. Some sources claim she was actually born in 1977. Those rumors seem quite persistent, but we know she was at school the same time as Katherine McPhee, though 3 years ahead. If she'd been 7 years ahead, there's no way they would have ever crossed paths.
As Indiana Jones famously said, "It's not the years; it's the mileage.' Meg has accumulated a lot of mileage . . but thanks to the wonders of cosmetic surgery on the BRF's dime, she's doing what she can to reverse the hands of time. Harry seems to have become her living canvas ala Dorian Gray---all of her moral and physical decrepitude is increasingly visible on him.
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, both TIME100 alumni, are among the most influential voices in the world,” said Dan Macsai, TIME executive editor and editorial director of the TIME100. “We look forward to working with them to elevate essential voices and highlight real solutions to some of the most pressing issues of our time.”
It is interesting to note that Serena Williams’ husband Alexis Ohanian will be a featured participant. Logrolling in our time.
If they are being paid, how is this not a violation of their Megxit agreement?
She was NOT getting this kind of work before she married him, no matter what the stans say. She owes these opportunities to the "Institution" she scorns and disrespects, and she was part of it because of who she married.
She retains the title, but doesn't even live in the UK anymore and does nothing to benefit the people of Sussex. Is this not weird for other Americans?
Definitely weird and it's a wonderment that the Queen has not quashed them sooner. It was left open that they could earn money, provided they did not exploit their Sussex titles or embarrass the Queen. They have disregarded both of these since Day 1. They desperately need to keep hold of that Sussex title because it's their own marketing tool, especially for Meg. Without it, she's a bigger nothing than when she left Hollywood the first time for Suits.
I believe this will be foremost on Granny's agenda in her upcoming meeting with her wayward grandson.
If it eases the pain any, I firmly believe that they are NOT being paid, but have been add-ons to every event they have been a part of, through her PR agency. In some cases, I believe she had to pay a fee to appear. She's merching herself, but since the big-money speaking appearances have failed to materialize (word is there is no trace of them on the speakers' roster over at Harry Whatsit), she's desperate to get seen anywhere, no matter what it is. It's only a few rungs more down to opening car washes.
I also believe that there is no gargantuan playroom with framed family photos on the wall in Mudslide Mansion. I think it's a rental. They need somewhere to shoot their word salad videos, but Archie's not going to grow up there. In my opinion, Archie's not going to grow up anywhere because he doesn't exist.
The Cambridges have been getting some very positive coverage lately and this is Meg once again trying to compete. It's quite pitiful.
Memo to Megs if you are reading: Your latest stories would go down better if you'd provide a snap of the McPhees sharing your table at 'dinner' last week. And you're going to have to cough up with a shot of Archie's Architectural Digest worthy playroom as well. How about showing us the child 'in' his playroom? We haven't seen him since that Mother's Day video and we are keen to see how big he's gotten!
What defunct Manosphere blog might that have been. As I recall it, the view was that William was by reason of his position the situational alpha male. I may of course be mistaken - and it may be a different blog to which you referred.
For myself I have never - until the Markle debacle - taken any interest in the Royal Family.
EXCLUSIVE: Meghan and Harry's Montecito mansion is listed for RENT at $700 an hour for photo and music video shoots by home rental site featuring never-before-seen pics of the villa - but adult filming is not allowed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8840231/Harry-Meghans-Montecito-mansion-rented-700-hour.html
As I recall, the blog's name was The Chateau. Or something like that. The blogger was Roissy, who later changed his name to Heartiste.
I think the commenters just felt let down. That wasn't the choice they would have made, had they been "situational alphas" themselves. Prince William could have married any young woman he wanted . . . and he chose someone five and a half months older than himself??? It boggled their minds.
Now, there was one reader who pointed out that Catherine has a proven record of loyalty, which is more valuable than "hotness" where a man in William's position is concerned. And replying directly to this, Roissy himself agreed that "sexual market value" and "marriage market value" are completely different. But of course those takes were lost in the cacophony of disappointment. (I still can't believe I read the whole thing!)
EXCLUSIVE: Meghan and Harry's Montecito mansion is listed for RENT at $700 an hour for photo and music video shoots by home rental site featuring never-before-seen pics of the villa - but adult filming is not allowed.
..............
Wow I can't believe this! Although the article states the ad was up before they bought the place, it seems it is still active.
And the DM says: "The pair have been holding many paid virtual engagements from the comfort of the home, offering glimpses of the decor, including their neutral tones in the living room."
I wonder if this info is what the recent CDAN blind was referring to rather than the idea that the Harkles are renting the mansion itself instead of having purchased it.
If the Narkles have been in mudslide Towers since June as they claim, it’s very odd that the rental company would not have updated their website to reflect that this property is no longer available for rent by the hour for artistic projects. Perhaps we need to entertain the possibility That not only is Meg renting that house, but they’re renting it by the hour for scheduled zoom appearances. Where are they could be inhabiting the rest of the time it’s anybody’s guess, maybe a garden shed or maybe Soho House in LA.
Meg lies. It’s what she does all the time in order to make herself seem successful. She would indeed be an A+ list celebrity to be the owner and soul interior decorator of this vast property. But how likely is it, given that both of these people are unemployed? They are like two teenagers who have run away from home and are playing house. Squatters. That’s what they have always been, separately and as a couple, so why she so suddenly be different? I wouldn’t put it past Megan to charge people $700 an hour to shoot a music video in her house, but what was such an arrangement say as to the likelihood that the household contains a toddler who may or may not be potty training?
Oh Barfity do dah...It’s the Numfarkles’ official portrait as Time 100 influencers!!!
I will post without comment for now. I will be interested in others’ observations after you’ve had a chance to look it over. Look at the body language and interaction with the camera from the both of them, and how extremely telling it is about the power dynamics in their relationship. Harry doesn’t look like death warmed over, but black and white does hide a variety of sins. Yes, of course it’s black and white. And Meg isn’t looking at the camera, first time for everything I guess.
