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
Who ultimately 'owns' the copyright and exclusive control over this object of art?
1. The artist, whose artistic work it is, who has signed it to that effect?
2. The commissioning agent (the Parliament) who paid the artist for his work, in fair exchange?
3. The recipient, who was presented this unwanted object as a 'gift' which he took as an insult and discarded, as one is normally free to do with unwanted gifts that do not 'spark joy'?
If this had been a private sale among private individuals, I'd say that the recipient can burn it, hang it in effigy, shred it with knives and/or take a pi$$ on it . . it's his private property, and the creator has sold it, renouncing claims on it. But since it was a government commission to a longtime public servant . . didn't it technically belong to the taxpayers? We have many priceless paintings of former Presidents decorating the White House, and in 1812, Dolley Madison, the First Lady, risked her life to save the most famous portrait of George Washington from the huge bonfire your lot were making of (newly constructed) White House.
If you could figuratively don your wig and ring in on this, what would you say? Was Churchill's act of vengeful destruction vandalism of a government relic and technically a criminal offense . . or was he within his rights to destroy that painting simply because he did not like it, as if it were some old garbage?
Methinks they should not have allowed him to take it home . . . the TV episode showed Winston unveiling the portrait in a public ceremony at the Houses of Parliament. A picture of the portrait survives, so we at least know what it looked like. Did this actually happen? Such a public presentation of this gift suggests that it was never intended to be a fully 'private' parting gift or else they wouldn't have had a crowd and a bunch of press at the unveiling.
Not that I necessarily believed a word my client said and far too often he was 'tired and emotional' - if you are familiar with that euphemism.
I think I might be familiar . . .is it along the lines of Celtic melancholia? Are you suggesting that it is your private opinion that your client decided that torching the painting was a good idea while he was in his cups? See--this is why you need to write your memoirs!
@Lavender Lady: as far as I'm aware, the NI Loyalists are fiercely loyal to the Crown, so I'm not sure how they'd regard Harry if he appeared to cosy up to, say, the Provos or today's equivalent thereof. An interesting thought.
_______
Of course the NI Loyalists are fiercely loyal to the Crown as long as the Crown doesn't misstep like allowing their Prince to marry the likes of Meghan and the Duke allowing himself to be swept away by liberalism...and by towing the party line which it looks as if they are dabbling on the edge. A precarious precipice for the RF, I think, especially if it's a header breakaway bunch from the UVF. They can't see beyond their deranged anger. They will attack their own.
and you stated,
I'll leave it at that - it's dangerous ground.
______
A wise choice indeed Wild Boar.
I have been accused of wanting to destroy this blog. I have refuted that as I enjoy the blog. Trust me, if I wanted to do such, all it would take is a tip off to the Royal Police and this blog would be on their radar stat. All this talk of the IRA, the UVF and the BRF. But why would I do that? I'm not afraid to be investigated. I'm clear. I'm just a nobody
who wrote a thesis on the politics of NI and who met Gusty Spence for an interview for such thesis. Who needs Meghan sugars to accomplish such a feat?
Quite frankly, I really don't give too much of a damn. As of 1776. I just enjoy watching the Sussex's go down as traitors to the Crown. And I sincerely enjoy this blog. Most of the time I decide to come here.
Cheers.
@ Lavender lady:
Security bills: the main terrorist threat in the UK nowadays is regarded as coming from militant/fundamentalist Islam; in H's case that is intensified by his time in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, I imagine there are still those from nearer home whom they could infuriate.
________
I just saw this. Great points!
A double whammy. Wow no wonder those bills are in the millions. Whew!
Thanks.
here it is in context:
I have been accused of wanting to destroy this blog. I have refuted that as I enjoy the blog. Trust me, ****if I wanted to do such****, all it would take is a tip off to the Royal Police and this blog would be on their radar stat. All this talk of the IRA, the UVF and the BRF. But why would I do that? I'm not afraid to be investigated. I'm clear. I'm just a nobody
who wrote a thesis on the politics of NI and who met Gusty Spence for an interview for such thesis. ****Who needs Meghan sugars to accomplish such a feat***?
Clearly we are not going to be able to have civil discourse at this time. I'm out.
Please keep up your wonderful commentary. I so enjoy reading what you have to say. I always learn something from your posts.
I always enjoy your comments. I haven't posted for months but below is an excerpt from the NYTimes piece:
But perhaps the present-day celebrity who most readily recalls Undine Spragg is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, or Rachel Meghan Markle of Woodland Hills, Calif., as she once was. The daughter of a yoga teacher and a veteran lighting director and DP on daytime soaps and sitcoms (he won awards for his work on “General Hospital”), Meghan was seemingly always ambitious, both as an actress (her first role was on a TV show where her father worked) and in her romantic life. She married her longtime beau, a film producer named Trevor Engelson, in 2011, only to divorce him within three years (“Trevor went from cherishing Meghan to, as one friend observed, ‘feeling like he was a piece of something stuck to the bottom of her shoe,’” according to the controversial royal biographer Andrew Morton’s 2018 book “Meghan: A Hollywood Princess”). Then, having moved to Toronto for an acting role, she reportedly had a relationship with a celebrity chef, Cory Vitiello, originally of Brantford, Ontario. But the young man voted “Best New Chef in Toronto” in 2009 by Air Canada’s in-flight magazine enRoute could never have been a match for the then fifth-in-line to the royal throne of the United Kingdom, and in the summer of 2016, she abruptly parted company with Cory and took up with Harry, Duke of Sussex, whom, as we all know, she married and with whom she currently has one son, Archie.
Along the way, Meghan became estranged from her father and from her half-siblings. Undine, on the other hand, manages to retain ties to — and to remain to some degree financially supported by — her endlessly faithful and indulgent parents until the novel’s end. It’s impossible to know what really happens within the confines of a couple or a family, including (or perhaps especially) the British royal family, but one might recognize Meghan’s unhappy experience in Wharton’s explanation of Undine’s disenchantment with Ralph Marvell: “During the three years since her marriage she had learned to make distinctions unknown to her girlish categories. She had found out that she had given herself to the exclusive and the dowdy when the future belonged to the showy and the promiscuous; that she was in the case of those who have cast in their lot with a fallen cause, or — to use an analogy more within her range — who have hired an opera box on the wrong night.”
The higher Meee climbs, the more scrutiny and that NYTimes opinion piece was a step in the wrong direction. At the very least, she outed herself as a plagiarizer and that certainly made her AND NYTimes look bad. Was this NYTimes book title chosen with Mee's fakeness in mind or perhaps "the shoe fit" and so the book club ran with this article. Regardless of profession, no one wants somebody getting ahead by taking credit for another's work and I really want to believe this was a move to "cancel" a plagiarizer.
I always enjoy your comments. I haven't posted for months but below is an excerpt from the NYTimes piece:
But perhaps the present-day celebrity who most readily recalls Undine Spragg is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, or Rachel Meghan Markle of Woodland Hills, Calif., as she once was. The daughter of a yoga teacher and a veteran lighting director and DP on daytime soaps and sitcoms (he won awards for his work on “General Hospital”), Meghan was seemingly always ambitious, both as an actress (her first role was on a TV show where her father worked) and in her romantic life. She married her longtime beau, a film producer named Trevor Engelson, in 2011, only to divorce him within three years (“Trevor went from cherishing Meghan to, as one friend observed, ‘feeling like he was a piece of something stuck to the bottom of her shoe,’” according to the controversial royal biographer Andrew Morton’s 2018 book “Meghan: A Hollywood Princess”). Then, having moved to Toronto for an acting role, she reportedly had a relationship with a celebrity chef, Cory Vitiello, originally of Brantford, Ontario. But the young man voted “Best New Chef in Toronto” in 2009 by Air Canada’s in-flight magazine enRoute could never have been a match for the then fifth-in-line to the royal throne of the United Kingdom, and in the summer of 2016, she abruptly parted company with Cory and took up with Harry, Duke of Sussex, whom, as we all know, she married and with whom she currently has one son, Archie.
Along the way, Meghan became estranged from her father and from her half-siblings. Undine, on the other hand, manages to retain ties to — and to remain to some degree financially supported by — her endlessly faithful and indulgent parents until the novel’s end. It’s impossible to know what really happens within the confines of a couple or a family, including (or perhaps especially) the British royal family, but one might recognize Meghan’s unhappy experience in Wharton’s explanation of Undine’s disenchantment with Ralph Marvell: “During the three years since her marriage she had learned to make distinctions unknown to her girlish categories. She had found out that she had given herself to the exclusive and the dowdy when the future belonged to the showy and the promiscuous; that she was in the case of those who have cast in their lot with a fallen cause, or — to use an analogy more within her range — who have hired an opera box on the wrong night.”
In the US the portrait would be considered as “work for hire,” and as such, the copyright and ownership would go to Parliament. I don’t know if English law differs.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an Oprah-produced documentary on the "it" girl of the moment, Amanda Gorman, by summer. A new book of poems and a knock-off of the ring Oprah bought her, all for sale on Amazon. Unlike HAMS, Amanda has talent, a compelling personal story and is inexperienced enough in the ways of Hollywood to be easily led by Oprah. I think the HAMS have been dumped for a better money-making deal.
________
Yes! She smarter, younger, and much more stylish and attractive than La Markle as well. I believe she will need extra direction away from MSM and Hollywood. Too bad Ms. Maya Angelo is not around to mentor her.
