Apologies to all for my absence - I am overwhelmed by work-related duties related to the US election.
Here's a fresh link, so you no longer need to wade through 1000+ comments.
Back later in the week, I hope!
- Nutty
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
The Marie Claire article says:
According to Lacey, their strong demand for privacy had to do with Harry's late mother, Princess Diana.
"Harry and Meghan were resolute that their newborn baby's first sight of the world should not bet he same insane and lethal camera-flashing that had attended — had actually brought about — the death of Diana," Lacey writes in the book.
Has Lacey spoken to H&M? Or is he presuming? He's using hyperbolic language (insane and lethal camera flashing). Showing Archie wouldn't have breached his privacy. Did Catherine and William complain of the same? Had H&M done the same as Catherine and William, the whole thing would have been forgotten, instead of which their cloak and dagger approach brought more attention to the birth. Maybe that was the idea.
A public life is not killing the Cambridges now is it? They seem well adjusted.
The problem with H&M is that they are fear-based victimizers trying to sell this nonsense that they cannot handle public life. These two are in the news everyday. They are striking television deals, doing interviews, taking PR contracts...they are living the most public life possible.
By their logic, without the protection of the BRF,they are themselves are engaging in high risk activity. Thus, their Diana privacy argument is deemed invalid.
It's a nice story, but it's not reality.
A public life is not killing the Cambridges now is it? They seem well adjusted.
The problem with H&M is that they are fear-based victimizers trying to sell this nonsense that they cannot handle public life. These two are in the news everyday. They are striking television deals, doing interviews, taking PR contracts...they are living the most public life possible.
By their logic, without the protection of the BRF,they are themselves are engaging in high risk activity. Thus, their Diana privacy argument is deemed invalid.
It's a nice story, but it's not reality.
If she did we would be seeing a wildly different couple. Probably more empathetic and probably living in Africa as the BRF presented to them.
Re. “Grandpa Charles is so sad” narrative
Yes I do think that this story is a crafty plant, though I’m not sure from which side. If Clarence House issued it in A roundabout way, It could be a warning to the Sussexes ....We know your area of greatest vulnerability, the fraud surrounding Archie...This is a warning to behave. Kind of strange that it was issued right on the heels of the news being full of Meg's court delay. if Charles wanted the world to know how much he was missing his American grandson in California, it seems like he might have expressed that add another time earlier, like Archie‘s birthday in May or Father’s Day, when several pictures of Grandpa with members of the Cambridge family were released. I think with the very public her flat floor with various military figures all castigating Harry for his shameful behavior, the palace it’s going to move more swiftly with severing hairy from all of his military appointments. It’s still kind of up for debate whether the “12 month review" Was actually an official Palace sanctioned idea, if the Sussexes try to force that idea through by releasing it in their statement. Despite having been issued a firm and clear set of instructions for their behavior back in March, they have behaved more egregiously then even we expected by meddling so openly In politics. I actually look for the palace to make some permanent changes in the new year and not wait until the end of March. If that story came from Charles camp, that might be one last ditch effort to send H a message that he belongs in England and only in England will he have any relationship with his family. Or Chi is being used as code here especially if he doesn’t exist.
The story could really is easily be Meg's doing...To garner sympathy because after all without the racist British press anthem mean, unreasonable, distant stiff upper lippers And Harry’s family, Archie would be growing up with his cousins. So if Charles misses his grandson, it is on fault! this could be a form of emotional blackmail if Meg did it, reminding Charles of what he has lost… I relationship with his son, because Meg has successfully rested him away from his royal family. So much hinges on whether Archie is actually real. I feel like it’s all a game of shadow puppets.
Well isn't it funny that they talk about how Beau used to say the never complain/explain.
I'm thinking this is some shade toward JH/M. It is odd timing for the article (this far into the election for this just to have happened to pop up. And the why would they mention this at all? Of all the things their son said or did, being a soldier, why this phrase?
While I respect that he is attempting to show love and concern for his wife, this clearly was not the way to go about it. They are in Cali and cannot afford it.
The rest of the family did not think they were high risk, and have hit back at claims of unsupport. Meghan and Harry suffering from mental issues due to the backlash of her choices and his choice of her as his wife, has nothing to do with anyone else. Thus what other support could be provided?
Now they are adrift in Cali...the tale continues.
If I could ask Harry one question it would be, was it worth it?
I think as time goes on, and life gets semi-real (let's be honest it won't ever be real for Harry the Prince) his opinion will change.
Yeah, the problem with admitting you deliberately lied about one thing is that everyone starts wondering what else you've lied about.
My favorite part was: "Harry and Meghan were resolute that their newborn baby's first sight of the world should not bet he same insane and lethal camera-flashing that had attended — had actually brought about — the death of Diana," Lacey writes in the book.
First of all, isn't a newborn's first sight of the world his mother's face?
Second, how much of an impression would a presentation to the press actually make on a day-old baby? The chances of it being his first memory are absolutely nil. And EVEN IF he retained the impression in his cells (or some other esoteric explanation), wouldn't it be something positive? The press wouldn't be hounding him, but be keeping a respectful distance. They'd all be sending positive vibes his way -- and maybe even his mother's way. Everyone loves a baby.
(Heck, at this point, the only thing that makes me believe that Archie could be real is that Meghan's behavior to him is textbook narcissist devaluation. He disappointed her by being a boy, so she punished him by making sure no one could properly rejoice in his birth. There are ordinary parents who put birth announcements for their children in the local newspaper because they're so proud and over the moon; but Meghan won't have any joyful news clippings from 6 May 2019 to put in Archie's scrapbook. She made sure of it. Given a chance, the eeeeeevil press would have welcomed him more warmly than she did.)
Third, does this remind anyone of Prince Harry saying that a then-eight-month-old Archie "saw snow for the first time the other day and thought it was bloody brilliant"?
I wonder what the Registrar General would have to say about it? Unless of course there is no trace of Archie in the RG's records...
They are crazy. First they reject the Queen's offer of private life then behave as if they are the heirs to the throne fighting for privacy. That's pure delusion
And correct, once lied who will believe you?
---------
And wasn't Archie supposedly very impressed with another landscape (I can't remember which - was it mountainous/Canadian?) at a ludicrously young age? (as if appreciation of landscape is a recognised developmental milestone...?)
Fantasy, pure fantasy, conjured up in a severely deluded mind.
----
@Teasmade wrote:
"So apparently William had Covid inn April, and still carried out engagements, while maintaining distance..."
Good grief! I certainly hope that's not true unless ALL his engagements were zoom ones with no outside personnel needed to facilitate the technology. It's my understanding socially distanced meetings are only for just-in-case-one-of-us-has-it reasons, not for those with a current diagnosis of COVID.
Thanks for the Marie Claire article! I've brought the link to this thread for anyone who may want to read it:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/amp34543592/prince-harry-meghan-markle-lied-to-the-press-about-archie-birth-to-protect-him/
We've talked about how the US press/tabs are more ruthless than the UK when it comes to celebs so I have to say I'm very disappointed and disgusted with all the sugary and favorable articles the Harkles get from numerous US publishers. I'm sure it's another reason Markle pushes her faux woke spiel to deliberately court the left-wing media.
The US media is perpetuating and spreading the idea that the Harkles were badly treated in the UK. Although this latest article does state that they lied, it makes it seem as if the Royals/the UK/ the royal reporters were so horrible the poor Harkles were forced to lie to hide their child's birth details.
Robert Lacey has really done a number on William. There is a story linked to the MC one above which claims William was so angry over the way H&M announced the arrival of their "baby" that he refused to see them for over a week.
IMO all these Lacey tales have been bad enough to warrant some sort of push-back from William.
This article about Archie's birth sounds like a re-write, and an attempt to cover for "something".
I remember at the time the announcements were an absolute mess - and Sara Latham apologized blaming their email system for the errors in reporting Archificial's arrival!
I recall something about how Latham had reported the wrong info to the media and The Sun had already gone to press with the incorrect story. I think this was a real turning point in the relationship between the Harkles and the tabs.
There was also a tv reporter who became so discombobulated over all the errors that he became upset during a live broadcast.
I saw this on Twitter, then on to the Express and Sun. (Yeah, I know . . . ; )
Thanks for the update! That's a bit different then.
I do hope the photos of Charlotte delivering food to elderly neighbors the Cambridges prepared and packaged up were taken in late April though. (I believe we were only told "April" at the time.) I know COVID isn't food-borne but still.
If she goes down, they go down. Especially, since she is making it look like Archificial was a coordinated effort!
I’ve got my popcorn ready
It’s all so messed up, and weird behavior!
These are excellent points. Your comment about timing of the story drop being right after the announcement of the postponement of the trial made me go back and check the writer of the article: well, it’s Emily Andrews -- who I have always thought of as a Harry fan -- but of course, she is with the MoS, the paper they are suing. (Who was it here that once wondered if they are all in on it together for clicks, and split the proceeds!)
So does that new information make you think this story was propelled by the Sussex camp, or the Clarence House team? Which side is Emily on, as of today? Who butters her bread, in her mind, now? I wonder.
In any case, your speculation that this might have served as a warning shot from Charles makes great sense. If he knows the fraud of Archie and can dangle that, maybe this is the moment. And if someone let him know what the “confidential reason was for the judge’s secrecy this week, maybe it is something that made Charles remove a glove.
——-
@Not Meghan Markle,
Your assessment of the duo as fear-based victimizers, with their own high-risk behavior mirroring Diana’s and thus rendering their whole privacy stance invalid, is perfect. I cannot agree strongly enough. Their hypocrisy is so blatant at this point..... as @CookieShark says, they are gaslighting us all.
is this Meghan Markle narrating?
I saw this video and hear that it is attributed to her but I cannot find her listed as the narrator anywhere. I'm not good enough with voices to say it is her.
**Hide the child because:
Ignore child, as it is the wrong non-Diana gender. I think Pom Pom Hat baby was the only girl baby photo.
Ignore child for not having the desired looks (discussed here before), whatever that looks checklist was..
Ignore child and show other available babies because the narcissist eye decided to “hurt the feelings of” baby Archie (too young to care) or hurt the feelings of Harry: your baby isn’t good enough, hubby.
Ignore child except when desperate to portray herself as a mother due for Royal Support cash (christening, Christmas card), humanitarian who should be president (Archbishop Tutu images), or suck up to Oprah (Rabbit book bearing the club stamp Oprah puts on books given to celeb tots). Hide it again out of boredom and jealousy.
Ignore child, to enjoy the ensuing speculation, & be rude to the BRF and UK/CW public, excusing it by calling it privacy.
Ignore child, since his only value was for the kind of photo rights money that used to be offered 15 or 20 years ago, but no longer is.
Ignore child, as it will remove the spotlight from her, and stamp her a “mom” instead of the 20-something sex kitten she still thinks she is.
Ignore child as barred from merching children’s clothing or other items, and no other reason to have child.
Igniore the child as it was only created to secure royal cash, lock down Harry, lure him away.
Ignore child, calling it privacy, in order to rob it of healthy social connections with cousins simply for the sick thrill of harming him, or harming a royal child in front of contemporaries like Will, Kate, Sophie, Zara who apparently can do nothing about the baby’s cruel social isolation. I keep thinking of Samantha’s warning, the childhood bullying of other kids, and the injured dog.
**Now, why to create the idea of a fake baby when one doesn’t exist:
To hook onto Royal support payments without the bother of a real child.
To lock in Harry, then leave him ashamed and off kilter when he finds out about the bumps and fraud. Making someone go along with a crime or fraud is a way to mess with someone’s mental health and self worth, and entrap via guilt and fear, like a gang or mob initiation.
