What do you do when you're desperate? Most of us have been desperate in some way, at some time in our lives.
Desperate for money, desperate for love, desperate not to lose a job or a business built over years.
Personally, I remember being so desperate to work things out with a certain gentleman that I put on a gown and crashed a gala dinner where he was a guest, then had to hide in the ladies' loo when the security guards came after me. (Unsurprisingly, our romance did not go forward after that incident).
One of the Webster definitions for desperate is "involving or employing extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat and frustration."
When you're truly desperate, you'll do some pretty extreme things. Cheat, steal, lie.
Or share your most intimate and personal medical information, surrounded by great gobs of self-pitying word salad.
Did Meghan have a miscarriage?
Did Meghan have a miscarriage, as she stated in a recent personal essay in the New York Times?
I hope not, because no one deserves that, not even Meghan.
However, as Meghan herself states, this tragedy happens to roughly one out of five women. (Including me, although mine was quite early, and followed quickly by a successful pregnancy.)
It is not unusual and certainly not generally caused by the emotional "coldness" of one's in-laws.
No one would question
Having a miscarriage is common, but writing about it for the New York Times is not.
However, when you're truly desperate, you're willing to "employ extreme measures in an attempt to escape defeat and frustration."
When your (Democratic) presidential candidate has apparently won but no one on his team will take your phone calls; when the money you desperately need is linked to a streaming service that is in the news for insulting your husband's family; when you're stuck in an expensive lawsuit you appear to have no chance at winning, it's understandable to want to grasp at any sympathetic story you can.
The story of a miscarriage is one no media outlet - and probably no husband - would think to question.
Can you think of any other topic that would have gotten Meghan permission to write a long personal essay in the New York Times in November 2020?
Comments
well she has won some support, hasn't she? That is exactly why she played victim again.
However she exposed herself as a hypocrite again, to a huge degree. She previously stated she wouldn't "serve Archie on a plate" to the media who "treated her badly". And yet she was happy to serve her miscarriage on the plate to the media with all the trimmings of a bad writer.
I predict the media will back away for a little while - until she does something stupid again. Meanwhile I hope MoS looks at the NYT article with a magnifying glass. The language is strikingly similar to the FF.
Ugh, I hate to be a cynic but I think Meghan is totally bullshitting about her "miscarriage." The way her cringe article is written makes me gag. Collapsing to the floor while clutching Archie and humming a tune? Give me a break. Plus, who feels one cramp during pregnancy and just knows it's all over?
She's just had too much bad press lately (hello Remembrance Day pics!) and this is the best way to shut down the haters.
And still trying to justify her stupid "are you ok" moment in Africa- absolute narcissist trying to not only justify it but turn it around into a mantra and example of what we should all be saying- arg!!
As IF her cab driver in New York said something like that, lol- this chick is crazy!
Miscarriage is not a "taboo" subject- most people just don't like to talk about it and prefer to grieve in private. You know, privacy, like what H&M wanted so desperately that they ditched his whole family and country?
I also hate how she almost never calls Archie and Harry by their names- it's always "my husband" or "my son"- they are just bit players in the Meg show, not worthy of naming.
The whole damn article is as genuine as a jackalope- seriously, what a psycho!
Thank you so much for posting the article Maneki asked for.
You can tell journalists see right through her and not afraid to say so. Politely, but still.
Plus, who feels one cramp during pregnancy and just knows it's all over?
Exactly. I had cramping and bleeding but the thought of losing my pregnancy never crossed my mind. And I didn't.
One of the problems of this is: What will she do for her encore?
It has everything: Diana, The Crown, shame, stigma, victimhood, afflicts women (mostly), preoccupation with women’s looks ....
Yes! Being a victim of sexual abuse as a child, accusing her father or one of her uncles or even someone famous on the sets where she used to spend time with Thomas. People would forgive her casting away her father.
I pray to God she doesn’t stoop to that because if there’s anything I could never tolerate is any form of child abuse. Using child abuse would be so damaging to any real victim of such a heinous crime. She already misused the racism card insulting any real victim of racism and accusing everyone of being a racist.. So not much left..
That was also my first thought when I read her infomercial in the NYT.. that women would not make the leap from one cramp right to "losing my second son" without some steps in between. Some women have a miscarriage only with bleeding and almost no pain at all.
Some women have a cramp here and there but the pregnancy continues without incident.
I don't know whether she really did have a miscarriage or not, but if she did, it didn't go down the way she described. The part about her holding her first son is pure fiction.
One of the problems of this is: What will she do for her encore?
-----------------
Not a lot of cards left to play. But like the miscarriage, they're one shot deals, can't be used over and over.
Some harder to fake than others. Some could be faked with enough money to buy off people, but I don't think she has that kind of $$.
The first two are her best shot, the others have too many pitfalls, imo.
-Domestic violence - there was a blind about that earlier, might be a setup for use later. Would have to lie about evidence.
-Metoo - she's already had her mouthpieces hint at that. Also hard to prove/disprove. Shuts down criticism immediately, much like the miscarriage.
-Death - hard to fake in that she's going to have to produce a body. Maybe she's hoping for her dad to die naturally. Her mother is too young/healthy. She might manipulate H into a suicide. If it's in the BRF, she's gonna milk that like crazy.
-Eating disorder - hard to fake without a change in appearance that she wouldn't like, she wants to be seen as sex kitten
-Car chase - she already tried that and nobody bit
-Birth of higher order multiples ala Kate Gosselin - probably hard to maneuver that these days, it invites a lot of scrutiny into the doctor
-Abduction attempt - of course it would be of her, otherwise not enough attention. Although would be hard to fake.
Can't think of anything else tragic enough.
Thank you so much for posting the Sunday Times article, it sounded interesting and sensible but it was frustrating to read just one paragraph. I don't see how anyone could disagree with it.
So what next for Megalo now? I don't know whether the article was to garner sympathy for, say, the fiasco of Remembrance Day or for some future event like the MoS court case. There has to be a purpose behind it. Maybe nothing has worked well so far, apart from moving into a house in Montecito, so we need to remember our princess exists and to ask if she's ok. (Is Harry ok, though? What about her father?).
Lying in her court filings about her contribution to FF is just the latest example. She lied about getting a standing ovation at the UN (even though video footage contradicts her), she lied about putting herself through college (her dad has the receipts to prove he paid) and so on and on. Heaven only knows what she lied to JH about - she must have told him some real whoppers about her father for JH to refuse to meet him and then publicly call the BRF "the family she never had". That's what happens when you have a reputation as a habitual liar: in the end, nobody believes you even when you are telling the truth.
Appreciate the Quora link. Very interesting article and comments.
I think Meggy's NYT piece was a transparent effort to win some sympathy to offset the recent PR clunkers, regardless of whether she did or didn't have a miscarriage. While it rallied a few to support her I don't think it created the big media splash she was gunning for. Kate's teaser on Monday and her speech on Friday about the findings of the early years survey were not effected either, if that was also Meggy's intent. Will she continue to produce word salads about new disasters in her life? She will but the reactions are going to be weaker and weaker, I think. Especially once 2021 rolls in people will want to put this year behind them and read more upbeat stories and not the same old look at me poor hapless victim of all the evils under the sun.
A Pyrrhic victory comes to mind when I watch Meghans PR. First of all, by exposing herself to the media in the most intimate sphere of her life, she has lost the right to claim her highly advertised privacy.
She may want an increased media attention but her coverage will not be all positive. We know she reacts violently when she doesn't get the response she wants. She is in for some unpleasant surprises if she thinks she can control all media everywhere.
Royal family has already distanced itself from the Harkles publicly on at least three occasions. They didn't jump to express official "sadness" at her reported loss, saying only they would not comment on a private matter. A royal spokesperson came off the record to say simply they "were saddened" when they learned, which suggested they had not been informed in July at all. If you read between the lines you will get how little her show means to the royals.
This prompted an outburst from Markle with the renewed accusations of "coldness" towards the "family she never had". I can tell this distancing hurt the duo.
However she tried to play the Frog cottage the fact remains the same: this is a Crown property and it has been given to the blood princess and her future baby by the Queen. Nobody else has authority over the Royal property list. The Harkles are booted from the royal territory.
She milked her miscarriage as much as she could. But the world moved on. What did she win? A little bit of pity, some applaud. What she lost? Her claim to privacy. The loss is bigger than the win in a long run.
I suggest she try the following stories for her next PR stories:
- abduction by extraterrestrials or at least a landing of a UFO on their Montecito property
- a past hidden flirtation with a dead icon - Michael Jackson, Tupac or maybe Vladimir Putin?
- a sighting of Elvis
- extraordinary abilities by Archie - perhaps precocious development where he will later lose those abilities like speaking in full sentences - but due to privacy concerns, we will never be allowed to see them
If the quota guy 'calls Harry “Harry Hewitt, William’s half-brother”', then he isn't bored and weird, he's plain stupid. That myth was debunked a long time ago and Harry certainly looks like Charles.
I haven't read the quora article but if that the guy's journalistic level then I'd say his article is rubbish.
@Fairy Thanks for the nice post but I need to back away from here for a while and won't be able to reply.
I can no longer stomach the contrarian attacks.
This is where I went: The piece is extensive, includes relevant photos, and agrees with much of what we have written here. He took a lot of time to lay out all the angles in the tale of Fauchie. In addition, there are a lot of interesting comments that follow.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-de-Werd
I’m not familiar with quora. I though these are his questions. (Is Judaism racist? Can bisexual men be attracted to conservative politics?)
So those are other people’s questions and he is answering them?
Which one has it about phantom Archie?
Well written thought-provoking post. Thank you.
No, I do not believe Meghan is innovative. She stole the idea from Chrissy. We can see how much success a famous influencer such as Chrissy gets from sharing her personal narrative to have a similar comparison to Meghan. Side note- it’s fascinating to realize the ever annoying Chrissy Tiegen is more famous than Meghan in the USA (Meghan’s target audience).
Will we see more personal drivel from Meghan, prosed on and delivered about several months in the future? Probably.
She will find ‘motherhood victim’ to be a badge she can wear without the pesky factual questions due to our moralistic society respecting family and personal tragedy. It’s the cloak she will pick up every so often. Her PR team is probably advising her on other ‘mother victim’ events on their whiteboard as we speak.
Now, back to the question, can Meghan invent her way out of her box? No chance in hell.
Success requires working well with others when one doesn’t have power.. Meghan cannot work well with journalists. Family. Friends. And most likely, other mothers. Meghan will be a narrative, but not reality. To truly resonate with her audience, make money and gain power Meghan has to be more than a narrative and this is something she won’t escape: the box she put herself in.
I've read the quora article thanks to your link 'Could “Phantom Archie” be the real reason for the “Megxit”?' and it is good. Is this the link Tatty was talking about? I'm sorry I rubbished it before reading it, I was going by the trite remark “Harry Hewitt, William’s half-brother” which I do find annoying. Incidentally, I didn't find that remark in the article.
I saw nothing about Harry Hewitt in the Quora article either. Can you clarify?
The author's gay? A conservative? Where's that info? Why are those reasons to discount his opinion?
Holly I’ll try to screen shot it. Give me a minute. Oh, I don’t care if he’s gay, liberal or conservative. Let me see if I can show you all what I see when I click that link.
The post you are looking for is the first one with the picture of Harry. Starts with "Could Phantom Archie" and is 3 lines long. At then end is the word more Click on it.
https://ibb.co/59qCZRn
https://ibb.co/887fWrh
https://ibb.co/cbWdbyw
https://ibb.co/xHmwLwJ
Literally, anything.
This is the web address.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Michael-de-Werd
At the top click on 'Profile' not '65 Answers'.
Here are the pics side by side:
https://ibb.co/fDh9RWF
If you black out her arm in the first pic, it changes her pregnancy look and also illustrates the two different camera angles. On the 10th, she is clearly thick with pregnant belly.
https://ibb.co/YjgDWzr
However, the 14th is the day of the weirdness so 🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️
Wow, you're pretty quick with photo editing. Speaking for myself, when I'm a few pounds up or after a big meal my stomach sticks out more so when seated than standing.
