Hello from vacation, where I've just noticed the Sussexes truly dreadful Christmas card as profiled in the New York Post.
My immediate guess was that Meg used Photoshop's dry brush filter to hide any traces of photo manipulation and, perhaps, the insertion of a substitute Archie.
What a mess. What was she thinking?
And how does it help the Sussexes build their brand?
They're supposed to be multi-million-dollar Netflix producers and Spotify podcasters, yet they're releasing something that looks like the very best product of a night school art class at a provincial community college.
All the bases
"The original photo of the family was taken at their home earlier this month by the Duchess's mother," according to a statement by Archewell.
Not that Doria has ever been known as being a keen photographer before, particularly when it comes to what was clearly a posed shot. (All three family members plus two dogs in the same frame, all smiling? This must of been one out of at least a hundred posed shots.)
The statement continues: "The small Christmas tree, including the homemade ornaments and other decorations, were selected by Archie, and the tree will be replanted after the holidays."
We're covering all the bases here, aren't we?
"Homemade ornaments" for the instagram influencer points, and the replanted tree for environmental street cred. Plus a guest appearance by the mysterious Doria.
Charitable contributions
The card was released through Meghan's dog patronage Mayhew - the one she visited during her pregnancy, a visit best remembered for her ability to squat down in stiletto heels and spring up again lightly despite being quite far along in her pregnancy.
Comments
Thanks for the post Nutty! Great observations as usual.
I still say there is something wonky about JH's left foot.
And no, to those who asked, it’s not possible to remove the filter to see the original photo. At least in my many years of PS experience, I believe it’s not possible. Maybe some high level hacker could do it, but I don’t think so.
It’s a really blatant way to “cover up” for the fact that it doesn’t look like the same child aged up from 7 months ago.
And it’s cheesy. Like all of her other artsy affectations.
I agree with Hikari that it’s the most bizarre thing to witness pathetic ploy after ploy and hear crickets from journalists and the RF, both of whom could expose this charade.
I am also haunted by the image they’re showing as Archie, because even with the auto (un)tuning, I am struck by how much that looks like toddler Prince George’s face and gleeful grin. What has she done?
Disturbing. I don’t know what else to say.
Observers are alarmed. Interesting that our first reaction to that photo is 'I hope that baby, whoever he is, is ok.'
None of us look at that card and think, oh what a cute family.
Freaky timing because I just sent you a comment on the last thread about this very thing. Last year’s Christmas card what is the photo shop joke With obviously pasted in the spirit figures and twinkle GIFs...But at least a photo of a real infant was included. This effort looks like the misbegotten love child between a Thomas Kinkade and a grandma Moses After a night of heavy drinking. How very very thoughtful of the dogs and the child to be captured in the frame just perfectly at the moment grandma Doria’s snapped the shutter.
The child, the dogs, the Playhouse, the Christmas tree, the backyard...Every last bit fabricated/rented, change my mind.
By using the iPhone filter app, she’s obviously trying to generate in the minds of the onlookers that there was a real photo of a real baby and real dogs That was the basis for this primitive artistic effort. Maybe there was, Maybe there wasn’t. But that doesn’t preclude the supporting actor’s being rented for the occasion. this child seems to have doubled in size and age and sprouted dark hair in the seven months since we saw the duck rabbit video. Whoever this Archie was, it’s not the same kid. The figures are so tiny, including those of Harry and Megan, that it needed have been a real picture at all. Maybe Wes Anderson dropped by to Set up one of his candy box miniature displays and Doria filmed that! Also, don’t we think this Playhouse Looks a bIt femme for a boy child so strapping he is the size of a four-year-old at 18 months? Despite megs insistence that they’re raising Archie gender neutral, I think a boy would much rather have a log jungle gym/slide rather than this place that looks like a teahouse for dolls. The whole thing is very naff.
So obvious and really is the elephant in the room now, they leave out his name so they can if it comes out say well we never said it was him and lied. This needs full exposure now, this is really quite sinister.
and another person says that it looks like one of these Reborn dolls. They make them in larger models than just the newborns.
https://twitter.com/Fawn1026/status/1341905238656106498
Meghan and Harry are accused of hiding Archie in ridiculous Christmas card photoshop job
Perhaps Meg is actually embarrassed by the complete absence
To my mind, there is no freaking way this head case is a mother. He is as fake as the rest of her Kardashian deluxe lifestyle and success.
She keeps teasing the possibility that she is going to Sell Archies pictures for $3 million in people or the like, And that’s why she doesn’t show him in any realistic way… She’s waiting for the payday. She better hurry up because by the looks of this child, he’ll be starting the third grade by the time the next Christmas card rolls around. Magazines pay big money for cute babies. Mega mega bucks has lost her window of opportunity because she doesn’t actually have a child to sell. Opinion.
The Z Z on the barn door says it all zzzz
This B needs locking up stat. She is a menace. Maybe the Harkles are in California because they have been told that they cannot be in the same country as William, Kate, and the children. I think Meg could very easily be a bunny boiler.
Tin hat time: maybe Archie is unwell and something is physically or mentally wrong with him, which led to the name Archewell. Something she can control and give status too.
Regardless of the ever mysterious "Archie", which she probably perpetuates for media and speculation...I think she is completely nuts and has lost the plot. Christmas cards aren't a gardening photo session in a playhouse. We all know that.
GWAH hahaha, and matching hands!!!
I'm going with Archie is an unwell child, if he exists.
You wanted privacy for your child yet pimp him out any and every way and he doesn't have a choice.
Vile couple. Harry the hypocrit and as oprah reduced her too, 'm'.
Now about this Christmas card... why did they bother? For starters, they're not "royals" anymore, they're ex-royals. For ex-royals they really want to do the traditions of the BRF and they want coverage in the UK despite them screaming PRIVACY!! I thought they wanted to concentrate on the US market because those Brits are racist and the BRF toxic. I don't understand, someone please explain this because it doesn't make sense. Oh wait.. it's the Harkles, explains everything now :) LOL :) I think they've lost the plot... or something. I work for a clinical psychologist and my cousin is also a clinical psychologist and we're had conversations about these two. From their point of view, and again, this is their armchair diagnosis, there's something not right about the pair. We just feel bad for the child - if there is one. He's gonna grow up so messed up and with huge issues if someone doesn't take him away from them soonish.
Anyway Nutty and Nutties, stay safe and have a wonderful celebration with your loved ones. ;)
This is a PS joke. The child’s size is absurd. Even relative to the size of the doorframe. If he stood up in the doorframe he would bash his painted noggin. So, an elaborate play house too small for a 20 month old? But Harry fits? Look at Harry’s tiny legs, by the way. Look at his mini knees compared to hers. Where did his torso go? Where is his right arm?
Of course Doria took the photo. Sure. They hire a pro team to follow them through a cemetery, but have Doria take this big PR holiday photo before they have some pal of Omid paste in a child, or attach heads to other people, or otherwise form a photo of bits, and then cartoon it up. I assume Doria was used because she would agree to stay mum about the zero child or rented child presence, in exchange for more cash in her newest business account? Just a guess of course.