Simply to ruin Eugenie’s moment and create a media frenzy for the great tour down under..impulsive,,,,then stuck keeping it going.
To hook the public on the idea of the perfect superwoman who us at least better than Kate in one way: an effortless no-sickness pregnancy where she can glow and wear stilettos and bend at will and never gain an ounce except of the targeted the jelly belly soccer ball type. I think the odd “post baby weight”had to do with not being able to acquire certain hobby substances that kept her slim.
To fit into a Kardashian baby clicks whirl. But she as usual was too lazy to see it through.
Supported by backers (tin hat alert), she had the money to buy bumps and Darren dolls and find her freedom from royal rules by lying on a huge scale, knowing they could hardly call her out on it due to the public and her tantrums and H’s emotional illness. This is where I think she went sideways from her backers’ plans.
A mind used to lying as a child to teachers about bullying others, and lying about dish soap activism, and lying to overlapped men, who would even lie about a BF’s chicken recipe, might get thrills seeing how big a lie or con they can pull off. It makes me think of that movie “Catch Me If You Can.”
Best way wrest money from the BRF for their planned escape -- but would eventually have to flee far to avoid detection, so they did.
I think William, Kate, Camilla and Sophie knew it was fraud. They know what a real pregnancy is like and didn’t see one behind the scenes, just as some of us didn’t see one in public.
It's mentioned a few times in the media coverage that the Royal Family was not notified about the different stages at the time (trip to hospital/in labor/gave birth). I think that may have added to the confusion - the palaces had no idea what was going on with the birth until hours after it occurred.
I think perhaps the RF could be left out of any accusations of lying about the strange events surrounding the birth. I believe they were just as confused as we were. I don't know about their staff though. The whole story about Sara Latham and the tech glitch is bizarre.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6999067/Harry-Meghans-Scotland-Yard-security-team-took-private-hospital-birth.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6951787/Royal-baby-Meghan-Markle-early-stages-labour-Kensington-Palace-says.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7003591/RICHARD-KAY-really-happened-Harry-Meghans-birth-plans-Baby-Sussex-unravelled.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7005379/Harry-Meghans-new-PR-supremo-blames-colossal-tech-failure-royal-baby-reaching-Sky-first.html
Thank you for finding and sharing all of these links. Looking forward to reading through them.
I agree....I think the RF in the main didn’t know. I think a few had suspicions or doubts but probably couldn’t quite imagine such a con in real life until after the confusing weirdness of the birth, then the doll at the polo, etc. I think William and Kate know now, and that was it for them. I don’t blame any of them for not reacting publicly, because how unbelievably bizarre.
My money is on Camilla for the first eventual meaningful eye roll, though.
The reveal couldn't have been decided that day.
Check out this very funny video of Markle pushing some poor guy out of the way at a royal event...along with some humorous voice-over additions!
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/358880664053744803/
Going back to a comment on last thread re MM/PH inclusion of the Spencer sisters in Wedding/Christening etc, they are both trustees of Harrys inheritance/trust fund, I'm sure MM would align herself to them for her own purposes,what they think of the situation is anyones guess
I was one of those who commented on the pointed inclusion of the Spencers in the Harkles' narrative while they were in the UK. I find it a little telling that there is no similar push now that they are in the US. Instead, we just get "news" about the BRF connection, Doria's nannying, and Prince Harry's new surrogate father David Foster. If the Harkles really needed to suck up to the Spencers as much as they need to such up to Prince Charles, then it's interesting that they're doing it completely differently. They have no compunction making up Charles fan fiction, but they leave the Spencers (whom you'd think Meghan would want to cast in the role of adoring aunts) totally out of things. I just wonder if the Spencers played legal or financial hardball with the Harkles -- and if so, whether it had anything to do with the Christening photo.
It's very very sad if he does exist. She is deranged and he needs to be removed. Which, was another theory I had after all the supposed nannies were fired all the time...that they were reporting her behavior, and the UK is very strict with parenting anyway, so I figured she left with a small baby because she was being investigated by the authorities for her treatment of him. Why else leave so suddenly with such a small baby from extreme security and resources to go couch surf??? Very odd behavior.
They just don't put that kid first and it's glaringly obvious. They are too busy with their schemes anyway.
I don't think it's real, but if he is there's too many holes in the story, pictures, and circumstances to make sense of .
Hope you enjoy them!
I don't know how much the RF knew/know about the whole pregnancy, birth, and the child Fauxchie, but I do think they were left out of the loop for the "labor and delivery".
I remember finding that very odd and suspicious at the time and thought it to be another sign that there was something very wrong with the Harkles narrative!
The Sun also had a lot of articles on the weirdness surrounding the birth.
All I can add is that The Harkles make my head spin !!!
I'm surprised there was room for him, what with all the other VIP visitors.
This one will do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw_Osn7K_YQ
Control, domination, manipulation, lies ... tabloids like the Express are happy to play those games with Meghan, as is Harry. Charles may give her the benefit of doubt, and the Queen might even do so, but I doubt anyone else in the family does.
If HG Tudor is correct, Meghan is a narc who behaves unconsciously. She is driven by impulses that sabotage her, but cannot change because she is unable to recognize and seek to change her own behaviour appropriately. Some examples:
The paparazzi are restricted in the UK; LA is a paparazzi playground.
Inside the BRF, they had protection at every level, including the tried and tested strategies of 'a stiff upper lip' and 'never explain, never complain' (the Queen is way the most popular royal and she epitomizes that approach); in LA they are supported by unethical PR spin doctors and showbiz lawyers who know everything about glitzy celebrity with all its attention-seeking scandals and nothing about royalty or the UK.
In the UK they were treated with deference as royalty; in LA they are a curiosity.
In the UK they were automatically given access and positions and platforms simply because they were royals; in LA they have to hustle and grift for everything...
* I am using LA as a metaphor for their new lifr as they do not actually live in LA.
Random question that sprung to mind while I was typing the above: Does anyone think the press knows full well that the only place this review was "officially" mentioned was in Harkle literature/PR and they're keeping it in the news periodically as a "fact" in the hope that the BRF will do the review? I'm struggling to believe that the press haven't picked up on what we have, that the BRF didn't officially said anything about a review.
Another thing that's on my mind this morning: is anyone else half expecting a news release claiming Harry has/has had covid? Of course Harry's case will be more serious than Wills' and he'll have been "carrying on as normal" during it despite being "at death's door". I wonder if their lacksadaisical PR will accidentally claim he had it during a period when he was seen out and about in public interacting with people (we already know they're not too good with dates)? I know, complete speculation and probably won't happen, but from what we've seen of their shenanigans so far I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
In England, we're locking down again this Thursday, ostensibly for until Dec 2nd - but who knows? The devolved administrations (Scotland & Wales) are doing it differently this time.
@WildBoar
Nicholas Witchell appears very uncomfortable/embarrassed,
with his “fed” statement.
Wonder what else he was hearing in his earpiece?
The psychophantic 'updates on Archie' that we gat via the tabloids seem to come from folk who know little about babies/toddlers and their development. I am not going to shame anyone for not taking to parenthood like a natural, but the Sussexes should perhaps shut up rather than pushing a 'happy family' narrative (and I hope Archie has a good, loving long-term nanny).
Good luck with lockdown. I am hoping my country will avoid it, even though infections are increasing. We still have to wear masks, are supposed to be practising social distancing (good luck with that in Africa!), and there are still some restrictions on large gatherings (I think 50 is the magic number). Some places still have hand sanitizer at entrances and exits, but only the clinic takes my temperature now. We are starting summer now and I am way south, so plenty of sunshine and fresh air.
@Lurking
Hmmm, Harry had covid, (pro)cured by Meghan Curie.
Could be her next move?
How is the pigeon?
Does anyone think the press knows full well that the only place this review was "officially" mentioned was in Harkle literature/PR and they're keeping it in the news periodically as a "fact" in the hope that the BRF will do the review? I'm struggling to believe that the press haven't picked up on what we have, that the BRF didn't officially said anything about a review.
The possibility that the 12-month review is more Harkle fiction is interesting. And it certainly fits Meghan's MO of trying to make something happen (e.g. a baby shower from Catherine, a birthday party from the Queen, a "Christmas soiree" with the Fosters) by telling the press in advance that it will happen. A review after 12 months of "freedom" is a great safety net, in case she doesn't actually make the millions she foresaw she would. I hadn't credited her with being able to plan so well in advance!
It was also pretty clever of her to throw us off the scent by writing really bitterly about the review in "Harkle literature," as you say. And it's straight out of the narc playbook to tell a lie about someone that makes you look better at his expense and then to claim that he told the lie.
Of course, the success of the plan/lie depends on BP being willing to adopt her timeline. Which, if this is the case, it probably won't.
Why make up a similar story to piggyback on Prince William's revelation when you can belittle it instead? Perhaps we'll now learn that Prince Harry was "worried sick" over his brother back in April, but evil William wouldn't even respond to his messages. Meghan tried to play peacemaker, of course, but snobby Catherine was always "too busy" to take her Zoom calls. And throughout it all, because the Harkles were so new in California and Meghan didn't want to burden her "young mother" friends her problems, nobody bothered to ask Meghan if she was okay.
I like your theory regarding an attention grab over William's illness, it's more plausible than mine. I was mulling over the kind of "steal the limelight" stuff she's pulled in the past and went with the type of PR that was most likely to end up in an "open-mouth-exchange-foot" situation simply because she's so good at it.
@Magatha, I never was able to catch her. She (and the rest) still visit but not as regularly, and I can't see the stuck ring on her leg any more so it's either been removed by someone else or is hidden in her feathers now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed it's the first option as she's not limping or anything and seems healthy still.
@Enbreth, hahaha, I like your scenario.
But, Megs is unfamiliar with the term
originality, she’s a piggy back hack.
@Lurking
I’m glad she’s still around, looking after her little family.
Mother Megs take note 😉
When the Sussexes inserted themselves into the Time100 events even though they were not on the list, BP made a statement distancing themselves from the Sussexes. There is no going back for the Sussexes, but his family want to keep a door open for Harry. For the Sussexes, the idea of a formal review keeps them linked to royalty and is of value. Just like Andrew, they are out! The Queen said they would always be beloved family, just like her extended family who appear on the balcony with her but do not represent her in any way.
Even if the worst had to happen and Charles and William had not survived the virus, the Cambridges have three children. Harry and Archie are constitutionally irrelevant, but they are family. Charles has lost a beloved son and Wiliam a beloved brother to an American hustler.
Interesting that Depp lost his case, and I am sure that Heard sees it as a personal victory. I look forward to reading a detailed analysis (anyone have a source for me?) and to hearing views here on any implications for the Rachel Zane legal fiasco.
After taking time away from this blog to closely follow the JD case - I'm shocked at the verdict.
Go to @nickwallis on Twitter. A journalist who followed the trial and is now tweeting the judgement.
FULL JUDGEMENT
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/depp-v-news-group-newspapers-ltd/
The earliest entry I could find is from February 2019 and I recall Harry Markle had said that early blog entries had been taken down for revision in preparation for the book and thus I was unable as there had been earlier entries to consider my last point.
I carefully read the entry of 28th September 2020 which concerned legal matters and I am sorry but I cannot believe from the writing and the imprecision of language used that as is here often assumed Harry Markle is a qualified or practicing lawyer.
I appreciate that Harry Markle is commenting on every public utterance and line-by-line from the Harkles but I, as with the latest entries, sense that it is a case of failing to see the wood for the trees. Harry Markle allows anger to obscure clarity.
I did, incidentally, pick up that Harry Markle won a handwriting prize when younger and asserts having worked in Crisis Management.
