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
This may not be the one you are referring to but here is a 20 questions interview with Meghan where she is given a choice to choose between William and Harry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA-JZLHnlpU&ab_channel=HELLO%21CanadaMagazine
@Sally1975
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.
..........................
@Fairy
Oh, trust me I find much to dislike in Markle both inside and out, and had her pegged from the very beginning. I agree she is one of a kind when it comes to her narcissistic behavior and I too have never known of anyone so totally self-absorbed and apparently without any care for the welfare of others.
I don't know if the 'current plastic perfection culture' pushed MM in the direction of the plastic surgeon's office. I rather think she has had a superior attitude about herself since childhood and started making changes to her appearance as soon as she was legally old enough to go under the knife - I'm guessing at age 16 for her first nose job.
Perhaps an extreme sense of her own importance drives her to 'perfect' her physical image, as well as a desire to erase her racial background. She appears to me to be obsessed with plastic surgery and beauty treatments, and I find her addiction to be unusual as I don't sense any lack of self-esteem in MM. I think she is a megalomaniac without any insecurities. Like an artist who keeps touching up a painting, Meghan wants to make perfect the work of art she imagines her face to be.
I regularly write extensively about Markle's behavior as well as her appearance. And I feel her appearance is a result of her odd behavior. Right now due to the new portrait they released her image is fresh in my mind. I'm sorry if my posts upset you in any way.
Meghan and Harry jetted over to Amsterdam to party at Soho House there. Meghan was at very early stages of pregnancy. Was his name Giles? Anyway, he tweeted the fake story about William and Rose, and deleted that tweet very soon after. Despite the time difference, Lainey in Toronto read that tweet and proceeded to spread the fake story. There was also a blogger in the States that ran with the fake story. The tabloids picked it up and elaborations and speculations created an entire, elaborate story about the affair that never was.
Rose was partnered with Harry at the only state banquet at Buckingham Palace he has ever attended. They walked into the banqueting hall together and sat next to each other. Mind you, he has never attended a state banquet anywhere else either. At the time, Harry was involved with Meghan and I think she had just outed their relationship but I may be wrong on the timing.
Joining the dots could give you a picture of the affair story being created in drunken conversation, and Rose was chosen because of that link with Harry.
One can imagine the banter and hilarity of Meghan, Harry, Giles and Markus sitting round a table littered with bottles of Tig.
Narcs don't care about hurting others. Harry was fully committed to his wife and child to be, as he probably feels his father should have been. Giles was on the fringes of but would never get admittance into the Cambridge social set. Markus and his motivations are a mystery.
Perhaps William had joined the dots and knew the Sussexes had created that fake story. Or maybe my speculation is way off mark.
Well, you have to admit that this would fit in with megs MO of manipulating reality through digital images. It’s actually been quite a while since either of them looked exactly like they do in this photograph. Meg can change her wigs that will of course, and she’s had this style before. It’s no shock that H appears in a gray suit with an open white shirt. He’s got the smallest wardrobe I was just about any guy I’ve ever seen, royal or not. It doesn’t seem to fit with megs aesthetic to recycle outfits, particularly once she had from her previous real life, that she would’ve had to transport to two countries since she wore it last. It really doesn’t fit in with the very relaxed/slutty BoHo California vibe she’s been going for lately. The biggest tell is Harry’s appearance...He looks much healthier, and certainly not as miserable as the gaunt hollow eyed creature who’s been riding shotgun lately in the zoom videos. I think it’s very possible that is photo was taken a good deal earlier than recently. The list of photographer is based in California, and it’s not the same one who took their engagement pictures in England, But we know Maggie is prepared to lie about big things, so why would lying about where and when and who buy this photo was taken be a troublesome idea? We know man likes to hoard previously unseen photos For just such an occasion.
Bafe:
Follow the pattern it always repeats itself. They stay at rich guy's house in Vancouver. Maybe. Then TP is trying to sell his LA house on the market for a long time not moving. They stay there give the house PR. Maybe help sell it. Then house in Montecito guy can't sell it voila Meg and Harry " buy it". No they're squatting. Just like Vancouver and LA. Til the house gets sold.
Yes, the pattern is there. All unsold houses that had been in the market for the longest time.
She looks different every time I see her picture though. Not sure I'd even recognize her on the street.
@Sandie
Ah yes, The infamous Amsterdam dinner. Megs presence at this weekend was enough proof for me that the pregnancy was likely fake. We are supposed to believe that Meg flew to the city famous for indulgences Of all kinds, which are illegal in most other places for a reunion dinner with all of her Soho house BFFs And she sat for hours and hours virtuously sipping orange juice and seltzer? Sure! Given Rose’s Previous connection with Harry at the State dinner, that would’ve given and insanely jealous Meg an additional incentive to select her as Williams co-conspirator from among The Cambridge friends. It also didn’t hurt that the Hanburys Are William and Kate nearest neighbors at Sandringham. Meg would’ve been irrationally jealous of rose as well as Kate, given Rose’s youth and beauty. Two birds with one stone.
Roses rockstar hubby, the Marquess of Chomondelay is really highly placed as the Lord high Chamberlain, but I wonder if that would have even computed in MeMe’s Personal vendetta.
Re the ‘new’ photo being old...
I can buy that this photo is an older one. Maybe that's why MM chose a shot with her looking down and with her head in a 3/4 position rather than straight on...since she appears to have had a lot of work done since returning to California.
What outfit is she wearing?
Folks are referring to it as her engagement outfit but I only remember the very expensive brown sheer dress and the white belted coat.
The black ensemble reminds me of one she wore on one of her tours - I think the Ireland one?
However, when you compare Harry in this picture to one from the wedding, IMO he looks like he has less hair in the latest photo.
Check out these photos on LSA...link below.
They show the Harry photos for comparison and also another shot of MM in that outfit - but I don't know where that LSA photo came from and the black pants-suit is confusing me.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-5628#post-63848464
According to the DM...
Meghan is re-wearing an Alexander McQueen Grain de Poudre suit—blazer $1,995 (£1,544) and trousers $795 (£615).
She was first seen in the suit back in February 2018 when she attended the annual Endeavour Fund Awards.
Correct. If it's the McQueen suit, she wore it to her first royal event when engaged to Harry-- the Endeavour Awards.
The biggest tell is Harry’s appearance...He looks much healthier, and certainly not as miserable as the gaunt hollow eyed creature
----------
That was my 1st thought. This picture of Harry looks far too healthy to be a current photo. Harry looks like he's lost 40 lbs since this photo.
It being an old picture would also explain the lack of Archie? (If there is an Archie.)
My take is that this is an old photo she was saving to use for sometime when Catherine had something going on and mm didn't have anything current of herself to use.
I just checked the photos from the 2018 Endeavour Awards - the newly released picture is not from that same night. Markle wore her hair shorter, straighter, and parted off-center for that event.
I wouldn't be surprised that this outfit would be one she would take with her when she left the RF. She seems to appreciate the very tailored look and I recall reading that she likes tuxedo suits. I suppose she must be the one 'wearing the pants' in the family.