I just did it hon, it took me all the way through the payment process as I pretended to be a film producer so yes it’s available to rent for two weeks in December! I tried for November and yep it’s available fir $11.700! They don’t live here!
https://twitter.com/Smartiepants73/status/1317190266932105216
someone on Twitter about renting Markle's mansion:
I just did it hon, it took me all the way through the payment process as I pretended to be a film producer so yes it’s available to rent for two weeks in December! I tried for November and yep it’s available fir $11.700! They don’t live here!
https://twitter.com/Smartiepants73/status/1317190266932105216
Veddy, veddy interesting . . .
Busted again, Mugsy, dear. You really don't consider these details at all do you?
Hands up, everyone who thinks that these two tumbleweed liars actually have a 17-month old baby with them? His ownership of that deluxe playroom is looking a bit dodgy. Mummy may have rented it for an hour for her doll collection. I guess the 'sources' took the tour while she was on the clock and the meter was running.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prince-harry-meghan-markles-sweetest-183004228.html
Oh Barfity do dah...It’s the Numfarkles’ official portrait as Time 100 influencers!!!
----------------
Notice that Harry is missing his right hand all together. Kinda makes you wonder where exactly it is.....
@Sally
If the Narkles have been in mudslide Towers since June as they claim, it’s very odd that the rental company would not have updated their website to reflect that this property is no longer available for rent by the hour for artistic projects. Perhaps we need to entertain the possibility That not only is Meg renting that house, but they’re renting it by the hour for scheduled zoom appearances. Where are they could be inhabiting the rest of the time it’s anybody’s guess, maybe a garden shed or maybe Soho House in LA.
...................
As usual with everything pertaining to this pair, this is another bizarre episode in the story. I don't understand how someone can be allowed to get away with outright lying without being called out on it by the media / public??? The Harkles sent out press releases regarding their 'PURCHASE' of this house to the NY Times etc! I wonder if they did purchase but decided to keep up the offer of rentals of certain areas for filming in order to make extra money?
Yes it can drive attention, but it generally doesn’t drive sales. Only for accounts with millions and millions of followers does that happen. Meghan is right that that ship has sailed for her, but not because of ‘crack-addict’ behavior. I wish she’d just tell it like it is instead of spinning. She would come across much more intelligent. I doubt this Time100 crowd will speak so detrimentally of social, as they are all facing that same problem: being ‘famous’ doesn’t get you much these days. Leveraging that into silent partner business ownership is the new economy for them of recent years. They are the face, own some of a brand, they make more money than traditional sponsorship deals. Call it celebrity-startup- culture.
The problem is that those deals are scarce. So Meghan is competing with all the other well-liked celebs with good personal brands for the opportunities available.
She’s stuck with a bad reputation, so she’s leaning into it as a ‘wannabe do-gooder’. She HAS to change public opinion on her, which she will relentlessly try to do for the next 2 years.
Thanks. The Chateau (Chateau Heartiste) was a little like that with the comments, but Roissy was pretty smart and I am saddened that it has gone - but as they say: one door closes; another door opens and ones interests change and I have been reading here and much appreciate the comments and Nutty's essays for what must be a couple of years.
Clearly, if you are a Prince of England, even if the spare, then you are very desirable although ones elder brother more so, and am I not correct in saying that Megantoinette tried her moves on William even though he was already married.
Markle reminds me somewhat of Semele (in the Greek Myth) who like Icarus flew a bit too high.
BTW I'd better not say anything about the potential for Meghan holding faith-healing services. If she does, I'll sue for infringement of my intellectual property!
@Hikari, my arms are firmly stuck down at my sides. If there is an Archie, he/she is oceans away from these two. I think there is no child.
someone on Twitter about renting Markle's mansion:
I just did it hon, it took me all the way through the payment process as I pretended to be a film producer so yes it’s available to rent for two weeks in December! I tried for November and yep it’s available fir $11.700! They don’t live here!
https://twitter.com/Smartiepants73/status/1317190266932105216
______
Ha! Didn't I call it a couple of days ago when I said it looks like and AirBnB? :D
Well, well, well. My how the mighty have fallen lol.
It looks like she ripped that nose right off Bob Hope's face. And her chin appears to be reaching up to meet the long slope of the nose like an illustration of a crescent view of the man-in-the-moon!
I wonder where Markle's nose will be in 10 years? Collapsed, deformed, whittled down to a minuscule mound or maybe there will be just two nostrils left in the middle of her face?
Like a witch's profile, which I oddly also find that Justin Trudeau also has with the chin and nose forming a crescent moon shape.
Yes! LOL!!!!
Nose meets chin = witch / crescent man-in-the-moon.
I like witch better for obvious reasons. With the long straggly dark hair and crone's profile, she's all set for Halloween!
🎃🦇🎃
@Lizzie - the missing hand is weird! It must have been photoshopped out of the image for some reason.
????
Asked by someone who has only raised dogs...
We did not see pictures of The World's Proudest Papa with his son at Father’s Day, or any pictures with him recently.
My mind goes off the rails and I cannot comment very often because this all seems like some sort of horrible nightmare.
p.s. I DO blame the BRF. They have let this go waaaaay too far.
Victoria became queen as there were no legitimate sons among the dozens of boys her prolific but marriage-shy uncles produced. From all I have read and digested (ugh), Just H needs to have a child born, female or male, whilst legitimately married to a woman whose body gave birth to the heir or heiress of the Crown. The legitimate child automatically is heir to his father’s titles, except title of Prince. There are four princes and one princess ahead of a legitimately born child of Just H, so titles are meaningless, except the son of a man who is a grandson of a monarch, son of a future king, brother and uncle of future kings, might hang on with his teeth (broken) to royal titles. Why would a sane person name his child Archie Harrison? I mean, really? In America, Archie is the name of a kind, but very ignorantly bigot on a comedy show, or is a red-headed, freckled, ugly, cartoon character. The name, to me, is proof enough that M never gave birth to a child. The kid, sometimes, has M and H’s big noses, and has divergent strabismus (Just M never had her eyes operated upon, thus crossed eyed). I believe the kid, whenever he as born, looks too much like Just H and M’s father Mr. Markle to be anybody but their son, but he was not born from M.
When Charles becomes King, he cannot give titles to what is an illegitimate child, his grandson.
It leads to a page with the message "Sorry, this location was unpublished".
So...did Markle get the listing pulled?
Did anyone here check the link earlier today - did it work and were you able to get to the original Giggster ad?