I have in this comment deliberately avoided all mention of the sex of Harry Markle. If, as I do, (Handwriting Prize, Crisis Management, emotional writing) I lean towards the assumption of Harry Markle being Female am I showing my unconscious sexist misogynistic chauvinistic bias? It is most awkward writing a comment where one seeks to avoid the use of the word 'she'.
Many thanks! It is interesting that Heard was more credible than Depp. She dies come across as more than a bit ofba drama queen. However, if he did get violent and was using cocaine and alcohol excessively, she should have left at the first sign of trouble and insist he get clean before she returned. Unlike many, she always had that option.
Royal reporters are seething/outraged that William did not reveal that he was ill with the virus (like his father, not ill enough to be hospitalized). I had a look at their twitter feeds. More than 95% of people responding think it is perfectly reasonable that William did not announce that he was infected, and rightly point out that RRs are just miffed that they missed out on a 'big story' during lockdown! At no time did he lie or deliberately try to deceive. I suspect that he is the type of person who would dislike a lot of fuss made about a viral infection that the young and healthy are very likely to recover from without hospitalization. Remember how he was caught joking in Ireland about everyone taking the virus too seriously? Karma!
England, world leaders in Libel actions (going down the bookie for the super-rich) since at least 1895.
Thus there was no libelous fault in claiming he was a 'wife-beater' in the article, as it was a known fact.
The whole issue of Depp vs Heard is that he had a lot more to lose. Unfortunately he engaged with someone that took complete advantage, but it doesn't obsolve him of his actions.
"All the Sun had to do was prove that Depp hit heard. I think he even admitted to doing that during the case?"
He admitted to an accidental head-butt while trying to restrain her from hitting him.
I hope you are doing well there in Brexitstan. (Lol). Another lockdown for you...Fun times. Even though Covid cases here in the United States are surging off the charts, With each day setting a new record from the day before, it’s hard to imagine governors here being able to institute another lockdown. They can try, but I don’t think our citizens are in a mood for compliance. The last episode resulted in some of our state officials being threatened by semi automatic weapon-toting, maskless, spittle spewing “patriots”. Government only works if the citizens are willing to play along, and if they aren’t, well it’s impossible to find and arrest everybody. I guess much will depend on whether Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump prevails tomorrow… Not that I am expecting to know the results tomorrow. This could drag on until New Year’s.
Don’t worry about giving offense over Harry Markle. I am certain HM is a female. I can’t help thinking that a man we tend to be more succinct in his style, especially with claimed legal training. Prince Harry is never succinct in his word salad delivery, But his brain has been hijacked by a greater power and those are not his words he is spouting. Harry’s normal level of discourse is “Hey Guys!” Harry Markle’s own illustrator seems to have used the pronoun he on at least one occasion but I chalk that up to either a typo or the au courant taste for ignoring gender pronouns. At least “they” was not used. Both the content creators of that website are bio females.
Last night, as I contemplated the prospect of another work week without enthusiasm, I queued up Winston Churchill’s “Never Surrender” speech. Keep buggering on...what else is there to do? I would bet an entire Montecito mansion that Meg has never listened to that speech. But in a warped and twisted way she has appropriated Sir Winston’s words for her quixotic quest to become Hollywood Royalty and stick it to the BRF while simultaneously sucking them dry of funds.
I have decided that the story about Charles pining for his American grandson Had to originate with Meg, owing to the bit about Charles dropping in at Frogmore ‘all the time’ to see Baby Archie. That’s Meg for you: cannot resist overgilding the lily. Upon asserting one lie, She double down on another and dares you to doubt it. While Frogmore Cottage Demonstrably exists, unlike Archie, it’s still strenuously a pro dispute that the couple ever lived there or are those costly renovations were ever completed. To assert that the incredibly busy Prince of Wales Was in the habit of dropping in, Presumably to get in line behind Ellen DeGeneres and all the other celebrities beating a path to Windsor To see the holy child… It’s just beyond ludicrous.
Something like 20% of people in the UK believe Covid 19 is a hoax and/or it's caused by 5G, according to a recent Oxford Unversity survey:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-hoax-government-misleading-man-made-survey-a9527876.html
Just what has gone wrong with out education system? Apparently some don't believe in the germ theory of disease. What happened to their inbuilt cr*p detectors? Is their world flat? Do they believe in witchcraft? Sadly, I suspect the answer is `Yes'.
Yet another instance of our going backwards into the 17th Century?
November 2, 2020 at 3:02 PM
The conspiracy is something significantly worse than that as to why people believe COVID is a hoax, and all ages groups seemed to be sucked into the story. Some believe Charles is in on it too. It truly beggars belief.
I believe in some 'conspiracy theories' myself, but when the evidence is in front of your eyes, I am amazed at how cognitive dissonance works.
I think my comment about the gender of Harry Markle blog writer was lost in in the last thread, so here it i is again:
The clever illustrations for some HM blog post are provided by an artist calling herself Artemis Goog. On her twitter feed at the end of August, August 29 to be exact, she referenced the writer in this way when replying to someone: “HM doesn’t use ads in his blogs.”
Since she works with the writer to create her drawings as needed, i can believe she knows the writer’s gender. In this case, a he, per that tweet. Unless she said it that way as part of a general cover for the writer.
I originally assumed the writer was female too, and that is why I remember that post so well. I looked it up two days ago for reference.
Even though MM reminds us of Amber Heard, and even though I think Depp was unfairly maligned by her, the bigger point is, the news media outlet prevailed in a major celeb libel case. Depp’s “5 friends” so to speak could not help him win.
Re HM’s gender
Thanks to Markle, I am now suspicious if everything I read in print including “a” “an” and “the”.
I did not read that particular post by Goog, who does work closely with the blogger and is presumably a close friend. All I can do is express a legitimate shock that HM is a man. I have gone back to the beginning of that blog and read the posts since the inception, and religiously kept up with the new postings until I lost patience with the increasingly histrionic and repetitive style. All indicators apart from one random pronoun indicate to me that this is a female. Or possibly a gay man with strong feminine characteristics. In the earlier days in particular HM was completely obsessed at exhaustive length about the state of Meg’s wigs, makeup, hems and shoes. There was considerable delight taken in posting unflattering pictures of all these faux pas. Male critics...even Piers Morgan tend to stay well away from slamming Meg’s appearance. Then there is the aggrieved and circuitous tone which I would label bordering on neurotic. Such obsessive criticism of the female target does not read to me as masculine. I get a decided femme bias running throughout.
I have to set my gut and all my instincts about something as admittedly nebulous as “style” against the one occurrence of a pronoun. I will suggest a couple of alternatives: 1. It could be an inadvertent typo/autocorrect. The blog does tend to have those kinds of errors and the author has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying if anyone feels the need to point out spelling or grammar errors they can shove off bc shit happens or 2. It could have been purposely used as a blind. Meg’s team has a track record of harassing female bloggers band sometimes successfully getting them shut down. It was after the doxxing incident with some American based bloggers that the subheading of Satire appeared on this blog. The tone is anything but satirical though. HM seems a very angry, irritated and irate person to me. Absolutely humorless. Perhaps (S)he does not grasp the true meaning of satire? Some humor to break up the diatribes would be welcome. I wish HM. continued stomach for the crusade (s)he’s embarked upon but I have stopped reading regularly as I find the prose headache inducing.? According2Taz on YT is my new source for the Harkle view from Britain.
I have forgotten whether Megs is still using barristers from Schillings, as Johnny did, so I don't know whether she'll be pleased with this verdict or not, in any case Johnny's fight doesn't seem over.
Megs' case is less fraught, & compared to the accusations leveled at Depp, her complaints against the MOS seem laughably trivial. Another blog has speculated that the delay she requested was related to possible witnesses, who, as has been pointed out, might theoretically be spread out in three different countries, the US, Canada & the UK. I speculate that the contempt warning from the Judge comes because he knows both litigants are blabbermouths, the MOS, because that's how they earn their living, & Megs, for a myriad of reasons which have been discussed at length on this blog. You could almost hear the implied snort when Justice Warby issued his remark about the speed with which Scabie got inside info on an earlier hearing. Warby may fold like a the proverbial tent before Megs' royal prestige, glamour & mystique, but my feeling is that both the presiding judge & all of the barristers involved are shrewd & competent, & won't want to embarrass themselves. Remember in the earlier hearing on FF, Megs' lawyer kept using phrases like, "I've been told," or "it's my belief," indicating she didn't want to be held responsible for any untruths she might be uttering which were fed to her by her client.
@Opus, it is a pleasure to welcome a voice that is both male & trained in the law to this blog. I believe you're absolutely correct about Harry Markle. She, or he, has indicated that, like many who have posted on this blog, & on Anonymoushouseplantfan, she has a background in PR & advertising, & like many has been befuddled by the Harkles' incompetent self-branding. I think she's unafraid of a lengthy dip into documents & legal papers, & generally is fact-based, but is very opinionated, & is sometimes isn't well edited, but then neither are a lot of professional sites like the NYTimes. She has seemed really outraged by the Harkle dip into politics.
I've come to conclude that not that many people are paying attention to the Harkles, & that may be behind the silly Marie Claire article, an attempt by Lacey to drum up sales for his book, which BP returned to him unopened. Don't get excited about that article, Marie Claire is just another media outlet struggling to stay afloat, & both the Lacey book, & the Scabie book, are way down on the US Amazon bestsellers list, at #8000 something, & #6000 something, so, not like Michelle Obama's most recent book. I'll leave it to anyone in publishing to shed light on how rankings like that would be interpreted by publishers. I believe Harper/ Harper/Collins, part of the Murdoch empire, published both books.
@girl with hat . Sure sounded like her to me, but I didn't listen for more than a minute due to same irritating tone.
I don’t know what if anything this verdict might mean for Meg’s case but hers has been shoved so far into the future that it’s probably irrelevant. Meg isn’t suing for libel as such. The one who should be worried about this verdict is Harry. Look how easy it is for a persuasive Narc who can cry on a dime and has bragged about that to manipulate opinion against a less articulate man who gave up everything for her. Even with the testimony of his 2 other long term partners in his favor. Narcs love to push buttons. The recent BG blind about Harry doing GBH on prostitutes is setting up the wife abuser narrative—just watch.
In the times of the virus publishers are saved the expenses of author promotional tours and it is all about making noise online and generating chatter and hype in the hope that it translates into sales. It doesn't! However, the sales of the books show that they are not the cash cows the authors and publishers thought they would be, and authors and publishers would have to churn out one a year to make a comfortable living from the subject.
The Queen, Prince of Wales, and Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are able to put a lot of money into major projects because, behind the scenes, they get huge donations from very rich people. None of them chase celebrity money. The Sussexes do not have those kind of connections nor the same respect, and so end up hustling and doing a lot of messy PR.
Harry had his popular image created (no doubt that there was a friendly, likeable persona to cultivate) and his major projects built when he was part of the Clarence House and then Kensington Palace offices. Once he broke free of that and put himself into the hands of his wife, it was downhill for him, and
Re HM gender: who knows, and I have to agree again with your feelings about the emotions and serious tone of the recent HM posts. I seem to recall the earlier ones were a little bit more sly and humorous? Does anyone else remember that? Back to gender though, you made me think hard, I have one friend and former colleague who was a male paralegal working as a copyright and patent bridge for a firm I was with. He was immaculately serious and in point for his work, but could be hugely emotional, angry and funny and gripped when discussing outside, real life matters that touched him. His informal emails are nothing like his work related emails. So, I can see it as possible though certainly not typical.
@Neutral Observor, so glad you bring up the sheer triviality of M’s lawsuit. Mind boggling, isn’t it?
I'm not so sure it was that clever of her exactly, she probably hadn't/still hasn't entertained the fact that a review could go against her.
