Although I haven't been around much recently, I've enjoyed reading the comments. Recently the group was discussing whether or not the Sussexes would release a Christmas card this year, given what Meg's tragic miscarriage last summer (if you believe the official version of events) or their lack of access to the baby playing the role of Archie (if you don't).
I was struck by Enbrethiliel's suggestion that if the Sussexes do a Christmas card this year, it might include a quote from Kamala Harris.
Birds of a feather
Actually, I'm surprised that Meghan hasn't tried harder to publicly associate herself with Harris.
Both women are biracial, both California natives, both "woke" Democrats. They even have similar hairstyles and fashion preferences. Both are fond of big, airy language with minimal substance, and both are openly ambitious.
In fact, there's quite a bit of chatter suggesting that Joe Biden will have quite a short presidency and quickly resign in favor of Harris, perhaps for health reasons or some connection to his troubled son's business dealings.
Wouldn't Meghan love to be connected with the first female president? Maybe even pose Archie in a "Harris and Harrison" photo to go with has "Arch and Archbishop" Bishop Tutu?
Harris went after Meghan first
Ironically, in the past it has been Harris who has worked hard to associate herself with Markle.
In October 2019, on her official Senate account, Harris commented on Meghan's weepy video statement in South Africa, in which Meg suggested that the Royal Family rarely asked how she was doing.
Harris' Tweet read: "This is incredibly important.
We must remember that it's a sign of strength to show emotion. Meghan, we are with you."
(The boldface is in the original).
In 2019, Harris was running in the Presidential primaries and might have thought she could benefit by associating herself with Meghan. (She eventually dropped out without winning a single delegate.)
Time Magazine brought them together
In June 2020, Harris again used her official Senate account to comment on Meghan's (apparently unrequested) graduation video for students of her alma mater, discussing racial justice.
Harris wrote, using boldface again, "The only wrong thing to say is nothing.
Thank you, Meghan, for this powerful statement."
At the time, Harris was out of the presidential race entirely, although certainly aiming for the vice president job.
Meghan's video bears a Time Magazine watermark, and Harris also has a long association with Time Magazine, a onetime Republican stalwart that has gone ultra-woke after its acquisition by a Silicon Valley billionaire.
Time put Harris on the cover in 2019 - "Her Case: Presidential candidate Kamala Harris fights for a path forward" - and this week there was another cover naming her and Joe Biden, bizarrely, "
Person of the Year." (Are these two individuals somehow just one person? Or was Joe, as President-Elect, not significant enough to get his own Person of the Year cover?)
It's hard to know if the June tweet was Harris supporting Meghan, Harris cementing her relationship with Time Magazine, Harris promoting herself, or all of the above.
The wrong cards
Given Kamala Harris' come-up, there's little doubt that Meghan would now be eager to associate herself with the vice-president elect.
However, as a leader-in-waiting, Harris has little incentive to annoy the Royal Family by publicly linking herself to Meghan.
There don't seem to be any publicly-available photos of the two of them together, and there probably won't be if Harris can help it.
Looks like Meghan's played her cards wrong again - even if she does put a Kamala Harris quote on her 2020 Christmas card.
Comments
Thanks for the interesting history on funeral traditions of Wales. It could be argued that as the head of state, Elizabeth Regina transcends being a mere woman and it wouldn't have been inappropriate for her to attend the memorials for all the lost children as their sovereign, and the face of the Crown, not just as a female person. Through the mists of time it's hard to know what the villagers of Aberfan might have expected of their Queen or if they felt shortchanged in any way by her tardy and minimal appearance among them. It was good that Philip went as representative of the Crown. As for Lord Snowdon, I suspect his prompt departure for Aberfan was more in the line of getting photographs than being in any official capacity to offer condolences. I would like to think that he called his wife from there and asked her to go immediately and kiss the children as they slept, and it wasn't just dramatic license, but unless either he or Margaret went on record about such a phone call, I can't see how Peter Morgan would have known that it happened.
I am not of the opinion that the Queen's appropriate response to tragedy is to be seen to visibly break down and blubber, though in the wake of Diana's death, that seemed to be exactly what people were expecting. I would think it good to be *visible* in some capacity. After the recent storms that decimated the Caribbean, I did think that the Palace's response to the people of the Bahamas might have been more robust than a distant statement of condolence. Of course I don't expect HM to go personally and clear storm debris . . but sending a contingent of able-bodied helpers--led by the Wessexes and the Duke of Cambridge, for example, would have been a welcome gesture. And more than gesture--I think what the younger royals are accepting and acting out is the need for the 21st century monarchy to be seen on the ground and in the trenches with the people, actually helping, in whatever capacity they are able and not just showing up to fanfares and waving from cars. If the monarchy is to survive, that is what is going to have to happen.
If Harry hadn't wound up to be such a little toerag, I would have said that hurricane relief efforts would have been a prime opportunity to put his 'humanitarian/eco-conscious' blather to the test and actually *do something* that might have rehabilitated his reputation. But he's thrown his lot in with Madam. It's been a silly, wasted life so far and it looks like more of the same, only worse, to come.
For the hurricanes that devastated the Caribbean in 2017, Prince Charles toured to show royal support.
https://www.royal.uk/prince-wales-visits-caribbean-meet-communities-affected-hurricanes-irma-and-maria?page=9
It's often Charles or the Wessexes who cover and visit the Caribbean whilst William covers and is sent out to Aus/NZ.
William last visited NZ in 2019 to show support after the Christchurch attacks.
NZ/ Aus media were reporting a planned William tour in 2020 to show support after the devastating fires, but Covid cancelled those plans.
https://www.vogue.com.au/celebrity/royals/prince-william-and-kate-middleton-will-take-a-royal-tour-to-australia-in-2020/news-story/3924a7dd0eee090ef67da6d8057762f7
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/prince-william-and-kate-expected-to-visit-bushfire-hit-regions-of-australia
Kate and her family were mocked for working to better themselves, for daring to aspire to better lives than their origins and the coal mining ancestry was regurgitated in so many articles in a perjotative way that implied that Kate and Carole had walked out of a coal mine 5mins before the engagement.
The reception of the Middletons by the British upper crust, and how Catherine and her sister were derided as 'Wisteria Sisters' and the Middleton parents mocked for having worked and successfully built up their own fortunes, and for, gasp! sending their children to school picnics with 'new items . ..' just really underscores the fundamental difference between the British class system and the American attitude toward work and money.