I know the DM posted a screenshot of the listing but I was wondering if there originally was more info at the link.
Whatever the reason - it is mighty strange that he is constantly left out.
All we get are descriptions and stories and statements that they left the UK to protect Fauxchie the invisible boy!
However the thing I dislike about the picture is her coy fake laugh. She must have spent a long time being envious of and copying others enjoying themselves because it does not look real but looks like an image she wants to project, but why fake this look for a promo shot where a smile like Harry's would have looked more real and been more appropriate for the event. She really cannot read what is appropriate. Very odd.
------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion this is where her pathology is really on display. I think she feels intense rage at baseline so attempts to convey other emotions fall flat. It is the same reason that it sounds bizarre when they say things like "We knew the name of our foundation, so we named our son after it," or "Lockdown has been good for our family" (I'm paraphrasing). Consider the absolute irony of two people who ambushed elderly family members preaching to others about "compassion" and "community." Antisocials, from what I have studied, are looking to imitate others' emotions as they don't attach and don't have empathy. They know they are not like others.
https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/010/703/909/medium/fernando-mendez-c-meghan-markle-cariature.jpg?1525795230
The Time photo is awful. She truly does have a warped view of herself. That is the best she's got?
I will continue to use this account! Other one was once disabled. I cant keep up 🤦♀️
The distraction of his “chopped” missing hand, her awkward position, her sloppily unsmoothed top with its cascading wrinkles.
Her unretouched crepe neck. The unetouched dark smear or scar line on her forehead running from hairline toward brow. The folding dry and blemished skin of her arms (on one, Trevor’s bangle again?). The raggedy ends of her wig, the nimbus fuzz of her wig, the mess left in the shadowed side of her face along the bridge of her nose. His rumpled suit sleeve on the handless arm. His hair nimbus esp around ears.
It doesn’t even come off as a casual image, since she is posing in a fake manner, it comes across as a budget job done without a skilled styling and lighting crew, and no editor or premedia finishing.
It is just sad cheap work, particularly for business use, and astonishing to me that Harper’s ran with this shot as is.
But in my opinion, it underline theories of lack of money, rental house, perpetually dodgy schemes.
I think she said preg, so they got engaged. Then they said they were married, so they were given a wedding, I think she said lost the fake pregnancy then quickly announced she was pregnant again so he got stuck in playing along whatever she and MA hatched.
I think at least Kate knows it is a doll/rental, I think William knows the true dirt, I think the house is a rental and they in a Soho House property, the Netflix deal I small, and we will find the truth in the reverse of everything they say, and they are never going back to the UK except to beg for money because the backers will step away.
Meanwhile the way they can’t stop doing appalling stupid things is definitely entertaining.
They are not even pretending to be soooooooooo in love anymore!!!!!!!
Meghan and Harry, especially Meghan, will fit in with this bunch. I’m sure if Meghan could throttle and suppress the distribution of anything on the Internet about her, she’d do it in a heartbeat.
This meeting strikes me as very much an Orwellian-Big Brother event. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROL. If a despot wants to take over any group of people, one of the first things they must do is seize control of the means of communication. The liberal elites in government, education, entertainment, Big Tech, and the media already exert an immense amount of power, control, influence and intimidation. No matter what kind of fluffy language is used, this is about seizing and controlling the Internet, which is the most important vehicle for nearly instantaneous worldwide communication and discussion.
I hope the royal family, palace officials, and Harry’s fellow Brits are paying attention to the activities of the Sussexes and what sort of movements they are associating with.
She’s nuts. No one cares what happened to her or what she thinks. They do care about Harry.
@Mimi
Re Yankee Doodle and Archie looking like Harry: if you look at photos of Harry when he was a toddler, he's very much like Archie minus the strabismus that he must have inherited from MM.
Or is her grin one of Duper's Delight because she's conned him into `enjoying himself' out of sight, while apparently posing for a serious portrait? It could explain why he's smiling...
He doesn't realise, however, that she's made a fool of him yet again but the whole world can see it.
The possible exception is the `Cartier' watch. The jury's out as to whether it really is Diana's or the one she bought for herself. The Mail thinks it is Diana's.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8849757/Meghan-Markle-appears-new-official-pic-Harry-wearing-Princess-Dianas-23-000-Cartier-watch.html
- with prices added.
@Maneki Neko: This is one of Meghan’s fav poses. Go look at the formal engagement photos to see a similar look in the tight shots.
Cheers Nutties, enjoying a triple shot Latte
with a wodge of lemon meringue 😋
In their ‘latest’ photo madam doesn't appear to be wearing
her eternity ring?
What’s with the large ring on her right hand little finger?
Love this DM comment
“She could eat an apple through a letterbox with those teeth”
The photo is not dated but the very long hair would suggest the photo is [fairly] recent. The California air is obviously very good for the hair (hers. Harry's, not so much).
@Maneki
Her theme tune
“Hair on the G string”
M appears to be wearing the revamped wimpy- banded engagement ring so that would mean it couldn't have been taken earlier than about May/June 2019. I guess the other ring is her wedding ring? And she's not wearing the eternity band? I thought most women wore the wedding ring inside the engagement ring (closer to the heart) but maybe not.
Slippery, dickory, flop
Megs does not know when to stop
That watch ain’t from Di
We all know it’s a lie
Just more bilge from Madam La Trop
To hire for the day
Doesn’t give you much say
As to who will visit your rental
They cannot deny that
Their calls to be private
Are just crazy, and plain bloody mental
I hear the rental
In ‘Cito central
Is open, and up for hire
It’s pay by the hour
Like our flagrant flower
How much deeper will they sink in the mire
Yes, only your opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree :)
https://twitter.com/schaekay1/status/1317434726215462912/photo/1
"Hair on the G string" 🤣🤣🤣
Love 'our fragrant flower' too!
I don't think it's PhotoShop.
The dark triangle under his leg is simply the wooden arm of the chair in shadow.
His missing hand is most probably stuck between his legs for comfort!
Her jacket has shoulder pads and due to the way she has turned her body, it has simply accentuated said pad!