I agree -- and I think anyone else who gave himself the same safety net would also strategize for a less-than-positive outcome. But Meghan seems to live for the petty victory and the short-term gratification. Being able to think twelve months ahead is impressive for someone like her!
If it was no more than a malicious swipe at Buckingham Palace, conjured up by her seething mind, well, she loses all her brownie points again . . .
I wasn't following the case but what I saw suggested their relations had been violent. On both sides. Legally speaking the judge had to rule not on how Johnny is guilty or innocent, but on how accurate the newspaper was with its story. Apparently the judge decided it was accurate, hence the ruling.
I intensely dislike Heard. Lets see what Johnny's appeal may achieve a different verdict.
I often feel sorry for the female of the species when it comes to dress, in that for a man to put on a suit and dark tie or a Dinner jacket (Tux) is effortless yet you poor ladies must always be considering carefully exactly what is appropriate dress and thus I was both amazed and impressed the way commenters here have picked up on all the nuances of Meghan Markle's couture and coiffure. These are things I would never notice.
When it comes to the latest lockdown I cannot say that I am filled with enthusiasm. I hope the government knows what it is doing but in that hope they give me little confidence. In March I observed an old age pensioner being arrested by two uniformed police officers in the countryside for the crime of sitting down. What are we doing!
Re: Johnny Depp, I believe it's been reported that he plans to appeal, & also has a defamation suit in the US, which will have a jury, so some very expensive attorneys will have a chance for a lot of press garnering theatrics. The case is reminiscent of the Errol Flynn case, which also ruined the reputation & fortune of another hard partying Hollywood glamour boy. There was controversy about the fairness of the Flynn conviction as well, & reports that Flynn had been set up.
Courtroom law is theatre, it has been said. Look what a piece of theatre in front of a jury did for O.J. Simpson--got him off a double homicide charge. If you think his own lawyers thought that would be enough in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt--look at the shell-shocked face of Robert Kardashian, standing beside and slightly in front of his defendant. The man looked stunned and sick, hardly the mien of a counsel jubilant to have successfully defended an innocent client. O.J.'s Narc smirk in that moment is chilling as well. Get the right mix of gullible jury/sympathetic judge and the side that carries the day aren't necessarily the one with competent lawyers and even innocence on its side, but the one who can put on the more memorable show.
Johnny Depp has always struck me as a gentle soul, a bit too reclusive for this world . . but only his most intimate associates would know him when he's drunk off his face or high. That could make anybody prone to personality changes. I really had never heard of Amber Heard before she married him, but the parallels between him and Harry in their relationships are spookily similar. Johnny probably should have let this lie; AH kicked it off by a taunting 'confessional' op-ed she wrote for the WaPo. Johnny could have devised other methods than litigation to fight her. He choice to bring a lawsuit which he knew could potentially bankrupt him has two possible motives: 1. He is innocent and had to defend his honor, or 2. He did hit her, as alleged, but felt justified in doing so, if he remembers it, and counted on his 30 years as a Hollywood A-lister to make the judgement go his way. He went on the offensive, gambled and lost, even though his ex baited him by publishing that article after she had already received an eye-watering divorce settlement. Now JD has obligated himself to appeal, running through what's left of his fortune, because if he just lets this verdict lie uncontested, that would be tantamount to admitting that he was guilty.
I feel for him, I do. JD threw over his relationship of some two decades with Vanessa Paradis, the mother of his two children, for the siren call of this Narc with her eyes on his money. The same is coming for Harry, only Haz is going to be even less equipped to fight. How much is the BRF going to keep on cleaning up Harry's mess? Johnny had heartfelt support from the two women in his life best placed to corroborate Heard's tales of abuse--two women whose hearts he broke, and who might have reason for revenge. They stood with him. Will Harry be able to find such character witnesses to stand with him? Who?
The reason I ask, is that if Meghan is planting the -possibly true- Blinds about his abuse towards women, and decides to jump the gun and have him arrested in Calif for a domestic crime against her, would he be able to get out of it? If the RF knows what she is like, won’t they be wanting to protect the family from legal drama while Harry is in the US?
I’m surprised neither Depp nor Heard ended up in jail over their abuse and reactions.
With Meghan and Harry, I feel like it’s highly highly possible especially since she is looking for the biggest payday possible and loves to drum up press to make it happen. Victim, attention, $$$ is Meghan’s m/o.
Thoughts?
As a retired barrister, what would your advice be to the beleaguered Mr Depp? If you were his counsel, would you urge him to fight on with this appeal? What do you think his chances are to win on appeal when he's already lost this high-profile action once already?
Females have a definite advantage when it comes to manipulating narratives of abuse. This is what Narcs like Meg, Amber Heard and Angelina Jolie count on. Sounds like the Depp-Heard relationship was combustible, as is any relationship where one or both parties are substance users/addicts and at least one of them has a personality disorder. Some couples make love by fighting or doing other things which more vanilla couples would construe as rough. When one partner changes the rules of engagement and starts claiming abuse, when she was the instigator and/or gave as good as she got . . that is just not fair. They get away with it, though.
This allegation hit JD at a really bad time (not that any time is 'good') but professionally speaking, he is at the end of his career, I think. The Pirates franchise is over with, his biggest money-maker . . and while his outings with Tim Burton have made money, it's been a case of diminishing returns for some while now. Johnny has always been quirky-to-strenuously weird, but he found a soulmate in the equally weird Burton, and when he was younger, could clean up well for press junkets. Not so now, really. All the years and partying have taken a toll and now JD just looks like a used-up creep. The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and Johnny's the proof. I really hate to think of him sliding into Nic Cage territory and losing all of his money. He really looks like a street person these days and that can't have gone in his favor in court.
I will pray that JD gets vindication on his appeal, but I'm not optimistic. Heard has already chummed the waters.
I am also nervous for Harry, because I can see Meg making just this same kind of play. Particularly if there are any legs to the allegations that Haz used to abuse (other) good time girls. I'm sure she's keeping notes on Harry's proclivities & if there aren't any real ones, she'll just make something up.
If she actually turned up pregnant (not likely) I'd be shocked because if you ask me, those two haven't been knocking boots for at least two years, maybe even before the wedding. There is a contingent of people who believe that in actuality, the couple has *never* cohabitated in London, from pre-engagement on . . which, if this wedding was engineered via blackmail, as looks infinitely plausible, would make sense. I think he's with her for their joint grifting enterprises, but I think it's strictly business. Megs doesn't need to sleep with him any more after getting that white wedding she surely did not deserve. Harry really looks most of the time as if he hates her. We all stand in solidarity with that sentiment!
No, Harry does not have diplomatic immunity. He is in the US as a private citizen.
Are you or anyone else here follow the legal travails of Craig McLachlan in Australia? Today (Monday)--already tomorrow in OZ--was the first day of his trial on multiple sexual abuse allegations, brought against him by three members of the cast of the Rocky Horror show in 2014. These allegations where filed a full 4 years after the close of the show and led directly to Mr. MacLachlan being suspended and later let go from his television series The Dr. Blake Mysteries. Craig lodged a defamation countersuit last year, and this matter has been wending its way through the court system at a glacial pace since then. Craig's career is effectively over, or will be for good if he loses, because, #MeToo . . nobody wants to hire or work with a documented abuser of women.
Craig has a dedicated Facebook fan group of supporters (mostly women) . . . Even before the outcome of Johnny's case, I did not feel confident about Craig's chances. He is one of Australia's biggest stars .. a triple threat (stage, screen, music). If he goes down, this is going to be huge. As far as I can tell, he is not denying that he participated in certain amounts of sexualized or 'blokey' behavior onstage and off; the crux of his argument is that this behavior is pervasive in the theatrical community, was never maliciously intended, and was furthermore not only accepted/understood by the participants but routinely instigated by the plaintiffs.
So, basically it's He said/She said. Isn't this what it always comes down to? Making things extra sticky for Craig, he was the executive producer as well as the headlining star of the production, making the ingenues he is accused of sexually harassing, his employees.
He has been labeled a 'predator' by his chief accuser--an incendiary term. Is she right? Or, did she and her cohorts, struggling stage actresses with lean bank accounts in the 5+ years since they were in that show, decide to target one of Australia's wealthiest entertainment celebrities . . .because they could?
If Craig loses this action, Johnny Depp had better hang up his appeal.
It's the `Oh well, there are two sides to every story' and `It takes two to tango' which are tantamount to saying that `I'm sure you're as much to blame as s/he is'.
What do you all make of the release of William's covid diagnosis in April? I wonder who released the story? William has experinced some push back recently. Normally people tend to like Wills but with Robert Lacey's book and William's environmental work, seems like people have been more critical of him. I personally do not understand that. I only wish, here in the US, we'd have someone 'in power' that has the traits that William does.
The fact that William was ill and no one knew about it, AND he was still carrying out engagements is stunning in itself. Speaks to the feeling of duty and the desire to not panic or worry the public. To me, it's almost as much of a mic drop moment as when he took his family and was photographed on a public airliner during the blow back with H & M's luxury private plan sojourns. I am just curious as to why it was released just now or if it was leaked.
"It's the `Oh well, there are two sides to every story' and `It takes two to tango' which are tantamount to saying that `I'm sure you're as much to blame as s/he is'."
You eventually give up trying to explain. It's simply not worth the hassle. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSnJfgr1CeI&feature=youtu.be
is this Meghan Markle narrating?
November 2, 2020 at 3:57 AM
Uhm, sounds like her at the beginning of the sentences but does not go high or thin as M does. Does not become more "emotional" or emphatic, to me, as the narration goes on. I vote very similar but not MM.
`You eventually give up trying to explain. It's simply not worth the hassle.'
Exactly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSnJfgr1CeI&feature=youtu.be
is this Meghan Markle narrating?
November 2, 2020 at 3:57 AM
Uhm, sounds like her at the beginning of the sentences but does not go high or thin as M does.
Willing to find out I am wrong and she did butt out with her English husband spokesboy.
Christine, good question.
@Opus, I don't think you attacked Harry Markle at all, you just made a mild comment on whether or not you thought she was a legal professional. I'm afraid I inferred you had legal training from some of your comments. Sorry!
Mark Stephens, a leading media lawyer at the Howard Kennedy firm in London, is not involved with the case but is familiar with it and followed the hearing via live tweeting by a British journalist. He said Friday’s hearing does not bode well for Meghan in terms of either winning her lawsuit eventually or escaping further embarrassing revelations in open court about her ruined relationship with her father.
Stephens said the Sussex lawsuit started out as a relatively simple copyright and privacy case, which favored her, but is now “transformed.” The newspaper is defending itself by citing a People magazine article in which five anonymous friends of Meghan spoke out about her father’s criticism of the duchess and mentioned the letter.
Meghan has argued in court documents that she didn’t know about this People article in advance and was “distressed” when she learned of it. "This stretches credulity to the point of breaking,“ Stephens said.
He said the case has been “turned on its head” because the Mail has taken evidence from Thomas Markle in which he claims he was attacked by his daughter and her friends in the People article. Under British law, Thomas is entitled to defend himself if replying to what he perceives as an attack, and the Mail on Sunday is entitled to report on his reply to an attack, Stephens said.
Now this private dispute will have to be discussed in public at a trial, requiring Meghan, her father and her friends to testify in open court about who said what and who knew about it in advance, Stephens said.
“She is going to suffer enormous damage because she now has to disclose all the people she told about these top secret messages, texts and letters (exchanged with her father) in court,” Stephens said. “She’s going to be asked, did she know her friends were going to talk to journalists about this…It’s clear this is a car crash of monumental proportions.”