Sad if Oprah gets her claw in her, which she will because Oprah would claim creating the world in seven days with God if she could.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/hamptons-equestrian-ousted-replaced-by-alec-baldwins-charity/
In the ultimate in lazy scholarship, I have gone to Wikipedia, which has an extensive entry on this portrait and a reproduction of it. It is not at all a bad likeness of Winston, but he wanted something grander, in his robes of Knight of the Garter. The artist honored his commission, which was to depict Winston in his everyday parliamentary dress.
********
In 1954 the English artist Graham Sutherland was commissioned to paint a full-length portrait of Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom. Sutherland received 1,000 guineas[a] in compensation for the painting, a sum funded by donations from members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. The painting was presented to Churchill by both Houses of Parliament at a public ceremony in Westminster Hall on his 80th birthday on 30 November 1954.[3]
Finding the depiction deeply unflattering, Churchill disliked the portrait intensely. After its public presentation, the painting was taken to his country home at Chartwell but not put on display. After the death of Lady Spencer-Churchill in 1977, it came to light that she had the painting destroyed some months after it was delivered to relieve her husband's frustration.
By the time the portrait had been commissioned, Churchill was an elder statesman nearing the end of his second period as Prime Minister. Sutherland had earned a reputation as a modernist painter through some recent successful portraits, such as Somerset Maugham in 1949. He was drawn to depicting subjects as they truly were without embellishment; some sitters considered his disinclination to flattery as a form of cruelty or disparagement to his subjects.[2]
Sutherland made charcoal sketches of Churchill at a handful of sittings at Chartwell from August 1954, concentrating on Churchill's hands and face. After completing these sketches, he made some oil studies of his subject. Sutherland also worked from photographs by Elsbeth Juda. He took his preliminary materials back to his studio to create the final work on a large square canvas, the shape chosen to symbolize Churchill's solidity and endurance, embodied in a remark that Churchill made, "I am a rock".
The pose, with Churchill grasping the arms of his chair, recalls the statue of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. Churchill is shown scowling, slightly slumped forward, surrounded by wintry grey, brown and black tones. Sutherland was reluctant to discuss the work in progress with Churchill and showed the subject few of his working materials. Lady Spencer-Churchill thought it was a good resemblance – "really quite alarmingly like him" – but also said it made him look too cross, while recognising that it was a familiar expression. Churchill's son Randolph thought the portrait made him look "disenchanted".
MP Charles Doughty persuaded Churchill that the presentation had to go ahead to avoid offending the members of Parliament who financed it.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/505652/portrait-drama.html
Honesty is not appreciated when a sitter wants flattery.
One of the things about practicing law is that one comes across all sorts of people, the famous, the infamous, the evil and the saintly and everything in between. Perhaps my experiences were different from others.
I forget why the destruction of the painting was in the news and long after Sir Winston's death but as I said, whether anything my client told me was true, who knows. Celluloid has now however made real what might have been fiction and I am grateful to you for informing me of the details and 'shining a light' on what may have transpired - indeed validating my client. Quite remarkable as I never believed a word of it. The unfortunate young reporter for the well-known newspaper (well-known at least on this blog) was a female.
Btw, do we critics count as `activists'?
Well, occasionally I am an activist, although I'm rather sedentary at the moment.
“They make lemonade out of lemons; they reinvent themselves; they keep on climbing. Spare a thought, however, for Meghan’s consort, whose native customs and country are so very far removed from where he now finds himself, and who must discover within, in order to thrive, the adaptability and resilience of an Undine or a Meghan. Were Wharton writing their story — or rather, chiefly the story of the indefatigable social-climbing (anti)heroine — one fears the prince might not fare well.”
The comment about the Shanghai brothel madam was not unjustified. I think Winston's has more gravitas. The Maugham painting looks like a caricature, though the subject himself admitted that it was a realistic likeness. Mrs. Churchill admitted the same thing.
It's hard to admit when we are ugly. Perhaps what the sitters objected to is, not that they were depicted warts and all, but that Sutherland's treatment deprived them of their dignity. The backgrounds are pretty hideous. One can be ugly and still have dignity, and perhaps the Bulldog of Britain deserved a little more deference in his final painting. There's no way the members of Parliament who contributed to this portrait were purposely out to humiliate Churchill, since nobody saw it until 10 days prior to his birthday. Maybe that is what upset Winston more than anything--that he was being mocked by the 'gift-givers'.
Gift or no, it was still a valuable historical artifact and tribute to a public servant; Winston should have swallowed his pride and allowed it to be hung at Westminster. It's a loss to the world, regardless of how he felt about it.
Live Events - The New York Times (nytimes.com) GT
I don't grudge him a cent of it; I'm just sorry it was ultimately in vain since we don't have that painting any more. I have some original colored pencil sketches a friend made for me as gifts; I have yet to frame and hang them, but they are among the dearest things I own. I would certainly try to save them if I were ever in a fire. The actual materials are very inexpensive, but his native talent and hours of work just for me are incalculable. He is talented enough to warrant his own show but too modest to ever put himself forward that way. He needs an agent/manager. At the very least, he'd have a nice little earner doing gift cards and posters.
Sutherland did more than six studies and one was in robes at Churchills request and appeared on the jacket of a book. Churchill was more inclined to the study.
Sutherland found in Churchill at the age of 80 something he did not expect that was 'tragedy' and this is what he painted. Churchill hated everything about it from colours to depiction to style.
The episode 'Assassins' of The Crown hews pretty closely to these events; Peter Morgan has to imagine the substance of the conversations that took place between artist and subject during the several sittings they had. John Lithgow won a Primetime Emmy for his work in this episode, and both actors are outstanding in it.
The teleplay does telescope the events surrounding the fate of the painting by depicting Lady Churchill watching it burn on the grounds of Chartwell, presumably within days of hte ceremony. She looks quite worried; her role in the burning is left for the viewer to decide . . .I had assumed it was Winston's directive, but it appears he had nothing to do with it. Presumably he approved Clemmie's action. Too bad all around. I suppose it is one of the surviving studies which we have available to view, but the large finished work is a grave loss.
She seems to be everything gold digger Megs is not, including an entirely natural beauty and the worst crime against Megs she has youth.
Indeed, she is very young--only 22. Which means that she became a published poet at all of 17, while still in high school. I don't know if she had stylistic help in putting her Inauguration look together but she was absolutely stunning. I confess that my attention wandered during her long and wokey poem, but she is a captivating presence whom I expect to see a lot more from. Her outfit seemed to be a perhaps intentional throwback to the bold and colorful style of the Harlem Renaissance heyday. It was a great honor to be selected to read at the Inauguration, since that spot is normally given to the national Poet Laureate, the ranks of which have included Robert Frost and Gwendolyn Brooks. Ms. Gorman is the Gwendolyn Brooks for this generation, and she did amazingly well.
Of course Mugsy is at home in her Mudslide Mansion (maybe), spitting nails. No invite to the Inaugural; no personal thanks for being awesome by the new President; Gavin Newsom completely declined to appoint her to Kamala Harris's vacant Senate seat . . Ms. Harris isn't taking her 6 daily calls, either, being somewhat busy at the moment--and Ms. Gorman is another homegrown rival to replace the younger, far more glamorous rival she left behind in England. This one is *really* young, beautiful, stylish, the Bidens love her and I bet she never tried pretending she was Italian so she could date white guys. Then there's the authentic talent, being a prodigy . . all the things Mugs thinks she is or deserves to be.
It's quite satisfying. Will Mugsy try to suck up to Ms. Gorman--or will she send her hate mail? Could go either way.
AuntJane at LSA is on fire today and I thought this post would be worth sharing (her view of the NYT piece)
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-6396#post-67719753
I thought I would risk copying three paragraphs here:
"Harry has always been the story. Going after M2 is shooting fish in a barrel. She's caused a lot of damage or maybe just exposed the damage that was already there and being contained, but without enablers she'd be a WAG (best case) at this point. The story of a prince and a gold digger wrongly, IMO, throws the spotlight on the gold digger. What exotic/mesmerizing sexual tricks are in her repertoire, what seductive personal allure and charm, what clever psychological ploys (Mommy's perfume!) drew him into her web?
Like you needed elevated skill to get Harry. Like manipulating a brain cell deficient douchebag is a coup.
Let's never look at the fucking prince. Meghan is basic. Because she hypes herself to beyond and back it's natural to take her down a peg or so but she's good looking enough for requirements. There is no legit prince on this planet who would have wifed a Meghan Markle but Harry. She didn't need talent. He's the story."
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/01/25/the-letter-case-part-2-the-palace-four-and-witness-statements/
Aunt Jane is certainly an astute and bracing character. At this point, I'm not sure it's possible to be too harsh on Harry. Look at what he has given up to be Meg's hand puppet. In comparison, the other two men Meg was previously entangled with did not entirely remake their lives to suit her and ditch all of their friends and family the way Harry has. The other two must have cared for Meg (or the version of herself which she presented to them); Trevor was with her for what, 7 years; married for two . . and according to a comment made by Cory's mother, he was all set to propose to his live-in girlfriend of two years when he was blindsided by her callously dumping him and taking his prized kitchen mixer which had been a housewarming gift for *his* home, the one she shacked up in while contributing nothing.