By “engagement outfit”, I assume what is meant is, not an outfit she wore when she got engaged, but when she were during her engagement, and the Endeavour Awards 2018 fits the bill. Her Appearance the following year, when “hugely expectant with Archie” Was considerably less chic…It was as I like to call it “Olive Garden server cobbling together a maternity uniform Out of a black table cloth and her husband’s shirt”.
Meg has gone up and down and up and down a lot in weight since “the birth” but seems to be back in her thin stage thanks to being back in Cali and her Bolivian marching powder diet. So it’s possible I guess that she could still fit into that suit. I noted the sudden reappearance of Harry’s wedding band. He’s not been pictured with that for about a year. If that was a recent photo, and she made him put it back on, there is one instance of attention to a small detail. Really pretty odd that they wouldn’t want to feature Archie with them, since one of their platforms as global world influencers is making the world a better place for their child, Ha!
They aren’t exactly highbrow places.
"I noted the sudden reappearance of Harry’s wedding band. He’s not been pictured with that for about a year."
I don't think that's quite true. I don't have the patience to examine all of Harry's handwaving and handwringing appearances for the last year but he was definitely wearing his ring:
At Canada House in January
In the Well Child video in April
In the Vote garden bench video in September
I can understand Archie not being included assuming the Time events precipitated the perceived need for the photo. I wouldn't doubt M chose the suit for the photo because of the hoopla over Kate's suit and also because of the criticism of the absurd "beach dress" she wore for that last "Successful Professional Women" event. But the photo was intended as a "we are a power couple, please pay us" photo not a family PR photo, I think.
Meghan had a brow job, and in this photo her brows are pre-surgery.
Meghan had a brow job, and in this photo her brows are pre-surgery.
Those pics are from a visit to the families of servicemen around Remembrance Sunday, 2019. You'll find them on this page if you scroll down far enough.
https://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/2019/11/first-look-harry-and-meghan-visit-field.html
The copy of the Harkle's new photo posted on the Time 100 site still contains some of the meta-data. It shows that the photo was taken on October 6th 2020 at 3:14pm. I suppose this could have been changed but I do think this is indeed a newer picture - to me, the clue is the difference in Harry's hair loss here than in earlier photos.
Also, the chair appears to be more of a 'California casual' type style and not like something they may have used back in the UK while still royals. But why choose such a lightweight chair to pose on if Harry is going to sit perched on the arm? It's hard to believe the chair wouldn't topple over. Both Harry and Markle seem to be in such weird positions.
I agree with others here that some photoshopping has been done to the picture. A very obvious spot is the area under Harry's thigh which is a heavy solid gray and appears to have been filled in or "painted" over. That heavy painted gray section under H's thigh is completely covering over the wooden chair arm and part of his thigh. I can't imagine what needed to be blocked out. And of course, the missing hand is awkward!
Not a big deal but I don't understand why they always seem to submit photos that show evidence of sloppy photoshopping!
@Sally1975
Those pics are from a visit to the families of servicemen around Remembrance Sunday, 2019. You'll find them on this page if you scroll down far enough.
https://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/2019/11/first-look-harry-and-meghan-visit-field.html
.........................
Oh thanks so much! I've been following their antics pretty closely but I couldn't quite place those pics despite the poppy. I don't remember that brown/khaki coat she's wearing. Harry is so much better with children than she is as can be seen at that link. I always thought he was a natural with them and still can't believe we've never seen a photo of him interacting with Archie the way he has with so many other children over the years.
___________________
@SwampWoman - LOL! At least he doesn't go around in his underwear as some are doing during this pandemic!
Terrible photograph. Harry seems to be getting in touch with his feminine side - a really nancy pose and posture. Megalomaniac as usual hogs the frame and has to be centre stage. She is so predictable in her selfishness. Time are mental for hiring these two as hosts, there will be a muck up and an upset. They are incapable of getting it right and they are clearly desperate in these videos because they actually have no platform now.
(from DM comment section)
Unless of course he's such a cheapskate that he wears the same poppy year after year... and dim enough to get the date wrong.
@WildBoarBatt-maid
No proof of anything 're MM
and her forward behaviour toward P.W. These pictures hint at MM's 'admiration ' fir PW?
Mel said...
Mm was photo'd more than once making goo goo eyes at William.
Mel very often it apoears (looking at these photos)
There is visual proof definitelythst on more than one occasion (and in public) It appears that every time MM was near to PW she was making those goo goo eyes at him
On his part he avoids looking at her every time it appears. Maybe she had once conveyed as much in words to.P.W.how awful no wonder he had his reservations about her.
As well as her body language and thise eyes her behaviour must have mafe PW so uncomfortable ...
https://images.app.goo.gl/abLxTwPNNmVUQATZ6
I agree that W had already identified her as Trouble.
As did Ann Widdecombe (controversial Tory politician) on Celebrity Big Brother - she was roundly condemned for what she said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5361759/Ann-Widdecombe-says-feels-dubious-Meghan-Markle.html#comments
This is from Feb 2018 - just read the comments from so many people who were prepared willing to put their heads parapet and agree with Ann! We are not alone.
I agree with your point Markle is not obsessed with plastic surgery due to the lack of self esteem. Perhaps it connects to her desire to be "the most famous woman in the world". "Most famous" for her =most beautiful. Enter plastic surgery.
By the way, your observation about her nose where you remarked that despite all the surgeries her nose is still not good (or such like) ties in so well with the black and white picture being old! It would also explain why black and white with auckward pose - more difficult to analyse the details.Digital data is amended too I bet.
People's sleuthing talents awe me.
The accusations and speculation of Meghan trying to seduce William are getting a bit much. Compared with photos and videos of her before she met Harry, she was markedly restrained when she joined the BRF. She was always draping herself around someone for photo ops, friend or stranger, male or female, gay or straight. Sexy kitten/come hither poses, over the top gushing over others, laughing and talking to fresh air while pretending to be a part of a conversation, and endless selfies defined the persona she presented to the world. During the engagement and in the first few months of the marriage, she was markedly restrained in how she dressed and acted, for her.
I do find her taste in men rather interesting. Trevor and Cory were both successful in their careers and had a quiet self confidence. That they both moved on to marriages and starting families shows strength of character and not being severely damaged beyond repair by Meghan. Both in Toronto and London, while single (which she had not been for long since she left college, which is interesting) others have noted that she was actively looking for a celebrity boyfriend. Cory was a celebrity in a small world. Perhaps she hoped that Trevor would become an A-lister, Oscar-winning producer with her at his side as an A-list actress? She sure hit the jackpot with Harry, because he is a big fish celebrity in a global ocean! But, he is not a self-made man and seems to be psychologically very vulnerable to being dominated, controlled and manipulated. The Sussex marriage must be difficult if she is with a man who is not actually her type but does give her the fame, wealth and platforms that she seems to crave, plus the status of being a Duchess married to a man in the line of succession in the BRF.
Hilarious! I have been too long in the murky world of Megsy!
Timelines of Meghan's relationships with men before she ditches them:
Father: 35 years
Trevor: 10 years
Cory: 5 or 6 years?
Harry: nearly 5.5 years and counting ...
Archie: almost 18 months ...
M's life is murky. But I think Harry's time so far is 4.5 years, not 5.5.
