It's been a while since I've written about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but it's not because they've been idle.
They've launched their new Archewell website, released their first podcast on Spotify, and announced that they would not be re-establishing a social media presence - supposedly to protect their valuable content.
Regular articles are placed in the Daily Mail and the New York Post about the Sussexes' doings, in particular about their relationship with the portions of the Royal Family that have remained in Britain.
There's only one problem: nobody cares. The coverage is driven by supply, not demand.
Selling people something they don't want to buy
You can see it in the number of comments on Daily Mail stories about the Sussexes, which are way below the numbers attracted at the time of Megxit, which took place almost precisely one year ago.
Yet the bots play on, delivering new puff pieces about the Sussexes almost every day.
Presumably approved by the Sussexes themselves or their PR minions, they to sell the public on their own importance, while offering little that the people might really be interested in.
Photos of Archie? Rare, and usually obviously manipulated.
Tour of their current California residence? "You can see a wall or cabinet in the background of our umpteenth diatribe about social problems."
A view into their relationship? That's a staple of any reality program featuring a couple. But there's none of that, and the Sussexes could have collected a lot of sympathy with about the inevitable tensions between a culture from different countries and economic backgrounds.
But the PR people will continue writing something, anything, as long as they are paid to do so.
Coming soon
Coming in 2021 is Meghan's court case against the Daily Mail, a book from sister Samantha and a movie from her father Thomas, and the first episodes of the Sussexes' Netflix series.
Will any of them be enough to create more public interest in the Sussexes?
Comments
So sorry to hear about your mother-in-law. Sending best thoughts and wishes to you and your family.
If you do find it, please post. I'm curious to see why it was scrubbed.
Princess Tiffany just put out a video saying that the Palace Four want to go to court and tell all about how badly they were treated by MM. They want to testify against her.
I am imagining a group of eager children before a teacher, all waving their hands wildly simultaneously, leaning forward, and begging "Pick ME! I know, PICK ME!" while being elbowed back by other enthusiastic children. I bet they hate her with a purple passion and cannot WAIT to dump on her (with suitable British decorum, of course).
Many thanks for your reply back to me and helping me understand the intricacies of the lawsuit. I appreciate it very much! MG
I remember reading the article just above. A completely different take; I don’t get why=this type of thing isn’t placed in the press?
Sympathy to your family on the loss of your mother-in-law.
My condolences on your family’s loss. So very sorry.
"Needless battle caused by uncommon language
How a misunderstanding between a British brigadier and US general led to disaster on a Korean battlefield
John Ezard
Sat 14 Apr 2001 01.19 BST
His men were outnumbered eight to one, stranded on every side by human waves of Chinese Communist infantry attackers at the height of the Korean war.
But when the British brigadier reported the position to his American superior in the United Nations joint command, he did so with classic and -as it turned out - lethal British understatement.
"Things are a bit sticky, sir," Brig Tom Brodie of the Gloucestershire Regiment told General Robert H Soule, intending to convey that they were in extreme difficulty.
But Gen Soule understood this to mean "We're having a bit of rough and tumble but we're holding the line". Oh good, the general decided, no need to reinforce or withdraw them, not yet anyway.
The upshot was one of the most famous, heroic and - according to a BBC2 documentary on April 20 - unnecessary last stands in military history: the ordeal of 600 men of the "Glorious Gloucesters" at the Imjin river almost exactly 50 years ago.
With no extra support promised, the colonel in charge of the Gloucesters fell back to a hill overlooking the river, where they made their stand. For four days, mostly without sleep, they held off 30,000 Chinese troops trying to surge across the river, killing 10,000 of them with Bren gun fire.
When they tried to withdraw, they were too late. More than 500 of them were captured and spent years in Chinese camps. Fifty-nine were killed or missing. Only 39 escaped. Two soldiers were awarded Victoria crosses for bravery.
Their feat was credited with saving Seoul, the south Korean capital, from capture. But yesterday the official historian of the war, General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, said Seoul probably would not have been endangered if the men had been withdrawn earlier, and they would not have been cut off or captured.
Sir Anthony, now 77, a former Nato commander-in-chief, was himself captured at Imjin as a young adjutant to the Gloucesters. He said a US officer - unlike Brig Brodie - would have known how to make Gen Soule understand, by using the phrase "Sir, there is all hell breaking loose here".
Sir Anthony said: "The two nations spoke military [language] in a slightly different way. It's certainly a good example of the old saying about Britain and the US as two nations divided by a common language."
He discloses the episode in Forgotten Heroes: Korea Remembered, a programme of interviews with veterans to mark the 50th anniversary of Imjin.
The programme says: "Any hopes of relief were dashed by an American misunderstanding of British understatement."
Sir Anthony said he learned of the conversation from a number of sources while researching An Honourable Discharge, the second volume of his Cabinet Office history of the Korean war, published in 1995.
He said: "I don't think anyone should be hard on the brigadier. He was talking in battle, when they were clinging on by their fingertips. Nobody had time to think of the nuances of what they were saying."
The British 29th brigade, of which the Gloucesters were part, saw 400 die at Imjin..."
I've cut the details of the carnage - full report at
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/apr/14/johnezard
"
Still on the subject of misunderstanding, there were a couple of posts yesterday that I feel I must comment on. I've not sure if they were from the same poster or not.
What was said betrayed a serious misunderstanding of the UK, regarding our justice system and Constitution.
Just because one disagrees with a jury's verdict, or the judge's decision in a civil case, it doesn't follow that the system is corrupt.
In a criminal trial for instance, the jury, which delivers the verdict, `guilty or not guilty' is composed of 12 persons drawn at random from the Electoral Roll.
The situation in a libel case (ie a civil case) has changed and a jury is used only when the case is straightforward:
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/court-ruling-makes-clear-libel-juries-are-likely-to-be-a-thing-of-the-past
Miscarriages of justice can happen when the wrong person has been caught for a crime and they are retried when fresh evidence, demonstrating innocence, comes to light.
Head and Depp were mentioned - may I whisper OJ Simpson?
With regard to our Constitution, summed up as `the Queen is Sovereign in Parliament', we have a Constitutional Monarchy in which the King or Queen's powers are exercised by means of Parliament and the Legal System. The Monarch cannot `rule', he or she `reigns'. She can counsel and advise the PM at their weekly meetings, to which nobody else is privy.
She signs Acts into being but only "on the advice of" elected government ministers.
She cannot be sued nor can she be prosecuted because the Law is exercised in her name.- whether a monarch could still be tried as Charles I was, by Parliament usurping his powers, is something that has not arisen for over 450 years and, God willing, it won't in the future. Family members can be, and are, usually for driving offences.
Many of her other powers are ancient and quaint.
See:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-elizabeth-ii-owns-every-dolphin-britain-and-doesn-t-need-driving-license-here-are-incredible-powers-you-didn-t-know-monarch
The House of Commons and the PM, where the real power resides, re elected democratically and can be booted out. I would agree, however, with anyone who thinks the Lords needs further reform - at least the old, hereditary, system had the beauty of being on the basis of `one out (ie by death), one in'.
I hope you can now see that our Monarchy is not an autocracy - we had enough of that in the 17th century. Nor can I think of any European monarchy that is either.
Finally, being a republic is not, of itself, protection against autocrats, demagogues and tyrants; there has to be a system of additional checks and balances as we have here. I'd add it isn't wise to comment on the systems of other nations when one has only a limited grasp of how they are run.
Of course I am concerned about how copyright may be affected by a trial, but if a person uses a letter in your possession to slander you (and People gave him no opportunity to respond), and is backed by a huge PR machine, paid for by money meant to be for charity, are the rights afforded to Meghan absolute? Thomas could not afford to hire a team of lawyers and PR people, but is it fair that he may not use the only means he has to stand up to a lying bully?
It's far more detailed and direct in correcting the record and doesn't give the Palace any plausible deniability as far as Harry's charge that Palace sources were media briefing against him and M.
Even if the Palace is revealing truth, it looks bad for them to point the finger at their own without obvious provocation.
The golden period for leaking against Harry was the winter of 2019 when the Palace leaked a smorgosbord of insider information about their poor behaviour or better still include it in the Charles authorised biography that started the leaks in the first place by telling us all about tiaragate, difficult M behaviour and the infamous 'what Meghan wants, Meghan gets' quote.
July 2020 was far too late.
So sorry for your loss. Condolences to your family. Cyber hugs X
I quite agree.
Meghan's lawyers are invoking section 8 of the human rights code to argue their case which is an all emcompassing code in favour of the claimant, but the good news is that it isn't absolute and allows for circumstances and subjectivity.
If it is upheld in the absolute way Meghan's lawyers would like it applied, it will have far reaching consequences for copyright and privacy.
This is the first time this code has ever been invoked / tested in a UK court even though it's been in existance since 2018. Other court cases tended to invoke domestic codes of copyright and privacy.
It's interesting to note that Meghan initially filed her case under the domestic laws covering copyright, data protection and privacy.
And yet is using the Human rights code for her summary Judgement.
As everyone has pointed out, asking for a summary judgement so late in the game is very risky and i think is the reason they argued for a judgement under the human rights code.
A summary judgement at the beginning might have given her the results she wanted under domestic laws, and would have definitely been a slamdunk for her under human rights code.
However, so much evidence has been revealed in investigations between then and this week's hearings that i think subjective reading of the human rights code is the only option now.
And a subjective reading means a trial is highly likely.
This is an article about PG being called Archie from January of 2019.
I just had a thought — is It more than “ha ha, we stole your son-and-heir’s code name to be rude and mess up his security....”