On top form, as usual. :))
I am perplexed by seeing things about "Meghan and Harry ruin Christmas for the Royals!" when, in reality land, those of us who have "difficult" family members like an unpleasant in-law breathe a sigh of relief when they are urgently needed elsewhere and cannot come. We make the invitation out of politeness and politeness dictates that it be regretfully declined. Keeps the holiday stabbings to a minimum. "Of course we'd LOVE to have your lying, unpleasant wife here to tell us how we're living our lives all wrong, but we will have to insist that you both spend two weeks in complete quarantine together before being allowed to visit."
@Maneki 😘
Btw ‘twas flagrant 😉
It’s just another fake photo.
I’m still confounded about Archie. I lean towards $$$$$ angle: she figures the longer she holds out, the more she’ll recoup. But I think the reverse is true. People would be more interested had they developed a sort of relationship with hi ...watching his progress, his changes. As with the Cambridge kids. But mostly I think, “that poor child”.
I see Harry as living at least half the year in Africa with his new wife/ GF/ or contract escort.
Archie will be in boarding school but still used as a pawn by MM to get money and desperately, craving, thirsty, attention from the press/ in order to stay relevant and get money from the BRF/PH.
MM will be pushing 50, and still bleating about the future causes du jour, for press and publicity.
she will in the future type Reality housewive show maybe on Netflix, but low ratings, D list, plastic, and no real influence, still grasping and thirsty, and still using ‘the Duchess’ moniker.
He has Harry’s close together eyes (look at baby photos of Harry, Archie almost a doppelgänger) and Megsy’s (before plastic surgery) and Thomas’s nose. IMHO he’s very much a baby of both parents. ;o)
@Miggy @SwampWoman
Thank you X
Except if Archie *is* fake, Just H hasn't drawn any line so far but has wholeheartedly participated in the deception. I know some here remain convinced that we have ever only seen '1' baby, at different stages of growth, a child that shares the DNA of both of these people. Babies do change and grow, but the babies we have been presented with, though in passing might sort of resemble each other, if you just glance--upon closer examination, have different features. If the beefy, blond young man we saw most recently at his 'one year birthday' (more like 16-18 months in my non-medical, albeit early literacy specialist opinion) is 'Archie', then he has morphed from brunet to blond, grown a bigger head, different eyebrows and had his strabismus switch eyes, if christening/Tutu baby was the baseline. When he was presented, if that's what we saw happening, I convinced myself that I saw Thomas Markle's nose--because that's what I wanted to see. Most infants have eyes that are close together, since the bones in their skull are still growing and most resemble old men at birth . .so it could have been a trick of my eyes. I never believed Meg carried him herself but even after all those shenanigans, I thought presenting a plastic baby to the world media and HM was a step too far, even for such a brazen Narc as MM.
Maybe not. IF she's waiting for a huge payday to show off her and Harry's real son, that ship has sailed. She might have sold pictures of him when they first moved to California and American interest was high(er). Thing is, she was adamant that she deserved (yes, she, not the bebe) a $1 million dollar People cover, such as Brangelina got for Shiloh. But not only are MeMe and Hazmat NOT A+++ list status, but no magazine pays out that kind of money anymore. They just don't. Besides, Brad and Angie donated that money to charity, and we know exactly which charity MeMe had in mind for such a photo shoot. The baby purporting to be Archie is coming up on 2 years old, and while I think 'he' is cute, he's not got the genes of Shiloh Jolie-Pitt. There is still significant debate over whose genes he's actually got.
I know; weird, right? From a bloke who so much wanted to be a Dad, he said. Of course, a photo of Just H and the baby on Father's Day would be an unacceptable dearth of spotlight for Meghan. I have seen her (much tinkered around with) face so much, I just want to vomit. I don't want there to be an Archie. Not only because I enjoy being proven right, but mostly for his welfare. If he's with Meg and Harry, that's tantamount to child abuse and his life is going to be a living hell. If he exists and makes it to young adulthood, he will be years in therapy.
Re. the most recent photo of not-Archie
The picture is screams “fake” but was made to look like they are at least on soft terms
Maybe they get along best when they don't look at each other. Meg could not be more assiduously NOT looking at Haz. I study his eyes to see if I can see "Help Me" in there.
My mind goes off the rails and I cannot comment very often because this all seems like some sort of horrible nightmare.
Yes, doesn't it? One can hardly grasp that it is still going on and escalating, furthermore.
p.s. I DO blame the BRF. They have let this go waaaaay too far.
As do I. If they had been willing to deal with flak over 'racism' 3 years ago, we would not be here now. Meghan is going to torment them as long as she draws breath, and they have done it to themselves. And to us.
They botch absolutely everything they do, especially so because they insist on giving details to either tease the public or because they don't know yet what they're doing.
So then they agreed to a photoshoot a few days after his birth when H made the infamous "two weeks" statement. They allowed only Sky news there I think, to minimize how many cameras were there.
The baby just happened to be sleeping like a log at the exact moment of his presentation, something you cannot control for a newborn. Harry kept rocking him inwardly, which is unnatural for babies. They would roll out away from such motion.
Finally, we basically saw the tip of his nose and a corner of his eye. They whisked him away quite quickly. And she did seem uncharacteristically nervous and unsmug. I believe, even for her, it was a big con.
So, I could be wrong, and I hope I am. But I don't think so.
Wow, I just looked at the photo Richard Eden provided. Mugsy, plagiarizing again, I see.
https://twitter.com/schaekay1/status/1317434726215462912/photo/1
This is a portrait of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, with the principals posed nearly identically to our Time 100 Global World Leaders couple. Like Harry, David is draped awkwardly over the chair behind his Duchess, supporting himself with his hand on a table so he doesn't fall over. Wallis is staring the camera down head-on, in contrast to Mugsy, but in both photos, the married-in, (very) common American Duchess is the focus of the photo, with her harried and much diminished Royal consort in the background, subordinate position. Apart from the emasculated presentation, it's a good picture of D. and W. Wallis tended not to photograph well most of the time, but her face here is compelling. David looks like a befuddled little boy behind her. Never understood why he was considered the good-looking one of the brothers; he always looked like the most egregious fop to me. I think Bertie was the handsome one in his youth, before the sad toll of time and disease.
I am on the fence about Photoshop. Meg's darker figure in the foreground does rather look like it was pasted over top of Harry. The lines of her black jacket seem sort of unnatural against his grey suit. The older Windsors are wearing matching colors so as to be harmonious.