While we don't know exactly when they met (pretty sure it wasn't July 2016!) it probably wasn't much earlier than May 2016. So 4.5 years and counting.
And I'm not sure Corey was around as long as 5-6 years. If we assume he was dumped around May 2016, then 5 years before that would have been before she married Trevor in Sept 2011. And wasn't there some sports figure in there somewhere too?
She didn't wait until she and Trevor had separated, allegedly.
I don't doubt any of what you said. I don't think though that M likely hooked up with Corey before she married Trevor. Before divorcing him, sure (after or in-between the sports figures.) After all, it's pretty clear she was still in a live-in type relationship with Corey when she started dating H in London. (Handy to have a dog sitter when traveling, after all.) Since we know C was dumped in late spring/early summer of 2016, I don't think that relationship could have lasted more than about 3 to 3.5 years.
I believe Meghan tried to seduce Prince William because it is consistent with the behavior of narcissists I know personally and with stories of many other victims of narcissists. I'd be more surprised if she hadn't made the attempt. And frankly, I'd bet more money on this than on Archie not existing.
This isn't to say that Prince William welcomed those advances. He was probably completely disgusted. But that was also when he had Meg's number. It was a huge strategic mistake on her part to reveal her true face that early -- but when has she ever played a proper long game? After that, there was nothing for her to do but to try to destroy him.
they cannot keep deducting costs for a mansion they rent if they are the only ones renting it and they do not make a profit. It will be considered a sham business and retroactively the expenses won't be accepted by the IRS.
One of the ways the IRS considers something to be a legitimate business is if it's considered viable, and that there are at at least 2 customers, not related to the owner.
From the tumbler hunnymae.com https://twitter.com/schaekay1/status/1317434726215462912/photo/1
Compares "official" photos of H&M and the D&D of Windsor
There is on Skippy's blog a side by side of the H&M pic as released and with the hues changed so black is dark blue and white tones are sort of light orange--to show that the arm of the chair on the left that H is leaning on does not match the arm on the right. Under Harry's leg it appears to be solid, a fabric covered chair, and on the right it is open. I couldn't get a link to it directly.
Submitter said:
Yeah, definitely photoshopped. Area encircled in yellow do not changed (sic) at all, compared to that tiniest opening between PH’s legs ( in red).
Skippy replied:
Thank you….she should just give up😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If only.
Elsbeth1847 said...
"Perhaps someone else mentioned this
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....."
Oh, i am sure someone just told M that her thumb goes on forever and she will be instructing her PR that this feature should be highlighted in her publicity now.
They start out midline at the neck, then move over to his right side, landing on the OUTSIDE of his suit jacket. I don't see how this is physically possible without pulling his shirt right out of his pants.
I think the reason why Harry mat be coming back to the UK in the next few weeks is probably because the Democrats do not want Harry or MM around if they win the election. The Biden campaign may have suggested to the UK that Harry’s presence at this time would not be welcome ( just my feeling)
Look at the shoulder line. Based on her posture, the left shoulder should be lower than the right shoulder, not higher.
There's also a weird fold on the left sleeve.
It almost looks like the back of a different chair that they tried to pass off as her shoulder.
A sharp-eyed reader saw an article about a George Lucas connection on Mirror Online, but it was taken offline after a few hours. From the cached version:
Star Wars fan Prince Harry now has a Yoda to guide him in the world of filmmaking.
The prince did not have to travel to a galaxy far, far away to find the perfect mentor.
Instead, he found a friend in Star Wars creator George Lucas, who lives near Harry and Meghan's US mansion.
The pair had dinner at Lucas's estate after striking a [Pound Sterling]112million deal with streaming service Netflix to make films and documentaries.
A source told the Sunday People: "George has been helping Harry and Meghan with their Netflix projects. They all get on really well and Harry is a massive Star Wars fan."
Harry, 63, and brother William, 38, bonded with Lucas at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire when he was filming Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
Source: https://scorpiotwentythree.tumblr.com/post/632324476489564160/does-anyone-have-the-george-lucas-helping-megan#notes
Two links to the article still shows up on my search engine; but when you go to both Mirror.co.uk and Newsbreak.com, you find they've been taken down.
This reminds me of the Liza Minnelli rumor that Minnelli herself shot down. (It was a beautiful moment.) If something similar happened here, Lucas was a lot more discreet about it.
i dont see anything weird about her thumb. it seems to end at about her index finger knuckle and her fingers are slightly curled.
harrys missing hand is probably between his legs?
harrys shirt buttons do lean to the right, but with that very very awkward pose, i think it fits.
MM’s left shoulder looks weird, i think that blazer has old 80’s style Alexis Carrington style shoulder pads that stich out pointyish at the shoulder.
the pose is extremely uncomfortable/ awkward, with Harry trying to balance on the thin wooden arm of the contempory stye chair. and MM twisted around to hang onto Harry’s leg and look demure ( away from the camera) at the same time. Yet , yet again, she is the center of attention in the photo and H is hanging on for dear life.
and yet agan it’s one of her over styized artistic Black & White photos that are meant to portray her I’m a celebrity ‘artiste’ (yet demure) asthetic. barf.
Barf Barf
The sports figure was allegedly Michael Del Zotto, a Canadian hockey player, although I'm sure I read it was the Canadian hockey team (allegedly).
I would like think he's be more likely to be commanded to come back for a dressing down and woe betide him if he doesn't obey.
I think most of the papers (I haven't checked the Times & the Telegraph) say that Harry won't attend the Remembrance Sunday. First of all, the event will be scaled down due to the Covid and in any case, he is 'no longer a working royal' he 'cannot join his family at the Cenotaph'.
Meghan Markle Might Stop Talking About Politics to Help Prince Harry's Relationship with the Royal Family
Kayleigh Roberts
Marie ClaireSun, 18 October 2020, 3:47 pm BST
`Since their royal exit, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are no longer bound by the intense rules that govern the lives of working royals.
Meghan, in particular, has taken advantage of the increased freedom in recent months and has made public comments about politics and social justice issues.
According to royal historian and biographer Robert Lacey, however, Meghan may pull back on weighing in on these kinds of issues in the future for the sake of Harry's relationship with the rest of the royal family, which is already strained.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been living their best lives since their royal exit earlier this year. And, for Meghan especially, that has meant speaking out more about the issues that matter most to her.
Before their royal exit, Harry and Meghan—like all working royals—were prohibited from voicing any kind of political opinion. The royal family maintains a strict policy of political neutrality. Since the royal exit, however, Harry and Meghan have encouraged their American fans to vote in the upcoming presidential election and Meghan has spoken out about issues related to social causes like Black Lives Matter.
According to royal historian and biographer, Robert Lacey, Meghan's recent speeches may affect Harry's relationship with the rest of the royal family.
"I think when William sat down with Harry and said there could be problems, I think events have proved him right," Lacey, who authored the new royal biography, Battle of Brothers: William and Harry – The Inside Story of a Family in Tumult about Harry's ongoing feud with his brother, Prince William, explained during an interview for True Royalty's The Royal Beat.
Lacey predicts that Meghan may actually pull back on these kinds of speeches and engagements in the future, however, for the sake of Harry's relationship with his family.