So, their feelings were authentic--but the person they loved was not. Say what you want about Johnny Depp's conduct of life, but when the scales finally fell from his eyes about his Narc, he said, in awful wonderment: "You never existed." The fun-loving, adoring, attentive person they fell in love with was all a facade. Meg isn't that good an actress, but as long as she was getting the ego-stroking from her men which she requires like oxygen, and while they still represented the potential for helping her reach her vision of stardom--Trevor was supposed to groom her into the next Angelina, and he failed; Cory was supposed to vault her into being Toronto society's answer to Gwyneth Paltrow, with an equivalent empire, as was Messica Mulroney--he was dumped for Harry, and she transferred her helpless ingenue act to him, with the addition of the very special extra #F#ckMummy service crafted just for him.
Aunt Jane has a point. Meg really poured the gas on to 'snare' Harry, it appears, with the Diana cosplay and copying his mother's perfume and playing helpless, making up stories of how she was being harassed at her home and online by racist haters. Why the Toronto police never arrested her for repeated violations of wasting police time and making false reports is beyond me. If they had, maybe Haz would have extricated himself before it was too late.
Wouldn't Hazza have arranged tickets for his fiancee and her entourage at the Invictus Games and been a lot happier to see her the following month if that were the case?
Ultimately, I think he was getting cold feet but she sweetened the pot by feeding his fantasies about leaving the burdens of Royal life and convincing him that hitching his star to hers was his ticket to fame, fortune and freedom. It's what his shadow side had always wanted--and now the shadow side has completely taken over, to the point where he is unleashing thinly veiled death wishes for William in print . . Trying to manifest what he wants to come true ala the Meg Method--think it relentlessly, act and speak like it's already happened and you will get what you want.
My stock of pity or giving either of them the benefit of the doubt has expired. I once thought Harry was save-able, but these last six months particularly have proven that he's all-in with Megs. It's not due to love, but to their twisted business plan. That's what this has always been about since he turned his booty call into his fiancee. In order to complete with William and eclipse him, to be made a Royal Duke, Hazza needed a wife and an heir. Love had very little to do with this.
Being on the global stage and having her picture taken daily, having people bow and curtsy to her, with what seemed like unlimited funds to buy whatever she wanted unleashed the full poisonous flower within Markle. With Trevor and Cory, she was on better behavior (in the short term) because she hadn't yet gotten everything she wanted. She needed to pretend to be the sweet and adoring girlfriend/partner to them until their usefulness expired and when that happened, the sweet and adoring partner act vanished with chilling rapidity. To ensure that Harry would stay with her and propose in record time, she couldn't rely solely on her wiles and girlish charm . . .time was of the essence, so I think she resorted to blackmail. Probably video footage of Harry participating in perverse sex acts and drug use, captured at their Soho House Toronto love nest.
Aunt Jane is correct--it's Harry's motives and behavior that are the real mystery . . .and the real tragedy of what is going on here. I don't suppose we will ever get the full story until after his tragic demise.
@Sandie said…
Anyone have any theories why Megsie has gone quiet and Harry is all over the place?
A couple of theories:
1. Since Mugsy has petitioned the judge for a delay in the trial owing to some confidential personal issue, she is laying low, pretending to be pregnant or getting treatment for cancer or consulting therapists for Archie. This whips up a frenzy of speculation about her absence, but the judge can't say that she's been flaunting herself when she's supposed to be so unwell or battling some grievous problem. I don't think we've seen Smugsy since her widely-panned lavender blouse video, have we? (I am for obvious reasons not counting the 'Christmas card'.)
2. Maybe her PR team has finally drummed it into her Narc skull that Harry is the real figure of interest and the key to their brand and so she's finally letting him off the leash. Not to good effect and she's still 'managing' him . . but it's a thought. He has not been as overexposed as she has been this past year, but he's playing catch-up real quick.
@Hikari said: “ Who ultimately 'owns' the copyright and exclusive control over this object of art?”
In the US the portrait would be considered as “work for hire,” and as such, the copyright and ownership would go to Parliament. I don’t know if English law differs.
It appears that the painting was indeed a personal gift from members of Parliament who donated personally to the fund for its commission. Despite the public ceremony for the unveiling, it was not officially commissioned by the Parliament as the governing body. The intention was for Winston to 'gift' it back, presumably upon his death, to hang in the Houses of Parliament somewhere. So I guess we could call it a personal gift--with strings attached. The recipient hated it; he would have much rather had a case of his favorite Scotch as a parting gift, I'm sure. If they wanted an official portrait of Churchill to hang in the halls of government, the commission should have been made by a resolution of the Parliament and the painting hung in situ for the unveiling. Of course, no one could have dreamt that the subject's wife would have the painting burnt after they sent it home with them.
Presenting someone with a portrait of themselves as a gift is odd, even for such an egotist as Sir Winston. It would have been different if his wife had commissioned it, perhaps--she would have chosen a more fawning artist no doubt--though the Crown series depicts her as liking Mr. Sutherland very much during the process, and Winston, too--they just didn't like the result.
Everyone who contributed toward the cost of the painting figuratively had their gesture thrown back in their faces by the actions of Mrs. Churchill, but appear to have no official claim to it once it was given.
how can Harry with such poor judgement remain a Counsellor of State and on the list of Succession. Should the worst come to the worst the Government will step in and appoint the next appropriate individual if there are concerns, over riding the Queens desires and the Succession list, but surely the Queen should act before that could happen, and calls for a Republic are demanded rather than Harry and gold digger Megs getting near the throne and probably destroying the Monarchy for their political masters and or funders.
I have come to the conclusion that ER isn't acting in a more publicly decisive way against her slow-witted grandson & his grifter Duchess because in the scheme of things, they are irrelevant. Irrelevant to the Crown and to her personally. Harry wounded his family to the core, because how he has behaved ever since getting together with Smeg isn't just a dereliction of his public duty; he has alienated all of his family members on a personal level. I don't see how he can ever come back from this, even if he divorces Meg and comes back home. He can never be trusted again, not as a member of the Firm and not with personal confidences one would entrust to a brother, a son or a cousin. Now that he's washed up in Meghan's country, he's got to stick with her because he knows he's finished in England, on all levels. Burnt bridges with his family, all his friends, his charities, the lot. Nobody on either side of the Atlantic wants to know him now.
Harry's leaving the Firm was nothing like Uncle David's leaving, or the last constitutional crisis with the divorce of the Waleses. Those were the actions of the men who were/are the Crown. Harry is just a hanger-on now. Had he been loyal and intelligent enough to entrust with some important areas of oversight on his own, he could have been valuable to the firm in the way the Wessexes are now valuable. If Elizabeth were to issue any more statements about stripping Harry of titles, etc. it would assign to him more importance than he's got. Her complete silence on the matter is to drive home, I think, that he's a complete nonentity as far as the succession and pretty well dead to her personally. I doubt she'd refuse to see him if he came to London, but I wouldn't be expecting any more invites to Balmoral for the foreseeable future. Maybe the Queen does nothing because she knows if she were to revoke the titles, Charles would probably reinstate them after she is gone?
A Counselor of State has no codified regular duties and is merely the sovereign's 'on call' list. To my knowledge, HM never once called upon Harry to exercise this role when he was in the UK full-time. She certainly will never do so now. So, he stays on the list, but permanently on the bench. After Philip leaves us, there will be a vacancy which will be filled by Beatrice, I imagine, as next in line. Perhaps provision can be made to add one additional spot? That would require an act of Parliament, but Harry would never need be 'struck off' . . though he should be, since he is violating the spirit of the statute. 'Domiciled in the UK' is meant to mean "Available at the pleasure of Her Majesty when needed; not two days later" Harry shall never be called upon in an emergency. One might suppose, in that sad day not far off when Philip dies, the Queen might have need of all her counsellors to do ceremonial duties. Let's see if Harry will even show up. Let's just see.
Good points about Harry's lack of overall importance.
I'm far from an expert on Counselors of State but it's my understanding no one will be named to replace Philip. He's on the list as the Monarch's spouse. In other words, I think the CoS are the first 4 in the line of succession who are 21+ and the Monarch's spouse. So it's not 5 who are in line.
As I've said before, I don't think Harry will be struck off the CoS list unless Andrew is. When Charles takes the throne, Camilla and Bea will be added but I don't know if Andrew will be removed. Charles may very well want to remove him but I'm not sure he will because I suspect he'd want to leave Harry. And unless Andrew has been convicted of something by then, I don't see dumping him and leaving Harry assuming Harry is still in the US (which he may not be, of course.)
SMH. Harry’s best grade at school was a D in geography, and now the sugars have him spearheading foreign policy!
@Lizzie,
Presuming that Harry stays as Counselor of state—Charles probably wants him—When Charles Ascends, the four will be William, Harry, Andrew and Bea, presuming, as is likely, that George will still be a child when this happens. ER would have to reign until she was 109, which is a stretch even for her. If Harry was taken off sooner, then both if Andrew’s girls would move up...I gather the law says nothing about the counselors needing to be senior working members. They are both HRHs though. Has there ever been a case where a non-titled member in the succession became a Counsellor of State? Before the stripped down monarchy, this probably was never a consideration.
"When Charles Ascends, the four will be William, Harry, Andrew and Bea, presuming, as is likely, that George will still be a child when this happens"
Yes, those 4. But Camilla will also serve as the King's spouse.
"I gather the law says nothing about the counselors needing to be senior working members. They are both HRHs though. Has there ever been a case where a non-titled member in the succession became a Counsellor of State? Before the stripped down monarchy, this probably was never a consideration."