Apart from the weird truncation of H's right hand, which makes it look at though he must be fondling himself out of view, the area under his leg where he is perched looks really odd. Look at the line where the bottom of his trouser leg meets the top of the chair. It is a gray blank. We can see from the opposite arm that it is not a solid armrest--the wood frame is open space. Yet the other arm which he is resting on appears to be all one solid piece. H's leg is casting a shadow but that bit still seems too dark to be a view of available light coming through to the wall behind. Why choose such a rickety-ass looking uncomfortable chair? Why not a more solid wingback chair with a padded armrest wide enough to sit on? He looks so precarious in that position, and it's a shorthand to his mental state in this relationship, probably, not to mention how she has devalued his status within it. David's head is level with Wallis's but Haz is leaning over at nearly a 45 degree angle to MeMe.
This bint loves to look at the camera, so why is she looking down and playing with her hands and smiling at them? The side view is not MeMe's friend. And I think only plastic hair would be 'that' glossy under the lights. Her jewelry is being given the pride of place, not Harry, of course . . for all the teasing about that watch being Diana's, MeMe did make sure to tell us that she bought herself a Cartier watch with her first Suits paycheck, inscribed to herself. It could just as easily be hers.
This is the video where a reporter is at an event and interviews several people about the birth of Archie announcement. Including the woman who used to arrange the golf tournaments with Deal or No Deal suitcase girls being caddies. She's the one who mentioned M having a child already.
I'd never seen the entire set of interviews, several celebs being asked about what they thought of the birth etc.
so, just posting it in case anyone else would like to see it.
She did this at the photoshoot for Smartworks, for example:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-released-high-street-16907581
https://us.hola.com/royals/2019082127241/meghan-markle-capsule-collection-sneak-peek/
And I also recall various other photos of her bent over in laughter while those around her are not even smiling.
The Chateau (Chateau Heartiste) was a little like that with the comments, but Roissy was pretty smart and I am saddened that it has gone - but as they say: one door closes; another door opens and ones interests change and I have been reading here and much appreciate the comments and Nutty's essays for what must be a couple of years.
I had also been reading for much longer than I've been commenting. And I hope it will be a long, long while yet before Nutty decides it's time to close up shop. But because I'm the kind of person who can project nostalgia into the future, I'd like to imagine a ten-year reunion for all of us on this thread. Ideally ten years from the publication date of this post. Or if that is too far into the future, how about ten years from the publication of Nutty's debut post? Then we could all check our predictions against reality, have a big laugh, and generally do whatever fun things people do at reunions.
Clearly, if you are a Prince of England, even if the spare, then you are very desirable although ones elder brother more so, and am I not correct in saying that Megantoinette tried her moves on William even though he was already married.
Oh, I agree that Prince William was, to Meghan, the real prize. And she must have truly believed she could get him to leave a woman he had known over half his life by then and who was the mother of his children, for his brother's totally inappropriate fiancée. (Oh, the grandiosity of a narc!) When he refused to grant her this, she punished him by starting the Rose rumors. (Again straight out of the narc playbook: Smear others for doing what you are doing, while maintaining your own innocence all the while.)
Meghan is right that that ship has sailed for her, but not because of ‘crack-addict’ behavior. I wish she’d just tell it like it is instead of spinning.
While there may be an addictive element to randomly refreshing Twitter because you have nothing else to do, that's not how truly successful influencers build their platforms. They don't take advantage of the weaknesses of their followers, but provide value to customers they respect.
The YouTubers I'm most familiar with are Shallon Lester, Anna Bey, and Brett Yang and Eddy Chan of Two-Set Violin. If Meghan could have Bey's career tomorrow, you can bet she'd change her tune today. She wouldn't be calling social media a realm of addiction and bullying, but one of personal transformation and inspiration. With her at the center of it all, of course.
It's similar to what she did to Prince William. When she realized he wouldn't torpedo his marriage for her, she tried to torpedo it for him. Now that she has had to accept that she will never be big enough on social media to be an influencer, she's trying to argue that social media is actually pretty terrible.
I guess it's all right. Prince Harry doesn't look very comfortable -- not just because of how he is posed, but also because he is with Meghan. (He seriously hasn't looked comfortable around her in a very long while. Since before Christmas last year, if I have to define "a very long while.") I imagine a comfortable husband who loves his wife would, in the same pose, put his right hand on her shoulder. But perhaps that would have got in the way of merching the jacket.
But it is an odd photo to have made the final edit. It looks less like a portrait of a couple whom we're interested in as personalities and influencers and more like an ad for women's jewelry. But it would work better as an ad without the awkward male model in the back.
Despite often being parked in front of a computer, I had never heard of "The Tig." I also read lots of blogs/vlogs, like Cupcakes and Cashmere, Go Fug Yourself, Lauren Conrad, Simply Allie, Livejournal etc...I had never heard of the Tig and didn't know anyone else who did.
Re Archie: exactly. Thank you.
S. Africa baby looks NOTHING looks like Frankenbaby at Christmas.
He sure doesn't. Frankenbaby was some distorted slap-up job. 'His parents' in the background are *obviously* pasted-in figures cobbled together from older photos, taken separately. Harry's all blurry and the image of Meghan is visibly much younger. I'm thinking 'Deal or No Deal era' She must have gone to Google Images to find a picture of a huge Christmas tree to paste them both next to. The carpet was all wonky and let's not forget the glittery GIF!
This was her attempt to compete with the Cambridges' Christmas card. It looks like an arts and crafts project done by a mental patient. This was when the new Holy family was allegedly livin' their best lives on Vancouver Island. Uh huh.
The next time we saw 'Archie' was in arms of Harry for the New Year's photo. That was a cute kid. I'd also bet my pension that it was a little girl. No other explanation for why 'Archie' was wearing the entire wardrobe of Harry's friend's little girl baby. In addition to the pom pom hat (since discontinued) she's wearing woolen leggings and a denim skirt. Also the eyebrows on this kid were entirely different than we'd seen before. My money's on that photo being taken pre-2017 when Harry must have gone to visit his friends. Because otherwise, why wouldn't Meg have inserted herself into the photo and made it a family shot? We know she knows how to use a selfie stick!