Thomas Markle’s strained relationship with his daughter complicated Meghan’s entry into the royal family.
@Hikari, I think the Depp verdict might work against Megs, but if Megs ever files for divorce, & claims abuse, Harry had better watch out, as you pointed out, especially in California courts.
Below is a link to a Newsweek article claiming the Depp verdict works against Megs. Newsweek has written some pretty sugary articles on the Harkles, but as others have pointed out, it's not a big player in US news anymore.
https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-libel-defeat-spells-trouble-meghan-markles-tabloid-lawsuit-1544031
I read part of it : emails, texts, every single piece of their life is dissected and debated.
MM won't let it happen. She has a lot to hide + she is a control freak. She won't let the trial go on... If she can't get the summary judgment, she will drop the case saying that's too much stress for a pregnant woman or a young mother.
I like this article: https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-libel-defeat-spells-trouble-meghan-markles-tabloid-lawsuit-1544031
Thank you for this piece about Stephens.
The biggest danger is the judge will cave in to "poor me" and "reasons of state" charade and allow summary judgement.
I don't care of she wins eventually, but the she should face the consequences of her lies and manipulation at the witness stand. And so should her "friends" who shamelessly attacked her disabled father.
She won't let the trial go on... If she can't get the summary judgment, she will drop the case saying that's too much stress for a pregnant woman or a young mother.
It's my understanding that dropping the suit is not an option for MeMe, even though she initiated it. Both parties have to agree, and the Mail on Sunday has been unequivocal that they intend to press on with the case. Refusing to drop out is unheard of for a *defendant* in a legal action, so this tells me that the Mail is supremely confident that she cannot win. They intend to make her pay for besmirching their journalistic integrity & I think are also taking a stand on behalf of their sister publications.
The Mail's got more money and can outspend her for lawyers. She's running scared--that's why she developed a sudden confidential health crisis that forced a trial delay. More lies as she scrambles to dodge responsibility for this snowball down a hill she's gotten rolling.
I'm sure any one who has been caught up with a narcissist knows only too well the frustration of trying to explain what's been going on to someone who has never experienced it themselves.
So true! I'm grateful to you for saying that, even though most of here already understand. It's so important to validate our experiences and your comment helps :)
I came on to comment today about what I suspect to be a disinformation campaign by Meghan and her twitter bots/squad.
I've seen a lot of new posts suggesting that Kate used a surrogate and faked pregnancies.
Classis narc move - accuse others of what they are guilty of.
I think the RF and/or the British media are getting ready to reveal the truth. At least I hope that's the case!!
You ask how I would now advise Mr Depp. You observe he looks a shambles.
In so far as Court is theatre one must dress accordingly. That will vary from person to person, but if you enter court looking as Depp does it is likely that the presiding Judge or members of a Jury will - with unconscious bias - take against you. Now imagine how Cary Grant would appear in similar circumstances - or as Tyrone Power does in Agatha Christie's Witness for the Prosecution - Power was found not guilty (even though he was).
The grounds of Depp's appeal cannot be that he just does not like the decision of Nicol J. but that the Judge is either wrong in law such that the decision is inherently flawed or that his decision is so weird that no competent Judge could have so found. I presume that the second of these will be what Depp's Solicitors will attempt but it is not easy to show that no competent judge would have so found. The fact that another Judge might have found differently is not sufficient. Litigants especially in the immediate aftermath of an action that has gone against them often talk big but usually slink away to lick their wounds. I don't know the details of Depp's case but The Sun said he hit Heard on numerous occasions and there was evidence that that is true - what Heard did to Depp is not material - she is not I believe in any event a party to the case. Wealthy people who can afford to do so are more likely to disregard legal advice not to proceed with an action. A lawyer always aims for a result - taking cases which fail are not good for ones reputation. Clients are not unknown to take out on their lawyers their bitterness at losing.
The question for Depp will or should be: if I appeal and win will that restore me to A list status? If not then appealing the decision is just a matter of pride and an appeal usually merely delays the inevitable. Most appeals fail.
You raise the next topic I was going to mention and beat me to it.
What do you all make of the release of William's covid diagnosis in April? I wonder who released the story? William has experinced some push back recently. Normally people tend to like Wills but with Robert Lacey's book and William's environmental work, seems like people have been more critical of him. I personally do not understand that. I only wish, here in the US, we'd have someone 'in power' that has the traits that William does.
The fact that William was ill and no one knew about it, AND he was still carrying out engagements is stunning in itself. Speaks to the feeling of duty and the desire to not panic or worry the public. To me, it's almost as much of a mic drop moment as when he took his family and was photographed on a public airliner during the blow back with H & M's luxury private plan sojourns. I am just curious as to why it was released just now or if it was leaked.
Yes indeedie . . . just how, exactly, did William's Covid diagnosis, which he has successfully kept private for nearly 6 months, including when he was actively ill, yet still being seen via virtual engagements, get out NOW--the very week that Meg's transparent malingering on her court case appeared in the press?
This is classic Narkle misdirection: The Narkles stick their feet in it again? Quick--throw mud at the Cambridges!!!
Leaving aside the possibility that Kensington Palace itself informed the press corps, now that any danger is safely past and all the sickies--Boris, Charles and Wills--have recovered . . .and how likely do we find this scenario, really, after all this time? I don't. I figure if the palace were going to make an official statement, they would have done so in May, after Wills recovered, and not 6 months afterwards.
That leaves:
1. A leak from a Palace staffer (Is somebody on the nefarious Duo's payroll to provide them with Palace dirt? Not even Scobie would have had a bead on this without some source.
OR
2. Harry is the leak, having been told, in confidence, about his brother's illness by someone in contact with him. Most likely source: Charles. Surely William wouldn't be so dim. That would not have been strategic of Charles, but perhaps he is still holding out a slender hope that he can bring Harry home and patch things up between his kids. Especially if he's still sending them money, I think Harry must be in regular touch with Dad. Charles is probably the only one who will speak to him at this point.
If this is what has happened, I hope they have learnt their lesson about sharing so much as a bus timetable with Harry going forward.
Anybody that falls for the hatchet job on William being perpetrated by this ersatz 'scholar' Lacey is incredibly gullible. Robert Lacey must have been given a monstrous amount of money to sell out any pretense to integrity like he has. He's no better than Meghan. I smell a grifting opportunist here, just like her or sticky-fingered, weepy Paul Burrell, who has been dining out on his servile connection to Diana these last 23 years.
William has flaws, but there's no indication that this account is in any way balanced, and so it's even less useful than toilet paper.
Carrying on with a slate of virtual engagements despite not feeling good seems very much like something his Grandmother would do. Stiff upper lip, power through, do not let people down. Acting, dare I say, like a future King.
Meanwhile, the ginger traitor and his showgirl hussy blubber on camera for the highest bidder. Worlds apart.
Andrew.
That thought alone justifies keeping it quiet, IMHO.
Also, interesting theories on who leaked and why now.
Would love to know why the reason for postponement is "confidential".
Several theories:
pregnancy--various parties and/or witnesses (but that's not really as issue unless she is having the baby in January but still she's an expert at zoom so .....)
drug or alcohol rehab--would think Harry( but he's not a party unless you say he needs your support)
illness -- Charles or The Queen in worse health than thought (this is actually my favorite)
running out of money for legal fees etc -- just plain embarrassing (the average person isn't allowed to postpone while finding funds so she shouldn't be allowed either)
trying to scrub all texts and emails that are required for disclosure -- everything goes to the cloud now but I guess she could hire the best (except for that mail chimp thing) but that wouldn't be cause for postponement.
Nutties: awaiting your thoughts/input. Gives us all a break from USA elections.
I'm sure the British papers are exhaustively covering the Depp verdict, since it was a British paper he was suing. Here is an excerpt from the New York Post, the Yank version of the Daily Mail. The Post goes where more legitimate papers fear to tread.
Johnny Depp is a wife beater.
Such is the finding of a British court, ruling against Depp’s claims of libel by The Sun newspaper. If nothing else proves how deeply Depp is divorced from reality, it’s that he ever brought this suit.
A former globally famous and beloved movie star, whose singular talent and looks made him a Gen X icon of cool and a one-man Disney franchise — who else could have straddled that line, let alone have invented it? — has lost everything. This is the biggest celebrity self-destruction since Lena Dunham showed photos of her removed uterus to a New York magazine profiler and wondered, without irony, why people find her an off-putting over-sharer.
Now, Depp will forever be known as not just a wife beater, but — due to the sheer volume of detail elicited at trial — a hopeless addict and alcoholic who used a tampon applicator to snort coke, who once sliced off part of his finger and used the bloody stump to scrawl hateful messages to then-wife Amber Heard, who pissed all over the floor in an attempt to write even more hateful words, a 50-something man unsure how he came to lose his entire $650 million fortune.
Oh, and the poop found in the Heard-Depp marital bed, ruled the judge, most likely came not from a vengeful Heard but one of the couple’s dogs.
A high court reduced to ruling on defecation.
Justice Andrew Nichol’s 129-page finding leaves no doubt that Depp is guilty. Here are Depp’s doctor’s notes, damning text exchanges in which Depp repeatedly apologizes to Heard for unspeakable acts, Depp’s admission of “the Monster” within, pathetic instances of childlike temper tantrums, humiliating blackouts on private planes and in luxury mansions.
“I simply do not accept,” Nichol wrote, “that [Depp] simply chose to sleep in the toilet.”
During a text exchange with actor Paul Bettany, Depp writes, “Let’s burn Amber!!! . . . Let’s drown her before we burn her!!! I will f—k her burnt corpse afterwards to make sure she’s dead.”
Has Depp not heard of the #MeToo movement?
Goodness me. Well, I believe that multiple truths can be concurrent at the same time. Johnny has pretty well f-ed himself up on substance abuse over his 35-year career. Even during his engagement to Winona Ryder in the early '90s, tales of his substance issues were already making the rounds. I think he led Winona, 8 years younger and only 18 when they got together, down a primrose path and was not good for her. She had to drop out of 'Godfather III' citing 'exhaustion'. When an American celebrity is 'exhausted', it is almost always code for 'in drug rehab'. That was too bad for her--Mary Corleone would have been a role to bust her out of the weird Goth chick roles she'd had up to that point, and too bad for us, because Winona would have kicked butt as Mary, had she been sober. Her replacement, Francis Ford Coppola's daughter Sofia, didn't *singlehandedly* ruin the film, but it turned out to be the most egregiously bad case of nepotism casting in Hollywood history. I felt sorry for Miss Coppola at the time because prior to Daddy casting her in his movie, her only 'acting' credit was in a wordless appearance in her brother Roman's music video. Daddy set her up to fail, despite loving intentions. Anyhoo . . Johnny's drug problems stretch back decades, rendering his turn in 'From Hell' as a drug addled Scotland Yard inspector investigating Saucy Jack more or less an autobiographical turn, in Victorian clothing.
He's pretty much toast. What an epic comedown for a man once worth $650 million, who inspired (or rather, revived) an entire genre of pirate cosplay. Hope he got royalties for all those Captain Jack Halloween costumes that flew out of the shops. It's truly tragic. And I think something like it is waiting for Harry.
Had Harry not been Harry, I wonder if it would have been kept quiet. I don't know that Andrew is the main issue, but Harry could be if any had happened to Will since George is only 7. At the very least the news might have raised louder questions about how Harry could serve as a future regent if needed (bringing up the Andrew issue) and how Harry can currently be a counselor of state.
I've seen a marked increase very recently. I never saw any rumours when she was pregnant, though I don't dispute what you say. I'd put it down to the "every famous woman who's pregnant is faking" type of stuff, or tin-foil hat forum comments.
Maybe those rumours helped Meghan think she could get away with actually doing it.