Michael Middleton is a self-made man, and Americans absolutely love an Horatio Alger story. Descended from coal miners? Even better. This country was built by the Horatio Algers. One of our greatest Presidents was born in a log cabin and taught himself to read by scratching letters in the dirt. That stellar mind became a lawyer and President. Could such a thing happen in England, where even the Labour PMs were Oxbridge dons prior to Downing Street?
Who can forget the infamous 'doors to nanual' mockery of Carole's former profession? Can you imagine the fallout from anyone publicly daring to mock Doria? At all times she's portrayed as serene, gracious, charming etc. All attributes you could give to Carole too. Also, Carole with the demonstrated good working skills, successful life and family is the one who is mocked and derided.
Carole Middleton seems to be the 'Queen Mum' of her family, in terms of having the vision and keeping everybody on course. And in her we can certainly see where Catherine gets her looks from. Whether or not Kate and her mother put their heads together in a 'plot' to 'catch' William . . it's a good thing for the nation and for their children that those two did meet and hit it off. William will find his duties bearable, and even 'thrive-able' with the right partner by his side.
Re. the Queen Mum
I really need to get Lady Colin Campbell's book on her. There'd be some great tea there, I imagine. The image most people have of QM is of Bertie's Rock who steered the nation through its darkest hour and gave her shy and unconfident husband the necessary steel to be a wartime King . . whose two daughters were devoted to her, and that very social and bright personality which were in contrast to her diffident husband and more stolid and dutiful elder child. Also, Charles's beloved Gran and his advocate. I know the reality is a lot more complex. QM seems like she was a crafty general, moving her pieces round the chessboard of her devising. Lilibet must have got some steeliness from her mum though seeing as she got her way where Philip was concerned, with both her parents and most of Parliament aligned against the match. I can understand why Philip would have been regarded as a chancer, with his pushy Kingmaker-wannabe uncle behind him. Everyone underestimated Elizabeth in this, it seems.
I still marvel that the 13-year-old heiress apparent was permitted to correspond with an 18 year old homme du monde sailor with girls in every port. How interesting could a very sheltered 13-year-old girl's letters be to such a man? Safe to say that Philip had his eye on the brass ring, egged on by Lord Mountbatten.
Cold fish is a personality trait where a person is reserved, doesn't show their emotions easily, doesn't invite others to become bosom buddies on first meeting and tend to be detached. They reserve their core for their family and friends.
I would call shyness a personality trait rather than an emotion, though it could be called the physical manifestation of insecurity and self-consciousness. One gets the shakes and the sweating and feeling like one wants to die and drop through the floor because of an over sensitivity to what people are thinking/judging. Most shy people can be comfortable and loquacious even in situations and around people with which they feel comfortable.
Reserved people are often shy, but we've all known that person who never says a lot, but when they do speak .. or have to give someone a dressing down--they command attention and respect. A lot of successful leaders are this way, even though American culture in particular values (overvalues) exuberant extroverts over their quieter but sometimes even more effective counterparts. I think ER was both shy and reserved as a younger person and probably, after 70 years as Queen has lost the shyness. The reserve remains, and the distaste for confronting unpleasantries head-on. I think because the Queen herself has such nearly superhuman self-control and discipline and work ethic, she expects that everyone around her will/should exhibit the same. When they do not, as has been the case with most of her kids . .until the second generation . .she's not in her natural element in chastising them.
I am rather doubting that there isn't going to be some huge announcement/stripping of titles, come March. The royal funding may quietly stop, seeing as M&H seem to have so many commericial deals on the hob, and have blatantly disregarded the terms of the not commoditizing their royal status which they ostensibly agreed to back in January.
I don't think the Kraken is going to be unleashed after all. At least, not while William is in his current position. Once he becomes PoW, we may see some loosing of the Kraken. Charles is not inclined.
William needs to get Lord Geidt on his staff ASAP and he can tell his father to stuff it if Charles complains. Forcing Lord G. out of the Queen's service was one of Chas's stupider blunders--all for ego. Charles needs to surround himself with strong people, even if they don't always feed him what he wants to hear. Had Lord G. been retained as HM's Private Secretary throughout the Harkle tenure, things would not have come to the pass they are now, I'm fairly sure. Lord G. might have been able to galvanize the Queen into more decisive action where MM is concerned. The grasping bunt may not have even gotten her Size 9 bunions through the door.
Some may disagree, but personally, I consider a cold fish to be, not just an individual who is reserved and distant with people they don't know, but also with those they do, like family members. Someone who is shy and reserved in situations out in the world may appear as a cold fish to onlookers but be very warm and nurturing at home. The true cold fish is one who does not demonstrative or sharing with even those closest to them.
Without being behind closed doors, we can't know how the Queen is with her family, though Charles may have had the cold fish treatment. Anne, being something of a cold fish herself remembers their shared childhood very differently, but she was younger by a couple of crucial years and also a more resilient, less needy personality. Charles' neediness is a direct offshoot from the lack of parental nurturing he got during a very formative stage. He was only 5 or 6 when his mother deserted him (as he would have seen it) for half a year to go touring the Commonwealth. His craving for validation is held up as a personal failing when it seems very human to me. Parental absence and constant criticisms were not *Charles's* failure . . it's what was done to him.
By the time her younger boys arrived, the Queen had relaxed more into her sovereignty and was able to enjoy being a mother more than she had at the first go-round. If she was raised by a Narcissist, her parenting lacks aren't entirely her fault, either.
I have big feet as well, but I'm tall and need them so as not to topple over.
I think that Meghan shows signs of childhood malnutrition which are hands and feet which are too big for the rest of the body. I think she was fed a crappy diet when she was very young and didn't get the needed nutrition to grow to her genetically pre-ordained height later.
You have some interesting thoughts about Meg and her unique proportions. I think it's safe to say, looking at Thomas Markle, that nutrition and health were not a preoccupation of his. Drug use was prevalent in the house, and when Doria took off to do whatever she was doing, Tom was a working single dad. I'm sure meals where whatever . . fast food, junk food . .was easiest.
Doria is a petite woman so I don't think it was ordained that her spawn be tall and willowy. Meg's proportions are decidedly non-standard, as her spidery limbs and oversized hands and feet relative to her torso display. Her hands are weirdly spatulate and double-jointed, too. Do you think starting yoga in middle school when her joints and bones were still growing might have done it? Also there's her very probable Adderal/cocaine habit to stay slim/possible eating disorder, too. When Meg was more filled out, her extremities did not look so spidery, but yeah, there's no visible muscle tone on her, for a yogi.
Allegedly.