Just they fact they had to resort to a garish amateurish painted photoshopped image this awful to be able to include an Archie child in their card is strangely satisfying. I now know there is no child. This confirms it. And I believe the BRF have to know it, too. Mystery solved. Inaction noted. All there is to do is sip coffee, and wait. If the BRF allows this to continue, then... I feel your pain, Hikari, but I await the big reveal.
This woman is as mad as a snake.
We Told You About Money Baby
DECEMBER 23, 2020
[Blind Gossip] Are you disappointed that a photo of the baby is the one Christmas gift you are not going to find underneath the tree this year?
Are you surprised that you haven’t seen the baby much in the past year? You shouldn’t be.
Your friends at Blind Gossip told you point blank over the summer that you are NOT going to see that baby again until it can be monetized in some way!
Perhaps it will be a photo to lure followers to a new web site or social media site.
Perhaps it will be a video to promote a project.
Perhaps it will be cover for a media company in exchange for a very large payment.
But show you that baby for free? Ha!
And do you still think that this is about privacy? Ha again!
The hiding of their offspring has nothing to do with privacy… and everything to do with money and publicity. That baby’s image has value. You are not getting it for free.
That’s because all three of them are now part of the entertainment industry. Their names, their titles, their family are now part of a money-making machine. The name of the game is business deals and product flogging and relentless publicity-seeking fronted by the thinnest veneer of charity.
Is this really what the husband signed up for?
Remember all his heart-wrenching talk about how camera clicks and flashes are horrifying to him and how he just wants to lead a private life?
Yet, his entire life is now clicks and flashes and the relentless pursuit of publicity!
The baby doesn’t have a choice. But the husband does. That’s what makes all of this so disturbing.
Is this really what the husband wanted? Is he happy about all this? Or is he just an unwitting dupe in his wife’s schemes?
Couple: [no guesses yet]
[Optional] Is this what the husband wants? Do you think he is happy?
I agree with some comments that Meghan may not be pleased with the way Archie looks. That as HER child, perhaps Archie is not as handsome as any of the Cambridge children, which might irk her to no end. And as some nutties and people commenting on other forums and news articles have said, Archie looks like he might have strabismus (crossed eyes) and it has not yet been corrected.
Harry was a cute little kid, but Meghan wasn’t. She was a homely looking child and still would be if not for all the work she’s had done, starting in her teen years. Ah, those pesky genes.
But I think many nutties realize that due to Meghan’s narcissism, any children she has will be objects to be used, just as Harry and any other people who have been in her life have been used. So it’s no surprise that Archie is a prop to be used to enhance Meghan’s facade of being a loving, caring, nurturing mother and to make a few bucks for mommy’s Montecito mansion.
Here’s the BG post:
Blind Gossip
We Told You About Money Baby
December 23, 2020
Are you disappointed that a photo of the baby is the one Christmas gift you are not going to find underneath the tree this year?
Are you surprised that you haven’t seen the baby much in the past year?
You shouldn’t be.
Your friends at Blind Gossip told you point blank over the summer that you are NOT going to see that baby again until it can be monetized in some way!
Perhaps it will be a photo to lure followers to a new web site or social media site.
Perhaps it will be a video to promote a project.
Perhaps it will be cover for a media company in exchange for a very large payment.
But show you that baby for free?
Ha!
And do you still think that this is about privacy?
Ha again!
The hiding of their offspring has nothing to do with privacy… and everything to do with money and publicity. That baby’s image has value. You are not getting it for free.
That’s because all three of them are now part of the entertainment industry. Their names, their titles, their family are now part of a money-making machine. The name of the game is business deals and product flogging and relentless publicity-seeking fronted by the thinnest veneer of charity.
Is this really what the husband signed up for?
Remember all his heart-wrenching talk about how camera clicks and flashes are horrifying to him and how he just wants to lead a private life?
Yet, his entire life is now clicks and flashes and the relentless pursuit of publicity!
The baby doesn’t have a choice. But the husband does. That’s what makes all of this so disturbing.
Is this really what the husband wanted? Is he happy about all this? Or is he just an unwitting dupe in his wife’s schemes?
Similar: Baby Needs To Start Earning
Couple:
[Optional] Is this what the husband wants? Do you think he is happy?
Go to noradsanta.org to track Santa as he currently makes his worldwide treck. The Santa tracker has been around since the mid-1950s.
From the NORAD website:
24 hours a day, 365 days a year, NORAD tracks everything that flies in and around North America in defense of our homelands. On Dec. 24, we have the very special mission of also tracking Santa.
NORAD has been tracking Santa since 1955 when a young child accidently dialed the unlisted phone number of the Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD) Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, believing she was calling Santa Claus after seeing a promotion in a local newspaper.
Air Force Colonel Harry Shoup, the commander on duty that night, was quick to realize a mistake had been made, and assured the youngster that CONAD would guarantee Santa a safe journey from the North Pole.
Thus a tradition was born that rolled over to NORAD when it was formed in 1958. Each year since, NORAD has dutifully reported Santa's location on Dec. 24 to millions across the globe.
Thanks to the services and resources generously provided by numerous corporate contributors and volunteers, NORAD Tracks Santa has persevered for more than 60 years.
Though the program began due to a misdialed number, NORAD Tracks Santa has flourished and is recognized as one of the Department of Defense's largest community outreach programs.
Each year, the NORAD Tracks Santa Web Site receives nearly fifteen million unique visitors from more than 200 countries and territories around the world. Volunteers receive more than 130,000 calls to the NORAD Tracks Santa hotline from children around the globe.
This year, children and the young-at-heart are able to track Santa through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram.
This is what you get when you marry loony Z-list actress. Meanwhile the California lockdown intensifies which hurts the Gruesomes and their money grubbing schemes.
Meghan is jealous of Archie's forever status in life. She can't out status him, ever. She can though decrease his profile in hopes of decreasing his perceived status, which is what I believe she is doing since no one wants to buy his pictures from her and piss off the BRF.
Meghan is the star of the family, don't ya know??
Yes! I didn't think of this aspect of it!
@Sally1975
I think you are right, there is not enough interest in Archie to justify $2million for a picture. He is not the only pebble on the beach as far as a child with a connection to British royalty. And they released a video when he was one, so that probably satisfied a lot of mild existing curiosity about him.
@Happy Camper, it seems a sort of tradition on this blog that when someone posts something you already posted you mention it. Or perhaps it is only a habit! I know we all want to share the goodies when we see them!
And I agree with you, there may be some feeling on MM's part that her kid should be perfect. Or at least more nearly perfect than any kid named George or Louie. I have to say I agree also about MM's childhood looks. Which problem she apparently addressed as soon as she could afford it. Very common in Hollywood but not in the RF.
Oui. A farce if I ever saw one, whether intentional or Madam's fantasy -- let's play house.
The playhouse is set amid iris (if there really exists such a playhouse place). I thought it hilarious that Madam obviously copied a clump of iris and then replicated them across the top of the playhouse.