Edward was a CoS from 1985-2005. He replaced Margaret when he turned 21. For many of those years, his career was in the theater and television. So I don't think Bea and Eugenie wouldn't be eligible. Certainly the law doesn't bar them.
According to Wikipedia (not always the best source)
"Since the passage of the Regency Act 1937, the only persons to have been counsellors of state while not a queen consort, prince, or princess were George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood; Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (although Windsor had been a prince between 1914 and 1917 and never served in practice during his short tenure); and Maud Carnegie, Countess of Southesk (who was entitled to, but did not use the style of princess).
Prior to that, the lord chancellor, the lord president of the council, the prime minister, and the archbishop of Canterbury had been appointed to the position by George V."
"@Lizzie, so could Catherine become a CoS?"
She will be one when Will is King. I don't think there's any provision for that to happen brfore that since the passage of the Regency Act of 1937 tightened things up. Everyone except the Monarch's spouse must be in in the line of succession. In earlier times it sounds more a matter of "favor" or maybe politics (like when the PM or Archbishop served.) But I'm not an expert.
@Puds also wrote:
"I don't think Harry became a CoS until after his marriage, according to rumour he was miffed William look grander than him wearing the CoS finary (can't recall what gold the swags are called) and demanded he be made a CoS immediately."
No, Harry was appointed a CoS when he turned 21. He replaced Edward.
The gold looping braid William wore at Harry's wedding— an aiguillette — shows he was named as an Aide-de-Camp to the Queen. (In 2013.) Harry was named an Aide-de-Camp in Oct 2018. Maybe that's the rumor you read?
So far as I know, there's no uniform or special swag or sash for CoS.
Peter and Zara are in the line of succession, #14 and #15 right now, I think. They'll drop by one when Eugenie has her baby. Titles aren't required to be in the line.
The only reason I think they might not lose their titles, is that Charles maybe still views Harry as an asset he needs.
Thomas: "Determined." Meaning Mm is determined.
MM: "What?
Thomas: "Determined."
MM: Rolls eyes at Thomas, with a bit of a sneer.
Thomas: Garbled. I think he says, "You hit that button, and you go full (wide?), right?"
MM: "Yep, sure did."
*************************
When Thomas says "full wide," (I think that's the word he's saying) does he mean camera angles or camera apertures (how wide the lens is open)?
Yes, I get the same sense as you- haughty, and superior attitude toward her father. However, I must say that she was at the age where many kids act out like that toward their parents, pushing boundaries. What I don't see is Thomas correcting MM's nasty behavior, as my parents would when I got out of line at that age.
Uhhhhh...totally a snotty, snobby attitude in that bit of video. That was the face that haunted the kids she bullied, I suppose. Looks like she was extremely spoiled and had already decided she was better than everyone by that video. And that her doting dad was beneath her. It seems like more than teen angst?
By the way, check out Yankee’s Tumbler. ... ..there is a royal blog excerpt posted that says D spent four years in prison for fraud; If this is true, or is a hint from SM’s book.....much explained.
Are they all alike, playing all sides until the best deal? Apple, tree and all that.
How reliable is Samantha? I hope we aren’t in for a giant letdown sycophant nonsense book. I hate the title.
Love the Plaitypus rhyme about Harry's hair!
And it brings back memories of all your giant feet witticisms including 'flipper' and plank-footed Megs thinking she's Jesus because she can walk on water.
🤣🐬😂🐬🤣
**@AnT and @Swamp Woman
Glad you like "Carrot Top" Harry. LOL at Ronald McDonald!
🤡🤡🤡
**@KCM1212 said...
...JennS should be awarded the Lattes of the Day (@JennS for the hilarious hair-dos of Hairy Harkle)
...........
Thanks for the Latte @KCM! I'm finding playing with Hazza'a hair is good semi-lockdown entertainment! Playing w/ google's (limited) emojis is also a distraction.
💈💇♂️💈💇♂️💈
Jenn- the legs & feet on the “paper dolls”
hahaha!
Thinking of nicking it for my avi!
The Biden’s are very family oriented and political. I see this stuff as Meghan’s wish that they got the call for the inauguration and the hope that they will be involved. Again, articles of association with our infamous one for clicks. Maybe her PR is paying off for her. Now journos are inserting them everywhere for attention.
Allegho
Megs and her moves
With her large cloven hooves
Looks like a puppet with stiff strings
Her constipated motion
Needs rhythm, rotation
And her legs look like storks, without wings
Pole Axed
Jenn has her own barber shop
In charge of Harry’s carrot top
Pity you can’t take it lower
With the shears, or garden mower
Resulting in the final chop
Causing Harry’s tail to flop
As for Samantha, I hope Megs hasn’t
‘bought’ her, and this book will be
another Finding Weho?
Oh I love your new avi! I wonder if her feet are bigger than Hairy's?
And Pole Axed - how clever and quick you are!!
Thank you for my special witticism!
ROTFLOL!!💈🤡💈
@Jessica
I'm waiting for the tabs to find the NYTimes article - I'm sure they'll get plenty of clicks for that!
Jenn- I have to draw the (pantie) line somewhere.
Wasn’t sure if I should WAX lyrical
on her nether region 😉
Needs your barbering skills,
her excess could be used to
plug Harry’s bald patch?
Rug Rats Recycling!!
"Hillary and Chelsea Clinton are set to produce a TV show about 'defiant' all-female Kurdish militia unit that helped to defeat ISIS in Syria, after buying the rights to new book about the women
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9185967/Hillary-Chelsea-Clinton-make-TV-female-militia-unit-fought-ISIS.html"
This development is a tough moment for me because i find the Clintons extremely problematic, but this is a subject that is long overdue an enormous spotlight rather than the low-key media that it generates which is ignored because it's on news channels deemed beyond the pale like RT. .
It still pisses me off that the year of the unit's greatest triumph, the UN decided to give an award for woman of the year or was it Women's champion of the year to the fictional character Wonder Woman (yes i know it was bought studio PR and press for the movie).
Folie’cle a deux
Harry and his balding patch
Looks in need of hair, re-thatch
Megsie and her burning bush
Could help out, with her lush tush
Not sure how Haz likes his girlies
Megs could give her short and curlies
PlaityPuss II
Samantha has said she is fair in her book, and I can believe that. When you look back at her very vocal criticism, it was accurate and did not venture into speculation and made-up gossip. Those looking for some kind of huge scandalous reveals will miss out on the truth that I think will be in her book: Meghan is a liar and a ruthless social climber, and is devoid of compassion, empathy and kindness (and thus a huge hypocrite).
A lot of fake stories about Meghan have become urban legend that many believe, and they accuse Sanantha of all sorts of things when she points out that they are not true. It will disappount and anger many, but the following are not true:
Meghan was expelled from/did not finish college. Not true. She did complete her studies and graduate (not a big deal as many tens of thousands do every year in America, and her studies were not difficult - if she had achieved firsts, we would never have hear the end of it, so not a high academic achiever).
The hazing incident about Meghan gluing someone's eyelashes together at college is not true. I wonder who thought up that story? (There are Meghan haters who are just as crazy as the Meghan stans.)
Meghan does not have a secret daughter, and one of Samantha's daughters is definitely not Meghan's. Archie is her first and only child.
However, there is that oft-used photo of her from the TV interview about the dishwashing soap. She is pre-teen there, but she has this sneering bratty look on her face.
Then there is the video of her wearing a crown and ordering every one around at a birthday party - also pre-teen.
I think she has always been a petulant beat!
Perhaps I have misunderstood you but if not let me explain that when, as you explain Sutherland was paid in Guineas, that does not mean that he was paid in actual guinea coins (not that I have ever seen one). Guinea was just a way of describing a sum of money. Thus if I promised to pay you one guinea what you would normally receive in normal coinage would be twenty one shillings which might thus comprise a one pound coin (i.e. twenty shillings) and a five pence (i.e. one shilling) coin. As the younger people in this country are mystified by our former coinage you need not feel stupid should you find this a trifle confusing - I miss the farthing coins (i.e. one quarter of a penny) with the image of a wren thereon if I recall correctly and those pennies with the image thereon of the late queen i.e. Victoria, which were common though often somewhat worn down when I was a child.
You raise the intriguing question of ownership and copyright in the painting. If the painting was owned by Sir Winston then it would have been his to do with as he wished. If not then Sir Winston was guilty of criminal damage. As it happens I know little about copyright other than that it was an English invention in the reign of Queen Anne at which time it lasted for a mere fourteen years. I cannot see however that since the painting is no more, that Sutherland could have had any copyright in the now non-existent painting.
Perhaps Sir Winston should have been grateful that at least the artist commissioned by Parliament was Sutherland and not Bacon!
It was a handy unit in the days when auctioneers were content with a modest commission on a large sum. Major art auctions now charge in region of 13% commission - I've no idea what unit is used during the bidding.
Copyright: William Hogarth (b.1697) is usually credited with pushing for copyright legislation, so thank you, Opus, for throwing some light on the `prehistory' of the current law. He certainly resented how his work was copied so perhaps we should say he worked for terms much longer than 15 years? After all, Anne died in 1715, when he would have been about 20.
I certainly agree about the choice of Sutherland rather than Bacon - even though they were associated at some point and I can see S's influences in some of B's work. Bacon could easily have posed Winnie sitting on the lavatory, as he did for George Dyer.