For those who are aware of the underground news tweets of supposed insiders Toronto Paper and Drip Drop, who unfavorably follow the saga of MM, I noticed today they/he/she are back posting again after disappearing for months. There has been lots of speculation about who they are, and some think they are someone who is an ex pal, very connected to her work or friend groups, and someone they give scoops to.
Tweets include the following, from Nov 25 and 26. I include original tweets and responses to questions from others. See what you think:
The tweets:
TP: “Darling, how pathetic! A miscarriage? Physically pregnant? You? And “your firstborn”? Where is he? With his legal mother who gave birth to him! Safe and living his best life!”
DD: “It’s for the DM trial. And there’s no way for her back into the RF.”
(Why the trial delay, someone asks...
DD: “She’s delaying it.”
DD: “The Palace isn’t covering up for her. She decided to go to court against the press and she doesn’t have any support from the RF in her trial.”
DD: “He’s not in the U.K.”
DD: “They don’t live together. Both are living their own life. No news about a divorce yet.”
DD: “She never thinks things through.”
DD: “If TP [the palace] would have tweeted they would have given her importance she doesn’t have. They won’t help her to get attention. They expose her lies.”
DD: “Exactly. That’s why the miscarriage story came yesterday. It’s for the trial.”
DD: “The lies will be exposed in the trial. The “miscarriage” was made up to avoid certain questions about the pillow and the surrogate. Won’t work out“
I don't know much about technology, but how'd you get that photo with Markle's arm blacked out to have a web address?
Oh wow that's pretty neat. Didn't know about that site. It's amazing how easy it is now to Photoshop pictures and put them on the web.
What I meant was that when seated a large belly sticks out farther than when standing. In the case of the two pictures, her seated belly is much smaller than the standing belly which is inconsistent.
I definitely think for the ANL trial and delay, she was required to provide the judge proof before the judge agreed to delay the trial. I also think it’s protected health information since he father isn’t able to be privy to the reason. It wouldn’t be the miscarriage 5 months ago.
IMO, it’s a high risk pregnancy (age, recent pregnancy loss, Doctor said she can’t travel) or IVF schedule (imperative because of age etc) plus Covid.
Have not gotten to the original post yet.
Thanks for the Times article. Right about what century is this talk?
I found it odd that the breasts appeared over the tummy in one and not several days later. When I looked at other photos from that day (same dress), you can see her quite wide side to side and the belly much more prominent in some of them.
One of the problems of this is: What will she do for her encore?
@abbyh: She hasn’t had cancer yet.
.
And on to Megatron, she was never preggers with Fauxarchie, she most certainly is not pregnant now, and I firmly do not believe she had a miscarriage. Her rubbish ' opinion piece ' on the soon to be used in the bog NYT does not track. She decided to toss what she thought was a warning over to the Royal Family. Why? Because of all the really wonderful things The Duchess of Cambridge is doing, the really positive press coverage of The Duke of Cambridge, the fact that a blood Princess will be living in a Crown property, with a real baby on the way. After seeing her hostage Handbag Harry in the last year do you really think these two are intimate? Hardly. They are at daggers drawn. She certainly appeared cheerful during the month of July, especially for someone who had ' suffered ' so much. Odious person.
Log cabin Republicans.... and I personally know gay conservatives.
Well, why would Samantha know where Archie is? She is at best a stranger to MM. How would she know wher Archie is? Legit question. Going to read quora now.
She may be a "stranger" to MM, but she grew up in the area. I'm sure that she still has friends there. I know that *I* have lots of connections in places that I haven't lived for years and can pick up a phone and find out about what is happening in the community. Ditto for industries that I haven't worked in for awhile. I don't dump people just because they aren't of any social climbing use to me, you see. Does Samantha have any area contacts and does she use them? I suspect that if she does have any, she would use them.
The people that will know the truth about Montecito are the people that are in and out on normal business such as package delivery, grocery delivery, gardeners, house cleaners, etc. *They* may have NDAs but I bet that they still tell their family and friends what is happening there, who will pass it on to their friends, who will let their hairdresser know, who will pass it on to all his/her customers. I remain sceptical that they live there because I just don't see the finances available for maintenance and taxes and insurance and staff.
I would think that the person that knows the MOST about what is happening currently with the Duke and Duchess of Bulwer-Lytton would be Trevor and his new wife. He's apparently widely regarded as a nice guy and well liked. People will share whatever they know or have heard about MM with him regardless of whether he wants to hear it because that seems to be human nature. If his new wife has heard and/or been warned about how crazy the ex is, she may be alarmed enough to keep track of her whereabouts.
I also wonder how much her BFFs know about her? It could be awkward if a formerly close "friend" was asked to comment about her miscarriage, and formerly close friend replied "Don't be silly. She doesn't even have a uterus. She had a hysterectomy years ago."
Gentle Reminder: Please speak kindly about other posters.
You don't have to agree with their opinion anymore than they must agree with yours.
.
(is it strange as a gay man he is attracted to conservative politics lol)
Swampwoman, good point, though I would assume UPS etc would deliver to the RP house instead of the main house. You bring up a good point about Trevor.... I wonder how much he hears or if he even cares to know.
Welcome back! I'll bet you are as weary of the US election as we are. I would love to hear your insights sometime.
@Sally1975
Thank you for both articles. The Tominey piece is so spot on. The current "I am woman, hear me sob" is so much a part of the woke sensibilities. It is such a contradiction to what modern "feminists" claim to want, but said with a totally straight face. I'm afraid getting used to contradictions is going to be required of us in the modern age.
Critical thinking does not seem to be a part of anyones curriculum.
The Quora article was very interesting and rang true on many points. I've always suspected Megxit was less initiated by the Sussexes than required by HM.
I'm so afraid MMs next bombshell will unjustly accuse someone: her father, an ex or Harry of some form of abuse. If it is Harry, well, he has enabled her lies all along, it would be fitting for him to reap his sowing.
But I think it will be Thomas. He has been so silent lately. Has she threatened him with ghastly stories unless he stays quiet? Shes floated the abuse story with Lady C. And its perfect for her: no proof required...a little whisper and a man is convicted. And again, the accuser is treated with great care. The accused is simply considered guilty without trial.
I'm afraid she may literally be the death of him, if she tries it.
Sorry, the author is Camilla Long, not Tominey
It’s quora, ask him. Not me.
I’m no longer addressing the man on quora, as I am not sure if he was asking or replying to the questions. I don’t care about him. He’s not my thing...
He just answered those questions. And the gay man political question submitted by "Anonymous" has been reported (most likely as being "insincere" "pot-stirring") as you can see if you click on the question. That will take you to a page with the warning about "editing" needed. That's also where you can see all 4 answers submitted including de Werd's.
How about we get back to the topic now?
“The basis for the application is a confidential ground, the merits of which were expanded on in the course of a private hearing before at 10am this morning”, he explained, saying he agreed to the “exceptional” behind-closed-doors hearing to avoid damaging the confidential nature of the information.
He said the Mail on Sunday’s publishers, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), had not objected to a delay after seeing the Duchess’ argument and evidence supporting the request.
“I have considered with care the evidence and argument advanced by the claimant and evidence and critical analysis submitted on behalf of the defendant”, the judge said.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/meghan-markle-wins-privacy-action-trial-delay-mail-on-sunday-a4573410.html
Yes. I am thankful to get back on topic!!!
DD and TP1 have never (rarely?) been correct. I mean these are the two who claimed Meghan and Doria were under arrest and under the guard of Lord Geist who was holding them in the Tower of London for treason...
Other people have mentioned rehab or some other kind of medical treatment...
I expect that he hears a LOT whether or not he wants to.
Or let’s discuss.... what else could it be that is delicate and confidential that ANL wouldn’t object to once they saw the evidence?
Other people have mentioned rehab or some other kind of medical treatment...
Psychiatric treatment may well go along with rehab. People often self-medicate for mental problems with drugs and/or alcohol although, to my mind, it is a chicken/egg situation. Did the drugs/alcohol cause the mental problems, or was the drug/alcohol abuse an attempt to self-treat the mental problems? I think they both have mental problems (grin) so that wouldn't be a stretch for me. *Note: I am not a psychiatrist and my opinion should not be taken as fact.
I think I got the man who married them mixed up with the high court judge, (meds kicking in, please excuse)
“The Duchess of Sussex’s privacy trial against the Mail on Sunday has been delayed by nine months to autumn 2021 after Meghan’s legal team gave “a confidential ground” for doing so.
The judge’s ruling comes after it was reported that Meghan was seeking to delay the January start of the trial in her privacy lawsuit against the newspaper over its publication of excerpts from a letter she wrote to her father.
Meghan’s request was considered by High Court Judge Mark Warby during an online hearing.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-markle-trial-mail-sunday-thomas-letters-high-court-case-date-b1421836.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-royals-meghan/thomas-markle-not-important-witness-in-meghans-uk-court-case-judge-says-idINL8N2I436M
(Nov 18)
“LONDON (Reuters) - Thomas Markle does not appear to be an important witness in the London court battle pitting his daughter Meghan, the British royal, against a tabloid newspaper, so he need not give evidence in person, the judge overseeing the case said on Wednesday.
(Snip)
“In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, he gave a full explanation for that decision, although most of it was redacted because it involved “private and confidential information”.
However, Warby did make reference to a witness statement from the paper’s legal director which described Markle as “an important witness”.
“It was not immediately obvious to me why he was considered to be important,” Warby said. “It is not suggested that Mr Markle’s evidence ... is an essential component of the defence case.”
Warby said there was “no apparent impediment” to the paper’s lawyers taking a deposition or other form of independently recorded statement from Markle in advance, or to his giving evidence by video-link if not well enough to travel.
The judge also added that Markle “has (quite rightly) not been told the confidential basis for the adjournment application”.
It has to be some kind of medical reason relating to her. (I would say mental health comes under medical)
We haven't seen her mother in the press (or anywhere else) lately. Perhaps it is a medical problem related to her mother and, as her only child, she needs to be there for her surgery or other therapy.
I do feel she released it now because of all the negative press they have been getting and this was a way to stop it and get her some sympathy.
I don't think Samantha knows anything current on Megs. I do think Archie exists. I tend more towards surrogate but i won't be surprised if she was actually pregnant and was padding for attention (using the excuse that she wanted to deceived public on how far a long she was). I am still wondering that he was alledgedly approx 1 month late in arriving but was only 7Lbs. So i figure she really embellished her pregnancy details.
I scanned thru the article on Tumblr and i think he is speculating just like the rest of us.
One of my friends got pregnant for the first time at age 38 (clomid) and pg spontaneously at 40. I would say they are in a race against time for age 40. That is when the stats start skewing against “healthy child born”....
They did say (and tell Jane Goodall) that they want 2 children, so it really points to pregnancy or trying to get pregnant, though I also agree that should Doria get cancer or something (hopefully not as far as that goes) that could also be a reason....
Forgot to add - i have a weird feeling that Megs recently underwent another IVF procedure and may be pregnant now. And it would be a high risk pregnancy and that is the reason for the confidential delay.
I think that is the probable reason and absolutely should be at the top of the list. I was trying to come up with plausible alternatives for the delay just because I think that they would be absolutely horrible parents (sigh) and do not like to think of a helpless child in their custody. I don't even like to think of her having any living beings in her power such as dogs or Harry.
As for her next act, I agree with a few others here that it will likely involve Thomas Markle. I could see Meghan waiting for her father to die and then claiming that he sexually abused her. Like the claim of having a miscarriage, no one would be able to refute the accusations, Would she sink that low?? IMO, absolutely.
She's so self delusional she believes her own lies and thinks for example, the UN "Standing Ovation" that didn't really happen, but to Meg, it's allll true and don't you ever ever tell her it's not. Her whole story about the miscarriage is bogus as well IMO, but she believes it all because she is that nuts. Megs appears to have some kind of Munchhausens in that she will do anything possible to discount or destroy her rivals if it means getting more attention, even if that means self harm. It's also kind of like emotional blackmail, wherein the extortionist is never satisfied so is always seeking ways to get more or get one over on their mark.