"I think that [Meghan] has come to realize how [some of her] speeches risk her husband's relationship with the family and perhaps she may pedal back on some of these more extreme positions," he said on the program, according to The Sun.
Of course, only time will tell how much Meghan (and Harry, for that matter) talks about political and social issues going forward.
Yeah, and pigs might fly, although I suppose it'd depend on how much money's at stake.
Meghan Markle Might Stop Talking About Politics to Help Prince Harry's Relationship with the Royal Family
Kayleigh Roberts
Marie ClaireSun, 18 October 2020, 3:47 pm BST
`Since their royal exit, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are no longer bound by the intense rules that govern the lives of working royals.
Meghan, in particular, has taken advantage of the increased freedom in recent months and has made public comments about politics and social justice issues.
According to royal historian and biographer Robert Lacey, however, Meghan may pull back on weighing in on these kinds of issues in the future for the sake of Harry's relationship with the rest of the royal family, which is already strained.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been living their best lives since their royal exit earlier this year. And, for Meghan especially, that has meant speaking out more about the issues that matter most to her.
Before their royal exit, Harry and Meghan—like all working royals—were prohibited from voicing any kind of political opinion. The royal family maintains a strict policy of political neutrality. Since the royal exit, however, Harry and Meghan have encouraged their American fans to vote in the upcoming presidential election and Meghan has spoken out about issues related to social causes like Black Lives Matter.
According to royal historian and biographer, Robert Lacey, Meghan's recent speeches may affect Harry's relationship with the rest of the royal family.
"I think when William sat down with Harry and said there could be problems, I think events have proved him right," Lacey, who authored the new royal biography, Battle of Brothers: William and Harry – The Inside Story of a Family in Tumult about Harry's ongoing feud with his brother, Prince William, explained during an interview for True Royalty's The Royal Beat.
Lacey predicts that Meghan may actually pull back on these kinds of speeches and engagements in the future, however, for the sake of Harry's relationship with his family.
"I think that [Meghan] has come to realize how [some of her] speeches risk her husband's relationship with the family and perhaps she may pedal back on some of these more extreme positions," he said on the program, according to The Sun.
Of course, only time will tell how much Meghan (and Harry, for that matter) talks about political and social issues going forward.
Yeah, and pigs might fly, although I suppose it'd depend on how much money's at stake.
If the above is true, then could MM have been under pressure from the BRF? There was the congressman's letter to the British ambassador re Harry's interference so it's possible that she is under orders to keep her trap shut.
So is that another surrogate Daddy for Harry? Mr Foster his other surrogate Daddy will be jealous.
I wander if Megan tried to show Mr Lucas her acting skills, without Harry she would never have got within yards of Mr Lucas. Perhaps she can play Princess Leia's Granny in the next starwars. Or is this all Megan's PR trying to arrange a meeting.
What it tells me is that Meghan has figured out that the David Foster connection can only get her as far as talent show appearances, and she needs another sort of sugar/surrogate daddy to make it where the movies are concerned. And since there was already a Lucas-Harry connection, that was a logical lead.
I can totally see Meghan planting the story in the hope that Lucas calls Harry up to ask, "Hey, how do you think that crazy rumor got started?" An ice-breaker, you might say.
Or if that didn't work, planting the story to make them seem more desirable as producers than they actually are -- and then maybe someone wanting to steal them from under Lucas's nose would actually swoop in.
But it seems to have sunk like a lead balloon for now. Apart from George Lucas are there any other Hollywood A-listers whom Harry met before Meghan and whom she could try this same trick with?
The DM had a story about it yesterday or the day before stating he isn’t invited due to no longer being a working royal. I don’t think he’s invited for several reasons the latter is just one of them. :o/
I believe that he wouldn't be welcome, but the virus gives everyone a diplomatic and plausible excuse.
I don't know the skin certainly is not as shiny and tan and smooth as we have been seeing in the Zoom vids. Also, are these her newest teeth (I am thinking of the blinding shiny set we were presented with in January when she wore her brown pit stain top)?
As far as I know all the other senior royals are attending (not sure about the Queen). Harry could easily do 14 days of quarantine beforehand so he could attend if he was indeed invited. We can wait and see what happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlJqf_9YYj0&feature=emb_logo
the question - is this her voice? It sounds like her and looks like something she'd be a part of. apparently there are several more video's with the same "voice" on their website.
Although i just listened to one called "daughters" and it sounds like the same voice & i had to laugh at the thought of her doing one called "daughters".
That's very true. If they really wanted him there and he really wanted to be there, too, 14 days of quarantine would be nothing. Especially in this age of Zoom.
But as my grandmother liked to say (and I translate): "For those who want to do something, there's always a way. For those who don't want to do something, there's always an excuse."
And luckily for Harry (and for anyone in the BRF who doesn't want to see him just yet), his excuse still holds up. He could point out that it's not just two weeks of quarantine beforehand, but also another two weeks after getting back before he can see Archie again. (And "they change so much in two weeks," don't they? How ironic!) A loving father wouldn't want to miss a whole month of his baby son's life. Again, it's not a great excuse, but it's good enough for both him and the BRF to save face if anyone misses him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_TLBoLavvM&ab_channel=TOPROYALMOMENTS%21
HOW WILL THE MAR-TRASHIAN'S BE REMEMBERED? Traitors who wrecked The Queen & Philip's final years?
@ Sally1975
By the way, your observation about her nose where you remarked that despite all the surgeries her nose is still not good ties in so well with the black and white picture being old! It would also explain why black and white with auckward pose - more difficult to analyse the details. Digital data is amended too I bet.
People's sleuthing talents awe me.
...............
@Fairy Crocodile
I don't think Meghan's current nose is unattractive in full view...IMO it's awkward looking in profile. Everything I wrote about her man-in-the-moon appearance was in reference to this picture. Although I don't care for the appearance of her nose in profile, I also don't think she normally looks like a crescent moon-man which is why the choice of this shot is so puzzling.
I agree with you that the use of black and white makes it harder to determine certain things about the photo.
I took a look again at the meta-data on 3 versions of the photo which I downloaded to my laptop...one from the Times100 site which I believe is where it was originally submitted, the one the Daily Mail used, and one other from a US news site (don't remember which one).
The 2 versions from the Daily Mail and the other news site are wiped clean of all info other than a title and the size/resolution of the photos which is quite a bit less than the Times version.
The meta-data on the Times100 photo has the date I posted above of October 6, 2020. It's also higher in resolution and contains a lot of info about the Canon camera used, the settings, and displays Adobe Photoshop(!) as the program application. Surprisingly there is no copyright or photographer's name.
I tried changing the date in the meta-data on the Times photo saved to my computer and I was able to do so very easily.
Whether the photo was taken on 10/6 or not, I think we can believe it was originally submitted with that date in the property details since I obtained it directly from Time100.
Although I now know how easy it is to manipulate the date, I still lean towards this being a recent photo based on Harry's hair.
________________
KC said...