I wonder if we saw MM in the flesh, without heels on if she's even over 5'3". She looks REALLY short next to Harry when she's in flats. I am 5'5", with a 7.5/8 size foot. I think I might even be taller than our Madam Supermodel.
I'll revise my guesstimate to at least a 10 for Meg's feet. I actually wish my feet were a size larger for two reasons: My size is apparently the most popular and will often be sold out when lots of Size 8.5/9s remain, as well as 5s and 6s, and also, for optimum health I really need to get at least 30 pounds off. If my feet were larger, my foundation would be sturdier. I have a friend who is 6' tall (female) and large-boned. She's had a lot of problems with her feet because relative to the size of her frame, they are tiny. She and I might wear the same size even. She's the one who needs the Size 11s, not Madam Supermodel from Montecito.
There are a lot of people alive today that have been overindulged as children (see Meghan and Harry). They have no emotional control at all and somehow think it is MY JOB as well as everybody else's to care about their hurt feelings. I will care if somebody wants to pay me for my time spent caring; otherwise, they can f*ck off. I reserve my caring for people in my immediate family and friends that I believe deserve it. I also care about deserving others upon whom misfortune falls. I regard the overemotional with pity tinged with contempt for their lack of self control. OMG, nobody asked if Meghan was OKAY? I. Don't. Care.
The Queen's generation has seen hard times that these whiny unweaned brats can't even conceive of.
The Queen mother for all her faults had natural charm and was an extrovert. In many ways the Queen's natural personality is as opposite to her mother as Charles's overly emotional, sensitive one is to his mother.
Margaret took after Queen Mum and Elizabeth after her father. I read somewhere--possibly and excerpt from Lady C that QM was extremely jealous of Margaret's beauty and the King's obviousl attachment to his 'Joy'. This would align with a Narc personality if that is a true attribute of QM. From most accounts I am reading, though Elizabeth was outwardly the dutiful, shy, unimaginative, conventional one she possessed a bedrock of stubbornness that made her quite impervious to being hurried or cajoled before she was ready . . a serene but unmoving object which stood up to forces exerting pressure and for whom things bounce off which she does not care to entertain.
A needy child like Charles would be a trial to such a person, though perhaps he wouldn't have turned out so needy if she'd been less like herself and more like other mothers. Chicken and egg question. Anne is her father all over, temperament-wise. Though Charles is very sensitive and emotional, whereas neither of his parents could be said to be these--Philip is outgoing, exuberant and unfiltered, but sentiment resides in another quadrant . . I would not call him 'emotional' though he does possess more emotional intelligence than his wife--I've always thought of Charles as having traits of both his parents. His more intellectual/artistic side he gets from his father, but I always pegged his temperament for being closer to his mother's. He's more reserved than outgoing, or used to be, and certainly has embraced his royal duties. He doesn't eat lunch because he's too busy, though he may be eating lunch more at home since Covid has drastically reduced his schedule. I don't think Phillip cares for horses much, unlike his horse-mad family (Philip ironically means 'lover of horses' in Greek)--The organic farming/love of flowers seems to be Charles's own . . is either ER or Philip known for their love of digging in the dirt?
On the whole, it would have been better for Charles if he'd been born with Anne's personality, if he is to rule. But personality doesn't develop in a vacuum . .birth order is SO influential to personality development it can't be overestimated. Gender, too. Anne was born second and a girl and out of the gate, she didn't have the weight of expectations and criticisms which Charles was expected to shoulder as the heir. The younger boys never had his kind of pressures, either. All the siblings in a family are born to the same two people but all the children don't get exactly the same parents.
It was announced just this week that tattoo artist Kat von D has upped sticks and moved her family to, of all places, Vevay, Indiana (pop. 1200+). She still owns a home in L.A., and her tattoo business there, but she plans to spend at least half the year in Indiana, where she has just purchased a stately home for the bargain price of $1.87 million. That's a lot of money for Indiana and her realtor is surely celebrating that commission, but she'd never find that much house and 10 acres of property for that in L.A. No way. Kat cited 'governmental overreach' as her reason for fleeing LaLaLand.
I think Kat von D might actually be a Crunchy Conservative. I wish the newest resident of Vevay best of luck in her new home. She is certainly going to turn heads. And yes, she plans on opening a studio there as well.
It is the old nature/nurture question, isn't it? I note that whether in a litter of pups, kittens, or piglets, some will be bold and aggressive, some will be shy and retiring, some will be more or less intelligent. In the case of litters, birth order and age of parents is not a factor yet still the differences emerge.
I know a lot of people who grew up during tough times in Eastern Europe when all they had to eat were potatoes and no protein. These people tend to be short with huge hands and feet. I think it's a sign of their lack of protein when they were growing.
Meghan reminds me of them. I know lots of tall, slim women, some of whom have very big feet. It's the ectomorph look. But their feet are proportional to their height. There are some exceptions, of course. Paris Hilton isn't that tall but has huge feet. Size 11 U.S. But she also displays the classic look of an ectomorph - people who are slim and who can't put on weight.
Meghan looks more like an mesomorph - someone who tends to put on weight - and they don't typically have elongated limbs and big feet.
about Margaret and her supposed beauty. I don't see it. She and Elizabeth look very similar. Very attractive but Margaret isn't much more attractive than her sister.
Perhaps Margaret had more charisma and that might explain people's reaction to her.
Regardless of opinion of her, and perhaps as a result of her background is why she made certain decisions, Margaret was a self made woman from a humble background.
Her father was a green grocer, and the family lived in Grantham, an industrial town in Northern England. She was educated via scholarships and Grammar schools (Grammer schools are state schools with all the encroutrement of private schools except they are very selective about their student body and only accept the brightest students. They were a godsend for parents who wished, but couldn't afford a private education for their kids) before winning a place at Oxford University to study chemistry. After university she was briefly a chemist and a retrained to become a barrister before becoming an MP.
There is little in her background given the era of her youth that would have marked her out as future PM material. Given her gender on top of that.
And when she did make it into parliament, she (and other female MPs) was continued dismissal based on gender. Her class was a continued mark against her.
In the end, ahead of her bid for leader of the party, she gave herself a makeover that included her voice, speech, dress, mannerisms in order to beat those men and the class barrier.
The rest is history.
Her successor John Major is another working class boy made good. He was born in Brixton to a shopkeeper father and librarian mother. They moved to surrey and eventually Norfolk when he was a child.
He was another grammar school pupil though he left formal education at 16yrs with just 3 O'levels.
