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
Megs is so smart that she has fooled us all into believing that she never plagiarizes anything ever... (sarc).
Seriously though, I don't think Megs has ever been able to come up with an original idea or thought all on her own. She's never been held accountable on anything so apparently that's what works for her.
Hikari, et al, I think Shakespeare rented his name to Sir Francis Bacon, Mary Sidney Herbert and the University Wits and Edward DeVere because it wasn't safe for them to use their own names on plays. Check out what Ben Jonson wrote about William of Stratford "Non Sans Mustard!" Hilarious!
This makes her pap walk for the “double date” with Katherine McPhee/David Foster all the more odious.
-------------
I think that's because mm hadn't thought of the idea of a miscarriage for attention yet.
The Chrissy Tiegen thing happened after that, right? And mm thinks to herself, great idea! Imma try that!
Chiquitiqua @8.25pm posted the same.
If questioned about it, MM will say she read the novel (?) so must have 'unconsciously' (cough, cough) used the same words as it was the same context. She'll spew some BS to wriggle out of it and will try to deflect from it. But you're right, she should be brought to book over it. She gets away with too much.
Exclusive: The Duke of Sussex took part in a discussion to launch WaterBear, a streaming service dedicated to documentaries about environmental issues, conservation and the climate crisis.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/prince-harry-climate-change-nature-tv-streaming-waterbear-b1763845.html
I love the movie Elizabeth, and I believe that Cate Blanchett was robbed of Oscar that went to Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love. I think Gwyneth gave a charming performance in what was basically a light comedy, But if you look at the rest of the field that year, Gwyneth was the lightweight. I really don’t think it’s a huge secret that Harvey Weinstein more or less bought that Oscar for his ingenue. What may or may not have transpired between them to nab Gwyneth that role in the Oscar bait picture of 1998 remains between the two of them. It was a huge year for Joseph Fiennes, who was in both movies.
Opus,
Turing didn’t commit suicide by eating an apple dipped in cyanide? What did happen?
With the recent sad passing of Ian Holm and Ben Cross, I rewatched Chariots of Fire a couple of months ago. When it came out, I was in the ninth grade, and I remember Vangelis’s title theme being all over the radio. I try to watch the movie at the time but I found it very dull. I like it now, with maturity and seven seasons of Downton Abbey under my belt. I watched Brideshead revisited on PBS around the same time, and I loved that instantly, but that was more or less down to Anthony Andrews. Chariots of fire was a more acquired taste. In my 20s I served as a church missionary teacher in Asia, and that experience made me feel closer to Eric, and the flying Scotsman‘s moral struggle. Thanks to YouTube, I can and have obsessively Watched the opening title sequence, and I have decided that among our actors, the ones with the best form are Nicholas Farrell as young Montague, the first in frame, and Ben Cross, With brooding brunette intensity and ergonomic compact movements. Ian Charleson has very flappy hands, But it’s my understanding that he studied Eric Liddell’s signature form and copied it. My second favorite part is when Lord Lynley goes over the hurdles in the garden while trying not to spill the champagne.
That's it. Harry is so old news. Living in the multiroom mansion with a huge water hungry garden, still envious of the great work his brother is doing and the great esteem Wills is getting from all walks of society.
Poor miserable Hazza. He reminds me of a Russian communist. They were very good at talking but crap at everything else.
Am I the only one finally tired of Harry's laud words? He can't get used to the idea he no longer matters.
Hey Harry if you read this blog - I have a hybrid electric car and installed solar panels in my house. I compost my food scraps and use it in the garden. I recycle like crazy. I support the woodland trust in UK. I plant wildlife friendly plants in my garden. Little things you know. Do you want to talk about what you actually DO for the environment?
You're most definitely not the only one tired of Harry's banal blatherings!
Now that he's focused again on 'environmental issues'... will he stop using private jets and travelling around in gas-guzzlers? Nah, of course not. Bloody hypocrite!
He reminds me of a Russian communist. They were very good at talking but crap at everything else.
Doesn't he just. A large part of my family grew up under (first) Lenin and then Stalin, so I'd be the last person to disagree with your comment.
https://ibb.co/CH9wkx5
“I clutched her tightly and cried into her. As I tenderly held my firstborn in my arms, I was saying goodbye to my third.”
"We have to take Meghan's motives for writing this newspaper article at face value. But here's the thing I don't understand.
Given that we have been repeatedly told that Meghan and Harry's personal and private lives are off limits, given that she has repeatedly said she wants privacy and won't engage with the press, I'm wondering why she has now bared her heart and soul to the world via a newspaper about one of the most traumatic experiences of her life.
Go back to when Archie was born - so determined was the couple to keep their family life private that they initially refused to introduce him to us, tell us his name or even reveal details of his baptism.
We still don't know the names of his Godparents and we didn't properly see Archie's face until the couple were on their South Africa tour - when he was four months old.
Explaining why Meghan kept those details secret she said: "The same people who had been abusing me wanted me to serve my child up on a platter."
Yet here she is now, serving up her devastating miscarriage experience on a platter for the world to dissect and discuss.
So obsessive were Meghan and Harry about not bringing up Archie in a world where they "perceived" he, and they, were being hounded by the British Press they moved him across an ocean to America which involved Harry not just giving up his country but his royal status and his family along with everything he'd ever known.
But now Meghan is revealing to a newspaper in THE most graphic, personal and emotional detail about the moments leading up to and after her baby's death: "Sitting in a hospital bed watching my husband's heart break as he tried to hold the shattered pieces of mine."
Surely this sits strangely with her repeated pleas for privacy?
Full article: https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1365729/meghan-markle-miscarriage-second-baby-prince-harry
This is the whole problem with the Sussex couple as a 'brand.'
They don't want to do what it takes.
They want to trick, deceive, cause chaos, upset, disappoint, and distract.
That only gets them so far, as we can see.
If Meghan the feminist (sarcasm) is using yet another child-story to advance herself, she is yet again cancelling out any chance of success. Being a giant contradiction leads nowhere. Plus, how is she going to actually work for all the money they need whilst she is pregnant and has a newborn (again) unless it's a surrogate (hence the miscarry set-up).
She's using a second kid for what she hopes is more money from papa Charles. They aren't making the money they need and the second kid was always her backup plan. We're going to see that come to fruitation soon. Plus if the year review is true, she's trying to avoid the consequences via the 'poor suffering young mother pregnancy' narrative and the big bad family that will no longer support the couple who requested themselves financial independence.
Complete shit show and more mud being thrown at the wall.
Meghan and Harry won't ever be pop culture phenomenons they want to be. I doubt they get recognized in Montecito. He maybe, she definitely not.
He replied with, "Incandescent with rage."
Hmmm, I wonder what's rattled his cage!?
Then let me tell you how glad I am you are not living in the communist country. My family is like yours, a good dose of Lenin and Stalin cured us from any illusions about communism forever.
As for Harry - he is beyond salvation now.
The idiot thinks we are in great need of another streaming service which will tell us how deeply in sht humankind is. This is not just stupid, this is bordering on insane.
I just do not understand what value he is adding to Netflix to justify a multi-million contract.
Please be assured that both our families have/had the same views.
Unless someone has lived in a communist country they can't even begin to understand.
I was lucky to be born in the UK... but the knowledge of what my family suffered under Stalin was enough to make me detest communism with a passion.
I really must turn in now. Goodnight. :)
I swear the Sussexes sit round swigging beer and wine when they come up with these ideas! Neither has an ounce of creativity and have cut themselves off from all advisors that could point them in the right direction.
By the way, certainly in my country, it is common practice for those kids who can afford it to take a gap year and spend it doing volunteer work for some environmental project. There are a number of well established organizations that link volunteers with projects and organize all the travel and other arrangements. I am hard pressed to think of a kid I know who has not done this. Older folk can also go on these 'working holidays', if they can afford it. Many environmental projects depend on these volunteers to keep going.
So this idea of Travalyst improving greenhouse gas emissions by limiting tourism would have to apply to the very rich, like Meghan and Harry's friends who lend them their private jets, in order for it to have any impact.
Remember she supposedly took a private jet from Montecito to L.A. to do that school supply hand out a few months ago?
Am I the only one finally tired of Harry's laud words? He can't get used to the idea he no longer matters.
Hey Harry if you read this blog - I have a hybrid electric car and installed solar panels in my house. I compost my food scraps and use it in the garden. I recycle like crazy. I support the woodland trust in UK. I plant wildlife friendly plants in my garden. Little things you know. Do you want to talk about what you actually DO for the environment?
As I was making the Thanksgiving dinner, boiling the potatoes for mashed potatoes, then boiling the potato peelings for the chickens to eat, I was thinking about how everything at our house is recycled. There are no vegetable wastes; they are devoured by the poultry. There are no meat wastes, they are devoured by the dogs. Bones are made into broth, then the demineralized bones are fed to the dogs who eat them eagerly. Eggshells and coffee grounds go into compost bins or raised bed planters, along with leaves, grass clippings, fallen branches (for the raised bed planters), chicken and duck manure, some additional limestone because our soil is heavy and acidic, and it is mixed regularly by chickens in the bin or left to rot in place in the raised planters with a layer of topsoil over the top.
I, too, have native plants for the birds and butterflies (I have to fight with Swampman over that for the native plants are not always decorative with neat growing patterns where every hybrid plant has the same shape and height. Nope, they vary widely in growth habits and even colors of flowers. They are covered with butterflies and bees and small birds.)
I *really* get angry when people that have multiple staff members to keep up their decorative gardens and to clean their mansions and wash their vehicles try to tell ME how to live a sustainable life. They can all kiss my ample butt. When they tell us how they are going to cut off our electrical and fuel supplies, they are *really* telling us that they are planning to kill a lot of people.
I liked how in Europe that a lot of areas use the railroad right of ways for pea patch gardens. Wise use of land for people to grow their own.
So yes. We the people, us self reliant folks are always doing what ever it takes to keep nature close so when the lazy well off people as you described so eloquently threaten us the people, it burns my butt too.
https://www.tatler.com/article/meghan-markle-november-2020-cover
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-5969#post-65530604
https://www.waterbear.com/?utm_campaign=website-traffic-search&utm_medium=paid-search&utm_source=google&gclid=Cj0KCQiAzZL-BRDnARIsAPCJs72LcZYKyY-Bsu4tDPTnZ9iMg-L7hsQhB0-TYlEdquhkGNGqf6GwD38aAqCXEALw_wcB
So, Harry brokered a deal between WaterBear and Netflix?
Why?
If anyone can explain to me how and why Harry is involved please do.
WaterBear is not a Harry initiative, nor is it a Netflix initiative.
Why would people pay for a Netflix subscription to access WaterBear content when they can do so for free?
Why?
He's as for sale as a meth addict at a truckstop (and probably as cheap)?