Her half sister Samantha exposed her early on, but sadly, Sam spoke too early and got panned. If she had waited a bit and paced her knowledge about Megs better she would have had a lot more credibility and packed a much better and harder punch.
It was brilliant to take Frogmore from the useless duo and to assign Froggy to a useful duo who are clearly favored by The Queen. Lets hope titles being stripped is next along with Dad stopping the money flow. I think Charles has half reduced this by now anyways.
It will be hilarious if Megsy exploits the vulnerable "young mother" angle for a few years, then it gets exposed that there is no Archie. Possibly leaked by the BRF that gets the inside scoop from MI6. The batshit crazy Megs show is not over by a long shot.
LOL! I love your slow post!
I've decided not to bother posting any more research or original content. I'm just going to respond to other people's posts.
Yo Jdubya and tatty
Did you ever consider that Samantha may know quite a bit about Archie due to knowledge about Markle's past? Perhaps the grifter is barren and her sister knows this. That sure would make Samatha very aware of Archie's location...in Markle's imagination only.
I'm sure her family has much they can add to help puzzle out the Harkle's schemes.
I've considered a lot but as i said, none of us know for certain, and it's just conjecture. We can agree to disagree.
Could the next stunt be that Archie is (said to have been) kidnapped a la Lindbergh? He'll be the `right' age soon, the same as when Baby Lindbergh was snatched from his crib?
In this case though, the body is never found, despite them raising vast sums of money and paying the kidnapper. It'd score for sympathy, cash and solve the problem of having to produce Archie's body.
If, tragically, there is a real Archie and it really happened, would they be believed?
For me, announcing a miscarriage is a mix of desperation and real cunning. I agree that she has been wanting to get something to work for a frustratingly long time and this wasn't a card she really cared to play. I'm sure she would much rather have made headlines for some production she is working on or for political ties she is making. If she were truly happy selling herself as a "young mother," we would have seen lots of appropriate merching and charity tie-ins by now. That "grieving mother" is the best rebrand she can do must rankle her, too.
On the other hand, this play resembles other times she pulled a fait accompli on the BRF. She seems to have a natural talent for figuring out how best to undermine the things others have carefully built and ordered. (All narcs do, I have been assured.) And if it was distasteful to ask a "young mother" to prove that she really did give birth, it's even more horrible to ask a "grieving mother" to prove that she really did have a miscarriage. Even people who don't buy this story one bit are going to hold back -- and I'm sure this "mother" knows it. Barring a confessional tell-all or a whistleblower, she will be innocent until proven guilty forever, and history books will let all her "facts" stand as facts.
While she's not winning on the grand scale that she thinks she deserves, she has those petty wins. And we can bet she's relishing them.
* The person posting poses the question and then gives their opinion (the opening post).
* Posters earn money depending on how many views and replies they get. Supposedly this financial incentive is not as big as it used to be.
* Some people who engage on the site seem to use their real names and profiles.
So, the more provocative and topical the question, the more engagement there is likely to be. This increases if the poster claims to have insider knowledge.
I find Quora an interesting place to check out opinions as some of the posts are well written and argued.
Could the next stunt be that Archie is (said to have been) kidnapped a la Lindbergh?
This could be really tricky for them. It was one thing to hope that the BRF would cover her arse back in the UK, but I don't think they'd step in if she pulled something like this in Montecito. I think they're very happy to let her be the United States' problem now!
I think the only thing that would prevent Meghan from doing this is the realization that it will always eclipse anything else she will try to do. And she has had years of being eclipsed to show her how she really feels about it.
Being "only" Princess Harry and always second to the Duchess of Cambridge rankled so much that she had to yank Prince Harry away from his family and transplant him into her Southern Californian world. He must be a fish out of water there, which gives her more authority to call the shots. At least at home. But then she had to face the reality that even there, Prince Harry is the much bigger draw. Without him -- or to be more accurate, without his family -- she's still the C-list actress she was when they first hooked up.
Then she was mother to someone who was acknowledged as seventh in line in succession, which seemed to be a very temporary high. I'm sure she noticed very quickly that people were more interested in seeing photos of Archie than photos of her. It must have been enraging. In the "Arch meets Arch" images, she tries to put his face as close to her own face as possible the entire time, so that no one can properly edit her out. She's no happier being "Archie's mother" than she is being "Prince Harry's wife."
I don't think she has had time to rue her new brand image as a grieving mother who isn't "OK." But if it becomes the only thing interviewers are interested in . . . and if she is reminded that she is "not the only powerful woman" to have endured something like that . . . it will start to lose its shine. It's politics she really wants to talk about (hence, the leveraging of a supposed miscarriage to get a NYT op-ed); but zilch audiences care what she may have to say about it, although some people may be honestly -- and ironically -- interested in whether or not she is doing "OK."
Imagine complaining -- not once, but twice -- that no one ever asked you if you were okay, and then having everyone ask you . . . when what you actually wanted to talk about was something else! Sweet karma!
When the op-ed first came out, I thought that Meghan would try to claim "Are you OK?" as her question. That she would attribute any future expressions of concern in pop culture to her "off-the-cuff comment." But now I think this big chance to rebrand is actually turning her off. Despite everything she did to bag Prince Harry and all those ten months of moon-bumping to claim she gave birth to Archie, she does NOT want to be known primarily as a wife and mother (and sister-in-law!). But if a kidnapping or other untimely death follows on the heels of this miscarriage, that is EXACTLY what she will be known for forever, no matter what else she does.
Yahoo at least frames it as Harry `reportedly' informed the RF.
On the basis however of some of his other answers I will not be placing much reliance on his, for me, missing Megxit view.
Earlier today I noticed that this blog entry had one hundred comments but after returning home from charging my electricity key I saw to my surprise that the number of comments it was down to ninety-three. Your comment: your deletion, I suppose but others want to read what you say. Ladies Ladies Don't get your knickers in a bunch over nonsense otherwise I will have to send in the patriarchy to sort you out and you would not, I know, like that.
“Plus, who feels one cramp during pregnancy and just knows it's all over?”
^ Exactly. And this makes me think she never experienced one pregnancy, let alone a second that ended in a miscarriage. Cramps are normal during a pregnancy. And as other Nutties have mentioned, so too is bleeding without compromising the baby.
Gag inducing indeed.
- The Harkles real trouble with the royal family started with her pregnancy. We talked about this several times already. The relationship went down the drain with cosmic speed.
- there are too many oddities surrounding her pregnancy and birth (bump size, refusal to use royal physicians, absence of signatures, confusion with the birth announcement, lies about the date of birth, weird christening behaviour)
- curious absence of interaction with the kid at all levels (no pics of Kate's children with him for instance. It would be such a great publicity for Megs and yet it never materialised)
- nannies fired at short intervals
- Media hungry Meghan is overly keen at suing anybody who tried to take the picture of the boy (Why? She is happy to parade herself and was happy to parade her kid in the SA for publicity)
- The Harkles did take the baby to the South Africa and didn't take him to see his grandparents on either side, using a stupid excuse of him being too young for travel. It was utter nonsense after the SA trip
- Her rare couple appearances with a kid are awkward and the kid behaves as if he doesn't know her
- the Canada pap walk video was horrible; the kids leg was dangling so much it reminded me of a half deflated rubber in the wind. I also noticed her total obsession with the "kids privacy" started after this walk. The camera caught something she was desperate to hide?
- Samantha was right about Meghan before and she did describe Archie as "phantom"
To be fair there are points that contradict the Quora article too. For instance the Queen did mention that Phillip and herself "welcomed their fourth great grandchild into the family", so there is a child, whatever his origin is. Another point Archie is still in line to succession and I am not ready to accept that the government and the Queen are in conspiracy over a doll just to help Harry.
I am inclined to think the child exists, even if born by another woman, and there may be something wrong with him. One of the theories is the Harkles are waiting for him to rich a certain age when the defect may be corrected surgically, and then they will parade him happily. Another theory is the boy is being brought up by somebody else.
Whatever the situation is many people outside this blog are asking the same questions we do.
a. a new pregnancy by surrogate, which no one could hold against a "grieving mother" without looking bad
b: a new pregnancy by IVF, which we'd all feel pressured to be happy about, after that story about crying into her husband's knuckles in a hospital bed
c. the discarding of Archie (possibly through kidnapping?), after she finally gets a baby she can have undisputed 100% custody of
I personally don't think she planned further ahead than upstaging Catherine (and Princess Eugenie!) again, making the BRF feel bad about their happy July, getting more pity funds out of Prince Charles, and grabbing some headlines. (Maybe it was already her idea of a compromise because the one she really wanted to kill off was Archie.) If she could get a strategic friendship with Chrissy Teigen out of it, that would be a bonus for someone rapidly running out of A-list friends.
And as I've said, being mentally linked with first a husband and then her children in people's minds does not make her happy. She wants to be famous on her own terms. And she thought she could control this new narrative. That it's spinning out of her control can't make her happy. It may even caution her against trying to pull one of the above scenarios. Anything that involves a child (even a made-up child) has long-term consequences.
If she indeed goes through IVF it may be interesting. This procedure often results in twins or triplets. And where would this leave Harry with his idiotic statement he would have "no more than two children to save the planet". Is he going to give one or two "extras" away for adoption? Or is he going to conveniently forget about his previous rubbish?
Chris Ship seems to have become their go-to royal reporter in the royal rota. (Scobie is a royal reporter but I do not think he is in the rota.) Chris Ship often passes on information from the Sussexes' 'staff'.
I have not read the judgment from that hearing, but supposedly the request was for the delay to be that long.
Sine the January trial date has now become a date for the hearing for a summary judgment, a trial date would have to have been re-arranged, but Meghan's lawyers specifically asked for a long delay.
Although a risky pregnancy in the time of the virus and in the light of her miscarriage would possibly be a reason for such a request, why was the judge ok with Thomas testifying via video link and not Meghan?
Meghan's health and wellbeing was prioritised but Thomas's dismissed because she is a woman and no one wants to be blamed for another miscarriage.
She demanded secrecy because she wants to be in control of the story about the miscarriage and another pregnancy.
This is what makes sense to me, but the medical reason given when requesting the long delay could well have been mental health issues. She has been Zooming away since the miscarriage, but the judge would not want to challenge 'her note from a mental health professional' as he would not want to live with possible consequences if he was wrong.
Meghan's new lawyer seems to be cleaning up the mess of her lies and deflections from the truth and dramatic diversions, and colluding with her in keeping her correspondence from the defendants and manipulating the judge.
Meghan wants this drama, but she wants to control it.
And as I've said, being mentally linked with first a husband and then her children in people's minds does not make her happy. She wants to be famous on her own terms. And she thought she could control this new narrative. That it's spinning out of her control can't make her happy. It may even caution her against trying to pull one of the above scenarios. Anything that involves a child (even a made-up child) has long-term consequences.
Maybe I'm just thinking about my reaction to her "news", but I believe that the BRF just collectively roll their eyes and say something like "Oh, poor Meghan. Bless her heart!" (Translation: Psycho b*tch really needs to be on some heavy-duty medications.)
Thank you. If the delay was the result of a backlog of cases due to covid, which is understandable, then why didn't the judge simply say so? Why is the case delayed on confidential grounds? Everything MM does is always shrouded in mystery.
Meghan wants this drama, but she wants to control it.
And the problem with anything involving a child is that no one can control it.
Ask even those parents who truly love their children and make personal sacrifices for the children's sake. The number of uncontrolled, unplanned events and the general amount of chaos are amazing! And the older the children get, the more parents become supporting players in their story. Which is the proper way of things. You know you've succeeded raising a child when he can survive (and thrive!) in the world without you.
To my list of Meghan's objectives, I want to add that she wanted a delay in her court case. Again, no evidence of long-term thinking. But a child creates very long-term consequences and she doesn't ever think that far.
I think* that the reason for the rescheduling was Top Secret Medical Privacy stuff; the lengthy delay was simply finding a space in the court schedule that could accommodate the trial.
*I may be quite wrong.
I think the delay is a COVID backlog in combination with a health issue. Either a long term treatment with Megs or possibly something to do with the child's health. My instinct tells me that confidential reasons for court delays are normally quite big.