For comparison, Diana with a private school education failed her O'levels. Twice.
John Major worked his way to the top via a series of jobs in a variety of industries before finally making a career as a banker and eventually becoming an MP and eventually Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher.
William Hague is better known these days for working with Angelina Jolie on her various humanitarian crusades and through him achieved her damehood.
William was born to middle class parents, but he went to state comprehensive schools before transferring to grammar schools. Like Thatcher he eventually made his way to Oxford, but unlike her was a political activist from early teens. He was one of those precocious children that make speeches to adults at national / global organisations to maximum media attention. He gave his speech at 16yrs old to the Tory conference in 1977 which pretty much sealed his fate as a future political leader.
He never made it as a PM, but he was leader of the conservative party for 4yrs after John Major was ousted. These days he is a conservative peer in the house of lords from where he works on social issues eg with Angelina Jolie and William's conservation efforts.
Finally, your explanation of shyness is exactly why it's an emotion rather than a trait. A trait implies it can only be held by a finite people. An emotion is something we all experience regardless of our traits. It is also something we can learn to control or ignore where we can't control or ignore traits.
I think Margaret was objectively goodlooking compared to her sister. The Queen was OK, but resembled Queen Mary too strongly and Queen Mary wasn't a looker or it faded very quickly.
Margaret was the female version of their father which translated rather well on her. Unfortunately Margaret's good looks faded fast. It was a Windsor genes snatching-the-good-looks-fast situation - see also Edward and William.
The Queen's looks held and she aged well so that by their 40s she was the better looker.
Lord Snowdon, the famously cruel, likened her face to that of 'a Jewish manicurist', which was both unkind AND anti-Semitic. Why did he think all Jewish manicurists had a particular look?
I can see their father in both daughters and nothing of their mother apart from tending to the short and dumpy. The Queen was a real dish in her youth, and Bertie was handsome before age and illness took their toll. Much more handsome in my opinion than David. Never understood the appeal of him on any level, really.
@Girl
Mesomorphs tend to be stocky and muscular--the athletic build. I'd say this describes Zara and probably her mother, too. Markle does tend to bloat up pretty easily, probably when she doesn't have access to her favorite dieting aid, the Bolivian marching powder. But she's so devoid of muscle. Endomorph doesn't seem right for her, either, though. Athletic she certainly is not. But she does have that blocky shape that is quite mannish, coupled with her bull-charging-ahead demeanor that makes her seem very masculine, despite her pitiful attempts at haute couture and 'glamor'. Over on Skippy, they call her 'SpongeMeg', complete with a Spongebob sporting a long black wig. Mean, but funny.
She's a weird conglomeration of parts that don't seem to go together or fit one body type consistently. She does not appear healthy to me. Definitely no waist, hips or butt, traits which I unfortunately share. Weight goes straight to my middle, so Meg and I have that in common.
Re. the Queen Mum
I really need to get Lady Colin Campbell's book on her. There'd be some great tea..
A review about the LLC book
'Her book rips apart the popular myth of the Queen Mother, and makes some audacious claims. If you saw and absorbed The King's Speech, it's likely you'll find the ambitious operator characterised on Colin Campbell's pages a big shock.
"So she wasn't always the sweet and loving granny that she was believed to have been. But what she was is far more interesting," Lady Colin says. "She was a really fascinating person. Not because she was a goodie two shoes, but precisely because, despite this wonderful, dearly beloved granny image, she was actually a very ambitious, skillful political operator. Which even Hitler had recognised. Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in the world.'
Iwould also add a determined schemer to this description regarding her involvement in bringing about the marriage if PC and Lady Diana
Also quoting Hikari
'Can you imagine the fallout from anyone publicly daring to mock Doria'
This is very well put
The Middleton family have had a very hard time being accepted by the public more so the aristocracy yet have never voiced an opinion complained criticised judged or reacted or sued .
Finally, your explanation of shyness is exactly why it's an emotion rather than a trait. A trait implies it can only be held by a finite people. An emotion is something we all experience regardless of our traits. It is also something we can learn to control or ignore where we can't control or ignore traits.
If shyness is an emotion rather than a trait, which you say is held by a finite group, that would imply that shyness is an emotion universally experienced by everyone. I'm not sure this is true, though I speak as one deemed 'shy' in my youth, so that's my default position. All of us can be unsure momentarily in new situations, or get nervous before, say, a public speech or a first date . . so in that sense, we can all have 'shy' moments. But I view shyness as a more hard-wired set of complex responses that involve the whole being. The body's responses can be managed and even overcome with dedicated practice . .and exposure to those situations that make us most uncomfortable, but those bodily responses are not in themselves 'shyness', in my view. They are the manifestations of the shyness. Since not everyone knows firsthand what it's like to 'be shy' (those lucky ones, self-confident from the womb!) I still think it is more a trait. Emotions are fleeting and situational, Shyness is more hard-wired into the personality. Introverted is I think more precise than 'shy'. 'Reserved' to me has a more positive connotation than shy or introverted. For a reserved person, what they choose to share of themselves and when is under their control. Self-possessed is another descriptor. A reserved person chooses their responses; a shy person is not necessarily 'choosing' to be that way and indeed, would prefer to be more extraverted and looks on their chattier more bold friends with envy.
A shy person looks an outgoing person and wishes they could be the same. A reserved person might rather think that the outgoing one overshares too much and doesn't know when to shut up or be more decorous. Much depends on the individual's own attitude toward their temperament. I don't think anyone who experiences shyness is happy to be that way or be perceived that way by others. It connotes being weak and missing out through fear. Reserve can be much more positive--a mature, desirable quality of a discerning individual that has no intrinsic need, or much less, for outside approval--ie, they have an internal locus of control.
The internal locus of control is strong with the Queen.
Many people that are responsible for people's livelihoods and signing that paycheck are. I would have chosen a lower-tax state but perhaps the lower cost of real estate makes up for it.
Certainly she was plain in my opinion by the time she became Queen.
But then i see Eugenie and Andrew who both favour the Bowes-Lyon generics very strongly. Eugenie is a copy of the QM as a young woman. And i think she's pretty and Adrew was a handsome young man objectively.
That makes me review my opinion of QM's beauty, but i still wonder.
Can you imagine the fallout from anyone publicly daring to mock Doria'
This quote you attributed to me was actually from the person I was quoting, but it's so true. The same race card that protects Meg protects Doria from criticism.