One bit of “The Crown” which I believe unreservedly is true is when Queen Mary tells her granddaughter, the new queen, that “The hardest thing to do is to do nothing.” Elizabeth has taken her grandmother’s dictum to heart through her long reign. Truly, the Markle Era must be testing her resolve sorely. Meg’s paid shills are trying to whip up a frenzy of malcontent about the lack of an official response to Mugsy’s tragic essay. Even though some of the same paid shills just told us how supportive and in constant communication the whole Royal family has been during Meg’s ordeal.
The schizophrenic smear campaign is never going to stop as long as she has got the money for PR.
Peter Morgan initially said the Crown would end after the next season, 5. He recently updated that and said this series has been approved for a sixth season. The current season four covers 1979 - 1990. If there are two more seasons to go instead of only one, Morgan is going to have to slow things way down to avoid crashing headlong into the present day. The show was supposed to stop before Harry and William hit adulthood. Due to the terms of Brexit, there seems to be some impact on the film industry, and I wrote a statement to the effect that British passport holders will be prohibited from portraying the princes onscreen. I’m not sure why it would affect those roles specifically, Since all the other parts are occupied by British actors. lol
There were at least two Hallmark movies devoted to Hen and Pegs’ whirlwind courtship and wedding. If the Crown production were looking for a Harry and Meg, They could always start there. I think it would be a bad idea to come so close to the current year. I always figured the show would end with the death of Diana, which was a definitive shift for the Queen’s relationship with her public.
Does anyone else find it supremely ironic that the most inarticulate member of the Royal family proposes to make a living as a social justice lecturer? When Harry was Royal, Nobody expected him to give speeches. Nobody really wanted him to give speeches, not, I hasten to add that anybody wants them now either. But the BRF had had decades of experience in working within Harry’s limitations. He got to be a popular royal by passing out sports trophies and playing sports with African children and disabled veterans. A smile, some cheeky joshing around with royal reporters And looking sharp in the uniforms which were pressed and laid out for him by other people… That is what the public expected from harry. Not wordy pontificating lectures about how the hoi polloi Need to do as he says and not as he does in relation to sustaining the ozone layer and being kind. Watching him is like watching a trained seal recite Neitsche. Never has anyone been less in his natural element then Harry is right now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8988283/EU-British-boys-BANNED-playing-young-Prince-William.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/prince-harry-climate-change-nature-tv-streaming-waterbear-b1763845.html
WaterBear was launched this year, but Harry is not mentioned on the site at all. This is a blurb from their site:
Watch award-winning films and documentaries anytime, anywhere.
Enjoy feature-length documentaries, engaging short films and inspirational media, all carefully selected by WaterBear. The content is diverse, covering topics from climate action and biodiversity to community and circularity plus much more.
Enjoy our growing selection of WaterBear Original content and Impact Productions, which includes both premium film titles as well as the content we produce for organisations changing the world.
Every week we add new content for you, and much of it is interactive: allowing you to learn more and engage more deeply with the WaterBear universe and our partners - dive in and start watching now!
Connect
Connect with over 80 organisations on a mission to save our planet.
Explore different content from these organisations - from impact films to stunning photography - and discover more about their work in the field.
Never before has this collection of leading organisations teamed up to create a coalition of this kind.
Take Action
Take action to support organisations on the ground. Donate, volunteer, sign petitions, share and engage with issues that matter to you.
Discover our partners, their projects and take action directly through the platform for those causes that you care about most.
Let's use storytelling to drive action and engage with our world in a positive way.
Thank you, you are correct. The project is “Spencer” now in pre-production in Germany. I got the two programs mixed up in my mind.
The movie will cover three days of Diana’s life, and Kristin Stewart of all people is going to play Diana. Based on this alone, it sounds like it’s going to be epically bad. I can’t imagine the thought processes of the casting director who looked at Kristen Stewart and said “now *there* is the perfect Diana!” Not a clue. The idea is so very novel I will have to watch it just to see if it’s the potential disaster I think it is.
I have only seen clips of Emma Corrin as Diana in The Crown. It seems for the last year the entire Internet has been being Gaslit by the production company... Emma is a natural brunette who achieves Diana‘s iconic hairstyle through wigs which are very realistic looking. I think a great many of us could also share a fleeting resemblance to Diana from a distance with her hairstyle and wardrobe copied to perfection. Emma does appear to have nailed the Princess’s voice, A crucial quality, but in the face she looks nothing like Diana at all, and is it physically tiny person with a very petite bone structure. So perhaps I shouldn’t dismiss Kristen Stewart so harshly before I’ve even seen any of her performance because she has yet to do it. She says she’s working Very intensely with a vocal coach to get the voice down. KStew us American, has a voice in the alto register and has little discernible charisma to me. She’s moped and slouched and mumbled her way to quizzical stardom. She doesn’t actually act so much as mumble lines on camera. She might surprise me as Diana, which would be something to see.
I’ve said it before, but I think lawsuits are going to end Meghan and Harry financially. They are too flippant and chaotic to sustain anything except supposedly partly babysitting a toddler right now, and even that is in question. Harry’s never not had to negotiate the world without the buffer of the BRF institution and all the leeway they could give him due to entitlement as a Prince. The US is ruthless. I just can’t see them being successful at all. It would have to be a complete accident or gold liquid luck to pull any of this off. It’s comical thinking about the ignorance and arrogance Meghan had dragging Harry over to the USA.
This whole marriage is such a bad match. It’s surprising Harry has done what he has. I think he knows it’s a bad fit. I think it’s pride holding him back. He gave everything up and that’s all he feels like he has left. He cares too much what people think. It was such an error in judgement to walk away from the RF at his age with all his new responsibilities.
Talking Pictures TV? It's one of my favourites! I'm glad you enjoy it too.
For reasons unknown lots of American tumblr accounts as well as Sussex squad members were riveted by that description of their anger.
Either Omid or Meghan told the court that Finding Freedom pulled many details therein from DM articles.
If Omid is using that quote in response to a twitter account asking him for Sussex Squad specific secret nod, then he is invoking Charles and William raging at something the Sussexes have done. Or Megxit.
A little something that may be a little off-topic but I believe it has some relevance to H & M.
As do many Nutties, I have been puzzling as to why JH keeps quiet about MM's awful lies and fakery. Late last night, as I was trawling through several blogs, I decided to give my eyes a rest and relax with a coffee and a couple of shortbread fingers. As I sat back and relaxed, I was able to concentrate on what was being broadcast on my radio.
It was playing a comedy programme and someone was warbling what seemed like a spoof C & W song using a definite southern US twang.
I listened for a few seconds and then started coughing and choking as I heard the immortal words, "I'm just a rabbit in the headlights of your love", "love" pronounced "lurve". So that's how she does it!
My resulting laughter was only tempered by the thought that it will take me ages to clean all the shortbread crumbs out of my keyboard - but I wouldn't have missed that song for anything.
Carole Malone's article helps me articulate the real issue with the Harkles' demands. It is not that they get to make the rules for themselves, but that they change the rules -- and seemingly at whim. We all thought we knew what they meant by "privacy" -- but then this exhibitionistic op-ed came out and redefined the boundaries again.
Ironically, if the Harkles had simply "served their child up on a platter" in royal tradition, they wouldn't be having these issues. Everyone knows what privacy means where the Cambridge children are concerned: We leave them alone and wait for their parents to release photos of them to mark special occasions. We would have gladly observed the same boundaries with a Sussex child. But the rules for a Montecito toddler are still up in the air.
I, too, found the line "incandescent with rage" particularly memorable -- and very credible as a description of a furious Prince William. So I guess Scobie can, on occasion, write fairly well!
The author of the Finding Light book is from Vancover, B.C.
This is a reaction/line I’ve seen in the media many times over in the recent decades. A line and reaction first associated with Charles and now William.
@tatty & @migg:...."incandescent with rage" is the quote used to leak Charles and William's reaction to Megxit announcement back in January. Reported across all media and used in a headline on DM during Megxit.
Although I was familiar with the headline, I couldn't understand, (when first spotting his tweet) in what context Scoobie Doo was using it. I now realise it's obviously an 'in joke' between him and the Sussex Squad.
Then @Tatty mentioned Finding Freebies. As C & W were the ones 'supposedly' incandescent with rage due to Megxit, I presumed there was mention of it lurking between the covers of the book.
'Tis all clear now. :)
This is a reaction/line I’ve seen in the media many times over in the recent decades.
The media love those 3 words. They use them repeatedly with various people, not only Royalty.
OT - Did you by any chance watch the Channel 4 documentary last night?
Hazza's new video chat.
https://twitter.com/nehpazojArchieH/status/1333711317870448640
https://twitter.com/nehpazojArchieH/status/1333723132746735616
If you view that first link I sent, there are more clips of the interview if you scroll.
The media love those 3 words. They use them repeatedly with various people, not only Royalty.
So it didn't originate with Scobie? I'll have to take my compliment back then!
For some reason, while it's easy for me to picture Prince William "incandescent with rage," it's a little more difficult for me to imagine Prince Charles in that state. He's just let the Harkles get away with too much for it to be credible to me that anything they did caused him to rage.
No, it's not a Scobie original. As if? lol
I've read that Charles has a foul temper too. He likes to chuck things about. I think it runs in the family... ;-)
They cynically used Tutu for this Archie drama. The baby was never really displayed in the UK with some nice modest baby photos for the British public. Then ultimately removed Arch from British soil.
She has been using her baby as a weapon, so of course she will use lies about a miscarriage. She will use her upcoming pregnancy as a weapon. Harry's role is to be the Royal sperm donor and keep his stupid, ill educated mouth shut.
I doubt the BRF is hung up on Archie or excited in any way. They view this troublesome trio as damaged goods who are very antagonistic.
'What if every single one of us was a raindrop?': Prince Harry gets VERY airy fairy as he says we can beat climate change by 'relieving the parched ground' in video for launch of nature documentary streaming service.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9004717/Prince-Harry-gets-airy-fairy-says-beat-climate-change-raindrops.html
For instance, I don't think Meghan chose the maternity coat because it would have fit her surrogate at the time. She put it on purely to upstage a bride and didn't care if a baby would be born "in the spring" to make the coat halfway plausible. (Well, yes, her swanning around Australia days later, as flat-bellied as you please, completely killed the illusion of the coat anyway. I just mean that she doesn't let pesky details like timelines and reality get in the way of instant gratification.)
I find her motivations for writing the op-ed similarly short-sighted. She wanted to claim July, the month of Princess Beatrice's wedding, for herself; she wanted to delay her court date; and she wanted to score woke points with her preferred political party right before Thanksgiving. I did speculate that she wanted to claim credit for every time someone asks "Are you OK?" -- but I didn't also foresee a mental health campaign or even a merch line to go with it. She just wants to get the most possible credit for doing the least possible work. And she can't seem to foresee any consequences (or just assumes that others will clean up her messes). So I'm not sold on her having a bigger vision that she is teasing with this op-ed.