I don't think this is a matter of state. Possibly another litigation they are involved with. Most likely health related.
It is worth mentioning that courts in UK go on vacation; perhaps the date for her case is dictated by COVID, health reasons and timing for court breaks in 2021 combined.
Maybe I'm just thinking about my reaction to her "news", but I believe that the BRF just collectively roll their eyes and say something like "Oh, poor Meghan. Bless her heart!" (Translation: Psycho b*tch really needs to be on some heavy-duty medications.)
I'm sure they already do! What's the British equivalent of "Bless her heart"?
Since the Harkles' oh-so-shocking move to be part-time royals last January, I'm sure the BRF has circled its wagons thoroughly enough to ensure that they are isolated from anything Meghan will ever try in the future. She miscarried the potential eighth in line? Oh, we were all "very saddened" to learn that! She's pregnant again through IVF? We value her privacy too much to comment! She has hired a surrogate? See above, plus the famous "of the the body" bit! Archie has been kidnapped! Since it took place on US soil, we leave that to the trusty Montecito PD! . . . She may have to murder Prince Harry to get a rise out of them. But they've probably already found a way to tell her that, in such a case, he would get a private funeral and be buried in the Markle family plot. So it wouldn't even be worth it.
(In case it wasn't clear: I do NOT want Prince Harry to die. Despite all the shenanigans he has enabled and even pulled himself, my great hope for anyone entangled with a malignant narc is that they can be free, get the therapy they need, and manage to rebuild what they can of their lives in order to be happy and productive again.)
LOL!
Though, the medical reason could be something other than a pregnancy or mental health. Until your post, we had not been imaginative enough to consider other reasons!
The trial date was already going to be pushed back because the scheduled trial date is being used for the hearing for a summary judgment. Meghan specifically asked for a delay until not before October 2021 and asked for her reason (she had three prepared but only used one) to be kept confidential with the threat of contempt of court used to enforce secrecy. She had to advocate for and justify a long postponement, so court scheduling was not the reason.
Steering off topic but staying with pregnancy ... IVF usually involves the implantation of more than one fertilized ovum as they may not all be viable (saves having to repeat the expensive procedure). That is why IVF often results in more than one baby. My understanding is that the IVF process does not increase the likelihood of multiple babies from one ovum. If you got identical twins or more from an IVF process, the chances of your doing so through a pregnancy that did not require medical procedures would be the same. To save the planet, Meghan and Harry could choose to have only one fertilized ovum implanted.
And on a lighter note ... names now being used for the Sussexes on LSA are Hen and Peg (also Pegs/Princess Peg).
Re: IVF multiples
I'm sure Prince Harry's comment about wanting only two children would be swept under the rug. Or if anyone brings it up, they can always say they were aiming for only two, but didn't want to terminate after they were stunned to learn they were expecting multiples. (Could they plausibly feign ignorance of how often multiples happen in IVF?)
Being perceived as more virtuous than the Cambridges was nice for a while, but it didn't last. So now the Harkles may prefer to show up the Cambridges in another way.
But again, I don't think Meghan is very pleased that being a wife and mother is distracting from her as an individual and the causes that she truly wants to be associated with. She may actually rethink having another baby . . . or even another miscarriage. Which would be a win all around!
Oh, I didn't get the impression that you wanted him dead. Her, well, all I can say is that lockdowns can exacerbate minor annoyances and grievances into HUGE problems. But undoubtedly their love will see them through.
Your comments are great today! I've already laughed out loud twice since I logged on.
@SwampWoman
Your comments are great today! I've already laughed out loud twice since I logged on.
Glad to have been of service! The rain has (mostly) stopped here so I am off to do battle with the elements (and the livestock). See y'all (much) later tonight!
The article said that her legal team requested a delay until no sooner than October 15th, 2021.
Nothing to do with court schedules. Judge said they would reschedule in the autumn, October or November.
"Speaking at a pre-trial hearing at the High Court in London on Thursday, Judge Mr. Justice Warby agreed to postpone the trial — which was scheduled to start on Jan. 11 — until no sooner than October 15, 2021."
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-case-delayed-fall-2021-confidential-grounds/?utm=newsbreak
Will we be able to stand the wait?
Is anything scheduled to happen about that time, say something political?
But a child creates very long-term consequences and she doesn't ever think that far.
Girl said:
I wonder if Meghan is so thirsty that she would do something stupid like claim that Archie has been kidnapped and the FBI would discover that there is no Archie. She, after all, does seem to forget her lies.
I have no desire for any harm to come to a real child, but since I am of the opinion that there is no Archie in the traditional sense, then actually the biggest gift Megalo could give to me and us all in 2021 is to try something dodgy where Archie is concerned. When he was conceived and born (allegedly) and through his subsequent (very few) presentations to the public during the (very) brief time the Harkles were still part of the BRF, she had the protection of the Palace. Even if they knew she was lying (*allegedly*), to a man and woman they held the party line of "We are so delighted but we have no further comment." They did not unmask her publicly or dispute any of the stories or photo ops. If I had not disbelieved her maternity from almost the time she said she was pregnant, I would have been converted after the polo ground photos when Archie was allegedly 2.5 months old. Clock the faces of EVERYONE in her immediate vicinity, from the Duchess of Cambridge to the Gilkeses: They were witnessing a spectacle that did not seem to suggest a live infant making his first public trip outside, but rather a madwoman wandering a polo ground with wild hair and a plastic baby. Very Crazy Mrs. Rochester, that appearance. Which is suitable. Just a year earlier, she'd debuted as the Duchess on the BP balcony in her "Harry Rochester's little Island Bride" look.
I have observed before that it's far easier to create a child for publicity than make an inconvenient child disappear for the same purpose. If Meg has exploited the real miscarriage pain of millions of women for attention, you can bet she's entertained fantasies of how much sympathetic press coverage she'd get if 'something terrible happened to Archie' . . . a debilitating accident, a terminal disease, SIDS (though he's aging out of the age window for that, being nearly 2 years old) or, best from her POV given her allergy to showing us a real baby (7 months almost since the last sighting at Mother's Day, or a full third of his little lifetime) a tragic abduction by persons unknown where he is never found. Imagine all the artfully tearful press conferences and magazine covers that would net her! She is no doubt envisioning, not the Lindbergh baby . . ancient history, Meg's not interested in anything pre-Diana . . but perhaps the tragic saga of Madeleine McCann, still making headlines nearly 14 years after she was abducted.
1. That parents are ALWAYS the prime suspects when harm comes to a child of any age, but particularly one so young . . .and when the victim is a baby or a toddler, the police look really hard at the *mother*. Kate McCann was the prime suspect for years in her daughter's disappearance, the pet theory being that she killed her child either accidently or on purpose in their holiday flat and her husband and all her well-heeled friends colluded to cover up her involvement. The same happened to the late Patsy Ramsey. John Ramsey was smeared for a while as a pedophile who was inappropriate with his little girl, but the pernicious theory that stuck the longest was that he concocted the mystery letter and theory of an intruder abduction working for shadow forces, and intentionally tainted the crime scene to cover his wife's guilt. If Meg comes out with this tale, she and Harry will be grilled by Quantico-trained FBI agents and profilers. For weeks. How long would it take for Harry to fold like a souffle in the rain? I give it 15 minutes or less. Meg is a harder nut to crack and no doubt thinks she's way more whip-smarter than the FBI and the Santa Barbara police department. She isn't, but I'd love to see her try to snow them.
2. Without the diplomatic protection of that horrible cabal of racist bullies whom she had to flee across the Pond, she is not entitled to any special privileges or deference or a press which will abide by a gentleman's agreement not to print unflattering information. The U.S. media seems to be having a love affair with Meg at the moment, because she's paying them millions of dollars to acede to her version of events. But the disappearance and possible death by foul play of a celebrity toddler? Blood in the water wouldnt' begin to describe it. Any illusions she's got left about how being a Royal celebrity humanitarian/fashionista and grieving young mother will evaporate in a Montecito minute. The American press loves a victim . . and they love a villain even more. Mama Meg would be cast as the villain with an innocent baby as the victim.
3. In the last few years and escalating lately due to the pandemic, we've had a lot of 'young mothers' suffering some kind of mental episode and abandoning their families, cars, cell phones and ID to go wandering off into the wilderness and claim a 'harrowing tale of survival against the elements', or captors. The police are always initially sympathetic to potential victims, but when the actual investigation kicks in and the details don't match the evidence, they get suspicious real quick. Cf. also: Jussie Smollett and the recent non-hate crime attack which Meg got herself embroiled with as a spokeswoman. Even when the alleged victim presents with physical injuries and/or does a great job of appearing to be emotionally traumatized . . the cops demand receipts. Making false allegations of crime, fake statements under oath and wasting police time are all criminal offenses. Meg is at best a nominal celebrity and is not part of the Royal family any longer. The authorities would end her.
Of course, there's more than a fair chance that they don't actually live in Chateau Mudslide with their alleged child and their alleged staff. She can't very well organize an armed car-jacking/snatch of Archie from their Escalade . . but she might? Too many moving parts. Way too much scrutiny into her life--where she's living, who's working for her, what kinds of security measures she has in place. The cops would have to depose everyone who could potentially have had contact with Archie. If she doesn't actually have a toddler, that'd be a really small list and she couldn't keep that under wraps.
The thorny problem remains for Megsie . . What to Do About Archie? I look forward to her attempts. I think it will ultimately be her undoing. How the Palace is going to explain their tacit support of the saga remains to be seen.
Swampie said:
Maybe she is getting a hemorrhoidectomy. NOBODY wants to talk about that (or hear about it). Recovery can take up to six weeks and she wouldn't want to take a long plane trip.
Good one! Though I submit that Mugsy is the hemorrhoid and it's Harry that needs that operation to extract It.
I do think there is a wee boy, who is not called Archie, and he is off living with his real Mum. I also think The Royal Family were blindsided, up to a point, and when the realisation of just what the hell was going on they hastened the exit of The Odious Pair.
It is worth remembering that the Crown court in UK has vacation from August 1 to October 1.
Then there is a curious things that is called Judicial sitting days. They are different for different courts.
Court of Appeal and High Court are sitting 180 - 190 days a year.
Circuit judges are expected to sit for the minimum of 210 days a year
District judges will sit for 215 days
As obvious from the above each judge has certain days a year when he actually "sits". Every one of them has multiple cases, so they hold a pretty busy schedule.
I believe Markle asked for a delay and was granted one that may look longer due to the judge's schedule for the next year.
Another compelling argument is that MM, to whom royal titles are so important, apparently agreed that her son be called "Archie" rather than the expected HRH Prince Archibald of Sussex. A child born of a surrogate is not royal.
However, I disagree with the author's conclusion that the Harkles were forced out of the BRF over "Archie". I think that they left because MM truly believed she could become very rich and famous outside the family, without its pesky rules and limitations (and how has that been working out for you, Meg?). The author says that JH looked angry during Megxit and attributes that to being forced out; I think JH was furious because his plan to be half-in, half-out of the BRF was rejected and he was forced to relinquish all the military patronages which apparently were so important to him.
"Has it occurred to anyone that M&H could be going through couples counseling. After an alleged miscarriage seems to be an opportune time to divorce. If M&H are trying to work things out for Archie's sake there may be more than medical reasons for the court delay."
Maybe. But I would not think couples counseling would be a sufficient reason for a long court delay with or without a miscarriage. The world doesn't stop nor are a person's responsibilities automatically put on hold simply because he/she seeks outpatient counseling. And in this day and age, it's quite possible to do "distance counseling." In fact, I'd be pretty surprised if marriage counselors in CA were routinely doing face to face counseling these days.
My hat is off to your thorough analysis of the "problem" of Archie! She has realized she has bitten off so much more than she can chew, but can't see a way out of it.
The only reason she hasn't trafficked a child by now is that it must be impossible to find one who could be a plausible older version of all the Archies we've already seen.
I have to wonder what her original long-term vision was. That she could arrange something with a surrogate and the BRF would just accept it? If so, then the BRF's blocking the adoption (and all other attempts to acquire a child) was their true big move. All they had to do next was cross their arms, sit back, and watch while she dug herself in deeper.