Sorry if someone posted this already
There is on Skippy's blog a side by side of the H&M pic as released and with the hues changed so black is dark blue and white tones are sort of light orange--to show that the arm of the chair on the left that H is leaning on does not match the arm on the right. Under Harry's leg it appears to be solid, a fabric covered chair, and on the right it is open. I couldn't get a link to it directly.
.................
That area under Harry's thigh is what I wrote about in an earlier post.
I use the PhotoShop Elements program myself so I took a closer look at the photo while in that application and lightened/sharpened / blew it up.
The portrait doesn't appear to show signs of being a photoshop composite with the figures joined together from different photos, but there is some weird photoshopping nonetheless particularly in the area under Harry's leg and the second chair arm.
I don't think that is a second type of chair arm or fabric - the area is painted over using photoshop tools and it was done too thickly. There must have been something in that area that she wanted to cover over.
Why are all their photos so amateurish, sloppy, and weird?
Maybe they were on a budget and processed this portrait themselves??
🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for the analyses of the picture. You did a good job.
Perhaps the awkward angle of the face is to conceal the use of a double?
Okay, that sounded kind of crazy as I typed it out. But FameVixen is 100% certain that we've seen doubles on Zoom "appearances," which are even trickier than still photos; and she seems to have a good eye.
Considering the restrictions due to the pandemic as well as the very awkward relationship with the rest of the family I can't see them flying back twice in just a couple of months' time.
@Fairy Crocodile
You're welcome and thank you!
😍
For some reason they have painted out some of her hair. The strands lay down properly at the top, disappear, then start up again in a different place. They don't track between the top of the shoulder and that first wrinkle.
Thanks for the analysis.
Do you suppose M's hands were throwing odd looking shadows that were erased? One reason I ask is the dark blob on the seat under her hands. That's a shadow or the chair has a prominent dirt spot. And while I know professional lighting was used and "bounced," I'm still surprised the shadow under her hands would 1. be that shape and 2. be so "soft" given how close her hands are to the seat. It also seems light is coming from the right side of the photo shining to the left. So maybe there were shadow puppets under the chair arm on the wall that were erased?
LOL! Yes, there are other smaller weird spots of altering.
Whatever they did with her hair makes it look like her wig is shedding all over her way too expensive blazer! And that one shoulder is mighty weird!
IMO Harry looks much better in this photo than she does.
Shadow puppets from M's hands is a good guess as to what they covered up.
But why so clumsily I wonder? There are a lot of ways you can get rid of unwanted bits in a photo or digital illustration and yet the Harkles appear to have used the worst method.
They could have used the clone tool or bandaid to cover over smaller spots or used layers to replace that whole section, etc etc.
And why not just choose a different photo???
It looks like they just sampled a shade of the gray from the B&W version of the photo and used the bucket or paintbrush to thickly cover over that whole section. It's very unprofessional as it not only shows up as a different type of surface (painted rather than photographic) but it also covers part of H's thigh and the wooden arm of the chair! They did the same thing under M's hands but with a lighter shade of gray.
That shadow spot on the chair cushion is odd too. It looks really bad in my sharpened version of the photo. I agree the shape is off - maybe they tried to lighten it up and made it smaller as well?
What a mess! I've worked on more illustrations than photos but I would never process and submit something like this to anyone never mind the worldwide public!
She's doing Zoom right now because that's what's available, but I doubt it's what she wants.
Because the suit is Alexander McQueen and the way she has her hair styled for the photo, I believe this was a targeted attack at DoC. She made sure to wreck Kate's birthday earlier this year with the Megxit announcement.
I don't know if they're new photos or old doctored ones, I don't know anything about that stuff. But there's really no reason for them to release photos in tandem with their Time 100 talk, except to remind the DoC that she can wear a suit too (I'm guessing).
One can only hope that the experts on Tuesday will do most of talking. It was evident when she did the International Women's Day event last year that she did not have anything specific to say beyond that girls should be educated.
IMO Harry looks much better in this photo than she does."
Agreed. He looks relaxed, poised and natural. She looks rather tense and "posed."
I think this photo was released in a fit of narc rage after seeing DoC in her black suit, doing the glitzy, glamorous appearance which is exactly what our friend wants to be doing.
In that case, it's pathetically ineffectual.
I guess the Megalodon tooth Sir David Attenborough gave Prince George really did come from her, because if this is the best she's got these days, she's been defanged! Remember when she used to grab tabloid space so effectively that we (well, at least I) were outraged at an absolute lack of consideration for others and occasionally worried about the mental health of her targets? Well, the Duchess of Cambridge has been going from strength to strength lately, with grace; I doubt that she even noticed her sister-in-law squawking in agitation across the pond.
Yes, Meghan still got a courtesy tabloid article out of it from the DM. The headline itself called her husband "balding Harry" and subtly reminded everyone that she's a shameless mercher.
I'm still puzzled as to why the `Archie Christening photo' makes it appear that DoC is sitting on a 2-legged chair. It can't be a trick of perspective that both back legs have disappeared; one conceivably might be behind another and completely obscured but I don't understand how both could be.
Of course, the Sussexes don't accept that rules apply to them but I don't think they've done away with the laws of physics yet.
(bolding mine)
I had to laugh at this one. I shall be sure to mention my woke "unisex top" credentials every time I throw on a random tshirt from now on lol ...do I get bonus "saving the planet" points if it's 20 years old and was also originally second hand when I bought it?
I agree that things are less sensational. And that helps support my point that Meghan has been defanged -- or exposed as not even having real fangs in the first place. For an ongoing train wreck, she's not even interesting any longer! Do you know what's worse than basic? Boring! And now we know that's what she is.
And the further she distances herself from the British Royal Family, the less powerful and influential -- and the more boring -- she will be. She'll find herself right back where she was when she started The Tig. A fading actress struggling to call herself an influencer and trying to ride a significant other's wave as far as it will take her. (Spoiler alert: Just Harry -- which he will be in January 2021 -- won't even go as far as Corey. He's boring, too, poor fellow.)
You can't tell me she's taken to buying charity-shop clothes...
More likely she means she get them from sweatshops where the desperate are paid a pittance.
So her clothes `help disadvantaged people'?
You can't tell me she's taken to buying charity-shop clothes...
More likely she means she get them from sweatshops where the desperate are paid a pittance.
I think that Haiti has some clothing factories. At least, it did. I'm not sure of which businesses are enduring and which have failed due to China Virus.
It is difficult to know whether I am conspiring to keep slaves or helping the underdeveloped nations without a scorecard.
That's a fantastic idea! I've long realized that we think of better PR schemes for Meghan than she does for herself, and this is another great example of that!
I'm reminded of one of Nutty's earliest suggestions -- a UK tour, to help the newly-married Princess Harry discover her new country . . . and to help the country to get to know her, too! It would have created a lot of goodwill for a sincere foreigner. And helping Native American nations would create similar goodwill from a fellow American.