IS IT actually,
“Ohhhh William, you big hunk of future power and castles, look at Meeeee, I am the mother of a real Archie, Meeeeeee! See we basically have a son and heir together! so dump your tall wife! choose dumpy supermodel Meeeee and this kid, and make me Queeeeeeeeeen!”
Still on the subject of misunderstanding, there were a couple of posts yesterday that I feel I must comment on. I've not sure if they were from the same poster or not.
What was said betrayed a serious misunderstanding of the UK, regarding our justice system and Constitution.
I hope I wasn't one of those people. While I do hit and run reading and commenting now, I *think* I said that I didn't understand the UK justice/judicial system and found it fascinating to learn. If I did cause any offence through misunderstanding, I apologize.
I will, however, tell you where some people come from because of the judges here. Whenever somebody kills an innocent in an armed robbery, the record shows that often he/she is awaiting trial on a series of offenses and has been slapped on the wrist and released numerous times. One here recently had 22 convictions for violent offenses, served little time and was released into the community. If a car is stolen and wrecked by a car thief or carjacker, it *usually* isn't a first offense. Or a second, or third, or fourth, or fifth...
Kids have to go to school with kids wearing the leg bracelets because they are on home arrest *except* for school and are awaiting trial. They ARE violent criminals that have not aged into the adult justice system (yet) or killed the victims (yet) of their armed robberies, just wounded them. When a black judge removed a female black child aggressor from school here that had walked up to a smaller white girl and, unprovoked, rammed her head into a wall causing a skull fracture, he was overruled by a white judge that said that the aggressive girl, who was involved in multiple other instances of assault, had a right to an education at that school. Apparently victims have no rights. The parents of the victim had to move into another county to protect their child from the criminal. The school likewise had no say in the matter.
@madamelightfoot,
I just had a thought — is It more than “ha ha, we stole your son-and-heir’s code name to be rude and mess up his security....”
IS IT actually,
“Ohhhh William, you big hunk of future power and castles, look at Meeeee, I am the mother of a real Archie, Meeeeeee! See we basically have a son and heir together! so dump your tall wife! choose dumpy supermodel Meeeee and this kid, and make me Queeeeeeeeeen!”
Heh. I feel a scarfing coming on!
I am so sorry for your loss. Condolences to your family. Take care.
My deepest condolences, AnT. Keeping you and your family in my thoughts.
Thanks to everyone for the stellar trial coverage!
I again began reading from the bottom up, and stepped into a beautiful sea of condolences.
Thank you so much for your kind words. They have actually choked me up here today, you are truly kind friends from afar. It has been hard on everyone because people could not see her recently of course, and she was expected to recover from an infection for which she had been recently hospitalized. My lovely, funny, lion of a father-in-law died only a little over two months ago as well, so it has been too hard. This Nutty spot has been my sanctuary, something to focus on beside work and it’s there when I can’t sleep, all the intelligent essay-quality comments and research and fun, too. So, thanks. Mr AnT is devastated, though he is normally the calm cool tough one. He has seven brothers and sisters, five cousins, fifteen nieces and nephews, two aunts.... smart, solid people, endless loving mutual support. But suddenly my husband is also the patriarch so to speak, and I think the change of command finally struck him, as it does when parents are gone. (Take note, Charles and William.) He has always been “The Counselor” to his big traditional Irish family and his huge friend group and clients, is fine with it, but this is different. So I am watching over him. He asked for homemade chicken soup and chocolate cake! Comfort food. so I left the laptop and whipped it up. (I decided not to suggest an oat milk latte instead.) Anyway, love to you all, with thanks. ❤️
I didn't know that your dear FIL had died only a couple of months ago. This is so sad, I really feel for you. Stay safe. XXX
I find it difficult to accept that we live in a world where Meghan can dominate headlines, live such an over-the-top privileged lifestyle (paid for by a foreign country that she abused through their monachy), grab public platforms to preach about kindness, and spend millions on a vanity lawsuit, especially at a time when a virus is ravaging the world.
Re. 'the real Archie' . . .I'm dying.
It's absolutely bonkers, but that is exactly how what passes for her mind works. 'Archie' is another of her copying schemes, with the added bonus that it's sure to annoy/needle the Cambs and the entire Palace security team.
Meg is crazy stalker material--the kind of person who obsesses over the object of their desire and wants/wants to be them so bad . . .they just have to harass, terrify and kill them.
There are so many reasons to think that the whole saga of Archie is suspect, but not least among them is his name. I never thought that this couple would necessarily pick a 'traditional' Royal name for their baby but when they released 'Archie Harrison', I had to scrape my jaw off the table. How odd, thought I, since in America, 'Archie' is synonymous with two pop culture figures who are not exactly flattering--a cartoon redhead with an idiot for a best friend and a television racist. Then other stuff leaked out . . about applying to register some form of 'Arch' as a company even before the marriage; PG's call sign with the RPOs being 'Archie' and lastly, the revelation that 'Harrison', supposedly an homage to 'Harry's son' was also the name of the line of luxury home goods produced by Soho House for use in all their hotels. Meg's favorite slippers and bathrobe are from the 'Harrison' line exclusive to their home away from home.
So, her firstborn beloved son (allegedly) is named after a cartoon and a bathrobe. There seems to be a distinct lack of emotional/personal investment in this name and it feels more like an inside joke/marketing ploy and not a human child who is the embodiment of his parents' love.
***************
WBBM,
'The poet laureate is an honorary position in British society appointed by the Monarch to a poet "whose work is of national significance," according to the official website of the British Monarchy. When first the role was introduced, the appointee was paid £200 per year plus a butt of canary wine. Today the poet laureate is given a barrel of Sherry.'
The United States appoints our national poet laureate, modelled on the British system, since 1937.
from Wiki:
Begun in 1937, and formerly known as the Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress, the present title was devised and authorized by an Act of Congress in 1985. The Poet Laureate's office is administered by the Center for the Book. For children's poets, the Poetry Foundation awards the Young People's Poet Laureate.
The position is appointed annually by the Librarian to the U.S. Congress, and is based out of the Library of Congress in Washington. They receive a $35,000 stipend (no mention of a barrel of sherry) and are free to pursue their own projects during their appointment. Each poet laureate usually selects a personal project to focus on during their tenure (eg. poetry in schools) and is expected to preside over a certain number of poetry readings throughout the year, and ceremonial engagements. The highest profile gig for a Poet Laureate is reading one of their original poems at a Presidential inaugural. The most famous of these was Robert Frost, who, during President Kennedy's inauguration in 1961, was blinded by the sun and could not see the text of what he had planned to read. It was a new poem and he hadn't memorized it yet. He was at this juncture a very elderly gentleman, but he recited from memory another of his poems instead.
22-year-old poet Amanda Gorman is the first appointee to the title of 'National Youth Poet Laureate', which appears to be through a different organization.
While the position of Poet Laureate is prestigious, there's not only one--Each state can appoint its own native sons or daughters to the positions of Poet Laureate and Children's Poet Laureate.
Do you remember the the endless funny memes a few years ago of Lenny Kravitz (my secret crush) in his big wool scarf, walking down a street in NYC? It was such a huge scarf, that people were inspired to have more fun by PSing it to be bigger and bigger in photos.
That is the scarf size William will need if these two slither in for the Diana unveiling. Someone here with skills, please start knitting.
Alongside that, competing headlines include a lot of Cambridge PR.
Oh, and Vice President Harris's niece tweeted that monarchy was bad and democracy much better but Princess Meghan was the greatest. That tweet was supposedly liked by Oprah. Perhaps people like Oprah are just too stupid to understand, but I hope that everyone here knows that the UK is a parliamentary democracy and has been for a long time, and led the war against fascism a generation ago.
Your ponytail and braid stylings for the Harry image are as brilliant as your court coverage. Thank you.
I have some red variegated cotton that I have not found a use for yet. Pattern might not match. Doable.
My sincere condolences to you and your husband and prayers to help you through these days. Remember we are all here for you when you need to get away.
High treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown, yes? Not that it will ever happen, but surely everyone from Jason and Sara to Megs.
—————
@madamelightfoot,
So true! Megs is the very definition of a pick me, isn’t she? It is so humorous to watch, apart from her sociopathic spin on it, I totally believe she views Catherine as being a pest, in the way of Meeeee’s true destiny. I also believe the story of the superglue at the sorority, simply because we have a niece working in Chicago in her first professional post-university role, and her manager once rolled her eyes at some Meghan news people were discussing (back when the duo fled to Canada) and mentioned that she was a known “monster” at NW. As M’s brother’s comment about her treatment of children, that was such a random odd comment for a brother to make, I tend to believe it is true and he saw something in the past that appalled him. For me, tin tiara wearer, this comment also ties back to her childhood creepiness, as well as the rumor of an early Megs baby. I think there was something “off” about Megs for a very long time, based on what we have seen to date, and her bizarre interactions with and hiding of Archie (and Charlotte in tears) don’t dispute that she as issues with children, Narcissists dislike competition for attention. A child would get more attention than they would. And so........who knows what she might do.
I think that the oat milk latte suggestion may have resulted in YOUR untimely demise. I know it would result in mine, should I be silly enough to suggest it here at my house! (virtual hugs)
I fear that your family members are grieving that the isolation meant to protect your mother in law may have hastened her death as she grieved in the hospital. I doubt that it would help for them to know that many long-term happily married people do not long survive the death of the spouse even with visitation and family support in normal times.
Our own beloved mother couldn't get over the death of my (good) stepdad. They found each other later in life after both suffered through bad, abusive marriages, only to find happiness together toward the end of their lives.