Forget the stripping of titles for a second. In the greater scheme of things, it amounts to short-term gratification for both the BRF and the Harkes' critics. And it would only give their supporters more supposedly racist fuel for their fires. Much better to give the Harkles enough rope with which to hang themselves. If Prince Harry loses his dukedom, it can't look as if he's being punished by a bullying older brother for marrying a biracial woman and wanting to "modernize the monarchy." I'll bet that if it does come to that in the future, the official story will be that Harry personally relinquished it (in order to lead a more "authentic" life) . . . and it will be so plausible that no one will question it.
It's a very long game that the BRF is playing, but it must seem easier to win by the day. The Harkles are making no end of unforced mistakes! Even their decamping to the Americas must have been a huge relief to the BRF. From that point on, every move the Harkles made would be obviously their own and not something they could pin on that mean, horrible racist family.
She's playing some game there, which at the moment isn't obvious.
I think she lied to the court about something, and had to come up with a story to cover for it, thus the essay.
---------
FairyCrocodile....hear you about court terms.
What I take away from that is that the Harkles wouldn't be ready to have a trial prior to say, July 15th. 10 day trial, court closes July 31, pushes it back to at least July 15th.
That time schedule of not being available until late June/early July would be more indicative of a pregnancy than the early October time frame, imo.
I was initially thinking it was something else, mental health confinement on her part, for example. But now I might be leaning towards a pregnancy more.
We shall see, I guess. Will be interesting to see how visible she is going forward.
Kinda hard to claim have to lay low for a high risk pregnancy and then be seen swanning about in duchess clothes for photo ops.
It's gonna kill her to have to hide for 9 or 10 months, though.
--------------------
How do you think the BRF blocked the adoption?
Are you thinking that they paid off the surrogate not to surrender the baby?
I don't know precisely how they did it, but I think they're the only ones with enough power to block an adoption from happening.
The only other possibility is the surrogate mother deciding on her own that she wanted to raise the baby. And even then, the BRF might have helped by simply refusing to let the Harkles bully her into keeping the agreement.
Archie looks too much like Megs and Just H to be any other’s baby. However, there is no way, no how, that Megs was pregnant. Perhaps she will have a big “reveal” the day Eugenie gives birth, or any other important royal event, to finally tell the “real” story about Archie’s birth. The terrible “stigma” of having to use a surrogate. Then her big attack on the Royal family: That she and Harry lied about her being pregnant and using a surrogate, since Archie, not born of Meg’s body, cannot be royal or be seventh in line to the crown. How unfair! How old-fashioned! How they had no choice but to lie, to protect their child! What a story! Americans, most knowing zip about royalty, will demand a change in how a democratic, sovereign nation and government treats poor Megs and Just H.
OT, but Archie was dressed in his bulging diaper and white onesie as to not look nice and take attention from Megs. She was also indicating that she does not merch his clothes.
One more thing.
For those who are aware of the underground news tweets of supposed insiders Toronto Paper and Drip Drop, who unfavorably follow the saga of MM, I noticed today they/he/she are back posting again after disappearing for months. There has been lots of speculation about who they are, and some think they are someone who is an ex pal, very connected to her work or friend groups, and someone they give scoops to.
Tweets include the following, from Nov 25 and 26. I include original tweets and responses to questions from others. See what you think:
The tweets:
TP: “Darling, how pathetic! A miscarriage? Physically pregnant? You? And “your firstborn”? Where is he? With his legal mother who gave birth to him! Safe and living his best life!”
DD: “It’s for the DM trial. And there’s no way for her back into the RF.”
(Why the trial delay, someone asks...
DD: “She’s delaying it.”
DD: “The Palace isn’t covering up for her. She decided to go to court against the press and she doesn’t have any support from the RF in her trial.”
DD: “He’s not in the U.K.”
DD: “They don’t live together. Both are living their own life. No news about a divorce yet.”
DD: “She never thinks things through.”
DD: “If TP [the palace] would have tweeted they would have given her importance she doesn’t have. They won’t help her to get attention. They expose her lies.”
DD: “Exactly. That’s why the miscarriage story came yesterday. It’s for the trial.”
DD: “The lies will be exposed in the trial. The “miscarriage” was made up to avoid certain questions about the pillow and the surrogate. Won’t work out“
____________
Many have said Toronto Paper is Cory the chef.
Like you, I believe Archie looks too much like Harry, Meghan and Thomas to be anyone else’s child. I think IVF is ok in the Royal Family, as Sophie mentioned it as a possible choice for her.
Yes, she would use it as a new platform. At her age, there may be more miscarriages in her future. After my narc kept getting pregnant drom age 40-42 I remember googling this and getting on websites where women discussed it. The gist was, if you want a baby after 40, pregnancy and baby loss is the cost and you just have to keep going until you bring a healthy baby home.
I have to wonder what her original long-term vision was. That she could arrange something with a surrogate and the BRF would just accept it? If so, then the BRF's blocking the adoption (and all other attempts to acquire a child) was their true big move. All they had to do next was cross their arms, sit back, and watch while she dug herself in deeper.
Though Meg showed some capacity for long-term vision in her relentless pursuit of Hazmat, the Knucklehead, I think her plan only extended to getting him to the altar. After that, her life was going to be a Disney princess fantasia of parades, carriages, tiaras and swanky red carpet events at which everyone would genuflect to her. Her vision of Being a Duchess was Trooping the Color/Ascot/glittering galas. Unlimited money, jewels, clothing, holidays, beauty treatments and ordering the peasants around. 'Work' was occasionally getting photographed swanning around with flowers. That she 1. was accountable for her spending to Charles, and there wasn't as much money as she thought, or 2. That she was expected to do many burdensome and dull charity appearances and pretend to be interested in common folk and projecting modesty and decorum even if her dress was expensive and that 3. She'd be opening herself up for scrutiny and criticism because that's what being world-famous, her alleged goal, means . . none of this crossed her Narco mind. When she realized that forevermore she'd be obliged to curtsey to Catherine and trail several steps behind her and William . . she accelerated her Megxit plans, and she's been improvising ever since. I think 'Archie' was devised to milk as much attention as she could get for herself in the short-term, with the very thorny difficulties of obtaining an actual baby at the end of secondary consideration. IF she arranged a surrogacy, with or without Harry's genetic contribution, or hers, even, she probably assumed that she could take refuge in medical privacy laws and evade any questions. Narcs always believe they are pulling off their cons. She did succeed in this to a degree, not without a lot of wear and tear. If it was a surrogacy arrangement that fell through, that would explain just about everything else that came afterwards, including why 'Archie' has only been shown as a live child outside of the UK, and why Harry and Meg ran away from the Royal family when their alleged son was only 4 months old. She was coming to the end of the period in which "Archie is too small and fragile to be shown in public" excuse--especially when she had a by-all-appearances very vigorous and physically advanced young man meeting important world figures in Africa. She was very obviously counting on a having a titled child in order to get herself more status inside the BRF. It is cognitively dissonant that a woman who clings to her bestowed title of British nobility, that horridly racist inequitable institution that didn't give her a voice WHILE LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES and angling to be some sort of political influencer would at the same time summarily reject an HRH Prince Archie of Sussex title for her child.
Meg is a freak of epic proportions. That's why it's so infuriating that there are still sycophantic media pushing her line of (paid) shite.
Forget the stripping of titles for a second. In the greater scheme of things, it amounts to short-term gratification for both the BRF and the Harkes' critics. And it would only give their supporters more supposedly racist fuel for their fires. Much better to give the Harkles enough rope with which to hang themselves. If Prince Harry loses his dukedom, it can't look as if he's being punished by a bullying older brother for marrying a biracial woman and wanting to "modernize the monarchy." I'll bet that if it does come to that in the future, the official story will be that Harry personally relinquished it (in order to lead a more "authentic" life) . . . and it will be so plausible that no one will question it.
It's a very long game that the BRF is playing, but it must seem easier to win by the day. The Harkles are making no end of unforced mistakes! Even their decamping to the Americas must have been a huge relief to the BRF. From that point on, every move the Harkles made would be obviously their own and not something they could pin on that mean, horrible racist family.
I am over the 'stripping the titles' quest. The Dukedom of Sussex is a paper dukedom. It confers no estates, no lands, no official tasks associated with it and apparently, no larger slice of the Royal pie in terms of wealth. Uncle Edward is the Earl of Wessex, and 'Wessex' is a fictional fiefdom from Thomas Hardy novels and 'Shakespeare in Love'. Edward liked the sound of it, evidently, and Mummy obliged him by creating him Earl of Wessex. Ed does have an actual title awaiting him quite soon--the Dukedom of Edinburgh. Sussex is at least a real place, but going by the royal family history, of which Harry and Meg were completely ignorant, 'Sussex' is actually a huge shade-throwing by the Queen. The good people of the county of Sussex are none too pleased about it, either.
The titles are meaningless without any connection to the institution that conferred them. If the Queen repudiates the wearers, it invalidates the titles, even if they technically remain as a sort of sad decoration and throwback to days gone by. Harry could call himself the Duke of Changa Chunga and it would mean as much. It's the *money* which is the lifeblood of Meghan's con and it's that which needs to be withdrawn. And needs to be *seen* to be withdrawn. If Mugsy can't squeeze any more money out of that stone, I think she will cast off Harry and the worthless title quick enough.
"I clutched her tightly and cried into her. As I tenderly held my firstborn in my arms, I was saying goodbye to my third." excerpt from Chasing Light:Finding Hope Through the Loss by Stefanie Tong
I cannot believe how low she has sunk.
All explained in this video:
https://youtu.be/RpAJKLVno-4
"Though I do think he would have been happy in Botswana, but before he had a child/children."
Probably. But except for very brief "working" conservation trips, I think he'd still have expected to live there in luxury befitting the son of a future monarch and the grandson of a current one.
Actually Wessex was an ancient Anglo/Saxon kingdom, and it was itself surrounded by Mercia, Northumbria, and East Anglia.
Meghan is showing her age. She doesn't realize that since she was in university, search engines and plagiarism finding software has really improved!
Wessex is not a place of fiction. It was once a real county in England. Button gives a fuller account of it.
It has been said that Prince Edward will inherit The Duke of Edinburgh title and take over the Duke of Edinburgh Awards Scheme too (if he doesn’t already on behalf of his Father).
********
Lots of comments I need to catch up on!
Great find on youtube. Markle is a Monster who will lie about anything.
It reminds me that at least one DM reporter or commenter— I think she is the author of a DM article— stated that how MM described her miscarriage is exactly how she experienced hers, while leaning over the crib to pick up her child when the cramping started.
You give people credit where credit is due. I have no doubt that certain parts of people’s miscarriage stories are universal and some women silently shake their heads “yes” when they read something that happened as it happened for them.
You give credit to people where it’s due and anything less is wrong.
It’s also like how she tried to make it sound like she was lunching with Michelle Obama, and the focus on the tacos.
I have always said she disappoints me in certain ways and that she doesn’t listen. I want more in who Harry chose as his wife.
What are the odds that all of these things are happenstance? Slim to none.
It’s the same with the standing ovation.... if one person stood up and clapped, that is not a standing ovation as we know it. That is “my standing ovation of one person” etc...
Hikari, to add to your latest, I do think money is also at the root of Harry’s dealings with the crown, for I believe it is money Harry wants and feels he deserves with his place is line and as the son of the future monarch. He is not about to give up his lifestyle . . .(Though I do think he would have been happy in Botswana, but before he had a child/children).