And now that you've brought it up, I wonder if someone actually suggested it to her. Perhaps someone did . . . but because Native American causes aren't all over the news this year and because small-scale crafters can't afford to pay her merching prices, she would hardly have jumped at the opportunity.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle won't join the royal family at Sandringham and will travel to the UK days after celebrating their first Christmas in their new home, source tells Vanity Fair
By Harriet Johnston For Mailonline09:37, 19 Oct 2020 , updated 13:21, 19 Oct
Prince Harry, 36, and Meghan Markle, 39, won't spend Christmas with royalsDuke and Duchess of Sussex to spend the holiday in their $14 million mansionKatie Nicholl reported they are 'looking forward' to first American Christmas Said news will be 'disappointing' for the Queen, who is 'missing' Harry and ArchieMarks second year the couple have not spend festive period with royal family
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex won't spend Christmas in Sandringham with the royal family and are 'looking forward' to their first holiday in California, sources have claimed.
Prince Harry, 36, and Meghan Markle, 39, are currently living in their $14 million Montecito mansion having stepped back from royal duty in March of this year.
Vanity Fair's Katie Nicholl said the Sussexes are excited for their first American Christmas living in California and will travel to the UK days later, allowing them to isolate for two weeks ahead of the start of Meghan's High Court case against the Mail on Sunday, which begins on January 11.
It will mark the second year the couple will have spent the holiday away from the Queen, 94, and other royals - having reportedly spent the last festive season with the duchess' mother Doria Ragland and their son Archie in Canada.
The Duke, 36, and Duchess of Sussex, 39, won't join the royal family in Sandringham for the holidays and are 'looking forward' to spending Christmas in California , Vanity Fair's Katie Nicholl has reported
The royal expert went on to report that the news would likely be 'disappointing' for the monarch who is 'missing' Harry and her great-grandson Archie, whom she has not seen for a year.
Sources said Prince Harry had no plans to cross the Atlantic any time soon because of the Covid-19 crisis.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle won't spend Christmas in Sandringham
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8854499/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-wont-spend-Christmas-Sandringham-source-tells-Vanity-Fair.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
If Megs is serious about helping the underprivileged, why isn't she purchasing jewelry and pottery and rugs from the Native-American nations here? It would help some fine craftspeople and get rid of that boring dreck she has in "their" house that was apparently decorated by the stylists for cheap hotels.
_______
Great suggestion. Better yet, Mr. and Ms. Windsor should put their money where their mouths are. Some of the Nations don't have casinos and struggle financially. They could use their ahem, titles to start a benefit for those nations who are suffering greatly with Covid 19. But since Native issues are mostly invisible, we can't give them enough sexy bada bing for their tastes...
She mentions nothing of her own mother's people re: African countries, so what can we expect?
Very good, Markle could create a real impact wearing say native American silver jewellery and displaying native crafts in her home. I have seen stunning pieces!
I don't know much about supporting Native American charities in USA but there bound to be great causes worthy of their support.
What happened to that native piece when she was in Canada?
I'm wondering what was going on? The BBC video shows HM turning towards the H&Ms but is immediately cut; there are some stills which seem to suggest that, although the H&Ms started off standing back from the gap between HM & PW, she wwas trying to worm her way forward to stand next to the Queen. They look pleased as HM turns towards them but then...?
Other photos show clear space between HM &MM.
Did they get a sharp reprimand, with tension that we weren't privy to until today?
Look, the way I see these things is this: if it’s legal, it’s legal. This is why you hire excellent tax professionals. They tell you how to do these things, and I would expect that HAMS with their Bi continental issues, that they have competent, expensive, professional and smart legal and tax professionals working for them.
Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
"I caught only the last part of the Channel 5 Diana Interview doc yesterday....
"What struck me so hard this time was just how rehearsed it seemed..."
Yes it was. They stopped taping after each question so Diana could talk to Bashir about the next question, and plan her answer. She had the questions in advance too i think and had made notes..
I think it came out in November in 1995. So it is close to the anniversary without actually "commemorating" the occasion and, of course, some little time after the anniversary of her death, so, not too ghoulish, not too soon.
But informative for those born around that time to see what some of the fuss was about, i think.
She’s probably still in Canada for the RF BS.
I don’t think she comes up with any of these ideas. There are people around her that want to make money too. 1) her lawyer 2) her biz manager 3) support staff
So by default she will do some things right.
Unless they’ve all managed and succeeded with another bad rep celebrity, I’d be cautious on her part though. The advantage she has is that she thinks it’s all her ideas, so will not suss them out.
They all know an idiot when they see one.
this?
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/royal-family-watch-raf-flypast-from-buckingham-palace-news-footage/999303852
What pushed me to Charles's side was the way she slagged him off in public. She made out that her boys were so important to her but neglected to remember that each was `half' him, so in condemning him, she was by extension condemning them, or at least that part of them that originated with him.
I thought that was unforgivable.
I'll see if I can give a link.
I agree it does look tense and awkward at times between the Duo and them looking towards towards the Queen etc, but both William and Catherine are over to the right side as well...actually further over. So there could be a plausible explanation for that gap? Direct heirs or the Queens children to the left, grandchildren to the right? Or just maybe they wanted a clear space for the Queen to retreat back into BP.
Interesting body language at second 12....when mm sees Prince Andrew is moving closer to her. In reality he was paying no attention to her, but she thought he was. As soon as she saw him moving she straightened up and stood at attention. Weird.
Also notice that she made sure to stand so that the view of her was not obscured. Made sure she was standing very clearly in the opening so the camera could see her. You can see her inch over into the opening once she realised that Prince Harry's body was obscuring her slightly.
I think, in her own head, she fell for the PR Harry. The cool celebrity Harry she read about. They were long distance and only went on trips for their dating period, after all. I don’t believe she had any idea what being ‘royal’ entailed. She was after entertainment fame and fortune, not duty and military-like attendance at events. I think Harry took full advantage of her being naive around British culture and constitution. Told her everything she, also wanted, to hear. I think that’s why we see all of this dissatisfaction, disappointment, anger and flightiness between the two. He tricked a moron into marrying a not-real celebrity, and she tricked a Royal (thinking his life was different) into marrying her.
Basically, they both manipulated each other into the arrangement and we’ve seen the fall out ever since. Unfortunately for Harry, he cares deeply about his reputation which is why we are seeing him dig his heels in and stay with Megs and Megs is still trying to make Harry into that ideal she thought he was, and worse case she can get his assets in her name for the divorce.
It’s all very very immature. I wonder what the aristocrats think in their social circles.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/queen-reportedly-shut-down-prince-160800391.html
Photo credit: Max Mumby/Indigo - Getty Images
I've had a look at several videos of the balcony party and it's fascinating to see how they differ
The Royal family Channel shows the balcony party emerging and is very telling at the very start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03nx_Plwoj0
William leaves some space, MM & Cam exchange `looks', MM manages to present herself immediately to the left of HM, in a position of equality with Camilla, merging into more or less sharing centre with HM, who has by then moved away from her.
see still published by T&C at
https://www.google.com/search?q=RAF+centenary+flypast.+royal.family.channel&safe=active&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB890GB890&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ALeKk00N-ZpFreAtRoe6zq41K5jp
Andrew moves towards MM, gap between her & HM widens.
That's the best I can do to analyse the Balcony Shuffle - the `official' versions show nothing but smiles but Max Mumby caught something else...
I googled `Max.Mumby RAF.centenary ' and MM goes through her full repertoire of expressions including a far-from-flattering Man-in-the-Moon shot. (It's somewhere in an article on her best hairstyles)
I hopes this helps.