'Saint' Harry can't blow this chance to show his worth
If the Duke of Sussex is serious about the war he’s declaring, this regal superhero is going to have to knuckle down and show some integrity'
at https://w.ww.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/saint-harry-cant-blow-chance-show-worth/
Her conclusion carries quite a punch:
But if Harry is serious about the war he’s declaring, and not just whimsically playing at do-goodery in the way he has since moving to a community where whimsical do-gooders are celebrated despite their lack of either background knowledge or commitment, this regal superhero is going to have to knuckle down and show some integrity. That means learning about his tech adversaries, reading up on the newly unveiled draft laws put into place to create safe and trustworthy platforms, and offering up workable solutions to the giants he has been campaigning against.
It means concentrating on one thing, and understanding that hypocrisy of the kind he once again comes close to in his Fast Company interview, when he urges Big Tech not to be motivated “by financial incentive” and admits that, after all this, he and Meghan “will revisit social media when it feels right for us” will only render this charitable endeavour laughable. Which wouldn’t just be a shame, but a missed opportunity for Harry to prove his worth.
Of course, there are those of us who consider that Harry has already demonstrated his true worth and that CW can see it too. Perhaps she's just being kind, like the sort of school reports I've had to write in the past when I couldn't say `This boy is a waste of classroom space in this school - he needs to buck up his ideas or else...'
"**@Acquitaine
I agree. Are you surprised at the Branson connection?"
No. The Bransons are just as susceptible to being seduced by power and fame as the next person. Not sure they are particularly political, but they seem to love celebrities in general, and US democratic politicians suck up to them big time for the simple fact of their money and toys.
We were also taught now I recall that ere long all tortious actions would be reduced to but one namely negligence. Talk about being spectacularly wrong in ones predictions - but unlike todays students we did not burst into tears (and that included the four people with different genitalia in our class of forty) when our teacher asked us to open our criminal text-books at the sub-chapter in Crimes Against The Person known as Rape. Can I also ever forget how the more feisty (i.e. least good looking) of those four young women when asked by a male teacher in Contract what she understood by 'a thing in action' responded by saying that she always looked at the ceiling. (rofl) Today's student would be on her cell-phone to the principal demanding the police attend! My greatest memory of those days was however the female teacher aged about twenty-two who taught Torts (as we say - Americans miss off the S) who would sit in her mini-skirt - really a micro-pelmet on the teacher's desk swinging her legs underneath the desk as we bad boys in the back row made fun of - frankly she should not have done it - the expanse of thunder-thighs. No one complained even though it was clearly indecent exposure. Otherwise she was quite pretty. She went on to a distinguished legal career so her name I will keep to myself.
Okay. But. Just a bit of wondering left on my side...
Sam’s daughter’s name is spelled Noelle, not Noel, so are you sure that was Sam’s Twitter account? And saying I have the birth certificate is not “I gave birth to her”.... and if the baby was given to Sam, it was not “abandoned” by someone.
Not sure how Sam would know about the sorority issue, or if M graduated. All Sam would know is what her father may have shared. And I can assume there may have been “No Daddy nothing happened, I didn’t do anything, the girl lied” and “yes Daddy I am graduating a year early so not going to the ceremony, just send more money so I can come home.”
......money may have crossed hands with Sam via SS or accountants. This is M & family we are talking about, after all. Who knows. We may only find out if the press vaults are opened some day.
My point was that it was printed in the DT - and reflects a chance in their tone, bearing in mind that its previous sugariness was unacceptable to a number of Nutties, who then cancelled their subscriptions.
I call the much of the piece `plain speaking' - how does it differ from the sort of thing said here? Personally, I'd have echoed a view that's already been expressed here - he's probably incapable of reforming.
Wives are no obliged to parrot their husbands views, even if one husband appears incapable of speaking for himself.
"Folie’cle a deux" ha ha! Very good.
I enjoyed your poem, however, remember Megsy's interview with Craig Ferguson re. her hairiness - or lack of it...
Clearly husband and wife hold similar views on the subject which isn't to say that spouses should or are obliged to sprout each other's opinions or agree with each other.
Also, Celia Walden has been writing these anti-Sussex columns in the DT for some time.
It's funny that people in the main haven't noticed that Piers Morgan's wife is equally and publicly anti-Sussex as he is, and has been for quite some time.
Every time her column appears, i'm convinced that the DT is not as neutral on the Sussexes and are probably as negative as the openly negative DM.
Your middle name should be Masterpiece, of course.
*******
@Puds,
Yes, exactly, glad you can see why I have my doubts. It may be true she has a degree and no previous child and an unblemished sorority record and no pre-Trevor marriage. But her record of truth telling has been a bit rockier than that of the average duchess. So, I wonder. And I feel somehow doubtful about SM’s book as well. Who knows.
*******
@Maneki Neko,
I remember that Ferguson interview, Saw it on YT around when she married Harry. I was cringing at her laughing and slag behavior.
*******
@Wild Boar Battle-Maid,
I think H bears equal blame, Or equal scorn. I am in agreement with Aunt Jane of LSA on this point. We have seen enough of his support of her and his attacks on his family, especially on Will and Kate. Earlier Harry was a PR project, I think. They are equal mean people who found each other in the tawdry Soho ditch,
I think CW’s piece was more of a “we see you, H, and we can parse your garbled sniveling actions, lad” shot across the bow. A warning from the UK to ever-bitter attack-the world Harry, who sits screeching in California, wrapped in his thick fabricated mansion-nappie.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the three bits of fake news/gossip are true (not graduating from college, gluing together the eyelids of some hapless girl, and having a hidden daughter who is actually Samantha's daughter).
There are a lot of people who dislike Meghan and would have come forward, openly instead of hiding behind a fake identity on some social forum, and ratted her out if any of the three above were true.
I personally have had fake stories circulating about me and so know personally how people will simply refuse to accept the truth when confronted with it. The saddest story I have is about a young man called Alex - had a farm in the valley and was at least two decades younger than the dozen other inhabitants in the valley. After a party with much alcohol consumed, one of the men in the valley spread the rumour that Alex was gay ... it became his favourite party story. (In fact, Alex had said that he wanted young friends and this old man with his long, lank grey hair and head scarf did not impress him, or something like that.) Alex was not gay ... fact. A few months later, Alex rolled his car and died.
I agree on your assessment of what will probably be in Samantha's book.
I am human and admit to the hope that there will be some good tea in the book though! I doubt that she will answer some of the questions I have either:
Where was Doria for those missing years?
Why did Meghan fall out with her father James just before she went to College?
Why have no photos/friends emerged from Meghan's Argentina and Spanish forays? (Andrew Morton dug up some dirt about the Argentina experience - a romance with a wealthy and much older man and mysteriously not finishing her time working at the embassy.)
When did Thomas first hear about Harry from Meghan and does this fit in with the supposed blind date story?
When is the last time Samantha actually see Meghan? And Thomas?
Then in the Suits sex scene she flings herself into it with abandon.
Quite. The Express, however, had an article about Megsy ’
Meghan Markle tells Larry King she was 'terrified' of sex scene in Suits in unearthed clip'. Here is the link if you have time to waste:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1388061/meghan-markle-news-duchess-of-sussex-royal-suits-larry-king-interview-larry-king-dead-vn
'Terrified'? Like a blushing virgin on her wedding night? 🤣 I think not. Plenty of experience under her belt, if I may say so.
...[Sam] saying I have the birth certificate is not “I gave birth to her"...
_________________
I think this is something to consider. Our daughter is adopted and we are listed as her parents on her birth certificate because that's the way it works with adoption, at least here in Canada.
I do appreciate your concerns. What happened to the young man you knew was tragic. What a waste of a life.
Here comes my “but”. But then, why should we anticipate or look for any info from Sam, beyond Meg’s favorite childhood snack? Why should we even assemble here to discuss things at all, be it signs of narcissism or how Harry behaves?
By your own position, there is also no reason whatsoever to assume Doria ever had “missing years” - who said so? Can we trust them? Why? Maybe she just gave a difficult teen daughter to the father to try to discipline, or to share responsibility, or for more equitable parenting.
Who says Meghan fell out with her father prior to college? Maybe they were close until 2018. Everyone has minor spats.
Why trust Andrew Morton that M had “forays” in either Argentina or Spain or any sort of romance? No proof. I think she was studying language, and hungry Morton was just trying to sell his books after all.
Maybe Thomas met Harry, and elderly Thomas simply forgot or they were tight phone pals and that was fine by both because Harry and Meghan were exhausted from hundreds of hours of secret charity work and babysitting the Cambridge kids.
Maybe M was treated horribly by every person she has ever met or married, and is a brave survivor. Probably she and Kate are actually close. I have no proof they are not. I can see several photos of them together at Wimbledon and church and other events. I am glad they are friends and it a shame the press tries to make it look otherwise. I think when Sam visited the palace gate, M took her to tea at the Dukes hotel and put her up in a grand suite. But Sam had to pretend otherwise so M would not look too spendy, knowing the Queen was going to force her to wear millions of pounds worth of clothes and take private jets.
Do you see what I mean? It is all speculation. All of it. We go by bits that fly past. How do we rope off some areas of speculation and not others, and where is the proof I should believe some people not others. An NDA could prevent sorority mates from speaking out, just as Palace staff might be barred, for example.