Like you, I was totally speechless when I heard the name “Archie” had been applied to their first “baby” offspring. At least four friends texted within minutes, “WTH!” I thought it was a joke.
Because I watched the square, shifting, rolling, deflating, falling-to-her knees bump, I didn’t think she was pregnant. At month eleven or whatever it was, I assumed a surrogate issue. But...Archie! The name of a US cartoon idiot, and a loud mouthed US sitcom bigot! (Two things that Harry may have been unaware of in his self-absorbed idiot bubble.) When some lame story came out that she had a cat named Archie, I knew it was just an excuse to cover her trail with an excuse for her name choice In case Harry read the press and asked her why. (PS poor cat died of eating frozen grapes she fed it? Cats don’t eat frozen grapes. I have had cars and dogs my entire life. But an animal killer might try to stuff a couple down a helpless trusting cat to kill it to get rid of it. I mention this as Part B to the previous cruel-to-children question.)
I think we have learned the Archie Harrison Soho range was registered prior to the “birth of Archie” so....master plan? But why not choose a more appealing name?
So I go with thumb in the eye of the royals. A preplanned bit of hate against them, and a kick at the poor child growing up with a stupid name that would be especially laughed at in America which, as we know, was already their planned destination before the ink was dry on the dubious wedding certificate. She might know she had to have a baby for merching or a royal cash divorce settlement — but the twisted narcissist in her still wanted to harm the child socially too with a terrible name. I don’t buy the “Rachel anagram” theory somehow.
I keep hoping this court case will be able to catch her crazy in a net and display it to the world. I have growing hope.
@SwampWoman,
Do you remember the the endless funny memes a few years ago of Lenny Kravitz (my secret crush) in his big wool scarf, walking down a street in NYC? It was such a huge scarf, that people were inspired to have more fun by PSing it to be bigger and bigger in photos.
That is the scarf size William will need if these two slither in for the Diana unveiling. Someone here with skills, please start knitting.
Speaking of slithering, there is good news from the Everglades that pythons contain squalene, an essential ingredient of the COVID vaccines, and there was fear that overfishing could damage the shark population. Apparently a 10 to 12 foot python contains enough squalene for a little over 3,000 vaccinations. We are eager to sell all of our invasive Burmese python to the vaccine effort (hey, the trappers gotta be paid).
MM should probably avoid slithering anywhere in a green dress for awhile (or not, I don't really care if the python hunters snatch her up).
As for Will having a scarf like Lenny Kravitz, he would probably be scarfing so furiously that he would helicopter out of the danger zone.
------------
I think she feels intense rage towards DoC for being "in the way."
I found myself hoping that they tripled Catherine's security when mm was around. Or even when she's not. I wouldn't put it past her to collude with someone to cause harm to Catherine.
I just keep thinking of her brother's comments where he said not to let her be around young children. Why would he say that?
Yeah, that was a little scary. It seemed so out of the blue. Makes you wonder what he knows.
Lol, William helicoptering away in a furious swirl of wool, with Meeee being simultaneously forced by the scarf winds into the Channel, where her latest inflatable party bump lets her float off to The Hague, where she is wanted for trial for despicable yacht crimes and jailed. Okay!
I found that odd also. Wouldn't Ms. Latham have found it unethical to be working on a book for an outsider, who was writing the book for the purpose of bashing the BRF, for whom she worked? Shouldn't that have been run up the flag pole as something nefarious happening?
What makes it more interesting is that she not only participated in the betrayal and sabotage but was then hired back under BRF auspices when the Sussexes bolted.
After she betrayed me and said nothing about it, I wouldn't want her anywhere around me. The less she knows about me the better. Someone not to be trusted.
Think if you were working for a subsidiary of a company. Helped an employee of the subsidiary trash the owners and corporate headquarters. Would corporate hire you after they fired the bad employee? No. They'd probably fire you, too.
Unless they didn't know you'd been helping. Because you lied by omission. But they know now. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
@AnT
So sorry to read about your 'sweet mother-in-law'. My mother-in-law is very sweet too and I dress her passing. And you lost your father-in-law only two months ago so this is a huge blow. My condolences to you and your family and ake care.
@WBBM
What was said betrayed a serious misunderstanding of the UK, regarding our justice system and Constitution.
Just because one disagrees with a jury's verdict, or the judge's decision in a civil case, it doesn't follow that the system is corrupt.
Thank you, particularly for your last sentence. I feel the same.
Meghan Markle has reportedly hired a team of therapists to help with the development of her son, Archie Harrison, who has turned 20-months-old this January 2021.
Sources told New Idea that the Duchess of Sussex has dubbed this group of experts as Archie's "guidance team," who will ensure that the baby will have "outstanding intelligence."
I don't want to sound nasty but I think if the child is as ’whip smart’ as his mother, the child is doomed, even leaving H out of the equation.
I don't know how reliable the info is.
https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/145413/20210121/meghan-markle-revelation-duchess-allegedly-has-a-team-of-therapists-for-archie-harrison.htm
It reminded me of something Thomas Sr said before the wedding, I thought it odd at the time, "she's very good at bending the rules".
https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/145413/20210121/meghan-markle-revelation-duchess-allegedly-has-a-team-of-therapists-for-archie-harrison.htm
Oh, pur-lease! Yet again, words fail. My first thought was `So he does does have learning difficulties!'
But no! Against all the odds, they expect to develop his already superior intelligence.
If they truly are his parents, their only hope lay in the fact of heterosis, ie outbreeding. There might have been a chance of a bright child if he'd inherited all the good genes from the limited stock available to each of the H&Ms; then he might have been of slightly above average in inherited brainpower. Despite what the `nurturist' view might be, genetics has been shown to play a part. It's not all down to nurture, whatever the H&Ms might like to believe. I can't think he'll learn much about how to develop his intelligence from them. Goodness only knows how many helpful skills he'll learn from their behaviour.
Poor little blighter - how might he be treated if it turns out he's got his all brains from one or the other come to that?
By definition, half the population is of below average intelligence
The child we last saw had the common sense to try and escape from her at least.
My comments are, of course based on the assumption that he actually exists, which is debatable.
Question about why Thomas Jr would make the comment he did about MM and babies?
IDK
What I do know is she was born 1981 (same year as Sam had Ashleigh).
2001 Thomas Jr divorced, marriage date unknown, dobs for Thomas III and Tyler unknown
Maybe they were using her as a babysitter at some point?
A quick search on the internet abt occupational therapists revealed the following in answer to the question 'Does my 3 year old need occupational therapy?'
'Children with sensory processing disorders can benefit from pediatric occupational therapy. If your child seems to overreact to touch, taste, sounds, or smells, that's a common sign that he or she could have sensory processing issues and might need occupational therapy, according to EverydayFamily.'
The use of all these therapists might suggest developmental delays or fine motor skills problems. If this is the case, having H&M as his parents won't help Archie and the best therapists in the world will only help up to a point. Also if the story is true, how much are they paying for all this? If the child is normal but they just want him to be super intelligent and much better than any other children, they're wasting their time (and money).
We don't know how much money the Harkles have, but we've not seen anything they've attempted pan out to actually putting dollars in their pockets. How do they plan to pay for all of these therapists?
If you could increase a child's intelligence level dramatically, every wealthy person would have the same team of "intelligence raisers," and we'd have an army of wealthy super-intelligent rich kids running around.
This story just doesn't pass my BS meter.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9175583/No-lockdown-haircut-Kate-Middleton-shows-long-locks-video-call.html
An entire article about the importance and significance of hair.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9175541/Queen-preparing-special-secret-honour-Kate-mark-10-years-marriage-Prince-William.html
Sure Jan! Is this like the stories of the Queen baking a birthday cake for Meghan or Catherine hosting a baby shower for Meghan?
Yes, I know that many absurd stories about Meghan and Harry turned out to be true. How do we sift through the garbage and find what is accurate tea?
@Maneki Neko,
I just followed the link and read that child therapist article you posted with open-mouthed horror. I pray to all gods and saints and angels these two don’t have a child. My god. They lock him away from family, cousins, sun and air to people they barely know to train him. So sick.
Here, in no order, is what I think (if for one moment I am asked to believe they have a child):
* she thinks this is what rich or royal people do
* provides an excuse for them not to care for or spend time with the child, or raise him, and keeps Harry from bonding with him
* they are Scientology brain washers, actually, because mommy has to get fame, money and Tom Cruise somehow
* excuse for why we never see Archie, or see him out with them (Christmas tree lot, etc)
* “Pa we added ten top child professionals to our 12 person marketing staff, and we need one million extra dollars by Monday,”
* set up the excuse that she cannot travel to trial as they must manage a massive science-based child training team
* set up the excuse that the Archie they hire for future 2021 photos looks huge and advanced due to this, not because the actor is 6
* show she is a super mom (in her twisted mind) to get ahead of dirt coming out about their absent parenting or her cruelty to kids
* blame his future issues on the child trainers — the mean RF wouldn’t pay for the best, they injured him not us, etc. I have chills.
* “look we paid to make a bigger smarter kid than George, so he sound be the next king, Pa!”
* tells Netflix she is now a child expert after time with this team, and wants a tv series, documentary, book deal to sell child training herbs
* Megs thinks the fight scene from Black Panther really is how the next kind will be chosen, so she hopes to bulk Archie up
* ready excuse in case McPhee wants to bring her new baby over for play dates—“sorry you still can’t meet Archie, his therapist says so”
But: I think it is all garbage, a smoke screen for nonexistent Archie.