Absolutely. Both of the HAMS are obsessed with money and status. It's what glues them together, whether or not one believes that for a time, Harry was smitten with his Duchess in Twue Wuve. Personally I think she was a one-night bar hookup that got way out of hand, but somehow or other she convinced Harry that if he hitched his wagon to hers, she and her contacts could help him eclipse William and be 'King Harry' of People's Hearts with the lifestyle to match. William and Catherine have got some very nice houses and a lot of staff to do their bidding. Catherine gets to attend the BAFTAs to great fanfare and wear the Queen's jewels at state dinners. But those perks aside, I don't believe that their lives are nothing but fun and games every day. Catherine put in tons of work and study over two-plus years for her early years initiative. She has been praised by experts in the field of child development for putting in the work to make herself an expert, too, not just a glamorous figurehead. Can we really envision either Meg or Harry doing the same? The HAMS constantly promote themselves via paid shills as being such great and caring people, and they like to be seen being charitable--turning up with their own photographers in tow to be snapped passing out backpacks or pre-packaged food parcels for half an hour. Not quite the same as the Countess of Wessex putting in several 4-6 hour shifts packing items in an unglamorous store room herself without fanfare . . .or picking up bags of garbage with her family on a beach. We've never seen the Sussex family on the beach even enjoying the sun and surf with Archie. I imagine pictures of him digging in the sand with a little shovel and pail would have sold really well in American magazines. Since Archie is a non-titled, American private citizen, there is no embargo against selling his pictures for fun and profit. He is not an HRH of Sussex, and while they were living in Tyler Perry's house, the Netflix deal had not materialized (if that's even still on.) As for William, I can totally understand that the mantle of being King is a burden, not something to be looked forward to as an excuse for endless entertainment. Hardly. Charles works so much he doesn't even eat lunch most days, his diary is crammed that full. He's got that work ethic from his mother, and William is learning it .. but it's passed Harry right on by.
Harry might have been happy without a super materialistic lifestyle . . I've never known another prince of royal birth to possess so few items of clothing in his personal wardrobe. Does Harry have just the one gray polo shirt and pair of jeans, or does he have 100 identical gray shirts? He may have been OK living in Africa, pre-Meg, but being self-supporting and not taking millions a year from Dad to pursue his hobbies with wouldn't have ever been part of the deal. The only commodity Harry's got is his royal status, and I don't think working a job like a 'regular' person was ever what he meant when he talked about 'living a normal life'. 'Normal' for him meant luxury holiday safaris with staff meeting his every need and want. Earning his own way for any other reason besides just existing as Charles's son was not part of the plan. He's got no skills, only his birthright which he has thrown away in collusion with his wife. He has Markle'd himself.
Catherine and William have become exemplary future monarchs (or monarch and consort to be). The good that they are doing is daily and can not be over shadowed by HAMS. Camilla, maybe. HAMS might over shadow Camilla.
Catherine and William shine bright. (As do their children). I think it is terrific that HAMS are in the US. Perhaps William didn’t see it at the time as perhaps he was blinded that Harry should be his #2 and help take on roles when he needed help. I think the fact that HAMS are a continent away is the best thing that could have happened for William and his family.
I also have some more thoughts on Harry and why the queen isn’t going to take his HRH away, but I want to rewatch an episode of The Royal House of Windsor before I write that out.
Americans are much more gullible about Prince-Princess than Duke-Duchess.
Re, her never giving credit to anyone. She is so desperate to be seen as her self proclaimed "whipsmart" that will never properly thank The Dalai Lama, or Maya Angelou or anyone else whom has pinched sentences from.
But the "personal experience" of the miscarriage was true for this author, and Meghan just wants to be seen as a victim...
As Girl With A Hat said... she does not realise there are plagiarism tools for the rest of us to expose her delusions!
I’m glad people brought up at Wessex did actually exist.
D1 a quick hello back to you.
Actually Wessex was an ancient Anglo/Saxon kingdom, and it was itself surrounded by Mercia, Northumbria, and East Anglia.
This is quite a fascinating topic.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Thomas_Hardy%27s_Wessex
Borrowing the name Wessex from this ancient (now defunct, so for all intents and purposes, open to becoming a fictional construct, no?) kindom, Hardy created a fictional realm encompassing the modern-day counties of Devon, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Somerset, Hampshire and Dorset. Tess of the d'Urbervilles takes place in what would be Dorset in the real world, and I notice that in the TV crime drama 'Broadchurch', taking place in a fictional seaside town in Dorset, the subsequent murder trial plays out in 'Wessex Crown Court'.
Can any England-based Nutties confirm whether 'Wessex' has any remaining real-world connections or was that invented for the show? The exteriors were definitely a real court building, but as to its name or location being close to the mark, or the interior courtroom being real and not a set, I don't know. It certainly all looked very real.
Just because Wessex hasn't existed as an administrative unit since 1066 doesn't mean it's bogus.
To those who live in places such as Winchester, where the great King Alfred(848/9 – 26 October 899) had his capital and where he's buried, or Wantage where he was born, it still is a reality.
I'd define it today: Devon (but not Cornwall) Somerset, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Berks & Oxfordshire. At different points in its history, it has extended to include Sussex & Kent, then in close association with Mercia, all of southern England that was free of Danish rule (that is, not under the Danelaw).
If you are interested in how the kingdom of England came about the account at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy is as good an introduction as any.
For you Magatha; Was hál! Cheers!
I had been wondering how long it would be before someone drew comparison between the present MM and the former MM: I mean of course Maddy McCann and Hikari draws the comparison up above. I should perhaps before continuing declare that back in 2007 I was an avid reader of the Tres Aguidos web site which was no more sympathetic to the McCann's than you are to Markle. The similarity concerns a missing child and also the fact that both Markle and the MCCanns issue legal proceedings at the drop of a hat and both once had state protection - I presume the McCanns still do.
What I observed then was that as the tale of a missing child pulled at the heart strings that some people - as one commenter observed - even if there was video footage of Gerald McCann plunging a knife into little Maddie that they would still hold the McCann's up as paragons of child care. I do not by the way believe that she was killed by McCann but at the time I would have told you that she was not alive and certainly nothing has transpired in the last seventeen years to alter my view as to that. The same appears to be the case with Markle for Nutty as she explains had a man (white knight) on her LinkedIn singing the praises of the Duchess to much applause. (Shakin muh head).
Americans are much more gullible about Prince-Princess than Duke-Duchess.
I agree, though I would substitute 'uneducated about the esoterica of the British peerage' for 'gullible'. It amounts to the same thing, but if we are gullible about the ranks of nobility, it is because it is not germane to our lives in any way shape or form since 1776 and *we* have determined it so.
I'm fresh off a rewatch of TURN: Washington's Spies, a program I can heartily recommend.
But yes--a Prince/Princess does seem that it would be the top of the pile of nobility, second only to King/Queen. The idea that someone could be born the son of a King and be a Prince from the second of his birth, and yet still be a 'lesser' peer than someone who has been made a Duke is decidedly quizzical to Americans. To be a child or grandchild of a sovereign . . I mean, how much higher does it get? Apparently becoming a Duke makes a Prince of the blood even more rarified. Who knew?
The Queen is the Duchess of Edinburgh as well, but I doubt she's had any use at all for that title since 1952. It will be a nice gift to Sophie however, since for her it constitutes an upgrade.
Just because Wessex hasn't existed as an administrative unit since 1066 doesn't mean it's bogus.
How about 'retired'? I retract any hint of 'bogus' in my earlier comment. It actually did exist, unlike say, Camelot or Brigadoon. But if it's no longer a real-world seat of power (administrative unit), it has been artistically re-envisioned for the purposes of works of fiction. Is that better? I will wholeheartedly admit that I did not realize that it had once been a real principality when I first read Tess of the d'Urbervilles and thought Thomas Hardy had made it up from folklore. Real places and people can and do pass into folklore . . King Arthur and Robin Hood have done so. There is debate over how much of their surviving legends are 'real' and how much has been embroidered over the centuries, and Wessex has joined this company to an extent. The Earl of Wessex doesn't have an estate he can go to on the weekends and be their lord and master, was the point I was making. Neither does Harry. Or William of Cambridge for that matter, but he does have other titles coming his way that do come with estates and lands.
.
Edwards` title actually represents achievement, history, creation of a united land. The Sussex titles should have been given to someone who truly deserved them. Sussex was, after all, a small Kingdom once upon a time.
I avidly watched the first Broadchurch series but the 2nd was so ridiclous I gave up after the first episode eg churchyard exhumation in daylight hours.
The cliffs in `Broadchurch' are those just east of West Bay, near Bridport. I've no idea where the court scenes were filmed. The street scenes of Broadchurch were filmed in Clevedon on the on the Bristol Channel.
Crown courts are generally known by the name of the town or city in which they are located. Film-makers are very good at temporarily `re-purposing' other buildings.
""I had a look at Dutchman Michael D. Werd on Quora and could not make much progress in locating the answer containing the intriguing suggestion that Megxit was forced on the Harkles by the RF - shades of Richard II banishing Bolingbroke, and we know how that backfired.""
Richard 2 and Bolingbroke are not a good analogy because for Bolingbroke had alot of support from the power barons and brokers whilst Richard was completely self-indulgent and preferred his court favourites to support him in every way and rewarded them above and beyond necessary to the detriment of his relationship with the power barons.
Bolingbroke in exile had little problem pulling together a rebel alliance of support externally and internally of the Kingdom and returned to usurp Richard.
Harry has no support internally or externally and can't pull a coalition of support at all. Not now and not in the future. Queen, Charles and Willuam have alot of support internally and externally and the powers support them fully.
Harry's historical equivalent is George Planatagenet, Duke of Clarence who was incorrigibly jealous and envious of his brothers' wealth and status even his younger brother, Richard 3. He was easily flattered by people who convinced him that he should be King in the place of his brother, Edward 4. He was also venal and avaricious and wanted to have the same status as his brother King Edward 4 even if he couldn't sit on the throne himself.
His family tolerated and forgave his antics for far too long even after he attempted a usurpation that resulted in his brother's being temporarily imprisoned by their enemies and both brothers exiled and had to fight their way back to re-gain the Crown.
George finally went to far and forced his family to send him to the tower under an attainder of treason.
George's final sentence meant that his children lost everything including their succession rights and their place in the line of succession.
Adding tragedy to injury, when the Tudors came into power, they arrested the children and eventually executed them.
What I observed then was that as the tale of a missing child pulled at the heart strings that some people - as one commenter observed - even if there was video footage of Gerald McCann plunging a knife into little Maddie that they would still hold the McCann's up as paragons of child care. I do not by the way believe that she was killed by McCann but at the time I would have told you that she was not alive and certainly nothing has transpired in the last seventeen years to alter my view as to that.
I suppose you may have heard that after many years of stagnation, there are new developments in the McCann inquiry, and a new prime suspect in the person of a known German pedophile who was in the area when Maddie disappeared in 2007. One of the dining party reported seeing the figure of a man carrying a pajama-clad child walking away from the resort on the night in question, but I don't know to what extent she was believed to be an authentic witness.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52935728
The McCanns were roundly condemned as negligent parents for prioritizing partying with their friends over keeping a better eye on their children. There were other parents in the group as well, and their self-reported schedule of taking turns checking on the children was obviously ineffective. Clouding natural sympathy for parents in crisis was the McCanns' elusiveness with authorities, Kate McCann's 'cold' personal demeanor & a number of details that didn't match the official narrative. Like, cadaver dogs alerting to a positive for the presence of recently deceased human remains in the McCanns' vehicle.
It was the saga of JonBenet Ramsey all over again, but without a body. Were the McCanns/have they slid out of justice for killing their daughter because they were wealthy and could manipulate the system with lawyers?
This is what Meg would be laying herself open to if she tries any shenanigans with 'disappearing' her child who exists as an official person in the line of British succession even though very few people have ever actually seen him him in the flesh. You can't just suddenly not have a child after promoting yourself to the world as such a great and devoted mother, no matter how much Meg might wish to unencumber herself of 'Archie'. If he was an entirely constructed gambit to get herself more status and financial reward, 'he' hasn't worked out that way. She's probably wishing for a do-over . . .if that's what this mysterious 'delay' in the trial is about, Meg has got to know that if her 'royal firstborn' didn't garner her the benefits she was expecting, nobody is going to give two tosses about a non-royal second child, even presuming she could produce him/her out of her own body this time.
Whether MM could predict what might happen is another matter.
Will she now try to latch onto charities dealing with parental bereavement?