Also, of note, Madam's bracelet is clearly in view, as are her clean white shoe soles.
Pula, the fat black lab, looks like we all feel.
I used to feel sorry for Harry, but no more. He deserves everything he's getting. To throw away his family, his country, his patronages, his entire life, for THIS? He's even worse than she is. She has a great excuse, being a common LA stereotype, but what is his excuse?
Nobody was paying them for a picture of Archie, they waited until the last second, so this is what they released, 5 minutes before Christmas.
What an absolute atrocity.
What gardener in their right mind would plant Agapanthus anywhere near a thatched roof? The roots are diabolical!
Fake! Fake! Fake!
She is totally insignificant, like tick on an elephant.
Her story is almost like a plot from the Goon Show - I can even imagine what Bluebottle would have called H...
'Both he and the Duchess of Cornwall recorded the poem at Clarence House and extended an invitation to some actors to record sections of the poem at their London home. Filmed against the backdrop of a twinkling Christmas tree and roaring fires, the result is a charming performance, bringing together some of the nation’s best loved actors.
The poem is opened by the Prince, patron of the ABF, who reads the first lines that provide its title. He is followed by the Duchess, who reads from a book illustrated by Robert Ingpen.
Ncuti Gatwa, an actor better known to younger viewers for his role in the Netflix series Sex Education then takes up the mantle, dressed in a festive red jacket. He is followed by y Dame Maggie gg wrapped pped in a red scarf, who sits by a fire, before ore a black-and-white framed photograph tograph of the Queen and Duke ke of Edinburgh.
Dame ame Penelope Keith, president sident of the Actors’ Benevolent evolent Fund, is followed ed by Tom Hardy and later r by Daniel Craig and Dame me Judi.
The he poem was recorded in the hallway, garden room and morning rning room at Clarence House. use. Craig and Dame Judi were e the only two unable to make it to Clarence rence House over r t he l ast fortnight night and so filmed lmed their contributions tributions elsewhere.
....
The Prince hopes the recording, released today on the couple’s social media channels, will raise awareness and money for the actors’ fund.’
--------------
Couldn't Megsy have done something similar to help her fellow thespians? But then she doesn't have the brains or the empathy.
Her story is not in the main section 'UK Home' on the app but is listed under 'UK showbiz'. That's all it is now, just showbiz, but it should be under 'US Showbiz' (with apologies to our American Nutties).
I haven't double-checked but I think I am right and Nutty may be off because the drybrush filter gives it cross-hatching strokes, but I could be wrong.
WHO CARES - point is it is a cheap, easy, free filter that has been around for over ten years. It's a low low low flex.
Also that child looks like one of the Cambridge sons, not sure which one.
ARCHIE'S HEAD IS SHAPED LIKE A POTATO!!! This child's head is shaped like an apple, not a potato.
She's such a twat. I agree w/ Nutty they would have photoshopped the child in before applying the filter, but the child is NOT Archie. Wow these two really suck.
Great shots of MM & JCMH though.
I agree the foliage looks more like Agapanthus than iris. It's too long, too wide, and too curved to be an iris I'm familiar with. It also looks like it could be some sort of lower-growing "corn plant" dracena that might grow outdoors in CA.
@NeutralObserver,
I think foliage of the potted poinsettia is just hidden. You can see some normal poinsettia leaves in there if you zoom in.
I didn't think about Agapanthus roots and the thatched roof as the roof decor looks fake to me. But what puzzles me is why you'd have so much ground foliage near a child's play house anyway. I thought Agapanthus leaves were mildly toxic with the roots more so. Plus don't they have snakes in Montecito?
Finally, I posted my thoughts about Archie's size and coloring on the last thread. But one more point-- Guy the beagle seems to have gained a more vividly colored coat too. He's been looking kind of "faded" in his last appearances (the Canada hike, the doggy heat exhaustion-inducing CA hike where M had to carry him.)
This filter takes a normal photo and "chunk-i-fies" the colors (my term). It has settings on sensitivity like 1-10 so you can determine how chunky to make the final image. For example, if she turned it all the way down it would be five random blobs...
Someone said "I don't believe there is enough interest in Archie at this point to pay the big bucks." and I agree.
Ace at BG seems to have plenty of inside info but on this one I also disagree - there is no child. She can drive up the "price" all she wants like she charges for her podcast nobody will listen to - there's no market.
May 2021 bless all of us with better times and so much more peace and joy.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Are Allegedly Trying for a Second Baby at the "Earliest Opportunity"
Starr Bowenbank
CosmopolitanWed, 23 December 2020, 8:37 pm GMT
From Cosmopolitan
Hello, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle fans—I come bearing news concerning your favorite royal couple: OK! Magazine reported that Meghan and Harry are allegedly hoping to have a second baby at the "earliest opportunity."
As amazing as this all sounds, please let’s all agree to take this report with a huuuge grain of salt unless they confirm it themselves, okay? While we wait for more news, here is everything that she, Harry, and royal news outlets have said about a possible baby number two.
And so on.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/prince-harry-meghan-markle-allegedly-223300646.html
@Lizzie I'm not familiar with many draceana species - there's just one that's commonly grown in the UK as a pot plant - but I certainly agree about snakes. Or is the Holy Meghan able to banish them as St Patrick is supposed to have done in Ireland, or turn them to stone, like St Hilde of Whitby?
By all accounts, these two were more efficient than St Paul was on Malta where, years ago, I was almost bitten by a mean ambush predator over 4ft long. Luckily, I had such a strong start reaction that I shot straight up in the air and it passed beneath my feet. Don't ever believe anyone who tells you you're neurotic for being easily startled - it's an ancient reflex, protecting you from snake bite. Nor do all snakes clear off when they hear someone coming - especially true of Meghan the Viper.
They look like Agapanthus leaves,
should be flowering now? Mine are.
Or Cliveas?
https://twitter.com/Murky__Meg/status/1342047056542760962/photo/1
I was happy to see I'm not the only one who thinks "Archie" looks like a Cambridge kid, also yeah he was bald last time we saw him and yeah his head is shaped like a POTATO, not an apple.
I don't have children but many of you think the child is too grown, that's funny so duly noted.
What else? Meghan does NOT have size 11 feet jesus she just has crappy legs and twiggy ankles, I think she's prob an 8.5-9 like many of us at 5'5" (I doubt she is shorter).
"Meghan does NOT have size 11 feet jesus she just has crappy legs and twiggy ankles, I think she's prob an 8.5-9 like many of us at 5'5"
Meghan's feet always look huge to me, partly because of the pointy-toe styles she wears and the fact she wears shoes that look way too big. (But I wear 7-7.5 and am 5'5") She probably does have average-sized feet though. At the powhiri in New Zealand her bare feet look to be about the same size as the woman's to her left albeit with more bumps, lumps, and hammer toes.
Unlike everyone else, i don't see Cambridge resembkance. The 3/4 profile of the baby looks like one of the Markle cousins.
His size gives me pause, but we know he was born a month or 6wks earlier than officially claimed and his size has hever aligned with his official age.