Remember she is the Queen of opposites. Virgin bride in white, versus yachter and Soho slag on third husband. Supermodel with mile-long legs, versus short basic hustler. Hollywood star millionaire babe, versus no-talent Z-lister in Canadian rental (no hate to Canada! I have relatives in Montreal and Toronto!).
Team of A-list Zen child trainers, versus plastic doll in a box in a corner of their apartment while they indulge in “hobbies” as we say.
Argh I corrected that twice, and still it snaps back? hate this iPad. I have to fight it to write. Back to Settings I go.
My BS meter is simple. What does my gut tell me about what I've just read or heard? Where are the holes in the story? Does 2+2=4 or does 2+2=5 in this story? Is it outlandish (hiring a TEAM of therapists to increase your two-year old's intelligence level is as outlandish as you can get). I know of no toddler who has had his/her intelligence dramatically raised by a team of therapists, and that means 2+2=5 to me in terms of this story. And the fact that no person, therapist or otherwise, was named.
It's another "look at ME" story by Megs.
"Look at me! I'm the best mother in the world, and my child is going to be a genius because I willed him to be so! I'm so rich that I can hire a team of therapists to make my child super intelligent. I am the best and smartest mother in the world!"
A quick google says the best way to make the most out of your child's innate intelligence is to read to them regularly, introduce them to adults, have plenty of experiences outside of the home that introduce the child to new and different things, have other children around for socialization, etc. Common sense, huh?
Has MM done any of these things for Archie? Notice how Archie acted while MM was reading the Duck Rabbit book. He was trying to get away from her, and that tells me that he has not been read to by MM on a regular basis, especially at bed time. Being read to should calm a child, not make him scramble to get away.
MM always takes her lies to the next level, making her the smartest, richest, most compassionate, whip smart person on earth. That's when you can tell that she's lying.
Do you think the four say they don’t welcome giving evidence simply to be safe, in order to absolve the RF from the optics of seeming eager to send staff to attack Meee’s claims in court?
In other words, they would prefer not to be involved (naturally, to avoid being sued by her themselves),
...“but okay, since you are asking, yes, your honor, she did loll around on a velvet daybed smoking a hookah with Mr Scobie while screaming at us to include phrases like “heart broken in a million pieces” and other words she’d highlighted in a couple of old tattered Barbara Cartland novels she gave us, and other phrases she said were ‘magazine and Tv-friendly’ you see,,,,,,yes, I suppose we wrote it all ourselves actually whilst laughing ourselves sick over ten bottles of cheap wine and curry takeaway, which we had to pay for ourselves, Uh, and then yes, she told us the next day to just email it to her unseen while she was busy trying to break down Angela Kelly’s office door with a Soho House tungsten hammer. And yes, it appears she copied out our letter content verbatim in her crab-like middle school street princess writing, and yes, she threatened us with bodily harm to her husband if we revealed any of this. But, only since, you’re asking directly. We’d really rather not be involved, you see. She was, ehm, so kind.”
I'm also hoping that it's not true, but I would not leave Harry to supervise a child, as he is a child himself and should not be responsible for any person, child or not.
I think Harry, if he was smart enough, should take Archie back to the UK and have Archie raised by the BRF, where Harry can also be looked after. Harry can barely take care of himself. Trying to take care of and nurture a child is way beyond his intelligence level.
No tree lot visit for Archie. No Christmas gifts, either. No friends or cousins or family life. Just training, just psychological digging And poking at a fresh young mind.
Sounds like Meee found an acceptable way to abuse “her” son, while his pointless father sits around rolling spliffs and saying, “Yes, Megs.”
@Jocelyn’sBellinis, applauding the savvy of your BS meter, and your whole post.
As I said earlier, I don't know if the article re the team of therapists is true. If true, it is very worrying. You can stimulate a child by reading to them as @Jocelyn'sBellinis said, taking them out to museums (when older), zoos etc. You don't need an army of therapists. Either Megalo wants her child to be super bright and advanced etc. but hiring a team of therapists won't make a huge difference (in my opinion), except in their bank account. Or else, this is Megalo's cover story for the use of these therapists who are needed because of developmental delay or other health issues. Either way, worrying. If the story is not true, why all the details about all the different therapists instead of something more vague? Let's hope it's not true, as you said.
Thanks! I also fear for poor Archie, if he exists. I wish the poor child could be taken from them as, if Meg's PR is correct, he appears to be suffering from lack of parental love, is being poked and prodded by a team of therapists and is almost in a hostage situation with his parents.
A child needs to chatter with other people, have friends to play with and be able to go out with his parents or a nanny for fresh air and sunshine and to see all of the wonderful things this planet has to offer. Being cooped up in a mansion all the time is bound to have a huge negative impact on his development.
I don't think the story is true, but if it is, could Archie be displaying signs of rage? A child who is so coddled, kept as a secret, has no friends, no other adults to blabber with, is bound so show signs of anger or rage.
Kids that age need to let off steam by running around and chattering with others. They also need regular nap times and play times. He is being developmentally held back by MM and Harry, and that could cause acting out, rage issues, etc.
I feel like hiring all these therapists for Archie definitely makes it seem like there is something wrong with him, regardless of how she tries to spin it, and, to my mind anyway, it also indicates there is a child. Not sure why you'd need a therapist for anything other than a problem, and why would she make that up unless there was an actual child, with actual problems of some sort? I should think one would say they are hiring tutors for their Boy Genius, even if he were a made-up child.
But I don't think Nutmeg would create a problem with a made-up kid. Or if she did, it would be more along the lines of needing counseling for all the invasions of his privacy or something.
@AnT, please accept my belated condolences for the sad losses you and your husband have suffered of late. What a lovely wife you are, feeding him his favorite comfort foods!
So Meghan’s team is making her case as a human rights violation for summary judgment, and not copyright infringement and privacy invasion? How can they just decide a different set of laws should be applied?
I’m a little lost with this.
Is it typical toxic narc behaviour to hire specialists for one's child instead of giving them good, loving attention yourself?
I remember quite a few years back reading a lot about parents who put their children in training from a very young age to give them a competitive advantage in the intelligence stakes. However, as many people point out, if this is at the expense of developing emotional intelligence and social skills and having loving good parents, I doubt that the children are raised to be happy or ultimately successful human beings.
Look at what his parents have been busy doing since he was born: running, pleading, and moving. Like they are low income, displaced, and underserved. They did that by choice, others aren’t as lucky, but regardless the poverty antics will have a delayed effect on Archie’s wellbeing. Also, Meghan wants everyone else to do all the work she needs to do so will hire teams for everything.
If I tried to offer Mr AnT an oat milk latte? It would almost be worth it hear to the inventively scathing way he would curse such a drink, and its creators, and all of their soy brethren.
You are so right and we all do wonder if my FIL’s death (complications from Alzheimer’s) hurried her along to her demise. I think it is likely. It is just gutting and the only thing that helps the idea that maybe they are together again “up there” with no lockdown, no separation. I hope so. It is hard to feel simultaneously so helplessly sad, and so very angry at the circumstances that kept them apart at the end of their lives.
Thanks you so much for your reply about your BS meter. I sometimes feel I need some guidance in wading through all the BS.
@jessica
Yep, Meghan, the American who used and abused the British people and monarchy is now making her case about human rights under European law. Her father, who was defamed by her without being given an opportunity to defend himself, and who could not afford legal fees and thus turned to MOS to defend hmself, has no rights, and Warby seems to support that.
So sorry for your double bereavement. Thank you for still being her with your excellent analysis and wonderful creative writing.
I missed that comment somehow! Ha, yes, everyone desperate to be picked to testify against Megs would be hilarious. I can imagine it!
....................
@Joycelyn’sBellinis,
That is a very, very interesting thought. You know, yes, I can imagine her rage if this neglected, unsocialized baby with no playmates began to exhibit signs of natural rage or frustration or loneliness.m. It can’t be due to the stupidity and neglect of the perfect, smarter-than-your Harkles! No, hire a dozen people to whip that bad baby into shape.
We have seen she cannot handle him, barely knows him, disdains his presence, and him on camera in a loaded diaper. Harry is an equal zero. This baby raised with little affection, little touch or interaction, dragged from country to country, house to house, or picking up negative vibes from his awful bickering unhappy parents...conditions that could lead to a candidate for therapy
Or ..... wait......might this be an attack to poke at Kate’s early childhood development work???
I hope there can be a air rescue by the British led by Kate, in a sleek Mrs Peel jumpsuit, shouting as they burst in, “Megs, you’re done now, you great massive cow! Hand over that child, or Wills tells the DM to run the photos of you without your wig and teeth, shagging Putin!”
wow, um crazy, no?
If there is a baby, we have most or all thought the baby we have seen was older, larger than we thought it should be. This would allow her to explain why he is developmentally farther along.
I am certain that you need a doctor's referral for pt (physical therapy), sp (speech therapy) or ot (occupational therapy). My doctors have always handed me something to take. I suppose that if you are not going through insurance, they might not care if a doctor was involved but I doubt it.
I was looking at sensory processing disorder. It has some linkage with autism. It appears SPD is not something you get to outgrow. Probably you can move the goal post some but that depends on the plasticity of the brain of the patient.
This is not a good label to throw on a kid if they don't have it. Unless you have MBP and then we would see her talking about what it's like to have such a sick child and so on.
Still team pillow.
I assume this was written answers to questions and Harry did not write the answers.
As someone on LSA pointed out, social media was not around when things like the storming of the Bastille happened, nor is social media the cause of bullying or so-called fake news. Actually, I would go as far as to say that social media can be a very useful tool to counter bullying, fake news and formenting discontent.