The 'raising him gender neutral' comment made before the birth was obviously, in hindsight because Faux Mummy didn't know what she was going to get, in terms of available children to pose as Archie. We only see these very sporadic photos of him when she's able to lay hands on a baby for an hour. Otherwise, wouldn't it be a fantastic opportunity now to show how much Archie is loving his wonderful playroom and yard there in Montecito?
Oh, I agree that Prince William was, to Meghan, the real prize. And she must have truly believed she could get him to leave a woman he had known over half his life by then and who was the mother of his children, for his brother's totally inappropriate fiancée. (Oh, the grandiosity of a narc!) When he refused to grant her this, she punished him by starting the Rose rumors. (Again straight out of the narc playbook: Smear others for doing what you are doing, while maintaining your own innocence all the while.)
Yes, Mugsy is really transparent. Idiotically so. All we need to do to ascertain her true state of mind/motives is to assume the exact opposite of what she releases in print.
I only discovered CDAN and Blind Gossip around the same time as I came here to Nuttyland, with the advent of the Numfarke saga. So I was unaware that every year, BG likes to post an 'April Fool's!' blind that is completely made up. The one prior to the 'birth of Archie' dealt with a boozy double-date night between the then 'Fab 4' at KP, that ended with Catherine and Harry retiring (passed out, in Hazza's case) and carnal knowledge of his brother's fiancee by the Duke of Cambridge. It was all fiction, of course. I'd certainly credit William with better taste. Who wants little brother's sloppy seconds after where those have been and let's be frank, dozens, possibly hundreds of punters have sampled that tired buffet.
In that instance, Blind Gossip was writing a fantasy scenario for Mugsy. Just imagine the chaos she could have caused if that scenario were real.
With all respect I think Archie is just irrelevant on so many levels he simply doesn't matter in the global scheme. Well he matters as much as any other kid matters. I hope there is somebody to love him for what he is.
I also hope he is healthy and Meg's paranoid scramble to hide him from view doesn't mean he is mentally deficient or disabled in some way. His parents have enough money to provide for him much better than the vast majority of people, including the best doctors money can buy, so I don't pity him even if there is something wrong.
The best that can happen to him is living his life with people he loves and doing what he choses to do professionally. I personally lost all interest to anything Archie related.
This "laughing at nothing" pose is stock footage for Smarkle.
Yep, the bent-over-double it's so hilarious laughter. A direct rip-off from Diana, who enjoyed a few belly laughs like that which were captured for the camera.
Meghan is so damaged, she is not capable of finding humor in normal situations which normal people would find funny. She derives great hilarity out of elderly persons taking a spill from a great height, but not normal things. Her reactions are always inappropriate due to her sociopathic condition. I really love the instances where she's aware that live video of her is being filmed and she conducts animated conversations with *no one*, complete with hand gesticulations. She did it at a meal with Harry and again on the balcony at TOC in 2019. If those nearby are resolutely ignoring her, she just talks to herself, to give the impression for the watching cameras that she's a sought-after conversationalist.
If Meg had been born to normal suburban parents and not to a grifter and a father with connections in Hollywood and the money to pay for elite schooling and cosmetic surgery in high school, one wonders what she would have grown up like. If little Mugsy from Peoria had been born to a couple of teachers and been told that she'd have to fund her own nose jobs, modeling pictures and move to Hollywood to break into show business, would we see her before us now? We will never know. I'm wondering to what degree she was born a monster and to what degree it's her warped childhood upbringing that created this.
I'm definitely in the minority here, but I think SouthAfrica!Archie and ChristmasCard!Archie actually are the same baby. That is, the latter is a very badly manipulated image of the former. I don't think whoever made the card even had a proper photo of "Archie," but simply used one of the stock footage images.
Also, I recently saw a Twitter user arguing that NewYear!Archie is a girl baby in more than one sense. First, Harry was holding a friend's girl baby. And second, one of Meghan's baby photos was used for the baby's face. I'll try to find it again.
But we can already see that NewYear!Archie bears less resemblance to SouthAfrica!Archie than he (she?) does to a photo of Meghan herself as a baby:
http://dianalegacy.com/meghan-markles-sister-reveals-racism-in-her-own-family-and-bitter-rows-over-money/left-meghan-markle-as-a-baby-with-her-half-sister-samantha-who-was-16-17/
You are right that Archie is 'irrelevant on so many levels'. We don't know, however, whether he was 'born of the body' or even if he is wholly (or 50%) H&M's genetically, and this is what is relevant. We all have our ideas about who he looks like and that's a detail, we were just discussing it.
We were only discussing who Archie looked after, not his relevance etc. He is just Harry and Megsy son yes, and yes I hope he’s loved. :o)
I’ve just about lost all interest in Ghastly Duo related stuff, lol but I thought I’d pop my head in the Nutty blog doorway.
Sorry I really didn't mean it to sound like people shouldn't discuss Archie. I enjoy reading your views!
what I meant is what Raspberry Raffle has just said: the interest in the Harkles and their offspring is diminishing every day.
Maneki Neko: you are right, Archie resembles Thomas Markle Sr. I suspect the older he is the more he will look like a Markle.
*sigh* It always comes down to a question of nature vs. nurture, doesn't it? But, it is so much more than that. Did mom contract a viral illness that may have been barely noticed by her that affected brain development at a critical time? Did the child suffer a head injury as a child from a fall that the parents weren't even aware of? It would be interesting for a neurologist to see an MRI of her brain (and his) to see if their ventromedial prefrontal cortex is abnormal.
In all this kerfuffle the most astonishing thing is that Time believes Harry and Markle are one of the most influential couples in the world and tries to sell them as such.
This is a glaring nonsense and beggars belief. Well I guess we know now why Time has lost the position it once held.
I also hope (Arch) is healthy and Meg's paranoid scramble to hide him from view doesn't mean he is mentally deficient or disabled in some way. His parents have enough money to provide for him much better than the vast majority of people, including the best doctors money can buy, so I don't pity him even if there is something wrong.