In the video it appears that Harry won't shut up, mm is talking to herself, and the Queen turns to them to give the silent signal of 'Quiet!'.
Like your mom does in church when you and siblings are not behaving.
I think mm bit her lip, looks at the Queen with a questioning look, 'you were going to say something?'
Recently I watched a portion of Diana's Panorama interview again . . about 20 minutes' worth as it was all I could stomach.
During the original broadcast, I was living abroad, in Japan. Owing to the time difference, Japanese TV would not have broadcast it simultaneously with the UK, but it would have aired there very shortly afterwards. Di's global reach extended to Asia, and a friend of mine, a Chinese graduate student attending the local university watched it, too.
Of course, in 1995, the narrative was that Diana was the wronged saint in her marriage and Charles was the heartless goat. The extreme manipulation of her presentation, with the practiced Shy Di cow-eyed gaze upwards, and the butter-wouldn't melt delivery really put me off on a rewatch. Not many people would have heard her speak for an extended time before this interview. I found her rather little-girl voice to be cloying. She was still playing the demure innocent, even though rumors of her numerous affairs were already in the public domain. Paul Burrell says that he was completely blindsided by it along with everyone else because Diana had given him the day off suddenly. He says she was acting a bit strange and secretive but he didn't guess what she was up to until he returned to see that the furniture had been rearranged.
I think without this interview, Charles and Diana may have just remained separated but legally wed until their boys were out of school. This had been the pattern for 3+ years, with separate households but no further movement on the divorce. Charles, spending all his time at Clarence House or Highgrove, didn't want the stigma of a divorce upon his reign, and there were questions as to whether he could even ascend as a divorcee. The interview was Diana lobbing a firecracker into the Palace . . it worked. ER swiftly wrote to her son and commanded the divorce move forward.
Diana was wronged, but she dished out plenty of wrongs in her turn. This interview was really the beginning of her downward spiral and I don't think it overstates things to say that had she never given it, she would probably not have wound up in a tunnel in Paris two years later. For somebody who claimed that she always led with her heart, this was an incredibly calculated move on her part. Like Meg, she was determined 'to tell her side of the story' even when it did not really benefit her in the long run. The Andrew Morton book was scandalous enough, forcing Charles to go on the defensive according to Diana-tactics with his Jonathan Dimbleby interview.
For all her well-publicized warmth, Di's insidious campaign to smear the reputation of her children's father and the future sovereign was as cold as it gets. She was so determined to get back at him and all the injustices of the Firm, she cut off her own nose to spite her face. History has repeated itself. I wonder if she'd take pleasure to know that Charles is still paying for his mistakes with her . . though Harry. The kid who seems to have inherited all his mother's worst qualities without any of his Royal family's better ones to balance them out.
I watched the video @abbyh linked first. And I have to confess Meghan is still innocuous in it. She looks slightly awkward and out of place in it, but that makes sense for a relatively new married-in. If you didn't know about her behavior during the engagement, about Tiaragate, about her ghosting of her father . . . she might even seem adorable. (Yes, I know those are a lot of IFs!)
And I think she was supposed to stand close to the Queen. This was the tail-end of the time the BRF were bending over backwards to show they weren't racist. Meghan walked quite naturally to her spot between Prince Harry and the Queen, and everyone else's body language was quite relaxed. She must have been riding so high! It's a huge contrast to the next year's Trooping, when she tried to claim the same place and everyone else boxed the Queen in so fast they seemed to be wearing rollerblades!
The only part that made my narc-senses tingle was the very end, when she put her hand on Harry's back. It was a display of dominance in front of millions of people. A petty version of getting the last word in. Everything had gone her way, but she still had to do something to upstage the Queen in some way and to put her husband down at the same time.
Then I watched the video @WBBM linked. At @1.47, there seems to be a moment among the "Fab Four." William says something to Harry. Meghan reacts as if he had been talking to her. Then Catherine says something to Harry. Meghan leans in as if she were being addressed, too. It's kind of painful to watch. I must have exactly the same body language in middle school as the weird kid trying to fit in!
There's more of the same @2:18. She keeps sending thirsty looks in the Cambridges' direction. She could have just talked to Harry, who was after all her husband, and who was right beside her. But she was still social climbing and signaling, in a way. She wanted to be seen as part of the Cambridges' circle. Can she really be upset they were ignoring her, though, when she was ignoring Harry?
I'm not sure what to make of the lip-biting moment. She didn't seem to be talking that much. But maybe she was doing that when the planes were on the screen, and the little we saw was already too much. I agree with @Mel that the Queen probably had the same moral force in her look that your mom does at church when you're misbehaving!
Both Harry and Meghan look peeved off by @3:23. I have no sympathy. Couldn't they have just counted their blessings and enjoyed the day for what it was?
I think this photo was released in a fit of narc rage after seeing DoC in her black suit, doing the glitzy, glamorous appearance which is exactly what our friend wants to be doing.
I don't know if they're new photos or old doctored ones, I don't know anything about that stuff. But there's really no reason for them to release photos in tandem with their Time 100 talk, except to remind the DoC that she can wear a suit too (I'm guessing).
One can only hope that the experts on Tuesday will do most of talking.
.................
@CookieShark
I believe you hit the nail on the head with the idea the photo was a competitive move with Kate in mind. And I agree with you that there was no reason to release a new "portrait" over the Times event! If we are correct in our theories, then the release of that photo reveals a lot about MM - not only her extreme jealousy but also her tremendously high opinion of herself which IMO is psychotic. It's amazing how she continues to be indulged by various organizations and the media, and it's more than crystal clear that this is only due to her royal connection.
I hope the 'agents of chaos' Harkles don't spout any more political rhetoric on Tuesday. It would be very upsetting if they try to influence the election once again.
Thanks! I enjoy our discussions, too!
The next big events will be the court case and Archewell., They probably desperate!y need the royal connection for Archewell,I also think the political climate will affect the Archewell launch and how they get funding. I think they will have to produce an Archie then.
Without a royal connection, they might have made do with a strong-enough Hollywood connection. Or even a political connection. Or at the very least, the huge popularity they believed they had when they left to find their "freedom."
It will be odd to have an Archwell without Archie making some kind of appearance. Something low-key, if they're really that obsessed with "privacy." I'm thinking of the time a nature reserve dedicated a rest spot to Prince Gabriel of Sweden, who wasn't even two years old at the time. He visited with his parents, took some photos, and painted a birdhouse that would be installed at the rest spot. There were no big crowds; it seemed like a simple family's day out.
Since we all know DuckRabbit!Archie will be almost the same age (if not older!) once Archwell is ready to launch, the Harkles could plan something similar. I'd make a concrete suggestion, but I still have no idea what Archwell is supposed to do. Apart from line his parents' pockets, that is.
Love your post on Diana and I agree with all of your thoughts. That interview was a catalyst for major changes in the history of the royal family and affected numerous people. It's both interesting and very sad to contemplate what might have happened if she had NOT done that interview. I remember watching it when it was first aired and feeling uncomfortable and somewhat disgusted as well as very surprised that she would reveal what she did.