As for his size as per that photoshopped Xmas image, this boy is Markle all the way. And they are all big lugs.
Meghan herself took after Doria and her petit clan, but Archie has clearly taken after the big giant Markles whatever his true age. Throw in the tall Spencer genes and Archie is doomed to be a big lug Spencer Markle.
I really doubt that there is money in photos of him at this point except as a one time oddity level.
These cute teasers aren't increasing the interest in him for a real demand for more of him (other than people like us who don't think it is the same kid and want more only because we can compare with more data).
I really don't think they have access to a kid that is theirs as they have a limited range of kids they can draw on who meet their requirements which is why the size alters so abruptly or it happens so infrequently (no casuals while bouncing into a Mommy and Me or getting fruit at a farm stand).
They talk about how he has come in and disrupted their zoom meetings but yet that hasn't happened on any that we've seen. If they did find a kid, real kids are heading into an age where they are big into NO. Wouldn't they be risking trying to call by name and having him say that his name was really Billy or something similar. I don't think you can edit a zoom like that. You could if you were filming the screen but would that have the same sense of clarity/sharpness?
I think that you are more likely to get teasers from anything which is all audio, no visual and easily edited out if necessary (maybe Spotify?).
RE: The card. I have no words.
HARRYMARKLE does though...
The Insincere (and Faux) Sussex Christmas Card 2020
https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-thoughts-on-the-2020-Harry-Meghan-Christmas-card
It's the 12th answer down right now. I think George is wearing his school uniform so he's at least 4.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1341880819778953216
Will this card be submitted as evidence of mental illness?
Maybe it is just this monetizing of their “son” that people have pondered here and on other blogs—she thought she’d get money for a real photo but didn’t, so issued this nonsense to hold out—but if it’s possible to be more sinister than just that, I think she is.
If there is a child living with them, and I have my doubts, it’s just hurt after hurt on a boy’s young spirit.
🎄🎄🎄
I could be wrong but I suspect Rache is disappointed in Archie's appearance. She has a maniacal obsession to control Archie's public image. If she wants his privacy, then she should never present him in public or in Christmas cards. I think she wanted him to take more after Harry but he favors his Markle genes almost completely. Hence the constant headlines of his nonexistent red hair. I differ from other Nutties and see no resemblance to Harry.
Happy Christmas, Nutties!
I agree that the child does resemble both the Cambridge boys and also looks huge for his age. Hope the real Archie is somewhere safe and loved.
Sending all Nutties my warn wishes for a merry Christmas filled with gratitude and hopes for an infinitely better year in 2021.
I do not believe that there is or ever was an Archie. I believe there is a Doria but The Harkels use Doria as an extra person much as a criminal might assert that some unknown and now vanished person is the real culprit.
I really think Meghan has the largest feet a person can have without going into the freakish, although she is bordering on it. Size 11 would be a good guess as to how big they truly are.
When you see her in flats, it is obvious that she has a few extra inches on a normal person. And when she is standing barefoot next to another barefoot woman as she did in her Australasian tour, you wonder if these feet belong to a woman or a hobbit.
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article13520163.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_The-Duke-And-Duchess-Of-Sussex-Visit-New-Zealand-Day-4.jpg
I think there is a child, born of surrogacy, who "may" live with them but if so I believe there is some kind of protective guardian. Perhaps a Royal provided nanny to keep said child safe from his parents and their hobbies. I don't think The BRF or anyone else can take the child away but they can make sure he is safe.
I think Grip and Drip do keep him hidden and are holding out for a huge payday but I agree that time has passed. They would be lucky to get a hefty fee for a photo now and it would only be out of curiosity--not a perpetual source of income.
I worry we never see Archie out with his parents. But I guess we don't see the Harkles shopping, just going for beauty treatments (I would have thought those beauty shops would be closed because of covid rules but whatever). Remember paps of them at the beauty shop, no paps of them at the Christmas tree lot (which why didn't you take Archie there?).
They may very well be trying for a second baby--this one that they would have complete control over? or because Archies sell-by date has expired they need another game changer baby to market.
It reminds me of the foster parents that take in children, not because they are loving and kind people, but because they need the money.
Just to make the point that her feet are indeed size 11's. Paris Hilton has admitted she wears size 11 shoes. She is close to Markle's height - maybe 2 - 3 inches difference.
this is a picture of Paris Hilton's feet. They seem to be similar in size to Meghan's. They also have these elongated metatarsals and toes.
https://www.wikifeet.com/Paris_Hilton#&gid=1&pid=3121604
I could be wrong but I suspect Rache is disappointed in Archie's appearance. She has a maniacal obsession to control Archie's public image.
As others have said, Master Archie/ Fauxie/ Merchie may have already passed his expiration date as far as any million dollar payday for his big Megs/Merch reveal. But Megs still believes he can be merched sky high and this is what counts. While Hapless snoozes, Megsy still has a "has a maniacal obsession to control Archie's public image" which is deranged. True words, Charade.
Wow. I looked at that same New Zealand picture you've now linked https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article13520163.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_The-Duke-And-Duchess-Of-Sussex-Visit-New-Zealand-Day-4.jpg
and I thought M's feet didn't look so big compared to the other woman's! Her right foot looks big but it is closest to the camera and the entire foot is visible from the side whereas the other woman's right foot is seen at an angle which would foreshorten it. But comparing left feet, they don't look that different to me. Just goes to show the difference the eye of the beholder can make.
BlindGossip - today
We Told You About Money Baby
https://blindgossip.com/we-told-you-about-money-baby/#more-101739
Similar: Baby Needs To Start Earning
Baby Needs To Start Earning is one of my top lines of this miserable Covid crapped on year. This line (Earning) seems semi-ripped from Billions TV series, but no matter. A fine way to put it. Megsy is prodding Prince_translated_into_Frog Happless to start earning, as in earn your keep.
In Montecito where the mud can slide deep
Into our castle keep.
So H Get on the phone with Charles
With no quarrels
To get us more cash
For our 2021 stash
In case 'Flix and Spotify crash
Stuck with!
Not even a bus to chauffer us
To LA to cos-play
What a mess
Our Land Rovers all repossessed.
Meghan's feet look about 2 inches longer than the woman's next to her.
Although Meghan is in the foreground, the distance between them isn't large enough to cause such a discrepancy.
She is just a hobbit and has her feet waxed. There's no 2 ways about it. LOL
To me, M's feet really do not look "about 2 inches longer than the woman's next to her." Sorry. If you compare the "leg to tip of the toes" length for the women's left feet, I really see no meaningful difference and if there is any difference, it's tiny. And according to a chart here:
https://www.zappos.com/c/measure-your-shoe-size
a size 11 foot is about 10.5 inches long. If the other woman's was really 2 inches shorter, the other woman would have to wear a 5 1/2 shoe. No way that foot fits in a 5 1/2!
Her shoe size is 11, no doubt about it. And she grabs any shoes which fit more or less because her options are so limited. That's why, I think, her shoes were sometimes too big, especially at the beginning because she hadn't yet established connections with fashion houses which would give her access to larger sizes in their shoe collections. It all makes sense now.
yes, they do look 2 inches longer, at least, if not more. You are gaslighting us here.