I agree with @Acquitaine's analysis that Meghan is a "one and done" gal and that she was done with motherhood when she "had" Archie. If she does spin the op-ed into something else, it will be because a new way to capitalize it just occurred to her. It will not have been planned.
Megs refused to "served their child up on a platter" because she had been getting bad reactions from the British public for months.
Ironically, had she toed the traditional line on it, she would have received some good reactions for a change!
Had she truly been pregnant -- and had the baby been a girl -- she wouldn't have been able to resist. She would have stuffed an apple in the infant's mouth and paraded around with a sterling silver platter that Meghan's Mirror would merch for her.
Incandescent with rage is overused in the media, I’m surprised Scobie would utter it.
I first heard it about Charles when he knew of Edward’s production company filming William’s first few days at Uni as part of a documentary he said he was making about the royal family. It was said that Prince Charles was incandescent with rage over it. After Diana’s death it was agreed both boys would be left alone by the press whilst in full time education and Edward was exploiting his family connection and breaking the press agreement too.
All the zooming to make a quick buck. No social media so we get drawn out stupid videos. Now the desperation to be ‘public speakers’ makes sense. Meghan must have been so upset Harry wasn’t promoting hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods and services with every speech he gave for the BRF.
'What if every single one of us was a raindrop?': Prince Harry gets VERY airy fairy as he says we can beat climate change by 'relieving the parched ground' in video for launch of nature documentary streaming service.
Good grief! That headline is killing me! I guess Meghan is writing his speeches now? But is she deliberately trying to make him look ridiculous . . . or does she genuinely think it's a good speech?
Bruce Lee could get away with saying, "Be water as, my friend," but I don't think Prince Harry pulls this metaphor off half as successfully.
"Putting the dos behind the says" is even more clumsy. And I'm being generous.
"I *really* get angry when people that have multiple staff members to keep up their decorative gardens and to clean their mansions and wash their vehicles try to tell ME how to live a sustainable life. They can all kiss my ample butt".👍👏
Very well said. Your caught the mood of the masses.
They could have taken $3,000,000 (which I understand was their yearly monetary allowance from Charles), moved to the midwest, purchased a single-family home with three bedrooms and two baths, and withdrawn, say, $100,000 per year for living expenses and faded quietly into the obscurity/privacy that they *said* that they want for themselves and their "child". They could have done *real* volunteer work without drama because there is a huge need for bodies to fill the sandbags for floods, hammer the nails in rehab projects for veterans, seniors, and the poor, tend to community gardens, teach people the skills needed to grow their own gardens and cook the produce that they grow, feed the people displaced by floods, etc. They could write books about making a difference in their community. They could actually work on making a difference in small communities by Harry demonstrating how the traditional crafts and farming techniques on his dad's Duchy are profitable and sustainable. Of course, I have my doubts that he/she ever paid any attention to Charles' interests in sustainability or the reasons behind it.
It is a (for me) cold morning; therefore the first coffee of the morning is a hybrid coffee/hot chocolate with marshmallows on top. Youngest grandchild and SwampMan are peacefully slumbering. I *should* be out with the livestock. I can have the TV to myself, the only time of the day that I can, so the latest Virology Today podcast is on. Hope all is well in your worlds. I really do need to get out of my fluffy warm jaguar print pajamas (how's that for a sight picture?), into my blue jeans and work shirt, and get on with the day.
There is no evidence that Turing committed suicide even though the apple he eat contained cyanide. Short answer: he was always careless with chemicals, had a lab in his house eat an apple each evening before bed. Absent Minded Prof is the most probable explanation as there was no evidence that he was downbeat at the time of his death - quite the opposite in fact. I realise of course that the myth suits the Homo-sexualists but his very mild indeed kindly punishment for breaking the law had been long over.
Chariots of Fire - can't stand that theme tune - has recently been done on the London stage using a cyclorama for the running. There is another film without Abrahamson but about Liddell's life as a missionary. Great man, whose 100 yard British record stood for thirty five years until beaten in 1959!
Stephanie Tong Chasing Light, Finding Hope Through the Loss of Miscarriage
"I tenderly held my firstborn in my arms as I was saying goodbye to my third."
Where have we heard that before?
Girl versus a boy for merching - One of my friends adopted a baby girl from China so I sent a bunch of baby clothes which were all ranges of age but not tiny since they grow really fast. I just remember looking at all the really really cute baby girl stuff, cute but gender neutral (think dinosaurs or other animals) and not focused on being cute like girls baby boy stuff.
I think that it it had been a girl, it all would have come to a head much sooner.
“For me it’s about putting the dos behind the says, and that is something that WaterBear is going to be doing: capitalising on a community of doers. There’s a lot of people that say, but this is about action."
He uses a form of the word "do" three times in one sentence! Every English teacher in the States would send that back for a rewrite (not to mention it is word salad). After observing his penchant for using "do", I remembered their explanation of Archewell:
"To do something of meaning, to do something that matters."
Are they trying to create a slogan "Do Something", like Nike's "Just Do It"? There is no other reason for using "do" that often when so many other words are available. So "Do Something" and "Are you OK?" are the slogans their PR has created for their brand?
Meghan Markle was seen leaving a medical complex with Harry in Beverly Hills in July 2020. The complex was said to have a fertility clinic and she was photographed holding a package resembling “trigger shots”. Now she claims miscarriage was this past July?
I had no idea what 'trigger shots' were so looked them up and found this...
The trigger shot contains pregnancy hormone. It can remain in your system for up to 10 days. It's important to know this so that if you're taking a pregnancy test too soon, you may have a false positive pregnancy test because of the trigger shot still in your system.
I have no idea if there's any truth to this tweet but what if Meghan did have these shots and then tested positive for pregnancy, followed by a convenient period (miscarriage) some time later? I suspect many men, Harry included, would believe she really had miscarried.
Pure speculation on my part but definitely food for thought.
Hitching my train of thought to yours, I further speculate that she could have gone to the fertility clinic to mollify Prince Harry, who probably wanted another child. (Or you know, a real child?) But she never had any intention of going through with a pregnancy. And she probably only went through with the visit because there was a merching opportunity for her in it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201128111553/https:/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/business/media/hollywood-coronavirus-streaming.html
"But the moment of crisis in which Hollywood now finds itself is different. In the 110-year history of the American film industry, never has so much upheaval arrived so fast and on so many fronts, leaving many writers, directors, studio executives, agents and other movie workers disoriented and demoralized — wandering in “complete darkness,” as one longtime female producer told me. These are melodramatic people by nature, but talk to enough of them and you will get the strong sense that their fear is real this time."
http://wordalivepress.ca/contact_quick
It'd be pretty amazing if enough people complained to force the New York Times to print an apology. Stephanie Tong could also decide to sue for copyright infringement, which, ironically enough is what Meg used to sue the Mail on Sunday. More wasted money on lawyers.
I haven't read Tong's book; only the excerpted allegedly copied bit. I'm not sure she'd have enough basis for a copyright lawsuit with just one sentence quoted, even if that sentence was nearly verbatim with the pronouns changed. Markle's piece is being marketed as memoir--'this really happened to me' as opposed to a work of fiction (which probably the majority of people believe that it really is.) But the intent, undertaken in good faith by the NYT ('good faith' being some backroom PR arrangement with Sunshine Sachs?') I'm not sure M could be successfully prosecuted for stealing another writer's ideas and language if she is supposedly relating a 'personal experience'. It could be argued that since miscarriage is so common, it's not surprising that two mothers who suffered the same loss might have very similar ways of expressing it.
I'd love to see Markle absolutely discredited as a liar and a plagiarist but I doubt this will do it alone. Stephanie Tong might be encouraged by her publisher to write a rebuttal of Meg's apparent copying of her work, but she would run the risk of being accused of attacking another grieving mother out of jealousy ('Cause Meg is so famous.) It might be worth it if it would goad the NYT into publishing an apology for the controversy Markle's piece has caused, which would undermine all the glowing media support she's received.
Real readers, her supposed audience can smell the load of shite she's shoveling from miles away, but as long as the huge liberal-controlled media conglomerates and the writers and commentators they employ swallow Meg's agenda, either through mutual sympathy with it or because she's paying them off, she's never going to quit. The BRF has gone Grey Rock on her 100% The sound of 'No comment' from London is deafening. This makes Mugsy 'incandescent with rage' and she's going to keep baiting and poking at them. She would probably have to issue a death threat to the Queen in print for BP to do anything about the Sussexes.
If only the worldwide media would go Grey Rock on them. "Meg & Harry? Who are they, again?" Unfortunately that ain't never gonna happen. Controversy sells and at this point controversy is all the Numfarkles have to offer.
Mugsy may have provided the Mail on Sunday bloodhounds with another scent trail to sniff out. They are already going over Finding Freebies with a fine-tooth comb. Now comes this gooey piece in an identical voice and style to FF, only this one's got 'The Duchess's' byline on it. I don't know to what degree forenisc prose analysis would be admissible in court, even if such an analysis could 'prove' to a near certainty that the same author is behind both pieces. More importantly, the charge of plagiarism is pretty damning. Meg's letter to Dad will be re-scrutinized for other snippets that could be unattributed copying. The MOS lawyers could successfully argue that if Meg shows provable evidence of not being totally original in other published works, but 'borrowing' ideas and even exact language from other authors, how can she claim that this letter to Thomas is 100% her own original creative output? Seems like they are already on their way to dismantling her original copyright claim. But this latest example of Meg plagiarizing is another brick in the wall of her pattern of cheating and lying and claiming ideas that are not her own.
She's digging her own grave but others have to be willing to slam the lid on her and so far, they haven't.
When I read JH’s ridiculous Waterboy speech this morning, my first thought was that I should change my screen name to “raindrop to show that I have a sense of humor. It is so sad that HJ now sounds like MinieMe2 when he talks and that what they both say is over-the-top word salad.
[One answer: “...on barren land, because..........“]
Children’s musical video, 2011 to 2017 version by the Kaboomers, the GiggleBellies,
the Zoogies, others: “If All the Raindrops” / “If All the Little Raindrops”
.....Ladies, gents, at some point, we may need to have a virtual Plagiarism Party?
You know, for all these fools foam on about educating the peasantry, it seems to me that they need to first close their million dollar mouths. And then, spend part of that PR money acquiring adequate degrees in environmental science, education, human development, zoology, and gender studies too. Get some tutoring in critical thinking skills. Next, write two well researched books, accepted by academia.
THEN return in 15 years, and tell us what you may know, you boring cosseted lazy mugs, lolling about in your energy-sucking mansion.
In England, the surrogate mother has six months after the child’s birth to change her mind and keep the child as. So, no adoption can take place earlier than 6 months. In the US, adoption can happen immediately and the law favors the adoptive parents. That is one reason the Marquis of Bath and his wife came to the US for a surrogate for their 2nd child (She almost died during her 1st pregnancy.). These laws apply whether a surrogate’s egg is being used OR the adoptive mother’s egg is being used.