I have just scanned the article but the usual ignorance, arrogance, victimhood and smug need to dominate and control is all there and it is most off-putting.
You can see why Meghan would approach child raising that way. Probably read one too many books about this type of child rearing books that were very popular in the early 00s usually about wealthy NY parents and the competition to get their little darlings into elite schools by hiring professionals to hothouse them so that they were linguistically advanced in several languages which had to include Mandarin, played instruments, read to an advanced level etc. The most heartbreaking of these books is The Nanny Diaries by Emma McLaughlin and Nicole Kraus published in 2002 which was sold as a work of fiction inspired by real wealthy Manhattan mothers and families.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nanny_Diaries
The last of these types of books was Battle hymn of the Tiger mum by Amy Chua which was published in 2011 and attracted an appalled public reaction at the cruelty therein that it killed off the genre despite the book itself being a bestseller.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_of_the_Tiger_Mother
It's funny how Harry couldn't resist making digs about how they would raise their children in comparison to the Cambridges. Not to forget William lamenting his early childhood spent in the nursery with various nannies because Charles and Diana were too busy working.
I guess Harry (and Meghan) showed them!!!
I thought I read at the time he was traveling with a caravan including a nutritionist, which I found odd given his age at the time. And wasn't there a story about him getting educational nutrition or something like that?
Word salad, literally!
Reminds me of a story from the photographer who said she brought a huge group for a basic photoshoot. The shutterbug wasn't sure why she needed so many people as she was not a big star and it wasn't a big event. He said they overdid it with the champagne and hangers-on, allegedly.
Studies said that while the Tiger kids learned to perform at a high level, the children of intense controlling Tiger Moms also suffered from devastating chronic psychological and social damage, and required serious psychological therapy as a result.
I was at school with a girl raised this way by Tiger parents before this trend was ever discussed. She was so nice, and she was brilliant, but she was so crushed and corralled, never allowed to go anywhere but the classroom, and we all pitied her. Students would even bring little food boxes or trinkets from weekend parties she’d missed. She finally had a nervous breakdown before starting university. She fled to live with a laidback composer uncle out in LA, took a few years off to get therapy, working in cafes, having a social life; a couple of us flew to see her when she re-emerged and called. It was so good to see her smiling. Her uncle was so lovely to her, totally understood, having escaped that life himself. She then finally began university when she was about 26, and does very well in the profession she chose for herself.
But hey, the Tiger Moms got tv shows and book deals and felt powerful! They could show off! So let’s wreck kids.
Whoops— once again crossing posts with you — the Tiger mom reference is something I just thought of as well. How damaging but how likely, since she lives in the past, chewing old trends.
But Archie is about to hit the stage when not having playmates will matter. Alot. And seeming to not have experiences outside of the home for the last year seems quite problematic. It doesn't matter how large the home is. I know people have worried about kids' development with the pandemic but absent lockdowns of the type not seen in the US, most parents still do things outside with kids like go for walks, bike rides, car rides, and so on.
What M's up to with the planted story about a "team" for Archie I haven't a clue. And it does seem every time "sources" are quoted about the couple's desire for a 2nd child it's ALWAYS couched in terms of "Archie needing a playmate" which seems to me to be a dumb reason to have another kid.
------
@brown-eyed,
The picture of H at Arlington was taken nearly eight years ago in 2013.
In no uncertain terms, they drove from FC to the hospital that Sunday night.
I thought I remember that the only roads out were all covered by the lurking press (mainly a map in the DM) and that no one saw a car let alone two of them. Does anyone remember that too?
The next part is that JH drove with MM, Doria and the protection officer and a second car also filled with protection officers.
Is that really the safest thing - having him drive instead of one of the highly trained to handle anything crazy on the road? when he could be holding her hand, trying to calm her in the back seat, reminding her to practice the breathing while someone else is driving.
The birth was at 5:26 am Monday (p 284) and then they were leaving the hospital around 9:30 am (p 286) as they contacted the various palace aides. They were anticipating that monitoring would be continued at FC.
Leaving the hospital after major body change, the older age factor - leaving would be AMA. Against Medical Advise. Normal ie uncomplicated vaginal birth is 24 to 48 hours. They need to be able to monitor the baby (make certain everything remains normal) and the mother (not bleeding to death or other bad things). FC was 28 miles from the Portland and although there are probably others nearby, would that be acceptable risk for a doctor covering a member of the BRF?
OTOH, if you are pitching a theme that anything you do is better, smarter, more wonderful, hits all their marks on first try, then the idea you would bounce back from child birth in 4 hours would just be an extension of that branding
She seemed to have been a spoiled frightful little villain as a child, and he the same. That is their “normal” baseline.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9177599/Prince-Harry-complains-Meghan-subjected-mothership-harassment.html
Your post northward about human rights and the Sussexes made me shake my head and nod. What isn’t listed with regard to human rights is appalling.
And that pampered puffballs like the Harkles can try to use human rights as yet another comfy blanket to pull over their fraud is disgusting.
There are far worse names than "Archie", but it certainly doesn't suggest a royal baby. Or, to the American mind, really a baby at all. Archie definitely sounds like a dog. This name has died out of favor, but you may still be able to find some old geezers named Archie (short for Archibald). Perhaps Meg has ignited a trend, but I sure hope not. It seems like a much more popular name amongst the younger generations in the UK than here.
"Harrison" as a first name is quite popular with the younger mums and certainly has a more preppy/aristocratic tone. 'Archie' sounds decidedly lower class to the American ear . .like he should be holding up a bar stool somewhere.
*********
When I read about the 'team of therapists', my immediate thought was 'developmental delays'/spectrum disorder. Early intervention specialists with Help Me Grow and other similar programs do home visits with the under-3s (before preschool age), and it's usually because the child is having motor difficulties or is non-verbal, or hearing impaired.
It has been speculated that 'Archie' has some form of disability that makes Meg hide him, but IF this kid is the one(s) we have seen, apart from a very common strabismus which is easily corrected with surgery, there's no visible evidence that he is delayed or autistic. The young man we saw in May was extremely active, emotive, his eyes tracked well and he was already using words. It could be something orthopedic . . .but for Archie to need therapy at home, he'd have to exist and exist with her in the same house. I'm not sure this is true. Interesting that she would mention this, however. Is this another ploy to get continued/increased financial support from Grandpa Charles, with her 'special needs' child?
What a convoluted mess she is.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9177599/Prince-Harry-complains-Meghan-subjected-mothership-harassment.html
"Prince Harry says big tech should be motivated by 'well-being' not money as he tells people to get off their phones and blames social media for Capitol riot AND the 'destruction of the Amazon' - but he and Meghan will rejoin 'when it's right for us'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9177599/Prince-Harry-complains-Meghan-subjected-mothership-harassment.html"
Please remember that Archiwell is partnered with an entity called "Humane Tech" who are at the forefront of creating a new type of social media app. Serena's husband appears to be partnered with them too.
That documentary,' The Social Dilemma' heavily featured their USP and their CEO / creator Tristan Harris who then went on Joe Rogan to sell the concept and had lovely things to say about Harry and Meghan to Joe's bemusement because he has no interest whatsoever in royals and was confused as to why Tristan would bring them up in conversation.
This venture will make billions for all involved if it takes off so don't be fooled at Harry and Meghan's crusade against the more established social media or social media in general because they've partnered up with it and will make millions or billions from it as they are in on the ground.
Notice Harry was careful to disavow previous statements about staying away from social media going forward and is now saying in this article that he will return eventually.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90596659/prince-harry-social-media-reform-capitol-riot
You are quite right, there are worse names than Archie. Actress/comedienne Any Poehler has a son called Archie with her ex, Will Arnett, and there is also the English actress Archie Punjabi, from Bend it like Beckham and A Good Year and The Good Wife. But for a royal, I can’t think of many worse names. Harrison is nice, perhaps if he exists he will go by that one day. But again, I don’t think Archie or Harrison are great royal names for two people with crown ambitions.
There was a brief moment where I could imagine a lively little Archie causing mayhem with cousins Louis and Mia and it seemed to fit a bit better. But this Meee branding a surrogate or doll baby with a joke name, and she clearly hates the RF, and thus my weak support fizzled.
This is not Harry writing these answers, but it does not read as Meghan's purple prose word salad gobbledygook either.
Another thing that strikes me is that him and Meghan are so self-centred and self-obssesed that they take everything personally and are very thin-skinned. What they experienced was not different from what other members of his family have faced, but they refused the help and support of the very people who could best provide it (and William is not a walkover, never explain, never complain kind of person like his grandmother, but seems to have found a healthy balance).
He also completely ignores shameful behaviour from him and his wife. A person who cannot recognize their own faults and mistakes, who cannot feel shame and regret, will never change.
They are not philanthropists, in character or practice so I do wish people would stop using that term in reference to them!
Yes I know it was a picture. They were all pictures like at sporting events, no? Question is: who paid for it and who arranged for it to be there? (And really, why was it there)?
And a picture where he is in his military uniform? Trying to keep those military patronages? Sort of like the cemetery cosplay for Remembrance Day?
Shall we jump onto Netflix’s.Twitter to tell them Harry and Meee are against their destructive use of social media? Spotify may wish to stop their social game too!
Such nonsense from two people known to spend hours pouring through all social media and comments to read about themselves, and also spending millions so 12 people can spit out silly content about them to be re-spewed via SM.
(What is funny is the number of fake Clevr oat milk twitter accounts mocking the cost of the lattes.)
They are trying hard to distract today, aren’t they? Look over THERE!