I have been on Team Pillow since circa December 5, 2018 or whatever day it was that she went to the old actors' home vacuumed packed into a too-small summer dress with her square bump. That was Mugsy's first solo engagement as The Duchess, and it was profoundly obvious that she has no knack whatsoever for what the Royals do or indeed, the most basic human communication. I didn't understand then about the merching--ie, why she was wearing a summer garden party dress meant for a woman 15 years younger and 2 sizes smaller than she, in December. The bump looked ridiculous--normal human pregnant bellies are not square, nor are they generally that large in a fit first-time mom just out of her fourth month by a matter of days.
I did imagine, though that somewhere somebody else was gestating a fetus comprised of hers and Harry's DNA. My issue wouldn't have been that they used a surrogate to become a family but rather the gross and ongoing deception by everyone concerned that Markle gave birth herself. I think the truth is even more complicated than that, though. I do not accept, based on the scant images and information that has been forthcoming that any of what we have seen is actually 'Archie'. Even granted that they use a nanny for the primary childcare, the complete lack of attachment or even recognition shown to Meghan by her baby-du-jour is pretty telling. And she certainly conducts her life as though she has no baby, unless it's to use 'breastfeeding' as an excuse to get out of work. She can't use that one any more.
I do agree that there is something profoundly wrong about Archie but my thought does not immediately go to a physical deformity that she is ashamed of. Indeed--if the child(ren) we have seen interacting with Meg in live video is Archie, they look like healthy robust youngsters who are actually developmentally advanced for the age(s) we have been given. There might be a little wonky eye, but that is both common and easily correctable. He's certainly not blind.
I think Meg's reticence to show her son is down to her not actually having custody of a baby. There may be a product of surrogacy in someone's care, but it's not with them. God help him if he is. I don't care a fig for titles or his place in succession or how he came into the world. I DO care, passionately, that she not be entrusted with a little life to ruin, as she certainly would do, being the profound Narcissist that she is. She is incapable of loving anything or anyone but herself. I wonder if Harry has cottoned on yet.
So I would very much like to sort out for once and all who and where Master Archie is. For me, a best case scenario is that this was all an elaborate con and there is no child of hers. Second best would be that a surrogate did bear a baby with their DNA, but they were denied adoption or anything to do with him because they are not fit. Manifestly unfit, both of them.
This is of course only my opinion about this child and if Meg can ever prove to my satisfaction that she's a natural mother and he's well cared for and happy, I will gladly accept it. Until then, not, and she hasn't done it so far. I think the truth about this whole scenario is more likely to come from Harry, if he can ever be extracted back to his family and deprogrammed. If she's proven to be a rank liar about this as well, it will be a scandal for the BRF to rival Madam Simpson.
Harry looking morose/Diana's death no mystery & (dis)approval? of Meg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbdhXY4i2kU
Thanks :). It was somebody else, though, who mentioned Archie looking like Thomas Markle, not me, but I do agree with that view. And yes, the interest in the duo is flagging. They're frankly very boring now.
The next spike is going to be the court case, right? A short lived one even if she wins.
*sigh* It always comes down to a question of nature vs. nurture, doesn't it? But, it is so much more than that. Did mom contract a viral illness that may have been barely noticed by her that affected brain development at a critical time? Did the child suffer a head injury as a child from a fall that the parents weren't even aware of? It would be interesting for a neurologist to see an MRI of her brain (and his) to see if their ventromedial prefrontal cortex is abnormal.
My favorite genre of fiction for recreational reading is psychological thrillers, wherein some person or persons are profoundly disturbed and Do Bad Things to those around them. I'm not sure when I developed an interest in aberrant psychology , but it seems to have gone hand in hand with being drawn to these types of stories. The earliest movie of this type I can remember watching is "The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane" with Jodie Foster. Jodie is a few years older than me, but I followed her juvenile career avidly. It was quite a bit later that I saw 'Taxi Driver' though. My fare in those days was mostly Disney: Candleshoe, Freaky Friday, etc. From LGWLDTL, I branched out into other 'evil kids' fare like 'The Omen' and 'The Bad Seed'.
I don't think Meg is demonically possessed or necessarily homicidal, but when somebody loves herself to the exclusion of all others and devalues everyone else as just tools to be used and thrown away, it's a very short hop to really hurting someone. We have had examples of the Narc rage in her. If she's capable of throwing crockery and scalding liquid at staff who are there to serve her, one wonders what she might do if she really felt cornered or threatened. She's been labeled by some as a covert Narcissist; I don't think there there is much that's covert in her words and behavior and the evil looks she gives to Catherine, but she is covert in that she does a lot of her dirty work at a remove, through paid or coerced mouthpieces so she's got plausible deniability and can scuttle off and pretend that she had nothing to do with the fallout. Her nemesis across the Pond currently inhabiting the Oval Office is a much more extroverted and overt Narcissist. Meg's type is more prevalent among women. Female Narcs learn to use their feminine wiles and connive to get what they want. The Narc rage pops out when the conniving doesn't get them what they are after and they have to take blunter measures.
I wonder if sociopathy like hers could be detected on a brain scan, with some integral part of the brain underdeveloped. The best way for her to 'give back' would be to donate her brain to science so we could find out. The fact that both her parents used drugs pretty freely might have doomed her as soon as she was conceived.
Her rhetoric is a double edged sword, because she is claiming that social media can be dangerous when people are addicted, but by using social media to highlight all her Zoom and video chats (and to promote herself), ****she is creating a community of addiction for her cult fans.**** The message seems to be that social media can have bad influences, except when you listen to me and what I say. However, surely she is again hypocritical because she is using social media indirectly and directly to influence her followers, and to create a specific narrative to support her weak lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited. Don’t forget that the Sussexes hired and paid for private photographers to video the baby2baby event, and the Gloria Steinem chat, where both were posted on social media platforms to promote themselves.
_______
Asterisks are mine.
Very good points made here on La Markle's hypocrisy in her views on social media. This excerpt primes the pump.
I'm au fait with the scarfing video and the smearing of Rose with the allegation of an affair, later shown to have originated with Smirkles. When W said `...that girl...' could he have been referring to an earlier experience of her?
I can certainly believe her capable of trying to bag William but would love to know more of the details.
I can't get over how her nose looks. She's apparently had work done on it so many times and yet it does not look good at all.