Also, I have read that a child must be “born of the body” to inherit titles, peerages, etc. There are recent English law review article online. The House of Lords (the peers votes and I assume that is where they did that) recently rejected changing the “of the body rule.” So that means that even if the fertilized egg is from the peer and his wife, in law it is not “of the body” if a surrogate is used. Since accurate DNA testing is so easily available, it’s hard for me to understand why peers do not want to update the law.
This from the man who chooses to live in a mansion with extensive grounds, travels by private jet, an entourage of Escalates, and if all that isn't enough, joins a helicopter club.
Helicopter club is just so eco friendly.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibKnJoaGdNM
So as a raindrop Harry chose to fall in exclusive Californian enclave in a multimillion dollar mansion. Clever raindrop he is. Excellent way to water a parched ground of California.
Does this man use his brain at all before he opens his mouth?
WaterBear is not Harry's project. He probably heard about it through one of the organizations in Africa with which he has a history and perhaps with which he still has contact. (WaterBear is linked to 80 NGOs.)
That he did a podcast to bring attention to the platform is a good thing. It saves the 20 people who are involved the huge expense of marketing and PR.
However, the podcast is all about him and his garbled ideas. That the media are publishing such confusing information about WaterBear is probably an indication that he is harming instead of helping what is a great idea and a great platform. It is a free streaming service featuring documentaries, short films and interactive content. Plus it gives the viewer information on how to donate, volunteer or do advocacy work for these dozens of NGOs across the globe. (One thing that is not clear to me is if the NGOs have been checked ... how much of the donations is actually used for work on the ground, are there annual reports about finances and work that are available for the public ...).
It is so sad that a man who had a good reputation and was very well liked, under the guidance of a good team, and with the platform of the BRF, achieved a lot in a short time and was heading in the right direction. Then along came Meghan and he is flailing around in stupidity and wasting all the privilege he had.
LOL!
Yours truly
SandieRaindrop (but I really want to be a snowdrop on some days and a destructive little hailstone on others)
I know if MM has lifted just a sentence from someone's book it's probably not substantial enough for a breach of copyright. There's a fine line between straightforward copying and plagiarism. If MM got a warning from the publishers, that would be good but it'd probably be like water off a duck's back. Perhaps if Stefanie Tong sent her a sharp rebuke this would be effective but short of a court case, which would be poetic justice, not much will have an effect.
"I clutched her tightly and cried into her. As I tenderly held my firstborn in my arms I was saying goodbye to my third"
I thought about writing something like this:
"I am sorry to bother you but I wonder if your author Stephanie Tong, the writer of Chasing Light copyrighted in 2016, is aware that a passage from her book could have possibly been used by Meghan Markle the Duchess of Sussex in her recent article in the NYT about her miscarriage? Her words describing her experience are astonishingly similar to Ms. Tong's. If Ms. Markle used Ms. Tong's book for inspiration shouldn't she have mentioned her and her book in the article? I was wondering if you were aware of this. Please excuse me if you don't find this to be an issue, I just couldn't shake off the impression that Ms. Markle used Ms. Tong's words, slightly changing them, without a reference to Mrs. Tong's book"
I am afraid to send this to the publisher for fear of appearing a busybody and presumptuous.
What do you think? Perhaps my draft should be changed somehow? Any suggestions from the Nuttiers?
Meghan’s been trying to push the pregnant princess narrative for a while now.
Maybe being/becoming pregnant was apart of the Netflix deal. Seriously, she’s angry about not being able to merch archificial, so this makes sense. She wants to show the BRF who’s boss of her home. Too bad no one cares!
I agree @Hikari Tong probably couldn't prove plagiarism. But plagiarism can involve simply stealing and using another person's words without stealing an original idea. So I'm not sure I buy that one cannot plagiarize if what is being written about really happened to the author. (I'm not sure if that's what you are saying @Hikari, but I've seen that argument made elsewhere-- that IF M had a miscarriage she couldn't have been plagiarizing in her essay.)
Based on what I read and Meg's history, I believe absolutely that when she decided that a 'miscarriage' would be a great low-investment way to get some attention--that Narc tank is running on empty, and still stinging from the Remembrance Sunday cosplay debacle--she went straight to Google to search 'Miscarriage Books/Memoirs'. Tong's book might have been the first one to pop up. She may have read the entire thing or just skimmed it for salient passages. I believe absolutely that she copied; the evidence is right there on the page. I'm wondering if there would be legal grounds to *prove* it though, and was trying to think like a lawyer (which I am not, so I could be off base.) There seems like there might be a loophole for Meg here. The onus would be on the original author I suppose, to prove that her experience was *so* unique that it could not be experienced or shared by another person in a similar way. Just like Meg has crafted a teflon anti-criticism card--"You don't have any right to question me about this deeply painful experience!'--how could another person say with certainty that Meg didn't collapse just as she described and had nearly identical thoughts about her loss as another woman who endured the same thing? In contrast to a work of fiction, which is constructed with forethought entirely out of the imagination, Meg's lawyer could argue that it is a sad coincidence that the Duchess's experience and feelings echoed so closely that of another victim of miscarriage but if that is the way it happened for her, it was not *intentional*. Two car crash victims might express themselves identically about their reaction to two separate crashes and might even have identical injuries . .but were they copying each other on purpose? Do you see what I mean?
Even if it can be proven that Meg did copy from this book and even embellished details, the fact remains that nobody, apart from a doctor willing to go on the record (illegal) could state with absolute certainty that Meg's experience didn't go down just as described. And that's what she was banking on when she, I believe, concocted this tale out of whole cloth, looking at other pregnancy loss narratives for 'research'. My opinion, but I don't believe a word of it.
https://ibb.co/WxP5tsS The page from the book
Looks like Meghan is pissed that the ‘medical trip’ in July she called the paps for didn’t catch on. I think, at the time, they speculated it was a dentist.
------------------
That's my thought, too. It was really a dentist appointment that she was trying to imply was a pregnancy related appointment.
Except nobody bit. Much like the pap car chase she tried to put out there. No one bit on that one either.
That’s just the problem, he doesn’t have a clue. Tone deaf and stupid.
Sounding as if he was in the baleen, or bowels of a whale, or a screaming across the sky, I heard “Just call me Ishmael,!” Why, oh why, wasn’t I my sister-in-law Kate, who wore scarlet dresses, and is not beautiful, but men and DM seldom notice this, and are always caught by her charm, including William, who I know really loves me.
“Surely I will call you that” I said biting my lips, wondering about getting a new housekeeper, like Mrs. Danvers. Or three of her.
“Just don’t call me Shirley!” Came the voice from oh, a far, far better place, or was he not in his Iron Cage?
“I will call Pa. More land and money is what matters. Terra. Terra firma. But remember, what your father told us-“
“The fault is not in our stars, but us, we are the underlings? Never criticize a person who has not had my advantages? That sooner or later, our burning the candles on both ends will go kaboom? Either tomorrow, or tomorrow or tomorrow, creeping, like a walking shadow, which by the way, on your diets and dungeons, I -“
“To thine own self be true, Just H, Ishmael, whatever. I was full of sound and fury. No money, no way to pay the taxes on our terra in Santa Barbara, and I can’t go home again, because I am home. Oh, what will I do?
Write another NY Times article, of course! Tomorrow. After all, tomorrow is-“
“I don’t give a damn” yelled my abusive husband. Wait until I publish this book. What shall I call it? Gone Girl?
O/T London in Old Films:
One favourite of mine is `Hue & Cry' (1947). The storyline is the sort of thing I loved to read in my comics. Watching this film today is deeply affecting for me when I reflect on what it says about the state of London at the time.
Location filming almost immediately after the end of the war: horses still in daily use; brick- and stone-work black with the coal smoke of centuries; the acres of ruined buildings left from the bombing; kids playing in the wreckage in a way unthinkable today. It brings it all back. To say nothing of film posters based on linocuts! (by the great Edward Bawden, in this case).
"....Even if it can be proven that Meg did copy from this book and even embellished details, the fact remains that nobody, apart from a doctor willing to go on the record (illegal) could state with absolute certainty that Meg's experience didn't go down just as described...."
I sort of see what you are saying. But IF M had a miscarriage, nobody but Archie could say what happened that day in his room during the cradling cheerful lullaby! A doctor would be no help. I do wonder though why she went to such pains to say she fed the dogs, picked up crayons, made breakfast...all before checking on her child (except that Tong describes ordinary stuff first too.) But maybe Meghan still gets up at 4am? And Archie really was still asleep?
I'm not a lawyer either. I'm just not sure that the "common experience" argument would be a good defense here. I think the defense would be more one of quantity and lack of an exact match. I just don't see that saying it could have happened that way is a plagiarism defense in a non-fiction work. But if it is, then one could make the argument M's personal feelings and experiences about "gender equality" in 2015 just happened to be the same as E. Roosevelt's feelings and experiences about peace in 1951.
I'm with you though in that I think she did look up pithy, poignant miscarriage quotes before writing her piece.
Thornfield Hall (which we played with once before), Atlanta and Manderley all went up in smoke ...
"One of my favorite quotes, and one that my husband and I have referred to often, is from Kate Sheppard, a leader in the suffragist movement in New Zealand, who said, 'Do not think your single vote does not matter much. The rain that refreshes the parched ground is made up of single drops,'" Meghan continued. "That is why I vote."
They keep having this discussion and pushing it aside. If you go to the parliamentary website and look up debates on this issue, you'll find several debates going back a decade or more.
The truth seems to be that they do not want to change the law despite the fact that it only applies to the hereditary aristocracy and not rest of population.
They tend to agree that the rule should be changed, then do nothing about it until next time someone rouses them to another debate which ends the same way. On and on and on.
They are trying to make headway on female inheritance at least. That took kore than a decade too, but movement for the motion has gained support from several prominent house of commons MPs which might actually get a result.
It's maddening that The Queen changed the law for inheritance of the Crown, and didn't use that golden opportunity to push through a change to the inheritande laws to benefit females.
What is the point of Charlotte being Princess of Wales in her own right if she can't be Duke of Cornwall because it's a peerage title handed down ONLY to males as currently written.
I think your proposed letter to the publisher is well written and diplomatic. It probably won't lead to any kind of action against Meghan, but it will certainly get talked about. The conversation here fully explores the issue of if it is plagiarism or not. I would love a tabloid writer to include the original in an article ...
'Meghan's miscarriage echoed that of Stephanie Tong, described in her 2016 memoirs Chasing Light, but when in a pregnancy women miscarry, how and where it happens, and so on ... is different ...)
Meghan does plagiarize. She has done this since childhood. This surprises me as she proudly flaunts her university education. Even people who have not been university educated and who have created websites have gone to great lengths to educate themselves about crediting sources and to get it right.