If Meg had not had the genetics of a black mother, and had instead had two white parents, I do not think we would be here at all. Because a white girl with Meg's background would have been ripped to shreds for her conduct, the opaqueness of her educational attainments, her side line videos in burger grilling in skimpies and whatever else she did to make money on the side. Her past would not have been expunged by the security services.
Do you remember in the early 1980s when Andrew was dating American porn actress Koo Stark? That was a head-scratcher all right. Koo was gorgeous and by most accounts the Queen quite liked her. But an actress in adult films could not marry a royal Prince and that was that.
We don't have documentation that is verifiable, only a lot of Internet chatter and the hearsay of Meg's own sister, but the possibility is real that Meg was a hired escort for money and also participated in a certain amount of adult entertainment. Also is publicly connected to the drug trade through her relatives who own a pot farm and her own enthusiasm for pot . .we've got photos. She's already been sued by the IRS for tax evasion and lost. Previously married (twice, if we count the college-era annulment) with a shady sexual history . . possibly a child in her teens . . so, so many things which would have disqualified her as a bride for Harry singly, never mind taken all together--had she been white. The only reason she's here is because the RF hoped her biracial heritage would be an asset in the Commonwealth. A trashy white girl wouldn't have had that to offer.
@ Hikari: re: The QM's looks. She's one i can't decide whether she was goodlooking or not objectively or by the standards of her age.
Certainly she was plain in my opinion by the time she became Queen.
But then i see Eugenie and Andrew who both favour the Bowes-Lyon generics very strongly. Eugenie is a copy of the QM as a young woman. And i think she's pretty and Adrew was a handsome young man objectively.
That makes me review my opinion of QM's beauty, but i still wonder.
It seems like the QM's contemporaries thought she was good-looking. Hard to fathom now but when she toured France as Queen with her new wardrobe, she was even lauded as a style icon!
Certain style trends do not translate across ages.
Another hairstyle would have flattered her better, but looking at pictures of her as a young wife/mother, I can see the quality which Bertie would have found appealing. Her eyes are quite extraordinary. It seems like a sweet and wholesome face. Looks can be deceiving! Other than her eyes, I would class her as quite plain, but if Bertie thought her beautiful, that's what mattered. He pursued her quite ardently with several proposals, the first two or three having been rejected. Was she playing hard to get or did she think she'd get a better offer? Perhaps the love was more one-sided (his side), but sweetened by his position? There was no hint he'd become King when they married but the Duchess of York was quite a promotion all the same.
I have always thought Eugenie favors Andrew. I look at her and I see her dad in female form. So I suppose this means that he favors the Queen Mum too? Beatrice is more like her mother, and not just the hair. What an awkward looking baby she was. Eugenie struggled a bit in her younger days with being 'the dumpy York sister' but it's safe to say she has blossomed into a very lovely young woman.
As for the Queen's kids . . Edward favors the Queen, while Anne is the spit of Philip. Edward really looks like Mummy the older he gets--the eyes, eyebrows, smile, everything. Charles is dark like Mummy but there's a lot of Philip in him, which he has passed to Harry.
When I read what “Earl” Snowden had said about Princess Margaret looking like a “Jewish manicurist” I assumed it was a self-hating remark about himself. He had at least one, probably two Jewish grandparents. Like most aristocrats, including the Battenburgs/Mountbattens - Louis, Prince Phillip’s uncle, had to marry a Jewish woman; most Jewish women came from North America, because the English aristocracy was going bankrupt; Mountbatten was a poor relative, and his wife brought her family’s millions to resuscitate the Mountbatten family. Like “Downton Abbey.”
It's funny because I disagree with you again.
I have a very good eye for faces. My friends had twin boys and I immediately said that they were identical but no one else did because they both had different facial expressions when they were born that stayed with them for about 2 years. When that phase had passed, it was impossible to tell them apart. I also had a Chinese friend who I thought looked like Jackie Chan. I was the only person he knew who thought this, he said. This upset him and he said that it was because I thought all Chinese people looked alike. He went on a tour to China for the first time in his life, where everyone told him how much he looked like.... Jackie Chan!
I have more stories about my amazing ability with faces, but you get the picture.
To me, there is very little difference in the faces of Margaret and Elizabeth. I find it hard to tell them apart when they were young.
Also, Queen Mary was considered to be a great beauty and even when she was older, she was considered to be very attractive.
The Queen Mother, on the other hand, was appreciated for her personality. :-)
ROFL.
Her teeth were very poor in her older years . . but she was very fond of her bon-bons. I have this vision of QM in her sitting lounge in front of the telly (her constant companion) with a glass in one hand and a fistful of chocolates in the other.
I have a sweet tooth myself, majorly. I marvel at the Queen's teeth, which are still beautiful and all hers. They might be in better shape than mine and she's got 40 years on me. I visit my dentist regularly but I have to wear a bite split because I'm a grinder. I don't think my molars are going to last until I'm 94 but the rest of me might not either.
Children start out shy with very rare exceptions, but are socialised out of it to mixed degree of success depending on their inherent traits.
We learn to control our emotions whilst it's rare to control your traits.
If emotions are hardwired as you describe then controlling them would be impossible. Someone like the cripplingly shy Diana would have remained shy all her life
Often entertainers who publicly behave in flamboyant manner or indeed perform in flamboyant are cripplingly shy in private. You have introverts who aren't shy, they are just introverted.
You can teach / therapise / socialise someone to control their emotions, but you can't teach / therapise / socialise someone out of being extroverts or introverts.
And by the way, our emotions control body functions in many ways eg fear or fight emotion (stress) = increased adrenaline, increased heartrate, increased breathing, your entire body tenses in preparation for the chosen option.
Love emotion = increased dopamine / Oxytocin in your body which in turn gives you a feeling of euphoria and attachment respectively. The simple act of thinking about your love object triggers the dopamine and oxycotin.
As you said, shyness is situational and it produces the body responses you've mentioned. That alone is a giveaway as to the classification of shyness.
@Acquitaine,
It's funny because I disagree with you again.
The Queen Mother, on the other hand, was appreciated for her personality. :-)"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😃😃🤣😂😂😂😂😂😁😁😁😁
https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Queen-Elizabeth-II-Princess-Margaret-Pictures-45262609
As they got older, their looks diverged a lot more.
https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a29813595/princess-margaret-royal-duties/
I would call the young Elizabeth 'a handsome woman'. Young Margaret was the more conventionally pretty, in my opinion. But Lilibet has certainly cared for herself better.