Not many people would have heard her speak for an extended time before this interview. I found her rather little-girl voice to be cloying.
Oh, I hate it when a grown woman affects a little girl voice! Christine Blasey Ford had one, too, and I'm sorry, but I just found it manipulative.
Do you think Diana guessed what the direct consequences of the Bashir interview would be? I always thought her objectives were to gain public sympathy (check), to get back at the Royal Family (check), and to break up Charles and Camilla once and for all (oooh, missed the mark there). She might not get him back, but at least he'd no longer be with her. Did the divorce and the downward spiral that followed blindside her? Given people's reactions to the divorce (especially the speculation whether Charles could still be crowned after it), perhaps she thought she was fairly safe. Or was she prepared to be cast out, as long as she could tell her version of things?
"Please don't look me in the eye": Meghan's new official portrait
What happened to that native piece when she was in Canada?
......................
Ah yes! That was a solid gold piece (most metal-worked Native American jewelry is created from sterling silver). She accepted it as a gift from the artist. It was a native northwest coast design - a whale's tail. I don't think we ever saw her wear it again.
I've noticed MM's sister Samantha wearing a lot of lovely excellent-quality Native American jewelry.
"@abbyh.... I hadn't seen that video before. Thanks.
Interesting body language at second 12....when mm sees Prince Andrew is moving closer to her. In reality he was paying no attention to her, but she thought he was. As soon as she saw him moving she straightened up and stood at attention. Weird."
And then she smiled a little, and it grew as everyone looked the other direction, into a beauty queen smile. No eye contact with anyone, looking past any cameras. I am happy even though this is a solemn occasion. I did not notice being ignored by Prince Andrew at all.
That is her go to move, like when she was wearing the bright red coat and purple dress and the moonbump lost its mooring and wound up near her knees. As Harry and she exited the building she had arranged a lovely smile and soft yet fixed gaze on her face, looking down slightly, little to no eye contact with cameras or people.
...and even when she is standing by the car next to Harry and he is looking down past her knees at the bump--that smile, that gaze are only a little bit....hysterical. I'm having a great time. I do not have a false belly sliding down my body under my dress. I am pretty and gracious.
Even in the USO thing where everyone kind of moved away and left her at center stage when she had not planned on it, she kept the smile.(Later on center stage would be her preferred spot). Never let 'em see you sweat--oops, forget that, Canada House was overheated, or something. But never let them see they upset you, never forget to SMILE for the crowd and the cameras. Control the image.
Do you think Diana guessed what the direct consequences of the Bashir interview would be? I always thought her objectives were to gain public sympathy (check), to get back at the Royal Family (check), and to break up Charles and Camilla once and for all (oooh, missed the mark there). She might not get him back, but at least he'd no longer be with her. Did the divorce and the downward spiral that followed blindside her? Given people's reactions to the divorce (especially the speculation whether Charles could still be crowned after it), perhaps she thought she was fairly safe. Or was she prepared to be cast out, as long as she could tell her version of things?
I think this interview backfired on Diana and while she achieved some of her goals in the short term (public sympathy & really sticking it to her in-laws), in the long-term she shot herself in the foot, big-time. I think any emotional highs at her triumph would have been short-lived. Maybe lasting only as long as it took for them to pack up the TV equipment and leave and for her butler to return. She trusted Paul, he was 'her man' (until she died and he's spent the last two decades as a vulture, picking over the carcass of her memory and trying to flog her stuff.) He always took Di's side--but he'd worked for the Queen, quite happily, before Diana poached him and he would not have supported this action. That's why she forced him to leave the flat, in the guise of a day off and didn't tell him of her intentions. He knew it was self-destructive and incredibly stupid and he may have said something to that effect, more mildly.
As long as she was only separated from Charles, she enjoyed the style of HRH The Princess of Wales and her customary budgets for clothing and running her household. After she 'had her say' (again--the Andrew Morton book was all her say too), and she officially was divorced, the come-down was swift. In the words of the Duke of Windsor (Alex Jennings) in The Crown: "In this family, you never really know when you're in, but by God, when you're out, you're out!" Diana was permitted to stay in the KP flat so that Wills and Harry would have somewhere to go during school holidays. Had they been older, out of uni . . I doubt she'd have been allowed to stay there indefinitely.
I think Diana wanted revenge but I also think she did not expect to be cast out, either. I think she expected that after her in-laws and Charles saw the boffo ratings and the huge groundswell of public sympathy that they would have a change of hear and an increased appreciation for the asset she was to the Firm. Even if Charles refused to give up the Rottweiler and come back to her--she admitted that she didn't expect to be made Queen--I think she envisioned that she could continue on working as a sort of glamorous satellite court and do her charity appearances under the auspices of the Firm, still. When told no, she was out, that's when she threw back the 'HRH' in a fit of pique.
I don't think Diana was as self-centered as Meghan, in that she did, at least publicly, give her role the old college try for over ten year. She was a more fragile personality than Meg, but some of their pathologies are very similar. Had Charles never had the affair with Camilla and gotten over her entirely, devoting himself to his marriage to Diana . . I still think she would have been a nightmare on wheels to live with. She and MM both craved the spotlight on them too much to be harmonious cogs in the Royal wheel. Subjugating their egos to the needs of the Crown was something neither of them could do.
Thanks for the analysis. Incisive, as always.
I hope Prince Harry doesn't go so far as to have his own Bashir moment.
They sort of had their Bashir moment in South Africa when they told Tom Bradby that they weren’t OK and nobody cared.
The SA piece was horrendous IMO but mostly because it was so tone-deaf. Crying over "not being asked if I'm ok" or wailing about the damage a "stiff upper lip" can cause while in the midst of human devastation and abject poverty? H&M scored a 10 (or an 11) on the 1-10 tone-deaf scale. Throwing the RF under the bus on camera? Diana still holds the title.
They sort of had their Bashir moment in South Africa when they told Tom Bradby that they weren’t OK and nobody cared.
They're definitely comparable (and not just thanks to Meghan's bad acting in the latter), but I just find it hard to take the "documentary" seriously. It barely managed to achieve its own goals of arousing sympathy and casting the BRF as the villains. It just clashed so badly with all the previous messaging and signaling the Harkles had been doing. Narc watchers would have had their popcorn ready, but I think the rest of the world just said "Huh?"
We had known about Prince Charles and Camilla for years before Diana finally spilled all her tea. The stage had been set; she simply did her own eyeliner, made her entrance and finally gave us the melodramatic performance we had been waiting for. The Harkles, on the other hand, had seemed to be living it up and flaunting their bad behavior with impunity. That they were actually "not okay" all that time -- and that Harry remembered his mother's death whenever he saw the paparazzi's flashbulbs -- wasn't just news to people. It was also the height of entitlement. And it came across doubly distasteful delivered, as @Lizzie pointed out, in the middle of great poverty and deprivation.
If Diana's interview was a bomb, the Harkles' documentary was a fart. The Queen pushed Charles to act immediately after Diana's salvo against the Firm. But "for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place." (I still can't get over the whiny bitterness of that line in their "update.") Like all their projects, it has fallen so short of the mark that they would have been better off never launching it.