She has enormous, abnormal feet and this is especially noticeable when she is standing next to a woman with normal feet.
I also have big feet, but I don't have that extra 2 inches in metatarsal length that she and Paris Hilton have.
her feet look identical to Paris Hilton's and Paris wears a size 11. They are a similar height. There isn't a six inch difference between Paris and Meghan. Ergo, Meghan wears a similar size shoe size. Their feet even look alike from the side. The same excessive length of the bridge of the foot
You can ask her yourself and any other questions you might have. She made a comment yesterday about Archie but I forget what it was. It was in response to someone posting the Christmas card.
I can't find her handle now as I'm a little short on time. She has a lovely photo of herself as her avatar and she often comments on Murky Meg's tweets. Just be careful as there are many fake accounts.
When I find it again, I will post it here.
The Merch of Dimes, naturally ;)
I remember when the Gosselin family got a bunch of play houses on the show (I didn't watch it but there were a lot of ads on shows I did).
As Judge Judy says: "If you tell the truth, you don't need a good memory."
And why does Archie look 4 years old? That isn't just a photo that was colourized... that cannot be the Archie that we saw 6 months ago on his first birthday.
“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.” — Mayhew
What charities? Why not name them? it would help raise the charities' profiles and perhaps garner more donations. but no, because that would take the spotlight off the Harkles for a second.
WE have honoured their work on behalf of....you pleebs. Gee, thanks. Oh Great Duke and Duchess, only you, as a family, could make the world a better place.
How much did they donate? $15 per charity like they did with Mayhew?
@Opus, your description of that photo shopping program made me laugh out loud. I was once stuck with one like that on site at a start up, lol. Brought back some funny memories. Cheers and happy holidays to you.
Shoe size of our favorite super model royal princess mega movie star young mother, Megs. I am tall and a basic slim build and wear a US size 9.5 to 10, EU 40, or a UK 7.5, maybe an 8 for a hiking boot with extra socks. A friend of mine is nearly identical in size, and we have shared special shoes in a couple of shoe-dress emergencies. All this background to say, she and her toddler daughter were with her MIL and MIL’s office to see an early visit of M&H. Her takeaway was that M was shorter than expected estimate 5’4”, like her MIL, with very large feet which she guessed at a UK 8.5 to 9, or US 10-11. It surprised her even though she does not have small feet herself. The proportions seemed unusual so she dubbed them “Bond shoes” with security missiles in the toes, lol). However this was a quick assessment based on a short look at our future global empress.
I know, she has huuuge feet. And not very nice feet. My feet are the size of skis. I am always amazed at the size of my shoes. LOL. And I am only a size 9.5 or 10 US.
So is this the new aesthetic, if we may even use that word? The new "brand identity"? From the wedding to Archie's first Christmas, it was black and white photos. Starting now until an undetermined future time, will it be fourth-rate Thomas Kincaid?
This is the work of someone with zero aesthetic sense combined with an abnormal desire to obfuscate reality.
Perfectly put!
I wish I could be as articulate as everyone else . . . but it's after midnight where I am and my eyelids are giving up. So I'll just wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and see you all again in a few hours!
Not gaslighting.
I do not see what you see. That's all there is to it. And I don't think the woman next to her wears size 5.5 shoe which she have to do if her feet were 2 inches shorter than M's and M wore an 11 shoe.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, you're right. Her size 7 feet and 5'7" height are just more lies from a pathological liar. She does have abnormally long toes. This hokey article goes into what the feet of MM, Kate M and princesses E and B reveal about their personalities (eyeroll):
https//www/daily mail.co.uk/email/article-5610055/The-Royal-Familys-real-personalities-revealed-feet.html
Until now, I'd been mentally picturing UK size 11 whenever it was mentioned, everything makes a lot more sense now lol
I hope everyone has a nice Christmas, mine has already started a little early with a little coffee in my amaretto :O)
Re: Megs' hands & feet, hands like shovels, feet like sled runners, because they're so disproportionate. She would do well to minimize all the fiddling she does with her hands & hair, & stop wearing to the oversize stilettos. Maybe shoes with rounder toes & lower heels wouldn't draw the eye to her feet.
the play house came with the house (as part of a "child's play area"), per the real estate listing for mudslide manor someone posted on twitter.
still think there is an Archie by surrogate but this child seems too big. Also, truly believe the photo shop was used to obscure Archies face because THEY (not just meg) are holding out for a big £ payout for his pictures.
the Christmas message was very preachy and frankly a turn off (it sounded very holier than thou)
The play house is feature in the DM:
'The miniature cottage, designed in a traditional British style, is thought to have been a custom commission and would have cost the couple up to $7,000, toy specialists told FEMAIL.
Featuring a thatched roof and split stable doors, the playhouse has a 'rustic British cottage' feel and has 'English countryside vibes' that wouldn't look out of place in the grounds of one of the British royal residences, according to Jamie Stanford, managing director at UK-based toy company Liberty Games.'
-------------
I'm not sure why they chose an English cottage look. Maybe Harry is feeling nostalgic, alternatively Archie knew it looked English and picked it??
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2020
Blind Item #9
This weekly kneepadding tabloid is on lockdown. No, not because of COVID. They have something they are protecting. Something big. My guess would be something to do with the alliterate one like a pregnancy announcement or something. They wouldn't lockdown over just a regular interview.
why oh why does my newsfeed keep popping up with "50 times Meghan Markle broke Royal protocol" Oprah Magazine?
Just a quick best wishes to all.
We have had our Christmas dinner, presents etc and are now chilling in front of the TV :)
Classic!
Oh and my guess to foot size is US 8.5 - 9. About a 40 IIRC
Merry Christmas, tatty! How are you doing?
Yeah, you're right. Her size 7 feet and 5'7" height are just more lies from a pathological liar. She does have abnormally long toes.
She must be a helluva tree climber!
Per ususal, something doesn't pass the smell test.
Unless, separation or reconciliation with Thomas
Ron Burkle owns SoHo House. Putting my money on the announcement that the Harkles are part of the Soho House deal and/or franchise.
SoHo--pretty much a rich man's brothel.
Swamp woman, merry Christmas, I have been sprung from the hospital and am doing ok, but had to take a pain pill earlier. Onward to less pain and better mobility in 2021! Thanks.
He'd have left out the Harkles & covered the garden in snow.
(PS BBC4 has been running Bob Ross daily - a very soothing voice, you've gotta like him)
"everyone’s mileage may vary, but I have never known anyone who was instructed to wait 6 months after a miscarriage to try again. Usually it’s 1-2 cycles. (But there is so much we don’t know here, so I’ll add that)...."
Actually I've read these days often doctors say there's no need to wait-- that the body is primed to be pregnant. See Mayo Clinic info here:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/getting-pregnant/in-depth/pregnancy-after-miscarriage/art-20044134
Don't know about IVF
@WBBM......the voice of Bob Ross. They should pipe it into any scene of mayhem, to restore people to calm and smiles.