`Is the Markle Saga an example of the Anna Karenina Principle at work? Discuss with reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle, and the question of why our protagonists seem doomed to failure.'
https://www.etonline.com/meghan-markle-suffered-a-miscarriage-this-summer-recalls-almost-unbearable-grief-156918
Therefore it wasn't a question of privacy or even opportunistic piggybacking on Chrissy Tiegan though that was a useful canary in gauging public opinion.
It was a question of adding this event into her quiver of useful private moments to be publicised for maximum advantage.
I was just reading the DM about the latest stupid speech about 'Raindrops on the Parched Earth'. Question for you Nutties- Do you think Meghan is deliberately making these speeches more and more crazy on purpose or does she really love her prose that much? I would swear she is making Harry look absolutely stupd on purpose. She seems more intelligent than him. I just don't know what to make of it.
Thank you so much for your support. I included both Markle's and Stephanie Tong's quotes into my short letter to the publisher and sent it. I added that I can be wrong, of course, but what is the chance two women speaking about the same experience, will independently use rare words like "firstborn" and "clutched" within the same short paragraph?
So if other Nuttiers want to say something to the publisher of Ms. Tong's book here is the link:
http://wordalivepress.ca/
You strike me as an intelligent person Sandie, so you can't fail to notice that the book from which Markle could have possibly copied a passage was published by a Californian publisher!
And here are the quotes side by side:
Markle: "I dropped to the floor with him in my arms, humming a lullaby....I knew, as I clutched by firstborn son, that I was losing my second"
Stephanie Tong: ""I clutched her tightly and cried into her. As I tenderly held my firstborn in my arms I was saying goodbye to my third"
Quite astonishing for a mere coincidence, don't you find?
The funny thing is he plagiarised Fergie.
From today's Raindrop speech:
"Someone said to me right at the start of the pandemic, "It's almost as though Mother Nature has sent us to our rooms for bad behaviour"
Several months ago, Fergie posyed this quote to her social media:
"Mother Nature has sent us to our rooms… Like the spoilt children we are. She gave us time and she gave us warnings. She was so patient with us. She gave us fire and floods, she tried to warn us but in the end she took back control. She has sent us to our rooms and when she is finished clearing up our mess. She will let us out to play again. How will we use this time? Xxxx."
Well done sleuthing! Appears plagiarism and word diarrhoea are contagious. It hit both Sussexes simultaneously.
Perhaps we should let the Duchess of York know her ex-husband's nephew used her words to promote himself. I am sure she will be delighted.
I sort of see what you are saying. But IF M had a miscarriage, nobody but Archie could say what happened that day in his room during the cradling cheerful lullaby! A doctor would be no help.
Even if wee Archie is verbal enough to express that Mommy was hurt, he couldn't know what she was thinking when she was cradling him on the floor singing Wheels on the Bus. A doctor couldn't read her mind, either. I was thinking of the medical professional opinion being useful in establishing that this medical event actually *occurred* irrespective of what the alleged patient allegedly thought at the alleged moment she allegedly collapsed on the floor. She is claiming a hospital admission, so there would be records if she were actually admitted, and a gynae can tell, though sophisticated diagnostic techniques, so I understand, if a woman has given birth and how many pregnancies she has had. Possibly how many terminations as well as deliveries. A second trimester miscarriage is pretty serious and a woman would require medical attention. There would certainly be physical evidence easily detectible by a doctor. Yet the victim of this traumatic event of the painful and no doubt bloody loss of a sibling for Archie spent the month of July getting plastic surgery and swanning around the L.A. area in white pants, as far as we can determine just by looking at her activities.
Of course no reputable physician or other medical personnel would risk their reputations and livelihoods by breaching medical privacy laws. Meg is careful to name no hospital nor doctor, nor even a precise date in July when this is said to have occurred. Nothing can be checked, and we are obliged to take her word for it. Officially.
When she staged that papp walk at the clinic--I have blown up that picture as far as I can get it and it looks all the world to me like the handle of a toothbrush is visible--was she thinking that she'd somehow turn this into an op-ed piece for the NYT? Was 'miscarriage' always the end goal, or did she propose to tease us with another 'pregnancy'? I think it was probably another of Meg's impulsive ideas. If it were a dentist appointment, why would Harry have to be there as well? But if she could encourage speculation that he was along because it was a fertility appointment (when actually after Meg's dental cleaning they were going to In-and-Out Burger and that's why he came along) so much the better. She just kept this miscarriage tale in reserve for an opportune time to spring it. Maybe Drip-Drop said that he was not going through another 'Archie' situation again and he'd leave her. Hard to imagine him collecting his testicles at this late stage, but maybe the BRF has threatened to expose her/cut off all money if she pulls that stunt again.
I do wonder though why she went to such pains to say she fed the dogs, picked up crayons, made breakfast...all before checking on her child (except that Tong describes ordinary stuff first too.) But maybe Meghan still gets up at 4am? And Archie really was still asleep?
"Only lies have detail." --Sherlock Holmes, BBC, 'Many Happy Returns'
Any seasoned police investigator will tell you that there are a number of 'tells' which give away a liar. An overabundance of insignificant detail is one such. It is very normal for someone who is under stress in a police interrogation room, recounting their movements during a time in question will not remember miniscule details they performed automatically, such as exactly what time they put their hair up or picked something up off the floor. But innocent people will be rock solid on the major things that occurred and will not tend to vary the telling from one recounting to the next. Because they are being truthful. The prevaricator has to remember all her lies and in which order, and what she said to whom. So to counter allegations that she is being less than truthful, she lards up a simple story with extraneous details. "How can you doubt that this thing happened, when I remember exactly what I did with my hair and which color crayon I picked up off the floor?" It shows calculation, not the normal reaction of stress/shock.
Liars are very keen to get maximum use out of their carefully crafted tales, so they are very loquacious and helpful. Lots of talking and volunteering information that was not asked for, in an effort to be 'helpful'. Cops love to sit back and let a suspect hang themselves with their own verbiage. Meg does this repeatedly, because she thinks she so brills at weaving a mesmerizing tapestry of words that dazzle everyone with her supreme giftedness. She is transparently a fibber, but only the judge who's called her 'hyperbolic' has come close to calling her out as a liar, officially. A trend that appears poised to continue for some time.
one could make the argument M's personal feelings and experiences about "gender equality" in 2015 just happened to be the same as E. Roosevelt's feelings and experiences about peace in 1951.
Haha! But Mugsy is Eleanor Roosevelt reincarnated! Eleanor sends her these pearls of wisdom from the spirit realm! So that's not cheating! She is channelling her!
Things I would look for:
Does the writer use Oxford commas?
UK vs US spelling.
Style of abbreviations- does the author write "ok" or "OK".
Do they put the period inside quotations/brackets or outside? (like I did in the sentence above)
Does anybody have any more ideas of ways to compare?
"When she staged that papp walk at the clinic--I have blown up that picture as far as I can get it and it looks all the world to me like the handle of a toothbrush is visible--was she thinking that she'd somehow turn this into an op-ed piece for the NYT? Was 'miscarriage' always the end goal, or did she propose to tease us with another 'pregnancy'?"
I have no idea what that July 10 walk was all about. She had a satchel-type crossbody bag so I have no idea why she was carrying that item in her hand except that she probably wanted people to wonder what it was.
Why was Harry with her if it was a cosmetic dentistry appt? Seems his teeth need a cleaning at least. I'm not talking about the US obsession with blindingly bright chiclet teeth-- but his teeth look stained as though regular cleanings have been skipped-- & longer than people had to skip because of COVID.
Why was she wearing a loose dress with folds from shipping still in it? I guess it was a pregnancy tease? Even with the loose dress though it sure didn't look like an advanced pregnancy compared to how her her last one ballooned! She went from a flat stomach in Sussex on Oct 3 to second-trimester size during parts of the Oz tour the same month.
Putting on my horsehair wig: the question is not one of whether two experiences were similar but whether the words used to describe the said incident were stolen. That would be a matter where the expert evidence of a writer would be heard in evidence. If I copy out the whole of Anna Karenina and clsim it as my own - do you know Borges story Pierre Menard author of Don Quixiote - it is surely an open and shut case. Much more difficult with just a sentence or two using similar words. That the wording is so similar suggests to me however that she made up her miscarriage event and to make it believable went looking for a recollection of a real miscarriage. The plagiarism thus tells us what we had wondered about confirming our suspicions.
I'll have to go over the Zooms again which I really don't want too but I recall giggling. There were no long cancellations of activities in their zoom diaries.
All signs and evidence contradict her article. Her article doesn't even stay on point and veers off into politics and Covid. This was a non event, and probably not even real.
I imagine Meghan is jealous of Dr. fauci here in the US. He gets so much attention!!! Lol! She just wanted to 'own' Covid.
Insufferable.
Love the raindrop! 😆
Re writing to World Alive Press, the link I included earlier (7.09pm) is very simple, just give a few details and write a comment, submit and voilà. It might be quicker and easier. If they receive quite a few comments they might react.
Re. "Meghan's Unbearable Grief"
Everyone grieves major losses in different ways, and just because someone presents as happy, busy and coping doesn't mean they are not hurting on the inside. But if Meg's grief at a pregnancy loss was that incredibly unbearable, and yet she carried on with no hint of her trauma in her demeanor or choice of wardrobe . . well, kudos. Such a fantastic, stoic actress should have had a much larger acting career if she was really that good at faking a state of mind she did not feel.
I'm sure Meg's grief at how her life is not working out according to plan in the land of milk and honey-avocado toast is indeed unbearable. But mostly I can't help seeing the similarity in the phrase 'almost unbearable' to the 'almost unsurvivable' trolling which she received online in 2019. How long did finding out that she was the most vilified celebrity predate the 'miscarriage'? Is her next gambit to be that the almost unsurvivable Internet trolling caused her to lose her baby? That would earn her double victim points!
I don't know about anyone else, but I have stared at the word 'miscarriage' so long, it has ceased to make any sense.
I've avoided Finding Freebies like a case of Covid . . . Since the 'consultants' Scooby Doo-Doo and Carolyn Durand are British, is the publisher also British? I wonder to what degree a British publisher would correct any spelling or punctuation to standard British English form regardless of how the manuscript was submitted? If Meg didn't have any 'official' involvement in the book then British spelling and written conventions should appear. If the publisher is American, I would expect American English to be employed.
Meg never mastered British spelling and punctuation and so gave herself away as the primary author of the Sussex Royal Instagram, until late in the game when a staffer was at least correcting her spelling.