Wessex = old english word that is short for 'Kingdom of West Saxon'
The Earldom of Wessex was originally created in 1016 by Cnut the great (better remembered via the myth of him trying to order back the tides of the sea because he thought he had superpowers) and eventually merged with the Crown in 1066 after it's holder, Harold Godwinson (who was briefly King of England and last Anglo-saxon king), was defeated by William the Conqueror.
The Victorian writer Walter Scott set his novels in a mythical Kingdom that had all the hallmarks of Wessex. His settings are the novel equivalent of purple prose and were so popular that there was a revival of the bizarre stylised mythology of the Wessex period in which Camelot and Robin Hood became romantic tales. Even the clothing had a makeover to a manner that is still ridiculous and completely inaccurate.
Speaking of Walter Scott, he also revived the scottish Kilt as traditional dress for the Scots after it had been banned for over 70yrs since the battle at Colleden in 1746. He took a hagiographical approach to the revival whereby he took what had been considered the traditional dress of highlanders exclusively and created a pageat and fancy dress out of it as master of ceremonies for the visit of the English King George 4 to Scotland in 1822. He made up tartans and sent a booklet around to all the Scottish and English nobles, important personages with an edit to wear the recommendations from his booklet.
He organised scottish song and dance - old as well as commissioned. And encouraged the King to be painted in tartan to show solidarity with his Scottish subjects.
His PR drive restored the banned Scottish culture though one has to argue to what extent he revived old traditions when he mixed in newly made up ones for the King's amusement.
Ditto Lord of Mann - held by Monarch over The Isle of Mann, always held in it's male form regardless of monarch's gender and always singly.
Good points, Hikari.
Whether MM could predict what might happen is another matter.
Will she now try to latch onto charities dealing with parental bereavement?
Nope!!
Meghan is a one and done type of gal. As faras she's concerned, her essay is as much as she'll do on the issue of miscarriages or maternal bereavement.
She's never imprinted on any charity, cause beyond the one and done effort she makes whether that is in the form of a speech, a PSA, a photo op.
This has been her pattern since Suits.
Sticking with a subject is beyond her.
Meghan is a one and done type of gal . . .
She's never imprinted on any charity, cause beyond the one and done effort she makes whether that is in the form of a speech, a PSA, a photo op.
I see what you mean! She has probably never imprinted on her son either.
Or for that matter, on her husband.
If Archie is her "one and done," the miscarriage story may also be a shifty way to explain why he will never have other siblings. No one would be so tactless as to ask a woman who suffered a miscarriage if she's going to hazard another pregnancy.
There are many places in England which exist and of which people freely speak but which you will not find on any map. The following come to my mind: The Home Counties, Fitzrovia, the East End. there must be many more.
I guess you have to live here to know where these places are.
Home Counties = Counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey, and Sussex.
Fitzrovia = area of central London north of Oxford Street in an area sometimes referred to as Noho ie north of Soho. It's main street is called Charlotte street.
East End = area of London immediately east of the city of London stopping at the boundary of an area named Bow. It covers Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Bethnal green, Victoria Park, Bow, Docklands ( or Isle of dogs as it was called), Poplar, Limehouse, canary Wharf and Wapping. It's on the north side of the river Thames which forms it's southern boundary.
Will she now try to latch onto charities dealing with parental bereavement?
Nope!!
Meghan is a one and done type of gal. As faras she's concerned, her essay is as much as she'll do on the issue of miscarriages or maternal bereavement.
Embre said:
She has probably never imprinted on her son either.
Or for that matter, on her husband.
If Archie is her "one and done," the miscarriage story may also be a shifty way to explain why he will never have other siblings. No one would be so tactless as to ask a woman who suffered a miscarriage if she's going to hazard another pregnancy.
There are two positives here springing out of Meg's Narco ADD, if these projections are right:
1. Parental bereavement charities won't have put up with her unwanted 'patronage'.
2. No (other) children will have her inflicted upon them as a mother.
The choice she made to set this personal tragedy in July, presuming that it didn't happen as she depicted, maybe is setting up a 'Meghan Overjoyed with Baby News after Tragic Miscarriage!' narrative. Whether she can get pregnant with an intensive round of IVF and that's successful, or whether second (third) pregnancy would be fictional, setting the sad event nearly 5 months ago gives her the time frame to be able to claim a successful attempt now that would run into the original proposed date of her trial.
If Archie was from a surrogate, maybe she went that route to guarantee that a child could be produced within a year of her marriage, according to her accelerated plan for taking over the BRF. To endure possibly several rounds of fertility treatments herself would take too long and have no guaranteed result. She needed a cash cow as quickly as possible.
Now, with L.A. and the show business industry still largely shut down and the offers not pouring in for her anyway, what has she got but time on her hands to plot and plan . . and endure IVF out of the public eye? Maybe, in the absence of professional demand, this is her 'hook' for a Netflix documentary . .Meghan's Baby Story? Though she'd have to really go though with it this time. Anyone else care to conjecture?
With regards his novel settings, i meant the culture and style and re-imaginings. It didn't matter that his novels were not set in the real Geographical Wessex, he used it as inspiration for his novels which in turn has led to a misunderstanding of what the real Wessex looked like and or the idea that it is a mythical place.
Re: Shakespearean history. I used to love him until i became a historian. Prior to that I'm not sure why i assumed his history plays were true or based in truth, but once i went down the rabbit hole i couldn't avoid the fact that there is very little truth therein and were written primarily as revisionist PR to satisfy his Tudor masters who had a very tenous claim to the throne they usurped.
His history plays are well written, but not at all truthful. Richard III is particularly ergregious and is believed by a surprising number of people. As an example, when i bring up George Plantagenet to anyone, i get blank looks, but if i say George Plantagenet who was drowned in a barrel of wine in the tower (a shakespearean invention) everyone knows who i'm talking about!!
"She's never imprinted on any charity, cause beyond the one and done effort she makes whether that is in the form of a speech, a PSA, a photo op.
This has been her pattern since Suits.
Sticking with a subject is beyond her."
Maybe. I am not sure if it's beyond her or just her preference.
I think she learned early on with the dumb soap ad that being "first" or perceived as "early" or having a "novel approach" on a topic gets attention. Sticking with it just means scut work. Although she does try to suggest consistency in her "work." For example, going back for photo ops at the Grenfell kitchen, saying she and Harry had visited the school several times before where they planted flowers for Diana (fat chance of that with the pandemic--amazing they managed to be allowed one visit.)
It would be so interesting to study Shakespeare's histories alongside the biopics of our own age! What storytelling techniques do the Bard and modern filmmakers have in common? Has there been a movie as successful in planting historical "facts" in mass "memory" as Richard III was? Are there producers or studio executives who, in their bankrolling of certain projects, merely protected their own interests as the Tudors did?
Harry's historical equivalent is George Planatagenet, Duke of Clarence who was incorrigibly jealous and envious of his brothers' wealth and status even his younger brother, Richard 3. He was easily flattered by people who convinced him that he should be King in the place of his brother, Edward 4. He was also venal and avaricious and wanted to have the same status as his brother King Edward 4 even if he couldn't sit on the throne himself.
His family tolerated and forgave his antics for far too long even after he attempted a usurpation that resulted in his brother's being temporarily imprisoned by their enemies and both brothers exiled and had to fight their way back to re-gain the Crown.
George finally went to far and forced his family to send him to the tower under an attainder of treason.
George's final sentence meant that his children lost everything including their succession rights and their place in the line of succession.
I was slightly familiar with the saga of the Duke of Clarence, but reading that as you have set it down here gave me chills. Really so very similar! Certainly gives credence to the view espoused by many that 'bad seeds' are passed down the family tree through genetics and are born, not made. Even when Diana was alive, and a doting mum, Harry seems to have been a brat. Indulged youngests often are . . but would Harry have been substantially different (for the better) had his mother lived? Or the same? I have always taken the view that we can't help certain genetic traits about ourselves (Charles's ears; Harry's ginger) that we may dislike but what we become in life is not set in stone due to genetics but is within our control to some extent. Harry was not 'doomed/destined' to become what he is, but he is the result of a series of thousands of small choices made, by himself and others that essentially gave him a pass for developing himself into a better person.
Adding tragedy to injury, when the Tudors came into power, they arrested the children and eventually executed them.
We can at least rest easy that Uncle William will not do this to Archie or any other children Meg may produce. (please god no)
I've likened Will Shakespeare to an Elizabethan Stephen Spielberg in his knack for cranking out entertainment for the masses, but maybe he was a bit more like an Elizabethan Peter Morgan--cherry-picking those bits of Crown history which would make the biggest bang (and the biggest buck). If we go into a Shakespeare 'history' or a Morgan 'history', we won't be led astray too far if we remember than they are both *stories* with a patina of history, and not meant to be 100% 'real'. I haven't seen the last two seasons of the Crown yet; I have very much enjoyed the first two seasons, which I own and have watched multiple times. I knew of course that these events had been dramatised for television. Each episode features so many private conversations between the royals and the assorted courtiers and ministers of government . . naturally PM had to imagine what was said. The framework of historical events is real, and the early years of Elizabeth's reign were for me virgin ground. I don't recall this outpouring of controversy over those two series, but now that we are moving closer to the present day, things are getting hot (especially for Charles).
As for Richard III, Josephine Tey makes a very interesting case for him in A Daughter of Time. I daresay, she won me over, a bit. But she was a playwright, just like Shakespeare, and a weaver of novels. So she's no more an unimpeachable historical resource for her subject than Shakespeare or Peter Morgan are for theirs. I enjoyed her novel very much. Directly after reading it, I also enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard III in 'The Hollow Crown: Wars of the Roses'. I suppose the true Richard was somewhere in between the two extremes of socially progressive reformer/battle hero/misunderstood good husband/father/son/brother and the malignant monster who killed his own nephews in cold blood.
This is why I'm assuming Harry is still the subject matter and star within their deals, and his perceived behavior and anger on the Zooms is Harry 'going along' with fulfilling his contracts and having to forsake his own moral and ethical judgement along the way
Harry never wanted to quit Royal life. I don't care that he liked to complain about his job. He loved the status and recognition, simple tasks it involved, seeing his family apart of it, all the perks etc. Harry is dumb, but part of his appeal as the fun prince before were the talking points of 'this isn't a walk in the park'. Unfortunately, those rose colored glasses he had are now gone.
What do we think Harry thought of Meghan paying to put their private miscarriage story up for public consumption? There IS such a thing as TMI. Did this cross the line for him?
He's desperate too, so maybe he has already caved to the unknown world of Hollywood PR and Spin.
"What storytelling techniques do the Bard and modern filmmakers have in common? Has there been a movie as successful in planting historical "facts" in mass "memory" as Richard III was? Are there producers or studio executives who, in their bankrolling of certain projects, merely protected their own interests as the Tudors did?"
Shakespeare is comparable to a good screenwriter, who wrote extremely good plays that have stood the test of time.
I think the movie Braveheart srarring Mel Gibson made a very good attempt at planting "facts in mass memory" as you put it and is often directly blamed for the uptick interest in Scottish independence because it was used as a stick to recruit.
The tv show "Outlander" was supposed to debut worldwide much earlier than it did in 2014. However, David Cameron made a personal call to the network who moved it's UK premiere to a later date than the Scottish Independence referendum in case that first season had the same effect on the Scots as Braveheart did a 2 decades earlier.
Hollywood tends to reproduce anything that makes money. They don't often try anything new, but if it is something proven eg Shakespeare or the Tudor cottage industry, they invest.
In terms of protecting their interests against priveiling views, they do that all the time.
`Braveheart'?
"Accusations of Anglophobia
Sections of the English media accused the film of harboring Anglophobia. The Economist called it "xenophobic", and John Sutherland writing in The Guardian stated that: "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia"
"In The Times, Colin McArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. It's a xenophobic film." Ian Burrell of The Independent has noted, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart
`U571'?
"The plot attracted substantial criticism. British sailors from HMS Bulldog captured the first naval Enigma machine from U-110 in the North Atlantic in May 1941, months before the United States entered the war and three years before the US Navy captured U-505 and its Enigma machine.] The anger over these inaccuracies reached the British Parliament, where the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agreed that the film was an "affront" to British sailors."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)
`The Crown'
Wikipedia reference nos. omitted
Re. our earlier conversation about Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford, you asked "Why would an Earl want to write plays?"