Scroll down a bit for a shot of the two sisters in a car. Lilibet is handsome. Margo looks like a model in a magazine.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/princess-margaret-queen-elizabeth-sister-documentary.html
The Queen was 5'4" inches tall and still towered over her sister. Margaret must have been 5'. A pocket princess.
The human personality and its traits are a very complex subject which is beyond the scope of this space. I think you and I actually have similar views but are using different semantics. I disagree that 'shyness' is an emotion in the sense that you are using it, but in other respects I think we are in agreement. If we could have a real conversation about it, we would probably find ourselves in accord.
Until such a day, I will admit that I'm not a neuroscientist and bow out of this particular topic.
I read somewhere that the Queen has said that she felt very insecure and shy as a young princess but that once she became Queen, she found that the intrinsic authority in her role made the shyness and unsurety disappear, and she became much more confident and feeling fully grown into herself. Still reserved, still introverted--but now that she was Queen, it was OK to be herself. BECAUSE she was the Queen.
Those of us who are shy but cannot ascend to an hereditary monarchy must continue to work on our personality flaws which we are not happy with.
I don't think she does. She looks almost exactly like her sister. They are both very attractive women but apart from the eyes, there isn't that much of a difference. Same nose, same mouth, same jawline. In fact, I find Elizabeth to be the prettier.
Given the problems shown by various members of her family i think this was a very astute observation. It's a pity they never learnt this lesson.
If i can find it again, will post. I think you will find it interesting. I think it was recorded in the early 90s.
On the a different topic, i think Prince William of Gloucester would have made a decent job of exiting the family if not for his early death.
He pursued an active career in the diplomatic service alongside his royal duties and at the time of his death was working more outside the family than inside it.
Going by news footage, he was a very popular member of the family though he is largely forgotten now.
Blind Item #7
The producers of this pay cable hit, have taken the opportunity in their second season to trash the alliterate one whenever they are afforded the opportunity. It is crazy when the trash talk comes from the mouth of the biggest religious leader in the world.
Does anyone watch any programs that might fit the bill and did they really trash Meghan Markle?
I don't think she does. She looks almost exactly like her sister. They are both very attractive women but apart from the eyes, there isn't that much of a difference. Same nose, same mouth, same jawline. In fact, I find Elizabeth to be the prettier.
The sisterly resemblance is certainly there. Elizabeth was certainly attractive and she had the more vivid coloring. Somewhat stronger features as well. Margaret may have been deemed the *conventionally* prettier one according to the standards of her day. Elizabeth's face has certainly served her well. Margo did not take care of hers.
Everyone has differing opinions of beauty. Elizabeth is the more striking of the two in that picture, but in terms of what other girls of the era would have chosen to look like, they may have preferred Margaret. Mr. Beaton got glamorous shots of them both.
I actually liked the pictures of Elizabeth in her uniform when she was 18. Sam Stewart, eat your heart out. (Foyle's War reference.) Elizabeth looked the stronger and more resolute. I think Margo's beauty was of a much more delicate type.
Le mot final about our personality discussion,
One can say, "I feel shy." One can also say "I am shy." Others can describe you as shy when what they are witnessing is a pattern of behavior observed over time, not just on a one-off occasion. If I understand you right, a person cannot 'be shy' on a fundamental level. They can only 'feel' shy (transitory). Do feelings and actions not translate directly into a personality trait?
'She behaved shyly with him." (as Di did with Charles. Apparently 'Shy Di' was a misnomer, according to those who knew her. Occasionally nervous, not shy, so they say.) Shyness can also be a behavior . . or is this also a misnomer?
Not only did they do things things differently but they had experienced events that few of us have. Most had far lower expectations of what life could offer and expectations of shorter lives as well. Their attitudes were formed by experiences completely unlike ours and were an adaptation to life as they had to live it. They aged more rapidly as well.
From 1948, the NHS offered basic treatment and care, glasses and teeth, to poorer people who could not have afforded them otherwise, but could not extend to free tooth straightening, or to flattering spectacles. Many amenities we take for granted now as essential to healthy life and good complexions (running hot water, for example, or a wide variety of colourful, fresh vegetables) were not available. TB was still dreaded; polio vaccine not available; and even smallpox still broke out in the UK.
So looking beautiful was often beyond women of limited means - and even if one could pay a hairdresser, there was no guarantee that she'd be any good with the scissors - I didn't find anyone who could give me a good cut until 1967. Nor did I find a dentist who looked after my teeth to anything like a modern standard until the 1970s. Using hair colourant was often frowned upon - not something nice girls did.
So, standards of beauty were lower; Lillibet and Margaret were good-lookers by the standards of the time, even though we might not think so now.
Diana only became rated as a beauty after she became blonde, rather than mouse, and could access top hairdressers and couturiers. The rest of use had to wear what we could run up from a Simplicity pattern, just like That Wedding Dress.
At least more women had waists in those days or resorted to corsetry - one didn't dare look pregnant.
The images of Her at Her coronation with orb and scepter are amazing, don't you think?
https://www.news24.com/channel/tv/news/the-new-pope-makes-fun-of-meghan-in-new-season-20200114-2
I think it looks tacky and gaudy and overdone. Overwrought? What is the actual point of sending a picture of yourself in which it could be any stranger depicted.
Those two are just weird.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Mdxw9dqbBG3A2U0NCAl4erMCicBOxb_lH_uQq3ScKOTSS87YWxYvZLXoDn_VGT5Q9gjSalE=s85
try copying/pasting this and see if you get it
https://twitter.com/themayhew?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1341864490120429571%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=
@chrisshipitv
A Sussex spokesperson: “The original photo of the family was taken at their home earlier this month by The Duchess’ mother. The small Christmas tree, including the homemade ornaments and other decorations, were selected by Archie & the tree will be replanted after the holidays.”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-share-214137043.html
It's a photo of an illustration - based perhaps on a photo or painted form imagination. That is, no evidence of anything beyond showing that an artist using Burnt Sienna for Archie's barnet.
I can't face the report - there's been enough stressful news already today and more is probably on the way.
`The small Christmas tree, including the homemade ornaments and other decorations, were selected by Archie'
Come again? So the Invisible Child Archie did go with Mom and Pop to the tree lot belonging to someone from a family that made their fortune from slave-grown sugar?
That's OK then.
The message sounds like pure Meghan...("Here's what wonderful things I've done that I did for YOU" Not a typical card!)
"This year we, as a family, have made donations to several charities with you in mind. From a local California organisation that helps families transition out of homelessness, to two of our U.K. patronages: one that supports animal and community welfare, and the other, a memorial fund for a cherished friend that helps to educate children and fight poverty in Uganda, we have honoured their work on behalf of all of us.”