Markle has gone to great lengths to control photos of herself bringing her own photographer to events and copyrighting images. Thomas taught her at a very young age how to pose for the camera and "find her light" while he snapped endless photos of his baby narc from the moment she was hatched.
Yet THIS is the photo she chooses to represent her NEW life outside the royal family?? Is it part of her immense self-admiration and conceit that she thinks all pictures of herself are wonderful??
And doesn't she realize people will wonder why Archie was not included in this portrait??
_________________
@Louise said...
This "laughing at nothing" pose is stock footage for Smarkle.
..................
Yes - I remember she also struck this bent forward and laughing pose in one of the family photos taken for Charles's 70th birthday.
It's reminiscent of her habit of talking to no one at events when she knows she is being filmed or photographed...all in an attempt to appear engaged and included when the total opposite is usually true.
The absolute best example of this was during the 2019 Trooping of the Colors balcony scene when the entire family ignored her. This was also apparently the last time Hazza had control of the family jewels as he was clearly seen scolding Markle at this event. I wonder where that version of Harry went??
Thanks so much for your latest witty poems!
I started to laugh as soon as I saw your name just anticipating how you would weave the latest twists of the Harkle tale into your clever rhymes.
😍😍😍
in the new b&w photo, her right hand where the split between the thumb and pointer finger appears too long. And the thumb itself looks lengthened (checking my thumb tip is shorter than the first joint, not extending past it - in perspective, that should also appear shorter as it is slightly farther away).
Yes, the next 'spike' will be the court case, with several zoo videos and assorted appearances (yawn) before that. She might react to the results of the US presidential elections, whatever the result is. We're all waiting for something more juicy to happen.
It was me with Thomas’ nose and Yankee Doodle. Lol
Whenever I see a story on the ghastly pair I can almost hear the groaning of ‘not another zoom video’ etc and that’s without reading the comments. People are fed up to the back teeth of hearing and reading about them.
Agree, the court case in January will be the next chapter and then the unofficial/official review shortly after. I almost live in what seems like delusional hope, that their noise and credibility takes a massive nosedive in the new year and that will be it........
Methinks I’ll be hibernating a bit till then. ;o)
Love your man in the moon avatar with a little star shining a light on the mons proboscis!
Yes, I'm 'shining a light' on Meg's latest profile!
No stars for Megalo though!!
🤣🤣🤣
Can somebody kindly fill me in on her attempted seduction of William please? I've seen one or two snippets about her being thrown out of a polo match but that's about all from before her Harry days. It was some time before I came across Nutty's blog and probably missed something.
______
Great question. I'm wondering the same. I know there are a couple of very telling photos of her looking daggers at Kate and at William with moony eyes. She's the type that should come with talk bubbles. It's in the look on her face, you can almost read her mind. But as far as solid evidence, I haven't seen any.
AnT, Girl With a Hat, have you anything?
"It's reminiscent of her habit of talking to no one at events when she knows she is being filmed or photographed."
Indeed, I also remember those awkward moments of her talking to no one. For some reason, she is not able to sit or stand quietly and just listen to others. She either needs to talk at someone or talk to herself.
______
Great question. I'm wondering the same. I know there are a couple of very telling photos of her looking daggers at Kate and at William with moony eyes. She's the type that should come with talk bubbles. It's in the look on her face, you can almost read her mind. But as far as solid evidence, I haven't seen any.
I don't believe this ever actually happened. If Mugsy tried to seduce William, it was a daydream of hers. That's what she WANTS to happen, of course, or did, back when she had actual proximity to William. Never mind that such an idea is absolutely bonkers. 1. That he'd be turned on by such a grasping, crazy eyes predatory female in the first place or 2. that he'd destroy his marriage and throw the family into upheaval for a roll in the sack with the colonial carpetbagger with all the fake parts. People do fall for their in-laws and have affairs, but please, Mugsy--repulsive on every level.
Refresh my memory--did the Christmas scarfing happen Before or After the rumors about Rose were already circulating? If after, it was Narc's revenge for the public brushoff. "If *I* can't get want I want, I'm going to ruin his family". If she'd already gotten that ball rolling and yet had the brass balls to make googly eyes at him at Christmas and try to chat him up .. well, just more evidence of her utter derangement and disconnect from reality.
That polo match brouhaha was after she was caught breaking into the trunk of Harry's car trying to take his phone or whatever she could find. Probably the phone, to hack into his photos or messages. The polo player standing to the bottom left of frame as security escorts her out sharpish is William, watching to make sure she leaves--he had her thrown out. This was the summer before the engagement, so he's had her number since Day 1.
She must have known that William would not leave Catherine for her skinny ass, but she would have still tried to get him into some sort of compromising situation, for the blackmail potential. Sadly, William is going to have to cut Harry off forever because of her. Harry will never be able to be trusted again, even after the inevitable divorce.
Re: October 17, 2020 at 11:33 PM
______
Thanks! Very interesting indeed!
I hope an unfortunate profile is not the only fall you see in Meghan?
The current plastic perfection culture practically pushes into plastic surgeons embrace. Hard to resist for people always in the public eye if they are not blessed with whatever version of beauty is in vogue now. I am not excusing her, just saying.
If I was viewed under the magnifying glass every time I drag my skinny ass outside I would probably resort to scalpel too.
My problem is her astonishing hypocrisy, vanity and deceitfulness the likes of which never seen before in my life.
The link includes a photo of the pair that I don't recognize - I can't figure out when and where it was taken. Does anyone remember this photo or the occasion?
Markle looks pretty strange here too and the picture reminds me of how it's been often discussed that she is NOT good with children. Based on this photo I think she might be down-right scary to those under 5 years of age...
https://lepetitbuzz.fr/celebrites/people/meghan-markle-et-harry-les-americains-ne-les-supportent-plus-du-tout/
I think she was trying to get photos of him and her 'sharing a private moment', or some such nonsense. Except that he was onto her and stayed far away.
Notice how often Catherine was between Mm and William. Haha.
I always wondered if W/C put the kibosh on H/mm living near them due to mm's shenanigans. Not only worried about her photographing the kids, recording conversations, but also her angling to set up William for inappropriate photos.
As in, ran out of shampoo and went into your bathroom to get some more, ran into William, and my towel dropped. Oopsie.
Excuse any errors please.