Kate'birth announcements were signed by several medical professionals. I happen to know one of them. They are very real people.
That killed all rumours at the point of inception.
Megs certificates are empty of signatures, as we all know.
1. Johnny Depp is a drug addict with poor impulse control who is prone to temper and can be violent. (Multiple non-domestic arrests for run-ins with photogs and police, terrible public behavior, property damage, the gamut.)
2. This vulnerable man of demons unwittingly married a narcissist who poked and prodded all of his weaknesses to provoke violence--ie, she wound him up, on purpose. Gaslighting, her own dishing out of spousal abuse, who knows what. Where his former fiancee and his other partner of more than 15 years lying under oath when they swore he never hurt them? He's been an addict with control issues all of his adult life, but only one partner has related the experiences Amber Heard has. What incentive do Winona Ryder and Vanessa Paradis have to lie for him and perjure themselves? Paradis in particular--Depp left her and their children for this younger woman. Maybe the difference was--his other partners were not Narcs who intentionally wound him up for sick thrills and personal gain. She played a very similar game to Meghan did to Harry, acting like his #1 fan, enthusing about his films. Depp found out later that it was all lies and she'd never seen a single one of his films. I believe his problems are real, but I also believe the gaslighting and violence in his relationship drove him even further round the bend.
I doubt that Meghan trusts lawyers and judges about this - we tend to judge others according to our own standards.
However, there may be something or a lot that is incriminating for her just with regards to this court case.
If she is not completely deluded, she will throw in the towel when she fails to get the court case scrapped for a summary judgment.
I think she was given a date of this week to hand over her texts and messages, but I doubt that she will, and I doubt that there will be any reprimand or repercussions. I would love to be wrong about that.
What will always be remembered is the obscene amount of money she spent on this affair when it is not necessary at all, and looks particularly bad in the time of the virus.
She must have given a personal and confidential reason for her granted request for a postponement of the trial. Would the judge grant the extra time and protect secrecy with a threat of contempt of court if it was work related (e.g. she actually has landed an acting gig and will be working in January)?
I wasn't whining. I was expressing the view that from a PR standpoint, it might have been better to be more forthcoming about William being ill. If not right then, then shortly after he recovered. His chances of being seriously incapacitated as a healthy 37-year-old were pretty slim. His father and Bojo had both made quite remarkable recoveries, considering their ages.
One does wonder if the Royals' health is in fact an entirely private matter as it hinges upon matters of state. The fact that this virus is 'novel', is all the more reason to share his experience. People in his age group are driving the infections by cavalierly hanging out in bars and going to large parties. Kind of a moot question now, since the UK is going into lockdown again.
The Royals lead by example, both in strength and infirmity. There has been soo much secrecy around other members of the family lately, I think the public would have had an even greater investment in William and his family--it would humanize him more, to be known to have dealt with the same germ plaguing the commoners. His father had much more reason to cover up his diagnosis and he didn't. Charles could have hidden up at Birkhall with none of us the wiser, and I commend the fact that he didn't. Will's decision sounded like his own and not under pressure from anyone else in the Firm to stay quiet, but of course, he would have sought advice before saying anything, I'm sure.
Her position is not based on a 2-way contract with a get-out clause - it isn't `employment' but it rests on a sacred vow. A very different philosophical/theological foundation.
Edward VIII did abdicate - that is, by the passing of an Act of Parliament. As far as I am aware, he is the only monarch to have gone down this path.
James II & VII is commonly said to have abdicated but he didn't. He fled as a `tactical withdrawal' with a view to returning and winning back the throne by force of arms, hence the Irish campaign. There was no Act of Parliament involved - dropping the Great Seal into the Thames was done in hope of preventing the passing of any such Act.
In the event, this nicety was ignored. Dutch William & his wife, James's daughter Mary, were invited in and occupied the throne - without due legal process. The Non-Juring bishops refused to swear allegiance to William because they had already sworn an Oath of Allegiance to James at his Coronation. James was still alive and they regarded their Oaths as indissoluble vows. They were imprisoned for their trouble.
(Btw When Mary I restored Catholicism as the State religion, it was done by Act of Parliament; so, when Elizabeth removed us from the RC church, it needed an Act of Parliament.)
We already have a mechanism established in law by Act of Parliament for what may be done when the Crown weighs too heavily on an aged or infirm monarch - the Regency. The Monarch remains the Monarch until death.
IIRC, the next in line to Andrew (after George, Charlotte and Louis) is not Edward but Beatrice.
Her position is not based on a 2-way contract with a get-out clause - it isn't `employment' but it rests on a sacred vow. A very different philosophical/theological foundation.
Edward VIII did abdicate - that is, by the passing of an Act of Parliament. As far as I am aware, he is the only monarch to have gone down this path.
James II & VII is commonly said to have abdicated but he didn't. He fled as a `tactical withdrawal' with a view to returning and winning back the throne by force of arms, hence the Irish campaign. There was no Act of Parliament involved - dropping the Great Seal into the Thames was done in hope of preventing the passing of any such Act.
In the event, this nicety was ignored. Dutch William & his wife, James's daughter Mary, were invited in and occupied the throne - without due legal process. The Non-Juring bishops refused to swear allegiance to William because they had already sworn an Oath of Allegiance to James at his Coronation. James was still alive and they regarded their Oaths as indissoluble vows. They were imprisoned for their trouble.
(Btw When Mary I restored Catholicism as the State religion, it was done by Act of Parliament; so, when Elizabeth removed us from the RC church, it needed an Act of Parliament.)
We already have a mechanism established in law by Act of Parliament for what may be done when the Crown weighs too heavily on an aged or infirm monarch - the Regency. The Monarch remains the Monarch until death.
IIRC, the next in line to Andrew (after George, Charlotte and Louis) is not Edward but Beatrice.
It is worth keeping in mind that in a civil action such as this the level of proof is merely the balance of probabilities. It is not as in a criminal trial beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nichol J. thought it likely to be true. That is sufficient. Bringing in former-lovers with glowing testimony that Depp never harmed a fly and went to bed with Cocoa each night at ten is something of a smokescreen for their testimony does not and cannot extend to what transpired between Depp and Heard.
An announcement later would have been better than a leak, which this appears to be.
I do wonder if H being who he is right now was a factor in this, however. They always have to factor in what kind of pot-stirring H and his wife would have engaged in.
I also wonder if Harry was the source of the leak now. I can see Charles having said something to Harry, who then says something to his wife, who thought it would be a good distraction from the mess of her court case.
I fully expected Mm to announce that she had come down with the bubonic plague, polio, and Ebola all at once. But upon further thought I think @Enbrethiliel's scenario is much more likely.
I agree that the health of a royal (especially one in the direct line of succession) is a very sensitive subject. Like @Jdubya, I think that they have a right to as much privacy on this matter as any other person in their country does. In the case of the British royals, they do not actually govern or legislate, so their health is not the huge concern as, say, that of the president of a republic would be. If they want to reveal things for PR, that's another issue.
@Hikari made a good point that it would have made a bigger impact on Prince William's age group to have been forthcoming with this news much earlier. (I was born in the same year as Wills and it's true in my case!) But having seen (and shared) the reactions of the under-40 crowd, I think that those inclined to certain preventative actions would still find a reason to do them and those opposed to them would still find a reason to oppose them. The former would always think, "It's really serious if Prince William got it!" -- and the latter would eventually think, "Oh, he recovered. See? No big deal." In fact, after his recovery, the only way to keep milking his story for PR is to continue revealing information about his health, since now people are saying that even those who have recovered sustain permanent damage to their lungs. No individual deserves that level of intrusion into their lives, public good or no.
For me, it's kind of lame that the news has come out now. In fact, when I heard about it, I first thought it was a hoax . . . and then I wondered it was a blatant lie being told by BP to psychologically manipulate the British public into accepting another lockdown. If they didn't release the news when it was timely, they probably should never have released it.
Though I commend William's adherence to duty, he wasn't really socially distancing from his wife in those Zoom chats with Catherine. They were side-by-side, a lot. When was the Red Nose Day special where Wills appeared via videolink with Stephen Fry and then went out to Clap for Carers? I watched that again yesterday and it seemed that W. was fairly lethargic in the first bit . .not smiling like he normally does. His energy level seemed down. Catherine and the kids are fine, negative . . so we are told . .but rapid family spread is mostly where this is coming from. The Cambridges have a lot more room than the average family to spread out in, but they also have a retinue of household staff and so a lot more individuals to be concerned about in their 'bubble'. How to explain to a 2-year-old that we can't hug Daddy for days and days?
I'm really behind. Do we know this story because of a leak or a proper press release?
For if it's PR, it's really messy. I can't tell what our takeaway is supposed to be. That Prince William has a great sense of duty? That he was irresponsible toward family and staff? (He may now have to defend himself by describing the precautions taken in and around Anmer Hall in April.) That he didn't take the virus seriously before and while he had it? (This reads differently depending on which side of the corona divide you fall on.)
Good enough reason to remove Harry and his Hanger on from the line of succession, just in case.
..............
I think this is exactly where the RF needs to go.
Robert Jobson, royal reporter and author of a recent book on Prince Charles, has suggested the Harkles' titles should be stripped and Harry and his son be removed from the line of succession. In the wake of the news about William's battle with Covid I think it's even more important to do this as soon as possible.
I'm sure if Harry ever comes to his senses and divorces Meghan the RF could reverse any changes if desired and if warranted.
Re Will n Rona
As far as I understand, news of William’s Sickness with Covid in April was broken today by The Sun. (Incidentally, very same publication which Johnny Depp has just unsuccessfully sued for libel, So they are riding high on a bit of a journalistic coup at the moment.). They must be in muckrakers heaven! I think that Kensington Palace was then compelled to issue a statement affirming the truth of the story, and why William made the decision to keep his diagnosis a secret from the public. I have not had an opportunity to look at other British papers today, but apparently this revelation has made many media outlets unhappy. Well, of course they are unhappy to have missed out on a scoop. Scoops sell papers And generate clicks, so their ire is mostly financially driven. Argument could be made in support of the publics right to know, And the positive message to take precautions, especially amongst younger people which being forthright at the time might have achieved. The palace statement was definitely in response to a leak, rather than a planned event, because otherwise the palace would’ve taken the initiative to release the news much sooner. As it is, almost 6 months have gone by since he became ill, So the unintentional consequence, at least from my viewpoint, is that it looks like once again the palace was hiding an in savory truth from the people. It wasn’t Williams choice to become ill, or anything he did, and in other circumstances, it wouldn’t be a flap. But the world has just ended an entire year full of obfuscations From the Royals about what exactly was being done with tax payer funds With all the Harkles shenanigans, my exhaust and tacious wardrobe, the frogmore cottage renovations, The murkiness over the dispensation of the royal foundation funds, who exactly was funding the Harkles security and international air travel and accommodations etc. On the one hand you’ve got the Harkles over here seeming to throw smut on the queen with impunity well still accepting Crown handouts, And then there is this still festering Andrew situation. With this book band of Brothers throwing William under the bus with abandon, This is a period of negative press for him and Catherine, no matter how unjustified. I think there is a very good reason why this news has leaked now... it’s a distraction tactic from We Know Who. Question is: where is the source of the leak? Since it’s been so intensely private for nearly half a year, only to pop out at the precise moment megs got some negative court shenanigans going on, my money is on Harry, via Charles, Being told that his brother was ill, and sitting on it until an opportune moment to do damage. If Kensington Palace had released this immediately after w
Wills’ recovery, that arrow would have been blunt. As it stands, it’s just awfully convenient to take some heat off the Sussexes, along with that whole damn book.