Why would anyone ever want to do anything out of their 'ordained sphere'? An Earl surely wouldn't want or need to write plays for the money. (Though de Vere seemed to have had heavy debts). Nobody gets into the theater to get rich, though a select few, like Andrew Lloyd Webber, have made buckets of money at it.
If a high-born gentleman discovered a love for writing and a real knack for it, and not for dry parliamentary pamphlets but for story-telling, what sort of outlet could have have had that was culturally approved in those times? Basically none. Writing novels or plays was not a respectable occupation for even the middle classes, never mind the nobility. But if one has a creative fire within one which will not be extinguished, one finds a way. IF such a partnership was undertaken, the aristocratic half was not doing it for money or recognition; but a 'safe' outlet for creative self-expression of his muse.
This theory is admittedly a bit far-fetched. The central question would be not, why would an Earl want to write plays, but . . supposing an earl had written some plays and wanted to see them produced for his own private gratification . . how would he procure a lowborn theatrical for a business partner without anyone knowing about it? It was permissible and a great pastime for nobles to attend the theatre and to be received backstage by the actors--highborn groupies, among whom the Queen was numbered the first. So de Vere could plausibly have met Shakespeare at the Globe. But proposing a sensitive business arrangement of this type . . ? Less than likely. But not completely impossible. And maybe in their own time, this arrangement would have been, if not common knowledge, not top secret either. I am not suggesting that de Vere wrote *all of it*, if it fact he wrote *any* of it, that is . . It's pretty amazing that the same singular mind would be responsible for 'As You Like It', Twelfth Night. 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' AND 'Titus Andronicus', Hamlet, King Lear and the Henriad. Maybe Shakespeare outsourced the tragedies and the histories to someone more versed in that kind of source material? He was so stunningly prolific, one wonders how he did it all singlehandedly across so many divergent genres while at the same time running a busy theatre. Maybe he and de Vere had something like a cottage partnership in the vein of James Patterson--the marquee name who's got about a dozen different people collaborating with him. (they get their names in the small print). Other people besides de Vere have been suggested as Shakespeare collaborators--mostly other playwrights who would have been direct rivals with him. A shy and retiring nobleman who did NOT want publicity but was very happy to be the silent partner in this enterprise would have been quite ideal as a co-author. No need to worry about him trying to glory-hog or go off to set up a rival theatre. Lots of artists and theatre types had aristocratic patrons--generally by providing funds. Maybe Shakespeare had an aristocratic patron who provided scripts rather than money. Will was pretty good at making coin, but he needed fresh inspiration to keep feeding the beast of public demand for new stuff.
This makes her pap walk for the “double date” with Katherine McPhee/David Foster all the more odious. She purposefully dressed to invite pregnancy speculation then called her go-to paps to record it all. There is no way (unless she was pregnant with quints) that she would be big enough in October, after a July “miscarriage”, for her to have any kind of noticeable bump even if she was pregnant again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8821253/Prince-Harry-Meghan-celebrate-David-Foster-Katharine-McPhees-pregnancy-news-dinner.html
And I think this outing is another good indication this either never happened or she’s totally unaffected by it. Having suffered a miscarriage myself, I’m not sure I could have been out “celebrating” a friend’s pregnancy less than three months later. Congratulations? Absolutely. Celebrating? Don’t think I could have handled it personally.
She may have had a miscarriage in July, but at the time didn't see any use in revealing it. Once Chrissy made the huge impact with her story, she realized the miscarriage could be useful to her. I checked dates and July 9 is when she blasted ANL for trying to out her 5 friends and made the infamous "young mothers" comment. Her confidential reason for the trial delay probably included blaming the ANL for causing her July miscarriage and saying she is pregnant again, high risk and cannot travel. Who would argue that?
Then she got more sympathy with the NYT column and tried to polish her image. Time will tell if we are right. Either way, putting out to the world you desperately want a 2nd baby means you have to somehow acquire a baby. They have the money for IVF, or surrogacy or adoption. Perhaps a child from Harry's beloved Botswana or LA foster care? That would certainly up her humanitarian cred in many peoples' eyes.
I think every single historical movie and teleplay are going to be rife with dramatic/creative license. Real life is sadly just not as photogenic or narratively cohesive/inspiring as it can be made with artistic tweaking.
The King's Speech This Oscar winner telescopes the events of many years into a few months. Bertie had been working with Lionel Logue as his speech therapist from before his marriage, not for a few months prior to 1939 when he was already the King on the brink of war with Germany. The friendship was real, as was Bertie's progress, but just not as dramatic as the movie suggests.
The Imitation Game Another crowd-pleasing Oscar winner. Alan Turing is rightly called 'the father of the computer', and did *significant* work in breaking Enigma with his 'smart machine'. But he did not single-handedly break Enigma in a tin hut with 4 or 5 other guys. His profile at Bletchley was not quite as huge, nor he so maverick as depicted.
Lady Jane Helena Bonham Carter's second film. True: Jane was made 'The Nine Days' Queen when she was 15 years old, after being married off to Guilford Dudley, and both were executed for treason. Unfortunately for Jane, she did not fall passionately in love with her husband who'd she'd been forced into an arranged match with, but they both loathed each other and so were no comfort to each other in their final days.
His plays were not just "for the masses". I am surprised to hear you say such a thing.
Granted, some of his plays were comedies and some of his characters provided comic relief, but his references and quotes in English from classical Roman writers who wrote in Latin puzzle Shakespeare experts on how a man with his limited education could make so many allusions to the most arcane classical works. He was either a self-taught genius or someone else helped him write his plays.
Anything may be possible but the proponents of x wrote Shakespeare have to construct a convoluted set of premises for which there is neither reason nor adequate evidence; one needs Oskham's razor. As for Shakespeare he left little evidence of his existence and we have I feel to be content with that. As it happens I much prefer - as a playwright - Thomas Middleton, even though he is not as fine a poet. The thing that would intrigue me is why some people become invested in proving x was Shakespeare. Some writers use a pseudonym to hide their identity but usually someone will sooner or later spill the beans. People love a mystery especially when solved by H. Poirot or DCI Barnaby.
I believe I said they were 'for the masses' but not 'just' for the masses. I should have said they were actually commissioned by/written 'for' Queen Elizabeth I, by whose leave Shakespeare wrote and was given Royal permissions to run his theatre. As the Queen's favored playwright, he and his actors were often invited to perform at Court, and I believe the Queen often patronized the Globe.
I did actually pass a History of the Theatre course with an A; I should have reviewed my notes before posting, I guess! Are you disputing that Shakespeare produced his plays for public consumption? Or that he made it a special point to insert characters and stagecraft that would appeal to the groundlings and other paying customers? Or that he was ultimately in his profession to make money as an entertainer 'of the people'. Do you prefer 'people' to 'masses'? Of course, he remembered which side his bread was buttered on . . .most important to please the Queen and the nobles--they were the ones who paid for the top seats and underwrote other expenses, not the groundlings.
I don't see a contradiction in 'writing for the masses' and doing it to a high level. Had he not been so popular among the people but been restricted to court entertainer, we most likely wouldn't have his works surviving today. I'm sorry to shock you but I do not understand the source of your upset at that word.
You do sum up the two possibilities succcinctly.
He was a savant, or he had some help. Either way, he will remain one of the riches of the English language.
In his own time he was popular and trusted enough to be made defacto ruler of the north by his brother Edward 4 and after that Regent.
His downfall was due to several factors most of which were the result of his being too lenient to people who were constantly plotting to usurp the throne.
On that point, not enough attention is given to Margaret Beaufort, Lady Stafford who was Henry Tudor's mother. She plotted and usurped the throne for her son. Without her involvement, no battle at Bosworth. No trimphant Tudors dynasty.
The biggest lie of all is the princes in the tower.
It's true that Richard usurped them, BUT power brokers like Buckingham had produced what was considered compelling evidence that they were illegitimate due to his brother Edward 4's habit of contracting 1 day marriages in order to slut around England. This rendered his marriage to their mother bigamous making them illegitimate.
The middle ages were very strict about illegitimacy and how that related to inheritance. The boys' succession claim was voided. The next set of claimants should have been George's son and daughter, but their succession rights had been voided by George's attainder for treason. That left Richard as the only LEGITIMATE claimant to the throne, and so he took it.
The boys' illegitimate status was widely circulated via pamphlets and official documents throughout the land and abroad.
Due to the aforementioned rule about illegitimacy, Richard had no fear of the boys and started proceedings to have them released from the tower. No one would rally to the banner of an illegitimate claimant.
Unfortunately, the person entrusted with their security, Buckingham, absconded to start his own rebellion in Kent. Encouraged by Margaret Beaufort.
The boys disappeared from the tower. However, in Richard's lifetime and for several years during Henry Tudor's reign the boys were dessignated missing, but not dead. General consensus was that they had been smuggled abroad, possibly to their aunt in Burgundy.
The idea that they were abroad was so firmly believed by the public that several years into Henry Tudor rule when a couple of imposters turned up pretending to be the boys, they were believed by the public who rallied to their banner to war against Henry Tudor. His reign wasn't exactly popular, the public especially in the north were still salty over the usurpation of Richard.
After one of the imposters got very close to pulling off his con, Henry Tudor officially declared the boys dead. It was at this time that he also executed George's long imprisoned son to get rid of that potential threat. The daughter grew up in the tower, but was later executed by Henry 8.
When Henry Tudor won at Bosworth, he had the country and official record of that illegitimate status of Elizabeth Wyldville's kids expunged. That made it possible for him to marry a legitimate York claimant to the crown in the form of her daughter Elizabeth of York. Unfortunately for him, foreign ambassadors had sent copies to their foreign masters which is how this record was eventually unearthed.
Postscript Re Margaret Beaufort: She had her personal history rewritten to sanitise her shenanigans including destroying all regular paintings of herself and having herself painted as a pious nun. And she made sure Elizabeth Wyldville spent rest of her days in a nunnery without visitors.
The reason Katherine of Aragon was kept in England after Arthur died is a mastery of Tudor propaganda. The official reason taught in school is that Henry Tudor was holding her hostage for the marriage dowry that her father was yet to pay.
The truth is that she was a LEGITIMATE Lancastrian descendent of the same King, John of Gaunt, whose mistress had given birth to the illegitimate line that eventually produced the Tudors.
Katherine's marriage to Henry Tudor's sons would unite the LEGITIMATE branches of York and Lancaster.
You are quite right about Turing (who did not commit suicide). He needed Flowers to build his Collosus and there were others. Turing was however a gifted runner and only injury kept him put of the 1948 Olympics.
You might as an American have mentioned that Chariots of Fire played somewhat fast and loose with the facts of the Paris Olympics: Liddell had known for months about the 100 metres being run on a Sunday; Lord Burliegh did not give up his place having won the Hurdles - that victory took place for him in the 1924 Olympics. I always feel a little sorry Charlie Paddick, the Usain Bolt of his day. It is a very strange film being both very anti-British - if you pay attention - and yet pro-British (we beat the Americans being the subtext).
As an example i love Elizabeth movie made in 1998. The history doesn't stand upto close examination, but thematically it is on point.
“I clutched her tightly and cried into her. As I tenderly held my firstborn in my arms, I was saying goodbye to my third.” excerpt from Chasing Light:Finding Hope Through the Loss by Stefanie Tong. Sound familiar? https://t.co/XuTyTKQDLW
Did anyone already read this? Wonder if it’s real?
“I clutched her tightly and cried into her. As I tenderly held my firstborn in my arms, I was saying goodbye to my third.” excerpt from Chasing Light:Finding Hope Through the Loss by Stefanie Tong. Sound familiar? https://t.co/XuTyTKQDLW
WHAT?!?!
Come on!?!
Why does no one call out her plagiarism?
If you like older films, I suppose you know about Talking Pictures TV on channel 81 on Freeview. Lots of older films. The 50s, 60s and 70s one are very good. We love watching films set in the London of the times, far fewer cars etc. No PC, no wokeness.