I think the authorship analysis software looks for recurrences of the same words/phrases repetitively, and other features like sentence length, number of parenthetical asides or clauses. It all gets quite technical. I think the layman can just get a 'feeling' for someone's mode of expressing themselves, even if it's not 'scientific'. Meg's use of 'I' and other ways of referring to herself would be a big tip-off. In Finding Freebies, she couldn't use a first person narrative, but I think there'd be plenty of other tells. It seems to be effective, with a large enough sample. It outed former Newsweek columnist Joe Klein as the author of the incendiary roman a clef about Bill Clinton, Primary Colors, which was published by 'Anonymous'.
I looked up Mr. Klein to see what he's doing now, and found this piece he wrote last year for the Washington Post. He's doing fine. The decision to publish as 'Anonymous' wasn't based in fears for his livelihood and personal safety . . .his editor at Newsweek read the manuscript and thought it was 'a lot of fun'. "But Joe," he said, "Books like this don't sell." Klein published as Anonymous basically as a lark, to see what would happen. The book became a best-seller. People were keen to learn all the 'secrets' which Anonymous, who must be some sort of mole in the Clinton camp, could not publish under his own name.
It was a savvy marketing strategy that paid off.
Meg would never dream of removing her name from any of her word salad efforts, unfortunately for us. No, she prefers to keep everything and everyone else 'anonymous'-- her doctors, the godparents for her son, her vast network of 'friends' who are always stepping forward with offers of support and free lodgings and affirmations of how wonderfully kind she is, and such a great hostess!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-anonymity-outlives-its-usefulness/2019/10/30/ab3dff7a-fb2e-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html
Apologies, I posted the link to World Alive Press at 5.34pm if you want to use it.
Thanks. I haven't seen that film but I have seen others which show a post-war London very much as you described that would be unrecognisable today. I love these old films.
I checked with Amazon. Finding Freebies was published by Dey Street books, an imprint of HarperCollins. So, American.
From their Facebook page. It should be noted that I clicked 2 or three other links that Google brought up, expecting to be taken to website/catalog and I got the message "Server Not Found." That's a bit weird.
Dey Street Books, a HarperCollins imprint, is dedicated to publishing exceptional books in entertainment, music, fashion, design, art, celebrity, pop culture and sports.
Meg is branding herself and Harry as 'Entertainment/Celebrity figures--aka Pop Culture emphemera. Simon and Shuster, or St. Martin's Press, purveyors of other Royal biographies by Ingrid Seward and Lady Colin Campbell, probably took a hard pass.
Amazon currently has Finding Freebies at:
#9 in Royalty Biographies
#19 in Social Activist Biographies
#38 in Rich & Famous Biographies
There are some 8000 reviews, 64% of them 5-star, which is mystifying in itself. The first page is entirely 1-star reviews. I particularly enjoy the one titled Score Settling Tripe
Raindrops are falling on my head
And just like the guy whose feet are too big for his bed
Nothing seems to fit
Those raindrops are falling on my head, they keep falling
So I just did me some talking to the sun
And I said I didn't like the way he got things done
Sleeping on the job
Those raindrops are falling on my head, they keep falling
But there's one thing I know
The blues they send to meet me
Won't defeat me, it won't be long
Till happiness steps up to greet me
Raindrops keep falling on my head
But that doesn't mean my eyes will soon be turning red
Crying's not for me
'Cause I'm never gonna stop the rain by complaining
Because I'm free
Nothing's worrying me
It won't be long till happiness steps up to greet me
Raindrops keep falling on my head
But that doesn't mean my eyes will soon be turning red
Crying's not for me
'Cause I'm never gonna stop the rain by complaining
Because I'm free
Nothing's worrying me
Apologies, I somehow missed your post with a link to the publisher. I didn't mean to duplicate, sorry.
You are right, getting in touch with them was quick and easy. They will probably react if several of us write to them.
I certainly tried my best to point out I find similarities in text, er... unusual, to be polite.
The more people point at the obvious similarities the more likely is the reaction.
And the raindrop thing...ffs. SAS needs to grab him for deprogramming although it might be too late. Bond, James Bond, to the white courtesy phone, please?
Had she truly been pregnant -- and had the baby been a girl -- she wouldn't have been able to resist. She would have stuffed an apple in the infant's mouth and paraded around with a sterling silver platter that Meghan's Mirror would merch for her.
Thanks so much for this visual. It provided me many minutes of amusement!
Harry and Meghans great book of catch phrases: Stealing from others because our brain cells are dead. Why won’t anyone ask if we are OK?!
Lol. They are deranged.
Thanks for your additional info about peers and inheritance. So, as the law stands now, if MM used a surrogate (“gestational carrier” is preferred, as I understand it), to carry a fertilized egg that was MM and Harry’s, it would not make a difference to the law. Archie would not have been “of the body.” So perhaps this is why Archie doesn’t have a title?
No problem :) It's a bit late now and I want to compare Megalo's writing with Stefanie Tong's so I'll do it tomorrow. The more people do it, the better - although I don't think it will be enough. Meg's really takes people for idiots.
This is OT, but had my surgery. Just want to really thank fellow Nutties for their support-it really made a big difference. Had problems with the MD and thus a rough experience. You guys helped me get through it.
@ConstantGardener33: Good to hear you made it through your surgery. I hope your recovery is smooth and swift.
I got an error message when I tried to send a heads-up to the publisher at that link. I tried a couple of times Did you get through? Do you suppose they got so many emails ghey shut it off for a while?
Did anyone else try?
As a graphic designer who was copied a few times, I really feel for artists/writers whose intellectual property gets stolen. And especially since our MM has done this a few times, she needs to be shut down.
I just wanted to say I don't think Chrissy's was fake at all. I think Meghan is full of horse shit but I do believe Chrissy & John's was genuine even if she milked it for the likes. I even respect Chrissy for defending Meghan even though we all know Meghan is a twat-waffle.
Take curtain call and a bow while we all applaud your clever stoey!
--------------
I think that's where she's headed with the lawsuit. It caused her so much distress (even though she filed it) that she now must sue for aggravated damages.
If she's claiming in court that the distress caused a miscarriage, wouldn't she have to prove it? Maybe she'll just imply it.
Very possible that they shut it down for a bit. I have seen on other blogs that people are writing the publisher.
Also - did anyone mention that Harry's article plagiarizes Fergie??
‘Someone said to me right at the start of the pandemic, “It’s almost as though Mother Nature has sent us to our rooms for bad behavior”
and she wrote in March on Instagram:
"Mother Nature has sent us to our rooms… Like the spoilt children we are. She gave us time and she gave us warnings. She was so patient with us. She gave us fire and floods, she tried to warn us but in the end she took back control. She has sent us to our rooms and when she is finished clearing up our mess. She will let us out to play again. How will we use this time? Xxxx."
"I think that's where she's headed with the lawsuit. It caused her so much distress (even though she filed it) that she now must sue for aggravated damages.
If she's claiming in court that the distress caused a miscarriage, wouldn't she have to prove it? Maybe she'll just imply it."
I'm not an attorney but I wouldn't think even if she could prove it which she can't (as another poster pointed out, women give birth to full-term babies under terrible conditions in captivity) the MoS can't be responsible for her reaction to her lawsuit. Neither publishing her dad's letter in early 2019 nor refusing to give her big bucks in a settlement by fall 2019 caused a miscarriage in mid-2020 if one even happened. And it would have been a "geriatric" pregnancy--miscarriage rates in older women are higher as we've previously discussed.
But, before she even thinks about this, because some people say that she reads this blog, admitting this type of evidence into court would open up all of her medical records to examination by the opposing party, so that they could be sure that it wasn't a pre-existing condition. Also, any records of any prior pregnancies and/or obstetrical treatment would be open to the opposing party.
Interesting!! Be fascinating if she does bring her reproductive health into court!
A question though. IF she was under a doctor's care for stress issues and she could somehow prove they related only to the suit (and did not relate to the fact neither she nor her husband has a real job or that both are estranged from most of their family members or COVID or that she supposedly fell out with her long-term BFF over the friend's racism) and because of that she knew the lawsuit stress was likely affecting her health and her unborn baby's survival, did she not have any responsibility to stop the suit?
I know she had the right to file the suit, but at what point would her responsibility to safeguard her fetus kick in? Never? Because as I said before, how can something the MoS did 1 1/2 yrs before be the cause of a July 2020 miscarriage? They have the right to defend themselves in court too just as she had the right to sue. Refusing to settle a case can't mean one is automatically assessed damages for intentionally causing emotional distress to the plaintiff, can it?
https://blindgossip.com/his-secret-problem/?unapproved=2527179&moderation-hash=be0b8b1c5189e5b7764023cb43f6a791#comment-2527179
He stepped down from his company a few years ago.
Dangit, there was another one here, too, that I started reading before I was interrupted (which happens a lot here). I couldn't find it again! I'm so sorry, but it also qualified for entry!
Oh, I agree. IMO it can't possibly be proven that's what caused the miscarriage if one occurred. Plus, if it did happen, it's possible there were indicators of why (not that there always are but sometimes tissue pathology does give clues or scans were suggestive of potential issues.)
But if she claimed the stress was only from the suit and somehow magically came up with a doctor who was seeing her prior to the miscarriage to back her up, it just seems to me she had the main responsibility for the survival of her fetus. If stopping the suit would have stopped the stress, why wouldn't she have done that? How could the MoS be responsible even under those conditions? The MoS didn't know she was pregnant. And outwardly as she pranced around LA, bought a mansion, and zoomed Madonna poses she didn't look stressed.
Girl with a Hat had a good suggestion that I hadn't thought of (it's late for me, and I'm not really thinking). Setting yourself on fire is a horrific way to die, whether this is who they're referring to or not. What a sad loss.
Anyway, sorry, I don't associate either of those words with Harry; their opposites, rather.
"He uses a form of the word "do" three times in one sentence! Every English teacher in the States would send that back for a rewrite."
Reminds me of that song by the Police...
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
They're meaningless and all that's true
Every English professor in America would send any of Markles written or verbal work back. Her NYT op-ed would get a 1.5 maximum.
@everybody commenting on the miscarriage
Also re stress miscarriage and trying to use it in court. Not gonna happen. This is done to sway public opinion about the case, not the judge. People are easy to emotionally sway, jurists not so much. All the suggestions above won't fly in court. She is totally responsible for the lawsuit and she must suffer (not the word I want to use but I don't know the English word for what I want to say) the consequences of her actions.
A raindrop, huh?
This from the man who chooses to live in a mansion with extensive grounds, travels by private jet, an entourage of Escalates, and if all that isn't enough, joins a helicopter club.
Helicopter club is just so eco friendly
..........
Of course the first rule of helicopter club is... one doesn't talk about helicopter club!
Sorry, couldn't resist, i am sure i am not the first!
I agree with your reservations, although I thought those statements might possibly be reflecting Harry's opinion of himself.
@Girl with a Hat
I do believe you are right. It was the emphasis on the distinction between leaving voluntarily or not that made me think of the debate re Harry's jumping ship or being pushed.