I could see where people unfamiliar with small children may think that the child is in need of specialized therapeutic care and not that temper tantrums are a milestone of development.
yes yes yes to what you wrote. we think similar sometimes
@SwampWoman re: toddler temper tantrums
yes yes yes. if one is not around small children or around people experienced with small children I can see where they'd think he needs special therapy. If they were in a playgroup or around cousins of same age they would see he is normal (if indeed he is or even exists)
Thank you. Trying to get up to speed. Everyone here is genius on on this post, so much great stuff posted. The Harkles’ buffoonery and legal lunacy to the great eyes here makes for delicious meaty fuel for rich comments the past week. I am enjoying my catch-up reading today.
@Acquitaine,
Disgusting, isn’t it? You nailed the issue. With Human Tech, as with their own Archewell site, they seem to want to collect user identities to harvest and sell on to support their silly entitled bums. We should all stay off social media, right, until they us when to march onto their sites so they can profit, to pay for helicopters to fly in their chicken tacos and dental glue, and experts to give Archie a complex.
I can tell you that teachers had one hellacious time trying to administer mandated tests to nonverbal and non-mobile children. Not all children can point to an answer, for example. Not all children can see the answers. Some children in schools are in persistent vegetative states and the teacher had to test them. This led to some interesting shouting matches between teachers and admin as the admin said "must administer this test" while teachers say "well how about you step out of the office and show me how".
Trying to teach kids concepts above their ability may help them develop; it could also cause the kid to shut down and stop trying.
@Puds,
Your earnest “Is he the most boring man in America today?” made me laugh out loud, too. I feel the same way after trying to parse that word salad of his from Wired. And your “Harry’s vanity is hurt. No one should hear him squealing.” Excellent synopsis, and yah, I think he is all that: boring, hurt and squealing. Every. D**n. Day.
No.... I see now it's I who should be going "duh"!
I don't know anything about business, but if Netflix hand out 100 million dollar contracts like they gave to the Obamas, I can see where the profits might be low.
The quote that I remember so well, was when Samantha told the BRF that MM "will destroy your family like she did mine."
That just about says it all, doesn't it, but everybody just ignored her, thinking she was the problem.
That's a good theory, but the only problem would be that Archie's size wouldn't change. A giant two-year-old who appears to be twice his age isn't going to go unnoticed, unless MM trades Archie in for a newer model.
Just wanted to add there is no way Harry’s responses in the Fast Company piece came from “Chunga-Changa” Harry. None. This shows me there is someone using Harry as an empty suit and title prop to propel information. I now really think Megs was given the task of acquisition of Harry for her backers or handlers, for a developing use.
@SwampWoman, that information about children’s education and testing is heartbreaking.
And here he is bleating on and on about Adults Using Social Media.
Sigh. Wrong era Harry.
Condolences to you and Mr. AnT
@Natalier,
I agree with your theory. No one questions or challenges the Harkles except people like us. They could bring out a nine year old with a beard tomorrow, and the sugars would coo he he looks like Harry, and the royal reporters would just say America certainly agrees with the gangly French-speaking tot.
Google, Facebook, Twitter- the gateways to the internet and to the Big Money have turned these two down for ‘influencer’ deals and for ‘donations’ to Archewell.
We all know what they do they do to people who say ‘No’ to them.
.....
Maybe he and Meghan can be the first to attempt to colonize Mars, with their doll. They want to lead and set examples and tell us things we don’t know, so it fits with their agenda.
It’s clear they just aren’t thinking BIG enough. Lol.
Unfortunately, the gift tax on just a million is 40 per cent, although I'm sure they have ways of off-setting that through other financial trickery.
Lady C once mentioned that The Harkles have powerful backers, so you may be on the right track here. I've always wondered who those backers are.
Yeah, whatever.........
"So, i'm thinking when Samantha's book finally does get released, M has something big planned to distract. That's why she's been invisible. Wants us all wondering and waiting for the big reveal."
Maybe. I don't doubt she has a distraction planned but I'm not sure that's the reason for her quasi-absence now.
I think it's just as possible she didn't want to be too "out there" prancing around in CA when the summary hearing in the UK happened. After all, the actual trial was supposed to happen now except for whatever her confidential excuse was. While I'm pretty sure the excuse was BS, it was probably better she not be too much in the news at the time of the hearing.
Harry's war Silicon Valley: Prince blames social media for the Capitol riot and the 'destruction of the Amazon' and says we're all part of a Big Tech 'human experiment' - while complaining about suffering 'mothership of harassment
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9177599/Prince-Harry-complains-Meghan-subjected-mothership-harassment.html
****** 6.7K comments at UK Daily Mail
.
I have been completely misunderstanding some of what has been posted here, so please bear with me if I've gotten this wrong, too, but why in the name of all that's holy would Hazbeen's picture be hanging at Arlington?!
Some say this huge pic/photo was photoshopped into the original image. I agree with this but who knows?
Speaking of desperate measures… This popped up on the top of my newsfeed just now. It’s filed under “entertainment” And I don’t believe I’m familiar with this outlet, but that’s neither here nor there. This is an entire article informing us that in the event of a grave tragedy befalling the Cambridges, Resulting in the death of William, harry’s will wear the crown as King Until George is 18. The specter of William dying prematurely is sprinkled throughout. This is like a voodoo doll in print form.
Just reminding the BRF that they exist, I guess...Like anyone could have possibly forgotten. Methinks this is pouting retaliation for being denied a red carpet reunion tour in London. It really couldn’t be any more blatant that Harry hates his brother and his entire family, This is all getting very Richard Plantagenet. Without the brains.
Yes, that quote too!
refresher (IIRC and/or in my words):
Tom Jr. "She shouldn't be around small children"
Sam: "my sister will destroy your family like she did mine."
Tom Sr: "she's very good at bending the rules"
Hmmmmmm. We all thought they were crazy trailer trash. They may be. But they are also right.
Thanks, Lizzie. Yes, My post didn’t say what I intended. The photo at Arlington Cemetery was made on a past trip to the US. That is the photo spotted at a Biden event and is now in the news.
The recent photo of him and MM this year was at a cemetery in CA and that was what I meant to say. That was my point.
I’m having a lot of trouble posting here. Two out of 3 posts get “eaten” When I try to submit. So I have to completely redo them.
And could she be appointed as regent?
@ Swampwoman, thats exactly it, there are far too many terrible stories like that. Yet the tech giants can take down political comments they do not like easily. There needs to be international agreements set up on how these businesses run, how they deal with porn sites, invasion of privacy and retaining data and how they avoid taxes. Harry's is just there to take his cut of the huge amounts of money being made that could be put to such good use elsewhere. Who needs billions.
A local history teacher had his Facebook account closed because he was asked about the First Amendment online and he gave a long explanation about what it means. Apparently even writing about the first amendment is banned now. Oh, the account for and the accounts of moderators of various county Second Amendment groups have been banned as well. The Facebook account of a store that sold patriotic American clothing (red, white and blue clothing themes) was shut down with no explanation.
Speaking of desperate measures… This popped up on the top of my newsfeed just now. It’s filed under “entertainment” And I don’t believe I’m familiar with this outlet, but that’s neither here nor there. This is an entire article informing us that in the event of a grave tragedy befalling the Cambridges, Resulting in the death of William, harry’s will wear the crown as King Until George is 18. The specter of William dying prematurely is sprinkled throughout. This is like a voodoo doll in print form.
That could be construed as a veiled threat. Perhaps they should be sued (grin).
Thanks for responding. There is no trashcan. I can’t figure out why. I am signed in.
Thanks for your help. I was able to delete the pist.
In the event a Regent would be needed for George until he is of age, I assume Catherine would be involved as the Queen Mother; But they would probably require a blood royal as co-Regent. Harry would be next according to the succession, But he certainly could not be regent from California. He is disloyal, treacherous and above all, intellectually incapable. An act of Parliament would no doubt be required to override his place in the line in favor of say Uncle Edward, who will likely by then be the Duke of Edinburgh. This all assumes of course that the Queen survives her husband and William has ascended after his father. Anyone could die at any time. If William were to predecease his father, then I suppose Charles would become Regent, and would likely appoint his youngest brother after he ascends.
I am wondering when exactly Harry’s obsession with supplanting his brother as the King started. In his teens and 20s, he seemed more than happy To be the footloose Prince, free of the burdens of the crown. Did this plotting and scheming to take his brothers place star after the ignominious and to his military career? Or did it only begin with the advent of Meg? Does he really and truly believe that he has the skills and the God-given right to be King...? Or is this his wife’s doing, whispering poison into his ear?
Now I see he has then pontificating on American politics again...This is akin to Chrissy Teigen holding forth on the Prime Minister’s handling of Brexit. Just SHUT UP H! Really it’s past time for the Royal Family and Parliament to disown this festering knobhead. He is non compos mentis and a traitor to the Crown. Hell will freeze over before he is ever given a position of responsibility within Palace walls. He ran awsy from all that and the drawbridge needs to remain up to him forever.
AnT- So sorry to hear about your
in-laws, such a big loss.
They’re together again now.
Sending you and your family a big hug X
Puds- Thank you X Magatha’s Vineyard
sounds good 😉
Mothership Enterprise(s)
Alas, and alack
Just Harry is back
Usual drivel, so fatuous
It’s not hard to see
Someone else penned his plea
They are both confusing, and tortuous
Prince of Darkness
Harry’s devious plot
To put a crown on his beloved old Thot
Shows the mind of a deluded, mad man
Seperate the wheat from the chaff
And we’ll have the last laugh
Regent Katherine, then Edward, or Anne
"Oh ffs, Harry would be Regent at best, not the bleedin' King, (and I doubt they'd even bother with a Regent anyway, given the Monarchy is largely ceremonial these days) and Katherine would probably say "Right then, we're done, it stops now" if George were a small boy.