@SDJ, the rudeness, wording the card that way without naming the charities....how self-absorbed. And it makes me laugh too....,the forced use of “we as a family” makes me see liars desperate to make us believe they have a child. Even, that she is still with H, which I occasionally doubt when I have shined my tin tiara. Archie is not at a mini desk adjudicating charitable giving decisions. H is cowering somewhere looking up divorce lawyers. We as a family indeed.
I wonder if M is sitting in Doria’s guest room trying to ge Kneepads on the phone to let them know she emailed a hand painted sonogram of her latest pregnancy..”You can see from this one he already has a little ginger beard like my husband! Only an extra one million! Whaddaya say?”
Happy Christmas! We are fat and happy watching movies, sipping wine and demolishing almond cake.
Apologies if this was posted earlier and I missed it, but I have just watched the Night Before Christmas reading In support of the actors benevolent fund, royal patron HRH the prince of Wales. Memo to those clods in Montecito...This is how a royal patronage is done. I always forget how very deep Charles’s voice is. Had he not been born a prince, he would’ve made a good broadcaster or his first choice, the stage. He and Camilla participate in the video, but they do not hog the proceedings or take Any more lines than any of the other actors got. I’m wondering how one got selected to be a part of this..,Whether Charles invited his favorite actors or what. I could’ve done with significantly more from Dame Judi and Dan Craig...Their lines seem to have been taken by Joanna Lumley. I enjoyed this, but I would’ve enjoyed it just as well if it had been just Charles and Camila in front of a fireplace taking turns reading. It’s cute; I watched it three times.
C. Clement Moore's poem Presents a very American rendition of Santa Claus, So the choice of reading was a bit surprising. I would think they might have chosen something more British featuring Father Christmas. Enjoy!
https://youtu.be/aFh9k3p5VNs
But it is xmas eve. I'm sure M&H will give their big news soon. and i am expecting it to be pregnancy announcement. Too much going on with them right now to be a separation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9086655/Meghan-Markles-brother-law-charged-domestic-violence.html
I've never miscarried and was relying on women I know who had (they are older now so its been a while). All were told to wait at least a few months (six was often suggested) to give the body time to heal etc. no one was told to try again next cycle. old ways perhaps?
and Merry Christmas to US Nutties,
and to all those other Nutties--to our French Speaking Ones (Joyeux Noel), and to our Nutties in Africa and Asia and the rest of Europe too!
Your insights (about your lives and experiences) are fascinating.
And, I thank Nutty and her moderators for giving us all this creative tea outlet for a few minutes each day.
@Musty I’m an IVF patient. I had a miscarriage in October and we’re trying again in January. My clinic only waits for two cycles before trying again if you want. (Not that I even believe her MC story)
Oh, I am sorry to hear that happened. I'm sure all the Nutties hope January will go better for you and your family.
Merry Christmas to one and all.
Season's Greetings to those who celebrate other holidays.
The Telegraph has an article about Charles and Camilla who recorded a poem, ’Twas the Night Before Christmas, attributed to Clement Clarke Moore, in order to help actors during the pandemic
Oh! Doesn't he say"hice" for "house" and "mice" instead of "mouse"-- the way the royals speak English sounds so very different sometimes even from other Britons
I saw it is on Murky Meg's twitter but it won't play on my phone for some reason ☹
The illustrated Christmas card purposefully aged Archie to try to sell the playhouse. 18 month olds rarely have large playhouses. Aging him to 3-4 makes sense for that demographic.
But who the hell looks to Meghan for $7k playhouse influence. It was in Town and Country. My guess is it’s a friend of friends biz and she made promo money off it.
In real life they would look ridiculous posed as they were and she and Harry aren’t photogenic which is why the Zooms are always blurry.
"
C. Clement Moore's poem Presents a very American rendition of Santa Claus, So the choice of reading was a bit surprising. I would think they might have chosen something more British featuring Father Christmas. Enjoy!
https://youtu.be/aFh9k3p5VNs"
Thanks for the link! I was a bit surprised at this choice too, but maybe it's inspired by his American grandson, whom he has hardly seen or held (and who is only as real as flying pigs and reindeer to some!)
LOL. Yes, Sadly for Grandpa Charles, he does not seem to have actually met his fourth grandchild. In my opinion Charles and Archie were never in the green drawing room at Windsor at the same time.
Charles had a good time doing this video, that’s obvious. Fate denied him a career on the boards but by most accounts he seems to have had some natural ability at performing vaudeville type roles. Most surprising. He can act circles around his daughter-in-law, just based on the few lines we saw. Shall we take up a betting pool that Murky’s post holiday video project will be a dramatic reading? Maybe she and just age will treat us to a scene from “Raisin in the Sun”.
Meghan is 5’3-4” and shoe size 10-11 US. My feet are not as large as hers. I didn’t realize she was so short until I saw how high her heels are next to 6’1” Harry.
I have a 5’ 2” friend with size 9 US shoes. I am almost positive about Meghan.
I'm sad that doesn't happen up here. I would like to try some grilled iguana.
My feet don't appear to be huge on me because I'm tall and they are in proportion to my overall size. My feet on her body size would probably look like clown shoes.
I haven't got time to catch up this morning, so my apologies if anybody has made this observation already:
The thatched playhouse can be read as representing the stable in Bethlehem - the whole scene then becomes a Nativity tableau, with the usual suspect in the star role. How appropriate for a woman who produces a baby without even being convincingly pregnant.
A new meaning for `BVM'? Does she do it deliberately or is it an unconscious reflection of her mental framework?
I must away now and start lunch prep. It's a `2 part deconstructed turkey for two', ie a small breast roll and one leg!
Must watch HM's Christmas broadcast - of course, given the events of the last 24hrs, it's small wonder no advance clue was given of the content. Perhaps several versions were recorded to cover all eventualities, or else there's been a last-minute filming of whichever prepared script fits best!
According to my Twitter sources, the sugars have already slammed the BRF for letting Prince Charles do something with actors after having punished Meghan for wanting to do the same in Hollywood.
I don't know if Meghan will respond by doing a dramatic reading of anything. Not when she might be compared unfavorably to her father-in-law. Having Prince Harry as a reading partner might help, as he's probably the only one she can get who'd be a worse actor than she. But also remember that what she had really wanted was a seat at the table read of the Fast Times at Ridgemont High virtual table read. If she's not giving Archie's face away for free, then she won't be giving her perceived Oscar-worthy talents away for free either.
re: Prince Charles did something she wasn't?
Well but wait a minute. Look at it from another side - she did the voice over for elephants (first). No one even whispered an attempt to stop that. The whispers were all about the Lion King premier, what was said, what was worn and that it was chosen over another prior commitment. And, and the elephant documentary was released in spring of this year (a time when no one was thinking about how we would be handling Christmas). It was apples and oranges, not red apples and green apples.
Prince Charles is second (in her trail if the sugars want to think of it).