@KC
"Every English professor in America would send any of Markles written or verbal work back. Her NYT op-ed would get a 1.5 maximum."
No disagreement from this corner! I think that grade might stand with the British and Canadian professors too!
@Margery, I don't think this is Harry; two key words stick out at me: "creative" and "work."
My reaction too, I think GWaH got it right. What a tragedy for his family and friends.
"Creative?" There were rumors he wrote one or two action-adventure scripts but people who read them had said they were awful, not original.
Amazon had to finally restrict reviews on Finding Freedom to verifiable purchases. The sugars got one of their "campaigns" going to glut the reviews with a positive slant. They are ridiculous and so is Scoobie Doo.
(Also thanks for all of the great commentary)
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/amazon-meghan-markle-prince-harry-finding-freedom-reviews
@Yankee Doodle
Your Markle writing parody is freaking awesome!!
And very scary😊
@WBBM
Thank you for the movie suggestion of "Hue and Cry"! I have it bookmarked for a quiet day.
One of my favorites is an eighties gem called " Hope and Glory". The protagonist is a boy who also played in the rubble. Have you seen that one?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093209/
@Maneki
Great detective work! And thank you for the link to the publisher.
A respectful heads up surely cant go amiss.
I know I forgot another great sleuth. Forgive me, I should take notes.
What a team all the Nutties make! Thank you all for keeping this train wreck in the open. No Sussex lies here.
And Megsy gets the cover of Tatler plus multiple articles ...
https://www.tatler.com/article/meghan-markle-november-2020-cover
Gad. Hardly flattering...what is that straight short line on her nose? Artifact of surgery, maybe?
Twitter Tin Hat Theory: Meghan Hazed Pledges....
Internet rumors should be taken with a grain of salt, but this theory would explain quite a few things. Why didn’t her sorority didn’t capitalize on the Royal wedding. why are there are so few pictures of her after rush her second year. Sororities have photographers at most events. Why will so few of her sorority sisters will mention her name. Why after getting admitted to Northwestern, she took so many classes off campus: downtown Chicago, LA and study abroad. Why she appeared in general hospital in November. Why she has a communications degree and never appeared in any theater productions. Why she left her internship early, failed the Foreign Service Exam, and never tried to retake the Exam
I don't think anyone has posted this yet. It sounds as if it could be Harry.
https://blindgossip.com/his-secret-problem/?unapproved=2527179&moderation-hash=be0b8b1c5189e5b7764023cb43f6a791#comment-2527179
I think this is Johnny Depp, not Harry. I don’t recall Harry bding associated with creativity, and this says the person in question believed the “enhancers” increased his creativity.
THE INVOICES WE SHARE
Perchance the path to paying
begins with desperate measures:
“Are you OK if we sell out your mom?”
It was a dark and early morning as I swept the hair of an unknown woman into a ponytail high on my head. I was stressed that it was already 5 a.m. and I hadn’t sent any emails to my lawyers. Stressed that one of Harry’s joints was still under a table, along with a pair of his comfortable B***** socks, part if a patterned six pack gift set now on sale with the code word MEGSBRAIN78. I rushed stressed into the kitchen to slice two avocados for our firstborn and second born dogs and one for my toast, stretching into a yoga pose as I waited for the homemade gluten free nut bread to send its warm reassuring scent of food fecundity into the crisp mansion air. All was well until I reached into the red leather box I have insisted on using for all my mail since 2018. I was pulling a letter from a thick expensive diaper of an envelope when I saw it was an invoice from my London lawyers, and those miserable non-raindrops were asking for the high six figures, with some patriarchal gibberish about past due amounts and cessation of services, something they would never threaten Kate with if she decided to sue her father for being a fat old bloke who won’t die., because she buys into the system that smothers us, and her mom has money.
Right then, I felt a sharp cramp from where my hand was squeezing my avocado toast to smithereens. My thumb hurt! I knew instantly as I held my day’s first avocado that I had lost my nuisance lawsuit, Thinking fast, I slid gracefully to the floor, artfully splaying my mile long legs. I began singing the song that always cheers me up, Holla Back Girl. I kept this up until my husband came up out of the potato cellar where he was still up copying the speech I gave him. As if on a Zoom call, all I saw was white light, the glare of kitchen lighting on his white pale stale royal ginger skin.
I waved the invoice in his face and wept together, unicorns in unison, biting our knuckles and howling curses at the rising July Tuesday morning sun, our tears flowing onto the Italianate tiles. My husband tried to reach for me. “Get those clammy hands away from me,” I cried out to my future abuser (probably he will begin in December 2020), “My fat father’s misdeeds have ruined us! Do not paw me with hands that did not save any racism victims this year, until you swear you will sell your mother’s diaries to that little English scriptwriter at Netflix! My heart is broken in a thousand pieces that your stupid father did not intercept and pay this bill or the others as I told him to! Be quick, my grief overpowers me, the broken innocent young fake mother of a costly plastic dolly, who is too stressed to act or stand trial just now and probably for another year, but we have to pay my lawyers somehow! Without them, without suing others, do I even exist? Sell the diaries, husband, I need my lawyers the way I need Sunshine and you need a small daily meal! Hie thee to the computer, and tell them we will rain fat succulent Diana raindrops on our barren creative table, for an immediate $767,398. I am calling Warb Warbity Warb to let him know I am too stressed for trial or evidence until 2021. What do you mean, am I okay? Get hold of Netflix pronto, or else!”
“
Roflmao
I wrote some turgid prose in MM's flowery style (is that plagiarism? ;) ) two days ago but no one commented so I thought it was just too silly and deleted it. I didn't keep a copy but might remember it.
I'm thinking of several high-profile cases where cancers have been alleged to have been caused by contaminated products or employer negligence; it seems to be necessary to prove that the carcinogenic agent was responsible in that particular case.
If such cancers often occur without exposure to the agent, or many other people have been exposed but not succumbed, how may the causal link be established? Especially if the plaintiff is up against a large and powerful organisation?
As we've said, miscarriages are common, with or without emotional stress. Other women endure endure extreme stress without miscarrying.
Ewes can miscarry if worried by dogs but women aren't sheep.
`It wasn't a dark and stormy morning but...'
""@Acquitaine
Thanks for your additional info about peers and inheritance. So, as the law stands now, if MM used a surrogate (“gestational carrier” is preferred, as I understand it), to carry a fertilized egg that was MM and Harry’s, it would not make a difference to the law. Archie would not have been “of the body.” So perhaps this is why Archie doesn’t have a title?""
Correct.
As the law currently stands, it makes no difference that Archie is 100% Meghan and Harry if he was indeed carried by a surrogate.
A surrogate is neither married to Harry ( ....in legitimate marriage rule) nor Meghan's body (.....of the body rule). Both rules have to be upheld simultaneously.
Any child from a surrogate is illegitimate in law. And you can not inherit titles ( and in some cases wealth) if you are illegitimate. Adoption falls under the same category.
When this ruling was tested in 2016 by a couple whose second child was 100% their DNA though carried by a surrogate, parliament said no and upheld the law.
Archie without a title is a serious red flag in the direction of illegitimacy aka surrogate theory. As a legitimate child aka 'of Meghan's body' he is automatically given the titles and styles of a Duke's child. He should currently be known as Earl Dumbbarton with the style Lord.
As he does not hold the titles he is currently entitled to hold, and there was no public position on the matter by the Palace beyond confirming that he is MASTER Archie, that red flag continues to wave at everyone who knows it's significance. When Sophie and Edward used lesser titles for their children, it was made clear by the Palace that the children were HRH/Prince though parents choosing use their lesser titles. Sophie has recently affirmed their HRH/ Prince titles and said she's leaving it to them to decide when they are older if they want to revert to them.
Archie has been included in the line of succession which in my opinion is the Palace hedging their bets so that if he is legitimate then no harm in including him, but if he is not, they already told us by his lack of any titles.
It would be remiss of me to not recognize your literary output, as Spanner suggests. You most definitely get a Venti peppermint mocha latte with extra whip for your latest effort, and “Warbity Warb Warb” earns you a dozen cheese Danishes or other pastry of your choice.
Hunter gets a Special Achievement Latte for “Twat Waffle”.
The Adventures of Twat Waffle and Raindrop (“Who live in a Pineapple on an Earthquake Fault?”) could be one of their children’s programs for Netflix.
The Twelfth of Never
On the first month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
A thick bush to take a sly pee
On the second month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the third month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the fourth month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the fifth month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the sixth month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Six lawsuits pending
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the seventh month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Seven nannies leaving
Six lawsuits pending
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the eighth month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Eight calls a zooming
Seven nannies leaving
Six lawsuits pending
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the ninth month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Nine court months looming
Eight calls a zooming
Seven nannies leaving
Six lawsuits pending
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the tenth month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Ten tear drops dripping
Nine court months looming
Eight calls a zooming
Seven nannies leaving
Six lawsuits pending
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the eleventh month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Eleven months gestating
Ten tear drops dripping
Nine court months looming
Eight calls a zooming
Seven nannies leaving
Six lawsuits pending
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
On the twelfth month of Megxit
Old Megsie did decree
Twelve months of faux pregnancy
Eleven months gestating
Ten tear drops dripping
Nine court months looming
Eight calls a zooming
Seven nannies leaving
Six lawsuits pending
Five friends a bleating
Four private jets
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogates
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
I don't imagine for one moment that MM would have rejected a HRH for their sprog, however brought into being - her democratic principles don't go that far.
Her management style is `autocratic'
Prince Harry’s godmother has died suddenly. Lady Celia Vestey was a close friend of the Queen, and the wife of Elizabeth’s Master of House. She was the same age as Charles, who recently had a birthday, so this would give anyone pause who didn’t have his head up his ginger arse. Newsweek assures us that “The Duke of Sussex has reached out to all her children”. Seriously, why would he, when he hasn’t reached out to his 72-year-old father, 90+ year old grandparents Or anyone else in his family? I doubt Harry was that tight with the children of a ceremonial God parent who has the same age as his father.
The piece moves on from Harry’s ‘reaching out’ to becoming a tribute to Harry’ ‘glittering multi million dollar celebrity studded wedding”. Lady Celia rated in invitation, and no doubt she felt that being in attendance at Harry’s wedding was one of the chief accomplishments of her lifetime, along with being present for his baptism. Anything else she did in the intervening years between those two events was just piffle.
I was literally wondering just moments ago where you had got to. And here you are!
You have surpassed yourself with the 12 days of Megxit. Fantastic!
I think the Cambridge children, or at least those born after George, were not entitled to be princes and princesses, but the Queen made an official exception.
Archie would not be entitled to be an HRH prince unless the Queen made a special exception, which she did not.
Supposedly once Charles becomes king, like the Wessex children, Archie automatically becomes an HRH prince. As with the Wessexes, the Sussexes can choose not to use HRH Prince for Archie until he reaches the age of consent and he can choose for himself.