@Hikari: Extrovert / Introvert traits are not automatically aligned with shyness. The scientific definition of those traits would have one assume that every introvert is shy and every extrovert can't be shy.
I am in agreement that shyness can't be ascribed *just* to introvert/extrovert traits. I think an incredible amount of dysfunction can be dated back to childhood. The child that has been humiliated for, say, stuttering or having another speech dysfunction may be afraid of expressing him/herself verbally. A child ridiculed for having a big nose or oversized ears or protruding or crooked teeth may not wish to draw attention to him/herself and do their best to become invisible. An abused (or bullied) child may be so fearful of drawing attention to him/herself with the attendant kick or slap or beating that it persists long into adulthood and possibly for life.
While it sounds like I'm putting the blame for shyness or social dysfunction on familial situations, often it comes from peers.
Cultural values may be mistaken for shyness or even dishonesty. Not looking into an elder's eyes or speaking up may is a mark of respect, not shyness, in some cultures.
What in the ever living hell.
Well, OK. Smirkle as devised a way to get out of having any access to actual real children to stand in for 'Archie'. She will just have them painted in.
This is no proof whatsoever that they've got a child or a Montecito mansion with a playhouse in the back yard. I could hire somebody to imagine me as Queen Boadicea on the Good Ship Lollipop .. but that doesn't make it real. It'd be a cute picture if we didn't know the profound mental disorders and fabrications behind it.
When is anyone in the MSM going to call 'Enough!' on this constant stream of BS? We've got two individuals who collectively and separately are mentally unstable and careening beyond help, who are exploiting the Royal name and funds to keep this ludiocracy going. (It's not a word, I just coined it.)
Really, I'm disturbed. Maybe Harry painted it . . .'cept that he couldn't pass his art project without his teacher doing it for him so .. no. Meg certainly didn't paint it. Maybe Archie did, 'cause he's so advanced and all.
This child cannot possibly be 'Duck Rabbit Arch' .. a very fair blond. This cartoon representation of a toddler has brown hair.
Well, the Bombay Sapphire must be flowing freely behind palace walls tonight as the BRF in separate households dissects this latest travesty from their renegade members.
I find this super disturbing, how blatantly H & M have diverged from reality and they are not even trying to hide it any more. Is this supposed to be 'proof' of their happy family?
I just . . no more words.
A definite throwback to Camilla's address from inside the Queen's Welsh play cottage, lovingly restored by the York girls and now on the grounds of Birkhall.
That's right, Smirkle .. continue to diss the future Queen Consort. Camilla is Charles's Queen Mum--she will have his back and she will make you hurt in ways you haven't dreamed of.
Camilla, get Lord G. on speed dial now! He can work for you.
Acquitaine,
Le mot final about our personality discussion......"
Feelings and actions can become a pattern of behaviour that becomes ingrained if left untreated. That's what becomes confusing as they feed into each other.
As humans we seem to recognise shy signals especially with children. In adults it may read differently and, as @girl with a hat pointed out earlier to me, could be mistaken for reserve or unfriendliness or even cold fish personality.
I disagree with her because to me shyness is very distinct in it's physical signals compared to someone being unfriendly or cold fish.
And shyness can strike at any moment for any number of reasons and affects everyone including the most extrovert of personalities. Some people overcome it quickly whilst others develop an ongoing shyness around the circumstances that caused it in the first place.
Uncanny. Also uncanny is what looks to me like a strong resemblance between Archie and cousin George.
Game playing or not, someone is off the rails.
Also, this is OT but wanted to say RIP regarding Stella Tennant.
It’s all fake. They can’t show Archie for whatever reason and are mimicking the royals in every possible way down to changing their own child. It’s bizarre and unacceptable. Does Meghan really think her image (which, of the present subjects, takes up most of the picture) and silhouette is that recognizable?
Terrible forgettable brand move. What’s the deal?
Whatever Meghan's end-game, she's making it hard for historians to document the life and development of Archie Harrison...
What a very convenient way to have your royal holiday card out for the world to see (we're still royals! look at us! give us your money!) but it is not a picture of the three of them that would sell.
Yep, hanging on for big money for a photo of the three of them. Obviously did not get it yet so they make it a characterature. That way Archie is still for sale.
Why in the world would they do this?
Did you all see their Christmas card? (wtf) pardon me..
1200 comments , not seeing mention of it in recent comments. Archie does not exist. Prove otherwise
The child really does look older than 18 months. Here is Prince Louis at 18 months:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/300052393898767789/
"The never complain, never explain has worked up until now. If you complain, all your privileges will be held up for public ridicule. You give your enemies ammunition. Same with never explain. Any explanation implies some kind of guilt, gives validity to any hair brained story or lie told about them."
Your example was William and Rose Hanbury, but an even more cogent example is the Sussexes themselves... recall how MM tearfully complained in a documentary about how hard her life was, and ever after people have talked about the tone deafness of saying that in a country in Africa, a continent with great problems of poverty, AIDS, crime, political repression while she has a life of security, luxury and access to money.
If she had waited to go back to the UK and give the same interview, there would have been WAY less backlash but UK taxpayers would still have reacted.
Maybe it is just me but what do you think of JH's left leg? Where's the foot? I would think it would be behind A but then A's body would be legs out ahead of the top part of the body (meaning he would be on a slant/not vertical). Sitting on the foot would be uncomfortable and would make the two knees be less equal in height.
I don't know. With them, it's always something kind of hicky.
@Princess Mrs. B and @ Maneki Neko
The child really does look older than 18 months. Here is Prince Louis at 18 months:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/300052393898767789/
Isnt that George? Louis has darker hair and different facial expressions...or maybe all babies do look alike to me before the age of three!
I agree about A looking somewhat older than a year and a half.
Thanks for the better example. I just pulled something off the crown of my head when I wrote William and Rose.
I agree with many here. My first thought was that child looks way older than 18 months.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that they probably took many pictures and shopped them around. No-one bought. So they used one in the card but highly stylized so that the other snaps would still be worth money.
the "Archie picked out the tree and decorations" is insulting in its ridiculousness as they clearly put out they went tree shopping without him. I can't believe they are saying the tree will be replanted. obviously they didn't consult a horticulturist (my father would be spinning in his grave at this. one does not uproot a tree for the holidays and then try to replant it. Daft.