WBBM
OMGosh. the nativity - oh man. double lattes of the day for you in my book
Re your Nativity tableau: well spotted! Something occurred to me, another parallel: in both cases, the real Nativity and the latest tableau, it was a case of immaculate conception.
Does she write it herself? I did not think so.
Why would People Mag be on lockdown over Meghan pregnancy announcement? That’s absurd. No one cares about Meghan like that
To preserve the illusion they are a popular publication? To keep that exclusive alllll to themselves! They must make sure not to distract from the duchess of marvelous with stories of some other possibly more popular person....OR THAT BORING VIRUS THAT KILLED HER MOMENT OF TRIUMPHANT RETURN....
Immaculate Conception refers to the Catholic Church's doctrine that Mary was conceived without sin (the Original Sin that all humans since Adam and Eve are born with, a result of A and E's fall), which makes her uniquely qualified to be the mother of the God-man Jesus Christ.
What you mean is the concept of Virgin Birth -- that Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus although she was still a virgin, having had no sexual relations with a man, Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Given the above, neither Immaculate Conception nor Virgin Birth applies to the creature known as Meghan Markle. All she is is an unremarkable slut, once divorced, who most likely used a surrogate to birth the little-seen curious creature known as Archie.
I know some people find it a little trying when the quoted part and response are not set apart clearly.
Merry Christmas, Happy holidays of all sorts, Happy New Year! May it be better than 2020 for all of us!
“An unremarkable slut” needs to be the title of the next unauthorized bio of our Young Mother of the Unimmaculate Knees.
@Opus
I believe the Queen’s comment about a hug referred to those who are apart because of covid19 distancing. They, like our family, are not spending Christmas together. (I definitely need a hug.) i don’t think it was referring to Harry and his family.
Wow. Wow. You are well-rewarded by abbyh for that observation about the nativity scene and their card. I think that may be their intent. Even the animals at rest before the manger.......yow wow yow.
How Harry is not hitchhiking away in terror from that lunatic and her doll I will never know. Maybe he can run for it tonight, while she is reheating the vegan turkey for houseguests Markus and Yuri Plentiov.
IMO. Unremarkable is one of the best words used to deservingly describe a person. Bravo to you.
I completely agree with the nativity observation. Lines up and suddenly the whole thing makes a little more sense (however absurd her antics are.) So Meghan is trying to upstage Jesus and hawk a playhouse.
Wasn’t the podcast meant to be out before the holidays? *crickets*
whatever your personal beliefs, may today (and all days) be filled with love and peace for you and yours.
Above all, I wish for you all to be able to hug all your loved ones near and far next year.
Thanks. I know technically my statement was incorrect but there were no sexual relations if a surrogate was used not Archie doesn't exist, as most people seem to believe (on the other hand, there could be an Archie conceived the old fashioned way).
I wholeheartedly agree with your description of MM as an 'unremarkable slut'.
As an American, my tradition of listening to the Queens Christmas speech is of recent origin, within the last 10 years or so. I continue to be exceedingly impressed At the longevity and vitality of this little indomitable lady. She is in every sense the last of her kind as a monarch of the old model. When she is gone, I expect things will be very different in the house of Windsor. Although she is a creature of habit and tradition, I’ve got to hand it to the Queen for rolling with so many changes and innovations throughout her long reign. She works those cameras like the pro she is. She had a lot of grave topics to touch upon this year, well at the same time keeping a message upbeat, inclusive and brief. This is a tall order. It’s a real tight rope to walk between being the sovereign of so many people of such diverse religions, political views, and cultures. But at the same time she is the Defender of the Faith—The Christian faith of a definition, and she is the head of a monolithic institution which exists through centuries of oppression and systematic racism I might as well say it. Her job is to be the unobjectionable and inspiring figurehead of all of that and somehow unite her diverse peoples. An impossible task, but she does ceremony and tradition very well.
It’s hardly surprising that nurses and the NHS took a lead role in this year as remarks, is it? As to the whole “sex“ versus gender...I will gently dispute that HM should have used the former instead of the latter. Surely in the context she was referring to Societal roles and identity, and not merely biological body parts. I doubt she was keen to invoke ‘Sex' Within a family message regardless of its clinical probity. At seven minutes long, HM’s speech can only be a Aural holiday greeting to her people, not a policy paper. For that she’s got Mr. Johnson. I thought she looked very lovely, though I would like to see even one smile from her at the end. I note The single small photograph of Philip on the desk this year. Well played; sticking to the most non-controversial choice. She couldn’t include a photo of the Cambridges without igniting more cries of racist snubbing from The bargain basement Duchess of Santa Barbara County, or wherever she actually lives.
I particularly enjoyed the use of music and the horses at the beginning, and the NHS choir at the end. A beautifully produced segment, even if it was more fit looks than substance. I am not a monarchist by birth and culture but still, God Save the Queen ... A world without her in it it’s difficult to imagine. She is a living tradition that gives some comfort even to people who owe her no allegiance whatsoever. How many people live nearly 95 years of age could do what she does?
2. Interesting that the Queen had only the photo of Philip on her desk. First thing I looked for. There is a meaningful message, don’t you think....perhaps about her pod but also a sort of “give M and her sugars and PR no PR fodder” move. Checkmate. Maybe she is indicating that she still listens to Philip and he saw the stupid Harkles card and the penny dropped and now he wants heads to roll since no one told them about Fake Archie.
(I hope all rental Archies are having a happy loving day with their real families.)
All the credit for “an unremarkable slut” goes to @Eowyn, not to me — I was just gleefully praising her phrasing!
Already watched it twice, will watch again later.
I still say there's no way MM wears a size 11 US shoe but maybe a size 9.
https://youtu.be/kbJQqrHyeJA
I felt she stressed humbleness, the idea of the unknown warrior being not remarkable but one of many warriors, for more than one reason. A little reminder to H and his wife climb down off the cross?
Also, I think the heavy use of Kate in the video segments, in addition to some of Charles, and a laughing William, was brilliant. Ciao, Megs, here’s your hat, Harry, enjoy your privacy. I think the Harkles, if they really are about to throw a holiday (as time ticks away today) podcast at the world, had best think twice and not do so. One look at the NHS choir members should tell them why.
On a lighter note, was I the only one who saw the regiment on horses at the opening, rolling toward us like a sea, and imagined in all deep hope that they would be shown to be pulling a rough wood hay wagon carrying a burlap-garbed Megs and Harry in cuffs, being offered up for her Majesty’s judgment then off to the Tower? Philip, Anne and William riding solemnly in the rear, guarding the obnoxious grifter prisoners....
I think the single Phillip photo also highlights the Queen is isolating away from the rest of her family as well. No Christmas church or other get togethers for the extended Windsor family this year.
Whatever I may think I will soon forget what she said and next year - hopefully - will once again twiddle my dial. Her Broadcast at 3pm on Xmas Day - our version of the state of the union address - is I suppose for many people part of the ritual of Xmas. My Father on hearing the anthem at the end would always stand and salute and would justify that by reason of having been a British Army Officer. It may seem silly to salute a television set yet somehow not standing at the anthem (no placing of right hand on heart) does seem a little disrespectful.