Meghan would hold a grudge, as a narc, for her child not being given special treatment, but by putting out the narrative that they chose not to give him a title, she is in control.
Archie does actually have titles he can use ... Harry's lesser titles, just as James Wessex does. Meghan and Harry do not have the power or authority to decide and dictate if Archie has a title or not, but they have successfully created the illusion that they do.
For Anne's children, the Queen would have had to make an official exception to give them titles as their father has no titles. Anne and Mark did indeed refuse titles for him and any special treatment for their children.
The story that Eugenie has refused a title for her child is nonsense. Like Anne, the Queen would have to give Jack a title or make a special exception for their children. She has not done so.
Thanks Hikari, I was rather bumfuzzled
towards the end!!
https://www.royal.uk/press-releases?text=&mrf=2918&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=01%2F05%2F2019&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=2%2F12%2F2020&id=
"The Wessex children are the Queen's grandchildren. Archie is a great-grandchild, and not in the line as a direct heir. Does that make a difference?"
Certainly whether a child is a grandchild or a great grandchild makes a difference. Often people seem to forget Louise and James are in the same "familial generation" as Will and Harry.
Probably because I'm an American, I'm not sure what people mean when they say Archie isn't "in the line as a direct heir." He is in the line of succession. It's unlikely the line will "pass across" to Harry and his lineage instead of "passing down" to George's eventual oldest child. But it could happen. And Archie is closer to the throne than James or Louise.
Maybe Archie being so far removed though (whatever one calls it, he's now #7) is why the Queen didn't make an exception for Archie as she did (before they were conceived much less born) for Charlotte and Louis. And maybe there was something weird going on that was known with M's pregnancy. But leaving that aside, I wonder though if the exception made for any Cambridge children (her great grandchildren same as Archie is) was made because TQ was aware how difficult it likely would be to raise the oldest child as a HRH while the other children in the house were not to be HRHs until she died. Her relationship with Margaret Rose probably gave her some insight into "royal sibling rivalries."
The rules around titles are governed by the letters patent 1917. They state very clearly that ONLY children and grandchildren of the SONS of the monarch can have HRH/ Prince titles. They extend this right to Eldest son of the OLDEST SON of The Prince of Wales.
So far so good for the Monarch grandchildren generation borne from Andrew, Charles and Edward.
The problems begaon to show themselves in the great-grandchildren generation because the only one with an automatic right to HRH / Prince was George. His siblings had no automatic right. They would have the titles and styles of their father's peerage title ie Duke.
The Queen amended the letters in 2013 to make ALL of the children of the OLDEST SON of The Prince of Wales automatically HRH/ Prince.
This allowed for William's children to gain this style automatically at birth.
Harry is the SECOND son of The Prince of Wales. His children do not meet the criteria to gain HRH / Prince in the Queen's reign by the rules of 1917 or 2013 amendement. They have no standing to pontificate on whether they are in a position to deny or accept Archie the HRH / Prince. It's never been on the table for them and the Palace prefers a conservative approach to any amendements.
When the Queen dies, it remains to be seen if Harry's children become HRH / Prince because that will only happen if Charles is the next King. Under King Charles, Harry's children meet the HRH / Prince criteria and have the legal right to them because they gecome the grandchildren of the reigning monarch.
If Charles never becomes King for any reason eg death, abdication or monarchy is abolished then Harry's children will never become HRH / Prince because they will never meet the required criteria.
For now, Archie should be Earl Dumbbarton and yet he is not. There is no suggestion that his title is simply mothballed like the Wessex children's other titles to be used at a later date. He has nothing. And the Palace refers to him as Master Archie when they reference him.
That is significant.
When the going gets tough, the tough devour homemade avocado toasts.
"@Ant - that was brilliant, thank you! If that doesn't get Hikari's "latte of the day' then I'll be surprised"
Seconded!
Agreed. Make that two!
The Queen has issued no letters patent to deprive him of that right once Charles becomes king.
Because Anne is a daughter, and married a man without a title, the only way her children could have had titles is if their father was given a title (Anne and Mark declined to accept a title for him) or if the Queen issued a special proclamation granting them titles in their own right.
Because Harry is male and has 4 titles, Archie has titles he can use, just not HRH Prince. (He will inherit Duke of Sussex from Harry and in the meanwhile can use Viscount Dumbarton and the other odd title Harry has.) The Queen has issued no proclamation to deprive Archie of the titles he can use. The Sussexes have just chosen to not use titles for him. When he reaches the age of consent, Archie can decide for himself.
The narrative that the Sussexes have put out is that Archie has no titles. This is not true.
As for how high one is in the line of succession ... this is irrelevant. Since the arrival of the Cambridge children, Harry is no longer in the direct line of succcession. At present, the only way Archie can become king is if the following people all die: Queen, Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry.
At the time Eugenie and Beatrice were born, they were fifth and sixth in line to the throne. Harry and Archie are sixth and seventh. However, it is not numerical order that is important but direct line. The children of the Cambridge children will precede Harry and Archie.
I can find no press release from BP referring to Archie as Master Archie.
https://www.royal.uk/press-releases?text=&mrf=2918&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=01%2F05%2F2019&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=2%2F12%2F2020&id=
Well done for another literary masterpiece! I read it with the tune of The Twelve Days of Christmas in my head. Sadly, so far the nine months of megxit haven't caused much hilarity.
Their narrative: Archie has no titles.
Truth: He does have titles he can use.
Their narrative: There is officially a one-year review period.
Truth: Nope, the Queen has never said anything about a one-year review.
Their narrative: Out of respect for the Queen, they will not use the HRH, which they are entitled to.
Truth: They have been told not to use it. (This is big because the Duke of Windsor was never asked to not use HRH and he was even more constitutionally irrelevant as he abdicated for himself and any children he might have.)
and so on ...
Comparison ...
At the time Elizabeth became queen, Margaret was third in line to the throne. After Andrew and Edward were born, she was fifth (and her children sixth and seventh until the Queen had grandchildren). Her children have titles because her husband accepted a title when they got married, but they are not HRH Prince and Princess, and they are not in direct line to the throne and so, like Harry, are constitutionally irrelevant.
@Maneki Neko, please repost yours? I didn’t see it. Just saw SwampWoman’s hilarious take, and the one by Yankee which was genius. Mine wasn’t up to literary or romance requirements, just for fun. I think they might teach Yankee’s in a comparative lit course linked to studies of The Sussex Dynasty: Constitutional Irrelevance.
Twat-waffle! (Hunter, I agree btw that Chrissy’s was real versus MM’s take.)
Up to my hat in work, but what treasures are here. Do you think that media will no be ready to analyze the future plagiarized work of MM?
`Reader. I married him...'
@SwampWoman
I wrote some turgid prose in MM's flowery style (is that plagiarism? ;) ) two days ago but no one commented so I thought it was just too silly and deleted it. I didn't keep a copy but might remember it.
@Maneki Neko: I am so sorry! I wanted to see Turgid Prose, and then I missed it! In my defense, two days ago (well, actually three) is when youngest 4-year-old grandson (aka interruption!) returned from spending Thanksgiving holiday with his maternal grandparents and cousins and uncles and aunts. He was pretty tearful because he missed his daddy* who he hadn't seen for @5 days. (He got lots of extra love and kisses and lap time.)
*Note that he didn't/doesn't miss his mommy.
The only criteria is whether that person is a child or grandchild of the Reigning Monarch via Monarch's Sons or are the great-grandchildren borne of the OLDEST son of The Prince of Wales.
This is why The Queen's 1st cousins are ALL HRH / Prince despite being born several rangs below what you consider the direct line.
The Kents' names are HRH Prince Edward,The Duke of Kent and his siblings HRH Prince Michael of Kent & HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent.
Likewise the Gloucesters' names are HRH Prince Richard, The Duke of Gloucester and his deceased brother HRH Prince William of Gloucester.
The Kents and Gloucesters are grandchildren of King George 5, borne of his sons.
The current Duke of Kent was born 7th in line to the throne, and his siblings further down.
He held this position until the Gloucesters were born as their father outranked the Kent Pere.
Birth of the Gloucesters in the 6th and 7th positions pushed the Kents down though the early death of their father upgraded them one step.
All this to say that it matters not a jot if you are direct or indirect heir nor does your ranking in the line of succession matter.
In the discussion about Anne and Margaret, the example previously set by Princess Mary is often overlooked. She married an Earl (of Harewood) and her children were styled as the children of an Earl. No right to the HRH Princess style despite their mother being a HRH Princess and a Princess Royal at that.
The line of succession only matters in so far as knowing who could potentially be the next monarch and their degree of separation from the top. Direct or indirect doesn't come into it.
Afterall, Victoria was technically 6th in line to the throne regardless of the circumstance that required her birth and the entire Hanoverian line was at position 51 in the line of succession.
I've tried to remember what I wrote. Not a patch on MM's prose, you understand ;). SwampWoman, is this what you started reading?
She tenderly cradled her firstborn, carefully pushing a wisp of pale golden red hair from his weary eyes. The infant was nearly asleep. She had read him a fairy story in French (she's fluent); the day before, her son had been treated to an Aesop's fable translated into Spanish (she's nearly fluent). She then lovingly placed the infant in her crib. Tomorrow, they would rise with the sun and she would teach her son some beginner's yoga, bathed in the golden rays of the sun. The salutation to the sun was very apt - the warrior pose, which she masterfully and ever so gracefully achieved, was too advanced for her son, although he was so advanced in many respects. Then she would move to the kitchen, where she would make an organic and authentic breakfast for herself and her son. Her husband was somewhere in the house, left to his own devices.
Then she would move to the kitchen, where she would make an organic and authentic breakfast for herself and her son. Her husband was somewhere in the house, left to his own devices.
There is nothing worse than having to start the day with an inauthentic breakfast. Like one at MacDonald's I suppose. Their hash browns are very inauthentic and their bacon was cooked last year, then frozen.
-----------
I remember reading that and laughing. H somewhere in the house...haha.
The Wessex children are HRH Prince and Princess but their parents have chosen to not use them. They have not been taken away and when they reach the age of consent, they have the right to use them if they wish to.
One can think of the essential difference between William and Harry is that they can both move up the line but William cannot move down. A death of someone ahead of them in the line moves them up a place. The birth of someone to someone ahead of him moves Harry down (William having children and then his children having children), but not for William. Even if Charles had to have another son, it would not move William down the line (nor Harry).
We cannot look too far into the past for comparison as the rules are changed as the monarchy modernizes. However, the Queen's cousins are styled HRH Duke or Prince as they were grandchildren of the king. They are also in the line of succession, but very far down and, unlike William, but like Harry, keep moving further down the line.
You two have outdone yourselves. Thank you for the giggles. And the imagery..
There is a new Crowns of Britain post up for those who enjoy them.