In the end, we are all here just parsing through a great puzzle involving an ancient monarchy, looking at key points and little crumbs that make us go “a ha” or “hmm?” Those of us with experience of narcissists have other signs we see. We speculate. We wonder, about this very public subject matter being danced before our eyes at a cost of millions more taxpayer pounds. And that is all.
“ The voice of the public is important (expect the men in grey to read the comments), and while there are may who don’t like social media or who have lost their accounts, it doesn’t mean that their opinions should not have an outlet. I am trying out a new platform where I can post discussion threads, and also short updated newsletters so that I can focus on my writing and editing.
This is a trial to see how it goes, but offers people an opportunity to express how they feel about this saga without having to be on social media. WordPress comments are too cumbersome to monitor, but please, if you do comment, please keep it clean (no swearing), and no conspiracy theories either. Substack does allow me to ban and delete comments if necessary.
https://harrymarkle.substack.com
Exactly. I have a friend who is adopted and that is the language her mother has used for years when someone asked. Same with coworker friends who adopted two young children two years ago. And that is why that sentence caught my attention.
I've just signed up
Not sure how Sam would know about the sorority issue, or if M graduated. All Sam would know is what her father may have shared. And I can assume there may have been “No Daddy nothing happened, I didn’t do anything, the girl lied” and “yes Daddy I am graduating a year early so not going to the ceremony, just send more money so I can come home.”
I am not counting on Samantha's book to illuminate much that is currently muddy about Meg's post-high school years and beyond. Even when Sam was still a teenager living at least part-time with Tom, Meg was just a toddler. Sam can speak with firsthand knowledge about family events but not with authenticity really about what Meg got up to at college or her love life or what other people outside of the family may have thought of her. What I find truly astounding is how much silence there is surrounding Meg's childhood and adolescent years. Between the dish soap ad when she was in the sixth grade and popping up on our TV screens as Briefcase #24, the silence is resounding. We know the names of a very few 'friends' from college and one (former) childhood friend. The crickets are deafening from any of Meg's former school mates, neighbors, teachers, college professors, sorority sisters, anyone who worked with her on her various studies abroad or her jaunts for humanitarian photo ops. Jessica Mulroney was her 'best' friend (until she wasn't)--it's been proven that the women didn't start hanging out together until 2016, about a year and a half before she got engaged to Harry.
Is it possible that the Palace machine or Meg's legal barracudas somehow tracked down every single person Meg ever knew from the ages of 1 - 35 years of age and silenced them? Every living soul? If Meg was anything like she's promoted herself--a relentlessly 'kind' go-getter, the sort of high achieving, well-rounded student that is every teacher's dream, why can't we get a single testimonial?
Apparently there is documented evidence that she graduated with her communications degree in 2003 with her NW class, but something definitely went down within that sorority. After Meg's second year at the university, she left campus under mysterious circumstances to take the first of her various studies abroad, and the sorority has refused to speak about her. They were approached with press interest in the run-up to the wedding; surely with one of their sisters marrying a Prince of the United Kingdom in a globally televised wedding, excitement had to be high? Was there going to be a viewing party?
No, and the press was told firmly that the sorority had no comment whatsoever about Meghan.
To me that hazing story is quite detailed to be entirely made up . . though Meg is known to use eyelash glue (badly), so it's possible. I've never used false eyelashes in my life; would they really have been a common accessory for 19, 20 year old college girls to be using 20 years ago? It would have taken a devious mind to come up with that plan, but I'd say Meg was capable.
All I know is, when one is a good person, who consistently behaves in an upright manner and displays honesty and integrity, and forms positive relationships with people, people are generally happy to speak about that person with goodwill . . not through coercion or for payment, but because that's how they feel. Try to find anybody with a bad word to say about Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, for example. If Meg were even half as kind, compassionate and good as she pretends to be, she wouldn't have to work relentlessly to silence her critics.
that Ferguson interview was toe curling. Megs had no sexuality though that was what she wanted to portray in that skimpy dress or was it a scarf, no humanitarian politician on show. However she came across as all awkward angles uncomfortable in her body and that strange flirting. Then in the Suits sex scene she flings herself into it with abandon. I guess Harry never knows what's real and what's not.
God, wasn't it just?
I lost my job in 2009 due to the Great Recession and didn't get called back for an entire year. During that year, I barely missed an episode of Craig's show. I hadn't really followed him before, but suddenly I had no reason not to stay up til 2AM. Craig was my nightly appointment with laughter. Anybody who thinks he's just a late-night clown needs to read his autobiography American On Purpose. He is also a Peabody Award recipient for his hour-long interview with Desmond Tutu.
Craig is an audacious flirt (the guys as well as the girls)--he's just a people person and hugs everybody. A born performer and raconteur (he's a Celt), he's in his element hosting a chat show. He has flirted with the likes of Paula Deen and Isabelle Allende. He takes everything as it comes.
I have never seen Craig look so uncomfortable as he did during Markle's interview. Like the rest of us, he was taken aback that she came out almost naked except for a black slip. Even in the ranks of skimpy ingenue dresses, this was too much. Then her stiff and awkward flirtation with him was just so aggressive . . she kept writhing around in her seat like she was going to jump the desk at any moment. As the interview wears on, Craig incrementally inches himself away from the guest chair until his chair is as far away as it will go without falling out of frame. It was the Awkwardest Awkward Pause in the show's history.
For someone who has been practicing yoga for almost 30 years (she says) . . she is very uncomfortable in her body. Very uncoordinated. And I would have expected that someone who allegedly had a degree in Theatre and had been appearing regularly on television for at least two years prior to this interview would be so stiff and hardly seem to even know which camera to look at. Cringe.
The first of many, if only we could have known . . .
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1389295/meghan-markle-court-case-news-duchess-of-sussex-legal-associated-newspapers-royal-news-vn
I also wonder if Sam is denying the rumours of Noelle being Nutmeg's to protect her?
I don't care one way or other, and totally agree that Nutmeg having a child earlier is not the problem but rather the deception of it all.....however, it was not uncommon for this to be done in older generations. I'm not sure why it would have been necessary, a baby out of wedlock now is not at all unusual, but maybe they just don't want Noelle to know.
I just remember being struck by how very much she favors Cringe. It was early days for me on this blog, and someone had linked a pic of Sam and Noelle together, and I hadn't heard of the rumors, but I think I even commented on how much Noelle favored Cringe. I think it was Nutty who mentioned the rumor, and also the name of the young man alleged to have been the father.
Now, I look far more like one of my aunts than I do my mother, and that is also not unusual, but Noelle really does look exactly like a cross between Cringe and the young man mentioned in the rumor.
Mind you, I think Archie looks like Cringe and Ginge, so maybe I am just susceptible to seeing similarities where none exist!
Oh, and @JennS, I did see your comment earlier about the photo at Arlington, thank you!
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4105943/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
I wanted to share some thoughts regarding Harry's latest disastrous interview that he gave.
One line stood out to me. “I was really surprised to witness how my story had been told one way, my wife’s story had been told one way, and then our union sparked something that made the telling of that story very different,”
This tells me that H&M think that they were both very popular separately and now their union has made them very unpopular.
Harry goes on to say “That false narrative became the mothership for all of the harassment you’re referring to. It wouldn’t have even begun had our story just been told truthfully."
So they are PERFECTLY aware that they are greatly disliked, however, in true Narc form, it someone else's fault. They still try to peddle the belief that they have been victimized.
It's staggering really. I so wish I was interviewing him. I would have asked him. "Tell me what about the narrative being reported is untrue?" We've all said a million times that he and Meg received so much good will when they were getting married. It's their ACTIONS that have destroyed their lives.
Meghan has been quiet. But there are reasons for her quietness. Guess we will see soon! I'm hoping Samantha hasn't been bought by Meghan. I ordered that book so I will pour over it.
HIS is the kind of detail I would have provided about Noelle's birth were I Samantha. I bet every one of you can remember every detail of your childrens' births, too.
lol) Can you sue SM comments? I am no friend of the Harkles but I do worry that whilst everyone is focusing on stories that may or may not be true, there is some total shite going on in the background. as for Sam's book, I am undecided, hope it's genuine but I don't expect any great relevations
It's interesting that he implies his narrative before marriage was either good or truthful because he often complained that his narrative was a lie. He frequently complained about it in interviews including in the engagement interview. His standard repeated phrase was that the public didn't know the real him or they thought they knew him based upon media lies. He always had a little smirk when he said it as if he enjoyed the deception.
Once he pissed off the media post-marriage, his real self was revealed. At first he complained that palace sources were leaking this information. However he began to read the changed public opinions based upon the new information and rather than confront the self that is revealed, he blames the media for brainwashing the public.
Mind you, his powers of perception are really bad if he thought Meghan was popular before marriage. Or she wove a really good game around him to make him think she was popular and continues to feed that delusion.
Overall it reveals that he bought into his own royal PR created image even as he complainedu that it was all a lie.
The surrogacy rumor has made it to tabloids.
Yes, you can identify and sue social media users for defamation etc. They (the users) most likely don’t have deep pockets though, so she doesn’t do that.
Plus I think she plays PR in the vein of ‘is Taylor Swift Gay’ PR thing a bit. Controversy and chatter for clicks. Too bad her controversy involves a government institution who gave her everything, which ruins her reputation. (See what I did there ;).
I am looking forward to reading what she has to say, even if it is just about the younger MM. It should give some insight into how MM became the person she is today. Of course, I'm looking forward to a bit of tea, too!