And could she be appointed as regent?"
No, Kate couldn't be the regent.
The Regency Act of 1937 requires that the regent be the next person in the line of succession who is:
over the age of 21,
a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom, and
capable of succeeding to the Crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.
So that would be Harry IF he is "domiciled" in the UK. If not, Andrew is next followed by Bea, Eugenie, Edward and then Anne (assuming the Wessex children are still under 21 when this hypothetical event occurs.) Who serves as regent is not a "people's choice"/popularity contest any more than who serves as monarch is.
I cannot imagine that a new law could/would be passed and passed immediately that would allow Kate to be regent since she is not in the line of succession and never will be.
I see @Hikari has opined Kate might be a "co-regent" but there is no provision under the law for co-regents just as there is no provision for co-monarchs. There is also no provision to do away with the thousand-year old monarchy on Kate's say-so. If that tragic situation did arise, I suppose George could abdicate (as he would have become king the instant Will died) but he might need a regent to be able to do that. I don't think mothers (or fathers) can abdicate for their children. Charlotte and then Louis would need to abdicate too if Kate wanted them all "out." And then Harry would be King.
---
Someone mentioned Richard Plantagenet: I've just been watching Sam Willis's TV prog. `Invasion!' which, among other historical events, discussed the pretender Perkin Warbeck, back in the dying years of the 15th C. He made several attempts to gain the throne occupied by Henry VII, once with the assistance of the Scottish king.
Apparently, it is still not clear whether, in posing as one of the `Princes in the Tower', he was acting out of his own delusions or if he was a pawn in someone else's game. Certainly, there was still a great deal of support for the House of York in England, Henry VII himself being regarded as a usurper. (Hence all the Shakespearean damnation of the Yorkists.)
Perhaps we'll never know the truth of it but his life ended in a hangman's noose at Tyburn.
It all sounded horribly familiar - to think, we imagined that ludicrous impostors were a phenomenon of the past. Even though that was `only' an old photo of H at Arlington, we have to ask `Why was it there?' Why did nobody go `Ahem! Do you think that's really a good idea?'.
Was it an inadvertent/ignorant oversight by somebody who didn't even recognise the uniform as being British? (The blue beret denotes Army Air Corps, based in Middle Wallop in Hampshire) Or the bloke who looked the picture of health and the `ideal' soldier, was the same chap who now resembles a drop-out?
Or was it a deliberate plant by someone skilled in propaganda? As Lady C implied?
The fact of them being so close to the seat of power is, frankly, unnerving. I understand that Mr President hasn't been seen with them in public for some time, so was it a quiet reminder, to those of us who can `read' such things, that the Renegade Royals are still there?
Are we about to have a rerun of FDR's view of us 80 years ago? Despite today's Commonwealth being a voluntary association of Sovereign States, including some of whom were never part of the Empire? Or is it about Ireland?
'when they finally reveal Archie, they will show a child well-advanced for his age and claim that he was guided by specialists from a young age and voila! That would cover our suspicion about his older age'
The only thing is that we think Archie might be slightly older than his official age, i.e., just a few months at best so if he's 'revealed' when he's 2 or slightly older, this 'training' won't make a blind bit of difference (it won't anyway).
@MustySyphone
Thomas Jr also said Megalo is "a 'jaded, shallow, conceited woman that will make a joke of you and the royal family heritage.' and called the forthcoming wedding "the biggest mistake in royal wedding history.'"
He also said 'Meghan Markle is obviously not the right woman for you.
'I'm confused why you don't see the real Meghan that the whole world now sees.
'Meghan's attempt to act the part of a princess like a below C average Hollywood actress is getting old.'
Very prescient words.
@Magatha
Nice to see you back!
Just goes to show that NOBODY knows a person like their family. If a distant cousin badmouths a person, could be real, could be sour grapes. WHEN THE ENTIRE FAMILY is united on a person being bad news, they are.
Sorry, y'all, I deleted an above post because I forgot to include Musty in the comment. Disclaimer Time: If I did not include a person that was commenting on different Markle family members that said that MM was going to do exactly what she did, I'm sorry; it is in the pre-dawn hours and my eyes aren't quite focused yet.
@Natalier
'when they finally reveal Archie, they will show a child well-advanced for his age and claim that he was guided by specialists from a young age and voila! That would cover our suspicion about his older age'
The only thing is that we think Archie might be slightly older than his official age, i.e., just a few months at best so if he's 'revealed' when he's 2 or slightly older, this 'training' won't make a blind bit of difference (it won't anyway).
I think that the only hope for 'normal' development that "Archie", whether real or imagined, has is that he has NO genetic material from MM. A double dose of entitled and mentally ill is not a desirable situation.
Brown-eyed I have had that happen to me too. How infuriating. Now I highlight and copy the post so that I can just paste it.
@WBBM: Re Perkin Warbeck, The Tudors and Richard 3.
The Tudors went to alot of trouble to blacken the name of Richard 3 and other claimants to the throne because they definitely usurped the throne and wanted everyone to forget about it. Their entire propaganda machine was dedicated to erasing this inconvenient fact.
In medieval times, it wasn't enough to gain the throne by right of battle - the frequently used event that brought the Tudors to power. You also had to have a LEGITIMATE claim to the throne.
Unfortunately for the Tudors, their claim was twice illegitimate because they were descended from John of Gaunt via his mistress Kathryn Swynford. Their kids and descendants could never claim the throne because they were forever ILLEGITIMATE.
These descendants were kept close to the throne and even received titles, dukedom of Somerset. In the reign of Henry 6, they petitioned to have the illegitimacy lifted which was granted on condition that they and their descendants remained forever barred from the throne nor could they ever claim it.
Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret Beaufort, was a daughter of Somerset and it was she who plotted to usurp the throne from Richard 3.
Once Henry Tudor was installed as King, he set about obfuscating this inconvenient history and especially the role his mother had played. His marriage to a LEGITIMATE claimant to the throne, Elizabeth of York (Richard's niece), helped in this effort though he made sure to void Richard 3's declaration of her illegitimacy and that of her siblings.
Which brings us to Perkin Warbeck.
The issue of birth legitimacy was regarded in absolute terms in the middle ages such that it couldn't be corrected after the fact without very clear evidence of marriage before birth.
When Richard 3's regency privy council was presented with a priest swearing that he'd previously married Edward 4 to a woman who wasn't the Dowager Queen Elizabeth Woodville, it instantly made the late King's children by Woodville illegitimate including the princes in the tower.
The next in line to the throne should have been the deceased George, Duke of Clarence's kids, Edward and Margaret, but due to his treason, their claim had been attaindered. That left Richard as the next LEGITIMATE claimant to the throne.
There was no uprising at Richard 3 being declared King because he was very public (google titulus Regius)) about the illegitimacy of the 2 princes. No one would die on the hill of an illegitimate (by birth) prince in the middle ages. This little fact is why Richard 3 had no fear regarding the princes or their allies.
The 2 princes were given the royal apartments at the tower under the care of the duke of Buckingham who soon disappeared as did the princes.
For the rest of Richard 3's lifetime and long into Henry Tudor's reign, the strongly held view/ gossip/ opinion was that the boys had disappeared because they were smuggled to Richard's sister Margaret in Burgundy.
This view was so strongly believed by the public and neighbouring kingdoms that when Perkin Warbeck showed up pretending to be one of the princes come to claim his throne from the usurping Henry Tudor, he was easily believed and got strong support from the population and various neighbouring Kingdoms.
Perkins wasn't the first pretender to inspire a rebellion against Henry, but he was the most successful. And after he was defeated, Henry declared the princes officially dead to stop the Burgundy rumours.
Henry Tudor had always been paranoid about his illegitimate claim and had instigated a very effective spying operation on his own subjects to root out any commentary about his predecessor. It became a treasonous crime to be caught discussing or having knowledge of Richard 3 which eventually devolved into allowing only the most horrendous libels against him culminating in that hagiography by Shakespeare and the libel that he killed the princes in the tower.
We weren't allowed to read it until we were at least in the IVth Form (14+). It must have been the bit about the blue veins in her breast that resulted in it being censored for younger girls.
Mind you, when I was in the VIth Form and borrowed `One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich' from the `Literature Library' (a different cupboard) and took it home, Mum picked it up. Unfortunately, it fell open at the page bearing the `F-word' (entirely appropriate vocabulary, given the circumstances of the narrative, I've always thought).
She hit the roof.
.........
Speaking of laughter,
Everyone, I hope you have a moment today to peek at @artemisgoog on Twitter.
She has outdone herself with two new comic drawings. One depicts her vision of The Letter. The other shows Harry’s anti Tech Fast Company rant and depicts “the Mothership” with a parody picture of Harry as Moses, and the details are genius. I promise you will laugh.
"Whether the `child training' report is true or not, it's telling that, so far, not one one of us has said `Of course she'd never do thing like that!'"
Yep!!
That's how bad a reputation she has.
Ps: on the subject of books, my parents were simultaneaously neglectful and present because their attitude was that as long as we were reading it was all good.
They also had a horror of children's books so we ended up with a situation where we openly read adult books including 80s bonkbusters from Jackie Collins whilst hiding the children's books from the parents!!!
Thank you so much for the British Royal history lesson. And for your thoughts on the old Harry image appearing in new media.