'It seems we can't mention Florence Nightingale without including Mary Seacole, although their relative importance in the development of nursing practice is debatable.'
This is so true but I'm sure you know why we have to mention Mary Seacole... Best say no more.
I felt the queen was quite "serious" during the speech. Visually at least. I kept hoping for more of a physical reaction. She normally is more animated. Not a criticism, just an observation.
However, the videos that went with it, inserted within were great. And the choir singing Joy to the World with all the video was great.
overall, enjoyed it
I have not had a chance to view The Queen's Christmas message yet--the real one or the deepfake one.
Just curious if any Nutties watched the deepfake one. Lots of negative comments in the DM.
I love horses on parade. Such a magnificent sight. Always in awe at how well trained they are.
Considering the hissyfit that Harry had over last year's pictures, i think it was a wise choice to feature just Philip this year. It means no media speculation and the Harkles would have to be extremely petty to be throw a hissyfit about it.
I'm sure they will have a hissyfit over the fact that the message put focus on the new 8 senior royals especially the Cambridges.
Can't wait for their passive aggressive via the usual suspects.
Charles thanks the Armed Forces. Well done. His kid, the dip shit duke of Sussex/Santa Barbara Counties should take a lesson. Charles does not say “hey you guys!” Even once.
https://youtu.be/kbJQqrHyeJA"
The way Harry has behaved over the past couple of years is a stark demonstration of how little engagement he had in the army despite his constant whining.
His behaviour is completely opposite of someone who was properly trained and disciplined by the army.
To go as far as publicly threatening to sue the media for repeating the words of a Major General of the army for calling him out points in the direction of someone whose entire military career rested on his status as The Queen's grandson and was allowed to get away with behaviour that would have seen him reprimanded or expelled if he'd been a regular soldier.
Harry being a dunciard actually believed his light engagement is what the army was about.
I could be wrong. Perhaps he took it seriously once. The quickness with which he dropped his military engagements after meeting Meghan tells me otherwise.
Wasn’t the podcast meant to be out before the holidays? *crickets*
Depends on national understanding of Christmas holidays.
In UK, the tradition is 12 days of Christmas starting 25th though most people limit festivities to the first few days depending on work situations. If work allows, most people take full week off and go back in the New Year. Whatever the personal circumstances, it's understood that Christmas holidays in the British sense mean the week between Christmas and New Year's day (included).
As the Harkles are doing their best to pivot back to the UK Royal bonafides, i'll wager that they are defining their Christmas holiday in the British sense. That podcast spevial will drop sometime this week.
"Young Mother of the Unimmaculate Knees"
ROFLMAO!
Archie is unbelievably grown up in Meghan and Harry's Christmas card
… there's only one thing we're really thinking when we look at the cute family picture: just how big 'baby' Archie has got! Harry and Meghan's son is now one-and-a-half, and in the image shared by the Sussexes this week, he looks now to have officially morphed from baby into toddler…
Does that mean that they really haven’t sussed it out? They say it’s `unbelievable’ but then appear to believe it?
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/archie-unbelievably-grown-meghan-harrys-100200980.html
I too have a nasty feeling that they'll tell Pa that they haven't been able to make it in LA, so it'll be OK for them to come back, if he's not going to fund them any more after March, won't it? Perhaps they'll make out the folk in LA were even nastier than those in the UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSftQu9rnBA
***** Very well done by the Queen, a fine and clever production for this miserable Covid year. Ironic that UK's covid problems are worse than before and with 20,000 trucks (lorries) blocked from getting back to the Continent by French Covid restrictions. All I know about UK news is what I see in the DM.
This is what the money grabbing Montecito Gruesomes left behind.
In England these are not our concerns. By and large the British women are easy enough to rub along with. Class is far more important than race. I far prefer say some dreadlocked Jamaican (my Great Grandfather is buried there) to say the Poles. The Jamaican will be called Winston and will be devoted to the Queen; the Poles not. I can hardly forget the time in Chicago - a city as windy as its reputation - when I was introduced to an Indian (call centre not casino) for we almost fell into each others arms as long lost brothers. Likewise my Bangladeshi neighbour recognises that I am his well-meaning protector and that my ancestors brought civilisation to what was once just a small part of our Indian empire. He did not say so but I can see it in his attitude. It is only Guardian readers and Americans who are embarrassed by empire and Intersectionality.
Hikari's remarks puzzled me for I do not understand.
Americans are about self-promotion. But along the women-promotion, female led initiatives.. For starters, women’s rights are not a *thing* in the US. So women who need to or want to work and have children are only allotted 6 unpaid weeks to do so, per child. There are no protections or garunteed part time work for women of children of certain ages, no federally funded childcare before Pre-K (aged 4) and even at 4 it is part-time. If a woman is receiving government assistance, she qualifies because she is in poverty, not because there is a federal state-wide standard for children and women that provides any sort of equalizer of the middle and lower class like in the UK. Women (and Men) who work do not have holiday. The typical grant is 2 weeks per year, but this is entirely state and employer led. Women take on most of the child rearing duties, and cannot take of time from work during a school year when their children are off.
Sorry to go off on this tangent, but the underpinnings for the women’s movement and rights is the basic lack of standards for women’s needs.
The Duchess of Cornwall decorated the Clarence House Christmas tree annually with children from a local hospice cog which she is patron. This year it was done virtually but the children were made to feel very much a part of the proceedings. Well done to Camilla and her personal Guardsman, Charlie, who helped her pack gift bags for the children and hung all the baubles as directed.
The Firm is hitting PR home runs around all of their holiday efforts.
I too have a nasty feeling that they'll tell Pa that they haven't been able to make it in LA, so it'll be OK for them to come back...
I don’t see how they could ever return to the UK as a couple—Harry maybe after a divorce, but he’d need to be marginalized at least temporarily until the rancor subsided.
One thing I took away from the Queen’s brilliantly produced Christmas message is that the Sussexes have been written out of the royal script. Let’s hope that’s permanent.
I would think it difficult to tell Pa that they haven't been able to make it in LA after they've claimed a £150m Netflix deal and a £30m podcast deal.
Personally, I don't think they made that kind of money. No where near it. I think they just want more free money from Pa, blame the pandemic, not to return to UK.
Why else is she trying to Copy being. Royal in the US? That’s her current playbook. Stolen idea. Wrong execution, wrong culture. Nice sentiment in fantasy.
AnT “ an unremarkable slut “
followed by “ unimmaculate knees “
Ahhhhh, bravo, love it, perfect 😍
WildBoar-the three wise/lucky men
are missing from her nativity scene.
Thomas, Trevor and Cory?
The ghosts of Christmas past.
Nutties Natale
I’m wishing all Nutties a Christmas of cheer
And good health permitting, we’ll all still be here
On our quest for de-Meggin, of Madam Le Hound
With our hopes that next year, she’ll not be around
Merry Christmas Nutties.
Hope it was filled with love and laughter
And all that you’re after X