Also, I believe that Thomas has kept quiet because his lawyers have told him to do so. The lawyers don't want Thomas to screw up their legal plan that they've laid out for when they go to trial. That's a common move for attorneys- trying to keep their clients silent before trial so as to not lose the case before it even starts.
Children of attorneys (like me- both of my parents were attorneys) sometimes overhear things in their home, and are trained to never speak of them, I'm still holding info from the 1960s, and as the daughter of attorneys, I know that anything I happened to overhear must be kept secret.
You can sue anybody that you want, but it doesn't mean that it's a valid suit. But, you'll be spending a lot of money on lawyers by trying to sue people who don't have any money. Sometimes, people will repeatedly sue somebody on different counts just to fill the attorney's office with paperwork, another known legal trick.
The surrogacy rumor has made it to tabloids.
Has it? I must have missed it, would be grateful for links so I can put that one to bed so to speak
Puds - Sam was apparently diagnosed about sometime before the college graduation.
I have been working on a time line of the different people's highlights like birth, marriage or divorce but have been waiting closer to Sam's book release so people have something to refer to. Most of it came for FF but there were a few other sources like IMDB.
Mind you, his powers of perception are really bad if he thought Meghan was popular before marriage. Or she wove a really good game around him to make him think she was popular and continues to feed that delusion.
I am done with Haz, no matter what his mental deficiencies, PTSD issues, orphan/abandonment issues, whatever. Many people have suffered far worse than he and don't grow up to do what he's done to his family. But--when they were dating and when they first got engaged, I can totally understand why he would have swallowed the lie that she was one of America's most popular TV stars. Only then, mind you. He should have wised up long ago that her amount of celebrity was wildly inflated. Being a Royal Prince and having been in the military for 10 years prior to meeting her, he would have been sheltered a great deal from what constituted 'popular' in the United States. If he just looked at the curated bits of her 'celebrity' she chose to show him . . the DVDs of her series, the magazines full of the pictures she'd paid multiple PR agencies for, the clip of her addressing the U.N., the glossy, professionally-produced Tig shots . . Oh, look Harry, here I am with American Idol winner Carrie Underwood on a USO tour!--she could give the impression that she was an in-demand American TV personality. I read about British TV personalities all the time and see them on the Graham Norton show with no real idea of their careers in their home market. Haz was dating an American TV actress and that was good enough for him.
If he *still* believes she gave up huge stardom in America to be his wife, then he is a Class A eejit.
https://www.newidea.com.au/meghan-markle-revenge-palace
Just days after it was confirmed that Prince Harry and Meghan’s planned Megxit review in March has been cancelled, chaos is said to be brewing behind palace walls.
New Idea understands the Queen is preparing to call a private crisis meeting with senior members of the royal family after learning of an alleged plan against the palace.
Despite stepping back as senior members of the royal family early last year, sources believe the Duchess of Sussex is still playing the long game.
“She is all too aware that her Archie is still seventh in line to the throne until the Cambridge kids have families of their own, and she has – rather morbidly – confided to friends that “anything can happen, so it’s best I’m prepared”, the insider explains.
Indeed, even royal author and historical consultant to The Crown, Robert Lacey, in his latest book, Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of a Family in Tumult, says: “Who knows what can happen in an age of terrorist attacks and global pandemics … six and seven could well get promoted to three and four, or higher.”
Our source says Meghan, 39, will make sure 1-year-old Archie is all studied up on his royal side of the family just in case he ever needs to step up and become king.
“If the unthinkable did happen and Archie was required to return to England and fulfil a destiny no-one would have expected for him, a side of Meghan would be thrilled,” says the source.
“She would get the rank and power that she always wanted – mum to a king, or even if he was just higher up in succession, it would give her the status that she never had as merely Harry’s wife. Meghan is nothing if not prepared, and she’ll ensure Archie learns all his etiquette lessons just in case the prodigal son ever needs to return.”
We’re told that as part of Archie’s upbringing, he is being read English literature and she encourages Harry, 36, to do most of it.
“She loves the English accent and wants Archie to have one,” says the source. “She thinks it’s more regal. When he’s a little older she’s asked Harry to educate him on British kings and queens of the past, royal protocols and tradition. Meghan doesn’t want the snobs in the palace looking down on Archie if he returns with a strong American accent and little understanding of his UK relatives.”
Royal author Phil Dampier adds that the Queen and her courtiers would be simply “horrified” by Meghan’s behaviour, especially since she and Harry have turned their backs on the monarchy in favour of Hollywood fame and a life in the US.
Along with their multimillion-dollar Spotify deal, the Sussexes also signed on with Netflix last year to create content for the popular streaming service, a deal which has reportedly since fallen through.
“I don’t see any problem with them starting a new life and making a fortune, but it must be on different terms and not as quasi-royals,” Phil says.
“You can’t be half in and half out of the royal family. This is what the Queen feared.”
And despite rumours that postponing the Megxit review was a cordial decision between the Sussexes and the royal family, it could not be further from the truth,” says an insider.
“William can’t bear to look at them, especially Meghan. But as the mother of a son with royal blood, she simply won’t be cast aside. She feels that now they’ve been uninvited for a review, she can do whatever she wants, and there are fears William’s refusal to see Meghan and Harry will have a terrible impact on the monarchy.”
***********
Hmmm . . .
A
This must be one of the many therapies in place to make Archie a genius!
Surely at this rate, by his second birthday, he will be ready to tackle an O-level.
@Hikari: Hew idea is on a parr with the National Enquirer. A broken clock can be right once a day, but in the casevof new idea, it's the clock that predicts a Jennifer Aniston pregnancy with the frequency of a new moon!!
That said, this sentence in their article is funny:
“She loves the English accent and wants Archie to have one,” says the source. “She thinks it’s more regal. When he’s a little older she’s asked Harry to educate him on British kings and queens of the past, royal protocols and tradition. Meghan doesn’t want the snobs in the palace looking down on Archie if he returns with a strong American accent and little understanding of his UK relatives.”
Harry very publicly demonstrated throughout Megxit and throughout 2020 that he had no clue how the current monarchy operates nor it's protocols despite growing up in it AND being a member of the military, an organisation that fetishises protocol.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleigh-hale
Profile says she graduated from high school in 2003. So unless she finished HS very late at age 22 or so and then went on to earn a BA, a JD and an LL.M, she was NOT born in 1981. (No way she lied about graduation dates IMO. No reason to and why risk being disbarred?)
Frankly, I reckon the snobs in the palace would have looked down on him even even if Ginge and Cringe had stayed in The Firm, and acted properly. He is always going to be half American by birth, and among the aristocracy, wasn't Wallis' main drawback that she was American? (Whereas the common people were said not to have minded that she was American, but rather that she was divorced)
"Harry very publicly demonstrated throughout Megxit and throughout 2020 that he had no clue how the current monarchy operates nor it's protocols despite growing up in it AND being a member of the military, an organisation that fetishises protocol."
Bingo! I'd love to see Harry attempt to pass a test (any test) on British history.
Megs has been out of the spotlight for a few days, and she needed to come up with something to keep her name in the news. Harry as "teacher" is the best she could do? If they have so much money (they don't), why not hire a professional tutor for Archie? Oh, I forgot. Megs needs Archie to have an English accent while discussing British history with the Queen during Archie's triumphant return to the BRF! Hahaha! This is just ludicrous. Talk about stroking Harry's ego.
An aging barfly with a price tag marries a dumbo of a prince, denounces his country and family and their traditions and screws up every marginally official task or appearance, insulting personages and citizens in several countries. She mocks their stuff upper lips, and deems them boring, their country too small for her goals, and rapidly hurries her dumbo prince and his unseen unregistered supposed sprog out of the country to live in LA.
Once there, she fails to bump Gal Gadot to star in the next Wonder Woman. So the barfly, decides to use her massive free time to educate her unseen unregistered 21-month-old-sprog in the rich, extensive and complicated history, culture, language, literature, social mores and royal procedures of the family and land she mocked and fled (i.e. totally failed to acclimate to or understand).
She does like the accent, though, probably unaware there are many forms of it, and enlists her uneducated husband, the child’s purported father, to read Shakespeare to the tot so it can pick up his accent, which she finds fancy. This is critical since she sounds like a loud common LA mall rat, and since the child is totally cut off from every single member of its father’s family and lives alone in a 16-bathroom mansion surrounded by American child trainers.
The barfly considers it normal to yank her husband, the actual born prince, out of line and help turn him into a shabby depressed stoner hobo —- and then go full throttle on hardcore training her unseen registered sprog to be ready for a job that can be his only if many of her husband’s family members drop dead within a small space of time — including her husband,
The barfly has a plan, and we should be alert, and horrified.
Yes, she's up to something with this latest missive as Harry as a British history teacher for Archie. She knows that the world knows Harry is a dunce, and that negative jokes about Harry's intelligence would run rampant after this latest ploy. She's making Harry look dumber by the day, if that's possible. Of course, dimwit Harry doesn't see that she's making him look like even more of a fool with this latest story.
Definitely that, and you have explained that well. She is mocking him, almost the way she rolled her 12 year old eyes at her dad, [Hey——-Maybe she is afraid to hand over her phone records to the court because there are so many texts to friends mocking Harry and his gullible stupidity?] This is justmore baiting for the negative comments they want to cry about.