Eerie, isn’t it, to note that side by side with the odd parallels with the Royal saga today. It struck me that they have a prominent military picture of Harry who was tossed out of the military by the Queen, while at the same time Biden removed the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office. So, apparently, the new administration’s choice of British symbology is now the whining, kicked-out, addled Harry. I do not believe in “mistakes” that large (regarding the inclusion of the Harry photo). Lady C knows what she is talking about, in my opinion. I say this because of some comments from my connected client. But, more, from comments by some scientists I knew in Germany some years ago. They were relatively important and somewhat involved in the government, and were in this capacity at a symposium in another country. They were taken to a fine dinner by one whose name contains the letter that precedes T. Their host talked openly of massive plans, and proposed something to them that they would help accomplish, in exchange for enormous contributions to their university projects. Appalled, they rejected the offer and the much needed money, and came away shaken to the core, and they left me in no doubt that something was afoot. Could it involve Harry and Megs and the BRF today? Absolutely yes. Thus, the tin tiara I keep at hand is turning to silver and gold. History does repeat.
Wow...very good point. None of us would now doubt the strangest things from this pair, would we.....
And note they have been systematically ramping up the temperature of the weirdness from mere refusals to wear a hat, to an invisible fake child, to trying to silence media and speech and take over tech?
A roll-out rhythm akin to boiling a frog?
This has emerged of her getting ready to attend some kind of inaugural event. She is wearing a 'Catherine' dress - the one that was proclaimed 'dress of the decade'. It is hilarious! (Who wore it better? Catherine!)
https://the-best-soap-opera-ever.tumblr.com/post/641106129522442240/submission
Thanks for the deep dive into royal history. Rather than being off topic, it highlights the depth that the Sussexes just cannot relate to ... and it is interesting!
Welcome back to our poet MagathaMystic!
1. Why is a happy wealthy young mother in sunny California who believes in joy and kindness still paying her people to beat far-off Kate with sticks?
2. The article continues that Meee wanted to raise her child “in laughter, joy and hugs”— which is apparently impossible in the U.K. Take that! But send us your money! (Her international relations education was stellar, wasn’t it? Throw tea pot at embassy staff, tell Australian gov wife to “f off”, insult a king, make women in their best clothing sit on a dirty floor, make sure wig is flowing out of a headscarf normally worn to show respect to a religion, and insult and berate an entire nation of tax payers providing your home, food, dresses, and private jets. Well done, Northwestern University.)
1. She sat cross legged on the floor. This is something very commonly done in Asian and the west, but in many parts of Africa including SA it is not done because it's seen as extremely vulgar. It's interpreted as showing your vjj to the world. You either kneel or sit with your legs tucked to the side or infront of you - see how all the other women were seated compared to M.
2. Seating on the floor is an expression of sorrow especially during funerals. At all other times, you only sit on the floor for a specific activity that necessitates you do so.
It is especially considered wierd to go to a joyful occasion at which chairs have been provided and you choose to sit on the floor. It is never interpreted as evidence of "down-to-earth-one-of-the-people". It marks you out as a wierdo.
It's no wonder the women had to be prompted to join her on the floor and even then took a long moment before doing so.
Excellent additional points.
I don’t know how a normal mind decides to behave in that way to people of other cultures. I was disgusted.
Yes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9177599/Prince-Harry-complains-Meghan-subjected-mothership-harassment.html
Harry's war Silicon Valley: Prince blames social media for the Capitol riot and the 'destruction of the Amazon' and says we're all part of a Big Tech 'human experiment' - while complaining about suffering 'mothership of harassment
Prince Harry gave an interview to Fast Company that was published on Friday
He abhors social media in it and blames it for division and confusion in the world
He also says he and Meghan will return to it 'when it's right for us' but that it's inaccurate to say they have 'quit'
Harry had some advice for big tech - be 'accountable' and not just motivated 'by financial incentive'
He said 'It’s hard for me to understand how the platforms themselves can eagerly take profit but shun responsibility'
He also told social media users to 'spend less time scrolling' and be more 'compassionate' when they do share their views
He said that he and Meghan wanted to be part of 'the human experience' and not 'a human experiment'
Harry said he'd been thinking a lot about the Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park which he used to go past 'all the time'
He said 'we should avoid buying into the idea that social media is the ultimate modern-day public square'
His comments were mostly applauded but some said it was ironic he was lecturing tech about shunning responsibility for money
By JENNIFER SMITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 15:06 EST, 22 January 2021 | UPDATED: 19:08 EST, 22 January 2021
Absolutely applauding your every word. (Just to be sure you know, I use “young mother” here with complete sarcasm!)
I am convinced the pair of them are stunted 13-year-old villainous brats cloaked in nearly middle-aged bodies. It is like the missing chapter of Harry Potter.
Neither can survive without a protective father or male figure with money pouring coins into their pockets. They do not know what work is, or survival is, or stress is, or parenting is. Neither have produced anything of value in their lives. They choose lying and hate, and greed at any cost, instead of honor. Their self-absorbed arrogance is astonishing to behold.
They simply landed on earth as squalling angry spoiled manipulative blobs, and have remained as such ever since.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/01/23/the-letter-case-part-1-the-summary-judgment-application/
I can add to your brilliant comment that my late MIL had the first of her children at age 22, just as she and her husband were starting work on their advanced MA degrees. She taught school for 45 years, raised her kids, took care of her ailing mother and her husband’s, got an additional degree in social work and in her “spare time” served as a counselor at a women’s shelter twenty+ hours a week, while also organizing drives for clothing, books, food, toys etc for these women and their children. And she volunteered through her church as well, teaching all her kids, and then grandchildren, to do the same. Like my own mother, she worked hard, volunteered, cared for others and raised a family with no nannies, and never whined. This was normal to them. They were strong, positive, smart women.
M‘s & H’s whinging, greed and laziness would not have been something my amazing MIL would have tolerated for a split second.
@ AnT love your comments. I agree, she trots out the phrase "young mother" like some odd amulet so that anyone commenting seems like they're attacking.
It makes no sense that 5 such fragile, vulnerable "young mothers" would talk to People magazine about their middle-aged friend's letter (without her blessing) to her father and all be able to quote the letter verbatim. Especially if said friend has a history of suing people who DO talk to the press about her!
Most people are not enmeshed in the lives of others like that.
I know a lot of women that were GRANDMOTHERS at the age when Meghan allegedly gave birth to a doll. I was a grandmother at 43. My mother was a grandmother at 37.
Thank you so much, I love your comments as well. I am so struck right now by what you just wrote — ‘she trots out the phrase “young mother” like some odd amulet...”.
That is exactly how it seems, with all its disturbing angles, and what a stunning way to phrase it. Your description of her “young mother” defense will be in my mind from now on as we discuss this subject.
`Hark at who says which',
used in place of the ?now-forbidden idiom of `pot calling the kettle b***k'.
There's an interesting analysis of the latter saying in https://www.urbandictionary.com/
It points out that whereas iron pots were blackened by use on open fires, copper kettles were kept shiny and the pot would have seen only its own reflection.
A beautiful way of explaining how narcissists project their own faults onto the innocent.
Innit bleedin' marvellous - I thought she claimed to support strong feminist women.
Yes. About ten years ago I spent a year working on business development for two direct retail companies, one based in the US, one based in the U.K. In both instances, the age range of self-identified grandmothers (in our groups and surveys) was around 40 to 45.
Guess the Duke of Puke wasn't fooling about SM?
Yikes...
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKZNLKCl5No/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_mid=F5B2DA18-1F1E-41F5-BD22-FED3F44BDA19
I love your mother’s saying. It’s going to stay with me! So very true.
@NeutralObservor,
Thank you, And I agree, I feel like no matter what, I can’t live up to our mothers’ generation. We just have to keep trying. And I don’t think the Harkles represent their entire generation. They are nothing like my friends, coworkers, or others I know, who would regard their behavior as lazy and embarrassing. Though there are seemingly more entitled silly people than ever, it might only be because that sort of person is now able to expose their whole ego basket on social media where they loudly push to get ahead to satisfy celeb-style material tastes. I think that may be declining from over saturation, though. Take the long view: gaudy spindly structures usually fall.
For Harry to understand life in any capacity, and to get better and healthier he needs the training wheels off. His moaning about his reputation and his wife’s reputation, which he now buckets into one if we noticed is so far removed from what matters in life. He *really* *really* cares what people think as a supposed commoner. It is only understandable to care what your subjects think when you are Royal. He has yet to make that shift in his head- he’s not supposed to be Royal anymore, and I think the only way for him to understand this is to remove all privileges.
Last thing, if he is so upset at how *misconstrued* his and Meghan’s narratives are, then he should be willing to sit with a real journalist and answer all the hard true questions. He goes on the past so much, regurgitating it. The only people I know who do something similar are constantly trying to rewrite history. If he truly doesn’t understand what happened to him and why then he needs to see professional help. All the comments on articles now are in the vein of Harry having lost the plot completely and people view him as entirely delusional. The PR firm needs to stop and get him help. But then they’d be out of a job. Welcome to Hollywood.
AnT: The Wikipedia entry for our suspect certainly fits the bill. Why else would MM have had a view on Brexit?
I find the warmth here very nice with the exception of a small few. I have my own genuine Tribe therefore I don't seek to belong here. Consequently, I can be more free and open with my thoughts.
I have provided receipts via links. I actually would be sad to see this blog removed. Clearly it provides great comfort for many really nice folks here. And I enjoy the many great comments.
I am just offering a call out to who is watching SM right now and we know who they are.