Does it strike anyone else as a little odd that last year's picture was taken by a "friend" and this year's by Doria? People who would keep any kind of dark secret. Also work for free. Something about the choice of photographer just strikes me as questionable, done for a reason but maybe not a wholesome reason.?????
I think it’s pointless to try and dissect this composition as though we were referencing it to a real photograph. If Meg had the real photograph, I think that we would be seeing it. This is a concocted art project, with a childlike figure who definitely suggests one of the Cambridge children. You can’t really see his face very well, but it could easily e modeled on Louis, who is more than a year older than Archie. He will be three in April. George is a very lanky 7 1/2. As sickly compelling as this train wreck is, I wrestle with myself over continuing to follow this shit show or click on any PR tripe they put out. I would hate to think I was in advertently feeding the beast. You can bet that she is getting off on fevered speculation about this “card” and her little jaunt the other day decked out In for Canadian regalia when it was 80° in California. I doubt they were in Beverly Hills… She only said that because the Fosters had gone walking there a day earlier. Now she’s teasing another pregnancy, when she has not proved definitively that she was pregnant the first time. For a part-time good time girl and supporting actress on the cable TV show, she is Taking audaciousness in her cons to an incredible level. What is it going to take for the main stream media to scream from the hill tops that the Empress has no clothes on? She is the living embodiment of some bizarre a version of the Truman Show..It’s like she has made it her mission life to achieve worldwide fame and notoriety as a completely virtual person. Nothing she does is real, and yet she’s got lesions all over the world singing her praises about how authentic she is. It is a gigantic con that she could not pull off without funding and tacit backing from the royal family and whatever silent partners she might have. I don’t actually credit Markle with the brains to be a global criminal mastermind... The global media is for sale and she has purchased them and hogtied the British royal family over a barrel because she’s half black and therefore cannot be brought to account for any of this insanity. I really feel like I have slipped into a George Orwell novel, where what is “real“ Has ceased to have any meaning.
This card explains it then.
The Murkles must have been papped out in LA the other day while going to Walgreens to pick up their Christmas card photo order. I used almost that same font for my photo cards, sans "cartoonized" image. I am so special! Sue me, baby!
If Madam will stoop to merch a J Crew jacket and Hairy trainers, they would sell that Archie xmas photo faster than Madam can rise from a squatting position while pregnant.
There is no Archie of the body. Just a rent a toddler, soon to be kindergartener from the looks of it. Just like the fake baby doll at the polo match and pap walk. The royal family is staying mum, for their own reasons/collusion/embarrassment.
PS: If any of you UK Nutties are desperate for lettuce or toilet paper (or whatever is being blocked at the Port of Dover), let me know!
You're right - that is George. I was looking for a picture of Louis and didn't correctly read the caption. Thanks for catching it.
What makes "Archie" look older to me in the current image is his apparent slimness. No baby potbelly and no chubby cheeks. (George still had a bit of a baby potbelly at Charlotte's christening and he was only weeks away from turning 2 then.)
Doesn't mean Archie didn't have those things in the original photo. I've played with free photo editors online and I've "painted" photos of round-faced friends who end up with pretty pronounced cheekbones because of the exaggerated colors produced by the program. His hair could have filled out since last May but the paint program may also make it look more lux than it is. Also, the color may have been "borrowed" from Harry's by the program. I'm not sure what the terminology is (bleed?) but in my decidely amateur "painting photo" experience with groups, hair colors/highlights get shared in ways that didn't appear in the original (or were extremely subtle.) Blonde highlights from Person A end up in Person B's hair. (Hope that makes sense.)
I don't know that the tree-shopping story was about THIS tree. Clearly it's not their only Christmas tree. But with the smallish size of the root ball, I'd eat my hat if it can be successfully transplanted.
Wishing you as Merry a Christmas as you can muster up Under these circumstances, and a healthy and sane new year for us all. Thank you for providing this community in which I have whiled away So many entertaining and Unproductive hours with like-minded enthusiasts. You are the mistress of our little virtual cocktail lounge. If your job has calmed down enough And you have some time over the holidays to ruminate over what the latest Christmas card Debacle and Other Harkle shenanigans lately signify about the mental health or lack there of of Mr. and Mrs. Sussex, we’d love to hear from you. What do you think are the odds that the royal family is ever going to intervene in what has become A very publicly Escalating display of Insanity from California? I know Harry is a grown man, and it takes a great deal to get an adult sectioned For psychiatric evaluation and/or detox. And now Harry appears to be a hostage in a foreign country although the jury is still out on his level of Complete free will to participate wholeheartedly in the schemes spearheaded by his wife.
As far as the legal and public record goes, the Harkles are parents to an underage vulnerable child. I know you are as agnostic about this as I am. I know they’re celebrities, and celebrities can get away with murder, literally. But I don’t understand why there are virtual crickets chirping over the Increasing separation from reality we are witnessing here. The Harkles are jokes in many quarters, but I feel like we have gone beyond having a laugh at their expense. Something is very very very very wrong in Montecito if that is in fact where they live. How much lower does H have to sink before a real concerns for his welfare are raised? This is becoming as we say that excrement situation and yet they keep getting ink like they are viable figures. It does not compute. The Mexit review is just 3 months off. Where do you see this going? Will the FarKles actually produce anything for Netflix or Spotify? More incredibly still, do you see her going ahead with another fake pregnancy? I just don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone crazier in my life Than Harkle...And I include several world dictators and even our current president in that number. MarKle is in a class by herself. how many more years of Christmas cards featuring manipulated images of fake Archies can we take? I guess my final question is: do you see any light at the end of murky Meigs murky tunnel? It’s exhausting trying to predict her next act of insanity, but she keeps topping herself. And she has a platform to do this all because she married a dim, bitter and twisted bulb who happened to be attached to a royal family. I’m quite sick over it.
Best wishes of the season to you!
My apologies for misquoting also to the poster who originally quoted.
Sending condolences regarding your friend colleagues very sad loss.
I discovered an online obituary of a former colleagues sons death due to convid 19
Sending best wishes and huge thank you to Nutty for this amazing blog very grateful thanks to all the wonderful posters old & new who all have been exceptional especialky during this pandemic your posts I'm sure do help enormously with information and also provide endless entertainment.
Hopin.too that all posters will enjoy a restful hapoy peaceful time over the Christmas period and Holidays
May you all experience a brighter ewarding happier New Year 2021
Is Meghan similar to Hilario Baldwin? Uhm yep!
Told my husband...” I bet you wish I’d have been standing there when it crashed down”. He just smiled and shook his head!
Happy New Year anyway!!!!!! 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