So the unintentional consequence, at least from my viewpoint, is that it looks like once again the palace was hiding an in savory truth from the people.
I get your point. It's just my personal opinion that this unsavory truth is the most innocuous thing they could have hidden. It's not worthy of mentioning in the same breath as the coverups for Andrew and Harry -- and I'm sad that they're even in the same paragraph here! But I may be in the minority on this and perhaps the British public is quite upset to have been kept in the dark.
Question is: where is the source of the leak? Since it’s been so intensely private for nearly half a year, only to pop out at the precise moment megs got some negative court shenanigans going on, my money is on Harry, via Charles
Man, oh, man. If it was a Sussex leak, Harry just made his life under the reign of King William V much, much harder. Don't the Dumbarton Duo ever think long-term?
The BBC also showed her false bank statements that proved that courtiers were spying on her and getting paid for it.
It's no wonder she fell apart. She really thought she was surrounded by evil people.
Girl with a Hat, sounds like the BBC was actually RESPONSIBLE for some of her paranoia. Were they always soulless twits, or did they just evolve into such in the past 25 years or so?
@ Nutty, just a note to say thanks and don't work too hard, we are with you in spirit particularly if you are working on the election, I expect there will be chaos one way or another in the next few days.
What Puds said. I don't think that it matters who wins; the blue cities in blue states will be burned and looted.
Looks like y'all in Europe need to keep your heads on a swivel, too. My sympathies to those in Austria that are affected. I don't think that this is going to be a one off.
As to Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, they came across almost as bad as each other. It seems to have been a toxic relationship.
@Puds: I can see this same comment being published here sooner or later. Just the names will be changed to Harry and Meghan.
On the other hand, if Kensington Palace is able to do really good crisis PR on this, then she might go ahead and fulfill my prediction!
Narcissists are incredibly treacherous people.
Not only is this story of the media abuse of Diana horrific but it also may impact another royal narrative. I can just imagine the forever caterwauling Harkles using Diana's latest nightmare to enhance their own tale of abuse by the media as well as their cyberbullying claims.
I'm even wondering if this might be the "confidential" reason Markle asked for a postponement of her case. I'm sure she is delaying the release of her records/being cross-examined but I'm also thinking maybe they are planning/preparing some sort of suit regarding this situation with Diana and the BBC.
As a narc, the need to assert her power and control is a way of lashing out at William. It’s petty, but narcissists specialize in being petty.
So many great points..thank you
I would suggest that the leak regarding Williams Covid bout was leaked, (as you stated by the Harkles) not in response to
to MMs court struggles, but in response to the article saying they lied about the timing of Archies "birth ".
They lied. "But William lied too!" (In annoying teenage-y whine)
Their immaturity stuns me sometimes.
I think M&H found out with all of us.
They aren't apart of the inner circle anymore and he was fine. If it was more dire, of course they would let Harry know. I think this is a warning to M&H 'good luck, you are outsiders now.' plus how awful do they look? Harry's whole family suffering and M&H talking about every pop topic other than a cure for Covid. Pretty disgusting behavior during the pandemic IMO.
My guess is that it is the sort of thing which might be viewed as a good short term card (play it now) rather than savoring the information and dropping it as part of a strategic play.
Great post on the Will n Rona situation. Just one thing ... there was no comment from KP. When contacted by the Sun, they declined to comment. The source of the story is an unnamed person at the palace. It is not even specified if it is KP or BP. So, no one at BP or KP have even confirmed that the story is true and even with the comment that William supposedly made during an engagement, no details are given about which engagement or who he said it to.
I can easily be persuaded that Charles said something to Harry and the Sussexes are the source of the story.
Lesson for the Harkles? It is a lot more difficult if you are excluded from royal machinery. BP's official statement that they are private individuals who no longer represent the Queen is hugely significant.
Got it in one, I think. You are so right that William with holding his health status could very well be twisted into a tit for tat “lie“ on a par with “ we lied about Archie‘s birth.“ I find the blunt use of the word lie very interesting. Not “we created some alternative details”, but ‘we lied.”
This was pretty damn obvious to any royal correspondent on the ground that day, but this admission of lying surprised me. I wonder if the Harkles have been given an ultimatum to come clean about Archie, and this is the opening gambit...Downplaying there obvious guilt for so-called noble reason—for Archie’s privacy! If Harry and Meg are the leak, that would hew to her MO. Spread sensitive info to hurt William. But the only way she could know about it is directly from harry, If Charles had told him In the course of a personal conversation. The other alternative is that the Sussexes still have some mole working for them inside KP. Someone who knew that William had gotten sick and was quarantining in the residence. Of the two scenarios, better to have come from Charles. If William is conducting a mole hunt in his office, I wouldn’t want to be the person he is trying to catch.
Sandie—
Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that KP would have said something in response to the Sun story rather than let the Sun be the defining word. What interesting times we live in.
His leaving statement was that he had to do it for ‘his family’, and we know what he meant was ‘for Meghan.’ Meghan had a taste of what being a princess was, and it wasn’t for her. Fine. I do think their level of personal risk, and the risk Archie is now exposed too is ridiculously high. Harry knows what happened to Diana. If this is all about security and privacy, leaving the BRF after integrating and starting a family within it is another mark against their ‘narrative’.
The Express want us to believe that the Queen has arranged a professional group counselling session to reconcile the Harkles with the family. Sure, that is completely believable!
Now who would be the source of such a ridiculous idea and thinks it might be believed? Who would want the Harkles to look so important, would introduce the idea of group counselling, and misunderstands the royals so much that they think it is believable that the Queen, Charles and William would do something like this?
I do think it is Amazing that Meghan has convinced Harry that he needs to do everything to keep her alive and be her hero, to the point he disrespects himself and his entire family and culture.
@Not Meghan Markle:
Meghan’s psychological and emotional grip on Harry has several facets that are go-to tactics used by people who have narcissistic personality disorder. She initially lured him in by portraying a helpless orphan with no family and quickly morphed it, using triangulation into being a damsel in distress who was first victimized by Toronto paps, then William and Kate, and the UK press, and morphed it into being victimized by her father, the UK public, the UK press, the royal family, and the world at large who, according to Meghan, made her the most trolled person on earth. She manipulates Harry into playing the part of the heroic prince who repeatedly rides in on his trusty polo pony to rescue her from the meanies of all sorts.
This creates a trauma bond that she uses to keep him under her control and influence, which, as a blind gossip item noted a few months ago has likely caused Harry to become a victim of Stockholm syndrome or a form of it. She also uses Archie in this trauma bonding of Harry.
She has to keep the drama going to maintain her grip on Harry.
Good morning Nutties!
@Hikari
I think she will do everything possible to get the summary judgment or something else to avoid the trial.
By the way, the Sussex are quiet. That is VERY unusual.
Option 1: they were kept apart of William’s illness (for obvious reasons). They had to postpone/cancel their last scheduled secret zoom video for fear being compared to William Le Grand. However, they are preparing for more revenge.
Option 2:
They are preparing for US Election Day and what comes with it. Peasants and sugars must now when MM voted, why she voted, the Sussex’s election evening…
Option 3:
After having spent their monthly allowance generously given by Bank of Pa’ in legal fees, they keep their money to break the Internet with their big announcement (pregnancy 2).
Option 4:
She is keeping a low profile to say latter she had a rough time (Hyperemesis gravidarum) while being pregnant a la Kate Middleton and that she was harassed by the MoS and her heartless Dad.
I do think she is pregnant and they are preparing to flood us after the Election Day. It’s going to be a nightmare!
Yes I’ve noticed they are UNUSUALLY quiet. This could be a sign that they did not know about William and wanted to avoid ANY zoom questions related to their care and concern for him. PR crisis mode. Go into hiding.
I think they’ve run out of money and steam. There was no reason to throw up their lame Archewell site last minute except to try to prove their following to close another deal. That didn’t happen. They got a few emails. They needed to pay their Legal team and they needed to pay PR for November.
Election coverage is full steam ahead this week, and their antics would need to be massive to make the news in any meaningful way. Barely any outlets cover them as it is.
It is weird though. I kind of like that they are missing from the DM.
I don't think I've ever seen mention of it in print but any personal information you've told them in confidence, before realising what b*stards they are, may be stored for future use to damn you in the eyes of others.
The suggestion that C told H about W, and he blabbed it to M, seems very likely to me. She then released it as a counterweight to their admitting being less than candid about the details of A's arrival.
Wasn't there a report, sometime in the last 10 days, that she'd dumped a large number of stories/press releases/propaganda onto one of the papers? And didn't the BP leaks begin when she was installed (allegedly) in KP?
I also feel they didn’t know about William. She would have asked her PR diminish William’s ability to become King and emphasize the leadership of Harry during the illness. They would not have shown off their move to the US while the Firm was clapping for the NHS. She must be gobsmacked. I can feel her bitterness.
Baby 2. For sure, she didn’t like to be pregnant and she doesn’t like to be a mum but it suits to her agenda. She will use pregnancy 2 in her Netflix show, in her upcoming trial, in her zoom calls and secret visits… That’s also an easy way to stay in the headlines during at least 18 months (rumors-pregnancy announcement-birth-christening). She had to have number 2 whatever the sacrifice but she doesn’t get it. . It won’t help her reputation.
Question (and I have been wrong before and willing to admit it)
What if the information that William was sick was "disinformation" to see if it would leak?
Is that possible?
abbyh said…
What if the information that William was sick was "disinformation" to see if it would leak?
-----------------
That was my first thought.
Maybe not disinformation exactly, but a test for Harry? Something interesting but relatively harmless, to see what would happen? Prior to letting him back into the family?
A loyalty test, so to speak.
Interesting that this would come out right after her trial stunt. I think it's connected in some way.
Bashir first approached Diana's brother with false stories about their staff being paid for spying on them. He first believed it and introduced him and his "evidence" to Diana but later distanced himself from Bashir after finding inconsistencies in what he had been telling. Diana swallowed it whole and had been manipulated by Bashir who fed her insecurities very cunningly.
Thanks.
I was thinking about how there has been talk about how William has concerns about the people around him and can they be trusted (after the stories where his mother was told about spies - I could see that as one of those formative world outlook planks).
Then I was thinking: well, who really would benefit from this? not William ... but would he say/do something for duty? Yeah, William has duty down.
And then, George Washington had a way of dealing with people he suspected of being a spy for the British. He would call them into his tent and ask to talk over strategy, what did they think about the idea of this or that. He would talk about areas that he had no intention of going to but wanted to see if the person would then desert.
side note: comments about why leave the UK when they did, something happened theory.
I was thinking that the family got the "proof" (truth) about the baby or there were hard questions with no good answers so the BRF tried to give them a time out to think about things. And that's why they left in a hurry - not wanting to have another conversation about that (deflect).
-----------------
I think that's exactly what happened.
Maybe not about the baby initially. Might have been given the first 6 week break as a consequence to the I'm not ok video. And then baby questions evolved from that.
Or they knew baby proof was going to be required and they had no baby to produce.
It had all the vibes of the sh*t was going to hit the fan about something (baby, or something else) and they ran away rather than face it.
Which seems to be a typical mm move. Causes chaos, doesn't stay to face the music. Takes the coward's way out.
It was for sure a royal PR but not "disinformation" to see if it would leak.
1/ The BRF knows they can’t trust Meghan and Harry. They repeatedly gave insight of what was going in the Firm disregarding Protocol, BP orders….
2/ There is too much at stake for the Pair. Although royal correspondents criticized William, it was a smart royal PR. While avoiding passive-aggressive attack, it portrays William as someone who cares about his country and duties while his brother was in a fancy mansion in Canada or in the US. That’s bad for the Pair.
I suppose that could have happened here? It doesn't seem to have been confirmed by any trustworthy royal sources.
Richard Eden has now tweeted with reference to it.
https://twitter.com/richardaeden/status/1323554368231219203
That poll came out last week and we've had radio silence from the evil duo since then.
Their approval ratings took a really big dive so they were faced with the fact that their PR attempts are not only not succeeding but are actually harming their cause. Money thrown away, again by the evil Meghan.
They really are the Beaver & the Butthead! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Yeah, but it IS funny!
The Queen was 'worried' when her two direct heirs contracted COVID-19 but Prince William 'coped pretty well and was not bedridden', source tells Vanity Fair.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8909137/The-Queen-worried-Prince-William-contracted-COVID-19.html
The last time they kept quiet was during their 6 weeks break in Canada. They were plotting Megxit....
@Wild Boar Battle-maid : I may be wrong but I don't think William tested the loyalty of someone because this is huge and he could have backfired far more than some comments written by whining royal correspondents. I do think this is Royal PR under Kensington's control.
I am not familiar with the writer, Sean O'Grady, but he is supposedly Republican versus a royalist.
I do disagree with him that it is all about successful PR and would suggest that character and values show through, and choice of life partner!
I also disagree with him that the Sussexes did anything to modernise the monarchy. They did nothing new or groundbreaking, nor created any significant change in any way, but were entirely motivated by a personal self-serving agenda.
Simply my opinion!
I do wish someone would call out Meghan face-to-face, in public, on her pity me indulgences. What she spent on herself in such a short time of being a working royal is scandalous and it is telling that she feels no remorse.
I also think they are the source on this. PW is eloquent and measured with his PR, and this has all the looks of the sloppy Sussex media dealings we have seen before. If he wanted to make a statement to the press about his illness he would have already, in my opinion. He has no motivation to release this story now, but they do. It came right on the tails of serious details that they lied about Archie's birth.
That it is an unnamed source, released to the Sun, and followed up with a VF story (another Sussex mouthpiece, just like Harper's) is very suspect. PW had made an unfortunate comment downplaying Covid (to be fair, other public figures had) and then he got it. I don't blame him for keeping that quiet, and as long as he didn't put his staff or others at risk, I think it's OK to keep it to himself.
He has gotten great press recently. I think H&M have known about this and were waiting for a time when they would need it. It is like when MM fired back that "the Queen doesn't own the word Royal" (I'm paraphrasing there). She just can't help herself from cutting someone else down, even though in the long run, this is a disaster move for them. PW will not forget it.
@Girl with a Hat : she knows people don't like her in UK. She is more interested in her US audience. I tell you : something is going on in Montecito...
The last time they kept quiet was during their 6 weeks break in Canada. They were plotting Megxit....
@Frenchieliv and Girl with a Hat:
Perhaps the reason for all the quiet is Meghan is undergoing fertility treatments/procedures such as IVF, or they are interviewing surrogates for the second baby, hence the nine-month delay request in Mayhem’s suit against the Mail on Sunday.
"I also disagree with him that the Sussexes did anything to modernise the monarchy. They did nothing new or groundbreaking, nor created any significant change in any way, but were entirely motivated by a personal self-serving agenda".
---
I totally agree Sandie
I saw a great quote on one of the Tumblr blogs:
Meghan didn't want to modernize the BRF. She wanted to monetize it.
Did we ever get to the bottom of why Harry didn’t leave the BRF prior to Meghan?
Laziness? Haz has been whinging about leaving the Firm for a 'normal' life for years; long before Meghan . . .I think even before his military service. How he wanted to go be a safari guide in Africa, etc.
Apart from the fact that being a safari guide is hardly a normal life, and would go to a person who had spent years living there and familiarizing himself with the terrain and the wildlife . . Harry never had any conception of what 'normal' life meant. Harry has wonderful memories of the semi-luxurious holidays they spent in the aftermath of Diana's death, some of it spent shooting the local fauna. All those experiences (plus the staff to cater to their every need) made possible *because* he was a Royal. In his version of 'normal' life, Harry had no responsibilities or expectations; he got to play all day and travel to exotic places. How this would all be funded or justified never crossed his mind. After all, this is the guy who enthused about flying Apache helicopters because it was like the video games he was addicted to. That is why Harry wanted to go to Afghanistan--not to serve Queen and country, but to star in his very own live-action Tour of Duty game.
Upon reading that comment, I realized for once and all that this really is an immature 13-year-old mind inhabiting a man's body. That was a childish answer for a guy who remains essentially a child. He is and will remain, emotionally stuck at the age he was when Diana died. On his own, he lacked both the initiative and the direction to formulate a plan. He could have approached Granny in 2015 and pitched the 'part-time in Africa' idea. She would have sent him with her blessing, particularly since his security and arrangements would have been far easier to manage as a bachelor. I just don't think Harry wanted to work that hard, or be away from the London party scene or his mates. 'Real life' in Africa, sans the daily 'holiday' feeling . .actually grinding work with charities on the ground . . didn't appeal. Meg was the firecracker that pried the royal bum out of his inertia, but certainly not without damage.
His leaving statement was that he had to do it for ‘his family’, and we know what he meant was ‘for Meghan.’ Meghan had a taste of what being a princess was, and it wasn’t for her.
Meg got a taste of being a Princess and realized that she wasn't what she thought it would be . . and *that* wasn't for her. Meg is in her own way as stunted in adolescence as Harry. If he sees life like a video game, she sees it like a Disney movie. Maybe like the 'Cinderella' starring Brandy. She thought it was going to be champagne brunches, tiaras, carriages, gowns and glittering red carpet galas every day. She could order people around all day and they'd have to curtsey to her! 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous', UK edition . . Downton Abbey mixed with the Princess Diaries. Glamour, luxury, jewels, spas, shopping all day . . the best food, luxe holidays . . her perfect Instagram life/Hollywood-Over-the-Sea replacement.
Then a few cold hard realities intruded: the Firm was not about Meghan. She was a secondary cog in a very large machine. She was expected to work; smile and be pleasant and engage with the public no matter if she felt like it or not. For all their wealth, the daily life of the Royals isn't all glitz and glamor. Those castles are drafty. She'd have to follow protocols and have her secondary status continually rubbed in her face. She was not the star, but a supporting player. This would have been a good life for someone willing to follow the team playbook. But Meg has never seen herself as a bit player. So we are where we are.
Although it is highly demanding/restrictive, fertility treatment doesn't mean stop living/zooming/secret visiting.
Election day:
Meghan Markle 'Is Voting in This Election' in Historic Move for a Royal:
"Meghan Markle becomes the first royal to ever take part in a national election as sources tell Newsweek: "The duchess is voting."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/meghan-markle-is-voting-in-this-election-in-historic-move-for-a-royal/ar-BB1aEgHT
@HappyDays: I can imagine MM (with all her aids)could go to a fertility clinic in the morning, then zooming in the afternoon because she doesn't have to think about preparing dinner, giving Archie a bath, taking care of all the paperwork...
Although it is highly demanding/restrictive, fertility treatment doesn't mean stop living/zooming/secret visiting.
@Frenchieliv: I know fertility treatment doesn’t take all your time. I think it’s just that Meghan thinks everything she does that’s “super secret,” in her mind at least, makes for more drama for when she debuts a bump, real or not.
I always keep in mind that Meghan isn’t playing with a full deck of cards.
Chatting with Lady C - Princess Diana/Hewitt/The Queen/Meg & black bandwagon/Castle Goring changes.
Shall we be on the lookout for news of Mudslide Towers 'being sold' in the event of a Trump re-election? What paltry favors Meg's been able to pull in from her Democratic celeb pals that she invited to her wedding seem to have dried up. A Biden victory would make her more insufferable than she is already because the cohorts she's attempting to ingratiate herself with will have more power under a Democratic administration.
Every time I scroll through my smartphone feeds, I get literally *dozens* of articles/year-plus old photos of the Smirkles decorating more papp from Meg's sugar outlets. If I see that green Poison Ivy caped Commonwealth service get-up one more time, I will want to stick pins in my eyes for some relief. Her PR dollars aren't entirely spent up because it's still churning out vapid reheated articles for her every day. They get so much coverage, out of all proportion to what they are actually *doing*, I am gobsmacked. There is also massive coverage of other members of the Royal family every day as well. So unexpected from American magazines, really. Even during my Diana-watching period (admittedly, all of that was pre-Internet), there didn't seem to be as much. One would have to wait for the new monthly or weekly issues of the magazines to hit the stands. Now it is just relentless, never-ending, 27/7 churning out of 'royal news stories' 'round the globe with almost no content. It's headache inducing.
Meg may be 'quiet' (for once . .and it's only been, what, a week? since their curated Ted talks binge) . . but she has not disappeared. Or at least her photos haven't.
Nothing stops the Queen voting because it would be against the Chapter of fundamental Human rights UK is signed up to
The Queen and her family are politically neutral because whatever government comes into power in UK it is considered Her Majesty's government and she remains the symbol of it. Taking sides in elections is against the strong constitutional convention.
Everyone in the line to succession must remain politically neutral. For this reason the royal family voluntarily refrains from casting votes. It is absolutely essential for the survival of the monarchy.
I congratulate the idiot halfwit Harry for creating an even bigger void between himself and the monarchy thanks to his psychotic narcissist wife.
She is far too famous to turn up at a polling station (insert eyeroll) . .and in any case, would need to have registered in Santa Barbara county within 30 days of the election (normally--I have heard that they have relaxed that this year and some areas are accepting same-day registration.) Did Mugsy actually obtain an absentee ballot and cast it? She'd be prohibited from turning up with a camera crew to the polls, though footage of her voting would be so desirable for the Netflix special.
Meg is a whole lot of storm and fury signifying nothing. I bet she will spend the day holed up wherever she's living, freebasing Tig and sticking pins in pictures of Kate.
"Meghan is a fart in a mitten"
Dying with laughter. Absolutely. Dying!!!
Also, it seems we assume Handbag knew about his brother's covid in real time and The Harkles sat on that nugget until needed. It is possible it was kept from them and just recently slipped out.
Re voting: many states allow candidates (and maybe real people?) to access records showing who voted. You can see if, for example, your neighbor voted in a recent election. If this can be done in CA it shouldn't take long to find out if MeGain voted or not. You can't find out who they voted for, just that they voted or not.
This is another example of her pathology. There is no need to announce in the press that she is voting, anyone who has paid attention to her would know that she is. But she can't resist being out of the headlines, and this story is another "take that" to the RF in her mind.
I think it is interesting that the Obamas distanced themselves from her in the press a few months back. They made sure to go on the record to say they were not advising H&M.
You think she knows she is hated in the UK. I think she thinks she can turn that around by complaining. I think she really thinks that if she spends enough money, people will love her no matter what she has done or what she does. That's how the world works in her twisted mind.
I am not a fan of The Obamas, I am agnostic towards their agenda. It’s clear why anyone with their background would back completely away from someone like Meghan Markle.
No one cares that Meghan is voting. Literally, no one. I imagine she expected to be invited to all the hot rallies this month and didn’t get an invite. Sorry dear, you need to renounce your titles and actually stand for the policies you spew to be able to attend with any integrity in tact.
Not sure if it’s accurate, but it is a reputable site.
Compliments of my Michigan roots. Other areas say fart in a skillet😄😆
Both mean insubstantial nothings with no weight or longevity. Small noise then poof!
Just like Mugsy.
The Duchess is voting is an oxymoronic statement. We don’t have Duchesses here, dear. Your husband is titled and he is a guest alien, though maybe not tolerated here much longer. Here is the deal: If you are going to exercise your American right to vote, leave the title at home. If you insist on using it, go back to England and face the music.