But I also sense something more sinister, if there is any truth to this story. Something in line with with smug hateful gazes she levels at Kate.
"He is always going to be half American by birth, and among the aristocracy, wasn't Wallis' main drawback that she was American? (Whereas the common people were said not to have minded that she was American, but rather that she was divorced)"
The PR hit job on Wallis regarding her nationality has come to be read as the UK establishment and or aristocratic class hate or dislike Americans.
It's not true.
In reality are many Americans and or people with American mothers, grandmothers and or great-grandmothers starting from just before the end of the Victorian age / American Gilded age when wealthy American women came to UK to marry impoverished British men with titles - the infamous American Dollar princesses episode.
https://www.history.com/news/american-heiress-marry-british-aristocrat
The most famous of this type of American is Consuelo Vanderbilt who married the 9th Duke of Marlborough.
Winston Churchill's mother, Jennie Jerome, was American hence his great affection for the country.
Diana's great-grandmother,Frances Ellen Work, was American.
The first female MP, Nancy Astor, was American - served from 1919 - 1945.
Thelma Furness who romanced The Duke of Windsor before Wallis was American.
None of these women were ostracized due to being American even after the Wallis scandal gripped the world and Wallis was castigated for being American.
Tis a pity that the Wallis "American" PR took such root as a pejorative.
Today, there are several Americans of married into the aristocracy.
I can see Princess Michael being that way, and I imagine that she'd have found a way to insult Harry's American fiancée another way, even if she had been a blue-eyed blonde.
Absolutely agree that Nutmeg dug her own grave with her behavior and that the vast majority of people inside the palace and the general public welcomed her warmly.
I certainly didn't mean to accused every one in the UK of not liking Americans, and apologize for coming across that way!
Remember how it was described what kinds of friends would attend, only the best A- listers, negative Covid-19 tests in hand, to sit by the circular fireplace made of only the best stone, with only the best hor d'oeuvres served.
This latest article has the same feel as the firepit article. None of that ever happened. Completely made up in someone's imagination.
On the other hand, I hope they have quadrupled William and Catherine's security.
That whole article was a little creepy, stalker-ish, with a scary undertone.
Why would they want their kid trained in the ways of a country that they needed to escape from because it was too awful?
Her snotty childhood face in several videos and photos have over the past year given me an uneasy feeling, like there is more wrong there than is known. It may only be a brat of a kid, but to me, her expressions are unusually cold and cruel, and thus, chilling.
@Puds, €Mel,
I have the same concerns. The Queen needs to remove H from the line of succession immediately. Much will change and drama will lighten once that is done, because for Megs, that path will be finally permanently closed to her. I think the U.K. will breathe easier. Security measures for the Cambridges then need serious attention as well.
That's what I'm looking forward to in Sam's book. How did MM become the type of person she is today? We've seen the tween MM and how she treated her father, but how does Doria fit into the picture in terms of MM's development into a grifter, with all of her tricks and scams? Was there anybody else on the scene as she got older who helped her develop her "craft"? And her superiority toward others because she feels she is "whip smart."
We've all seen children who've been overly spoiled as teens and young adults, but I've never seen anybody as ruthless and conniving as MM.
"Like a fully formed adult devoid of empathy in a child's body full of scorn for all around her".
Yes, some of her photos show such rage toward others, and they are very chilling. Especially when she looks at Catherine.
It worries me also that William, Kate and their children travel together. You never can be too careful these days, and that's all I want to say about that. You get my drift.
Blogger jessica said...
Has any other journalist decided to write a book into a deep dive of Meghan? An unofficial biography?
Tom Bower is working on a biography on Markle. I imagine Covid may be hampering his research, though, so who knows when it will be published. Personally I can’t wait for it.
Ah Maneki
Forgot about our glabrous, glabrate
and her show n tell on
Craig Ferguson!!
Rebecca - I’m trusting Tom Bower
to deliver the goods, someone has to!
Silent Witless
Besides dropping her kegs
Megs is on her last legs
She’s clearly not got much choice
All those bridges she burned
As she preached, and she gurned
Has left her with little, to no voice
The Awokening
Haz stood on the burning deck
Wondering how to save his neck
Should he grab poor Archie boy
Forgetting that, he’s Just a toy
As he called out, in mid-scream
he realised, it’s not a dream
Tell us more WildBoar?
From the couple who screech every damn day about Privacy and media invasion they are writing their sons narrative?!
The child cannot be real. How utterly cruel and despicable. No one does this to their kid because it will come back to screw them up.
Prima Facie
Megsie with her airs, and graces
Showed the world, her multi changed faces
The face she gave to the palace
Couldn't hide her spite, nor her malice
Her grabbing with glee, of that royal liberty
Resulted in deserved mockery
https://twitter.com/megancontimica/status/1352560109839409152?s=12
A couple days ago Orthopedic Surgeons cup their belly in solidarity with their co-worker whom is 38 weeks pregnant AND make complete fun of the Meghan Markle pose. 2,000+ likes. From Medical Twitter (#medtwitter) which is the dominant thread for medical professionals.
People think she’s crazy, everywhere. LMAO.
Negflicked
Meg thought she’d be getting big checks
From the big dollar Netflix execs
Billionaires by the end of the year
Whatever’s gone on
Netflix Spotified their con
Megs and Harry are out on their rear
Jugged Heir
Neither Meg, or Harry are able
To recite a line from Aesop’s Fable
If they’d taken a look
From this ancient, wise book
The hare with no grace
And the tortoise slow pace
They’d know, slow and steady windsor race
Perhaps our duo should be renamed hairless and hapless?
That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it's not as bad as you imagine and they are to be found everywhere and no where.
Princess Michael is too easy an example to single out for snobby behaviour since she's a known poster child for it and is not above being snobby about anyone and everything including The Queen. She reminds everyone of her grand aristocratic lineage that dwarfs the Windsor Royal lineage according to Almanach de Gotha.
As for the Queen Mother, she gave as good as she got. And infact, Wallis was determinedly snobby to and about the Queen Mother which shows that being American wasn't a barrier to being snobby about a person's roots. Wallis frequently used the mocking nickname Cookie about the Queen Mother to both tease her about her appearance AHD to remind people of the rumour that the Queen Mother was supposedly the daughter of the family cook rather than her aristocratic father.
On the flipside The Queen Mother was snobby about Prince Philip, a man born a literal Prince of Denmark and Greece unlike her. She thought Philip was not sufficiently grand enough for her daughter.
Likewise Diana was snobby about Prince Philip and once reminded him that her own birth title and therefore lineage was better than his.
The same Diana who was equally snobby and grand around middle class Sophie Wessex when she first came on the scene. Yet The Queen and Queen Mother adored Sophie from day 1. Likewise The Queen and others have adored Autumn Philips from day 1, a canadian born of working class parents.
A man unafraid of publishing the unvanished facts about his subjects.
Oh goodness, if we give the article the benefit of the doubt and Meghan's the one teaching him royal etiquette - well, we've all seen how much she knows/cares about that...
It's also got me thinking, if she's whispering in his ear that he's the true heir to the throne so he has to be ready blah blah, exactly how messed up will that kid end up? I know it's been discussed that Harry had issues from childhood in believing his status should be higher than it was, but at least he had the rest of the BRF around while growing up who could keep him somewhat grounded and behaving to an extent. I have a horrible feeling that poor Archie (assuming he exists) will end up in an even worse position than Harry was regarding sense of entitlement etc as all he'll have to learn BRF history/etiquette from are his parents and the hired help (unless he goes to school, but I think there's a very high chance he'll end up being home schooled by a hired tutor). I can't see the hired help trying to keep Archie grounded or explain to him the true situation, they'll most likely just double down on whatever H&M are putting into Archie's head so they don't risk losing their jobs. I guess when he gets old enough he can do his own research, but unfortunately by that time there's a chance that his parents will have convinced him that every source that isn't them is lying...
'His books include unauthorised biographies of Robert Maxwell, Mohamed Al-Fayed, Conrad Black, Richard Branson, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson.'
Here is an old (2007) article from the Guardian, with the headline 'Publish and be damned' and this excerpt:
This combination of puritanism and meticulousness may explain why his biographies so often end up as a mixture of devastating financial revelations and an oddly obsessive focus on sex. So, plenty of material there for him.
I do hope he's writing her biography, it can't come out soon enough. It should be warts and all as this seems to be his style.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/mar/13/biography.media
Lest not forget Kathleen ‘kick’ Kennedy,
JFK’s sister.
Married Lord ‘billy’ Cavendish,
heir to the Duke of Devonshire.
The Kennedys were against
the marriage, due to his protestant religion.
It is widely believed that the baby Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was born at Glamis Castle, their ancient seat (from the 14thC) and summer residence in Scotland. Her birth, however, was registered in England, at Hitchin. The families main residence was at St Paul's Walden Bury in Hertfordshire, the `big house' at St.Pauls Walden, near Hitchin.
Apparently, Lord Strathmore (or Lord Glamis as he was then) himself registered the birth, thereby acknowledging the child as his and his wife's. She was therefore legitimate, regardless of rumour. He was, however, said to have been roundly reprimanded by the Registrar, as he was so late to the task that he'd broken the law.
I imagine that, as could be expected of any good, manly Scottish lord of the time, he had been at his castle on the edge of the Highlands, waiting for the `Glorious Twelfth', the start of grouse shooting, expectant father or not. The imminent birth of his 9th child was presumably a trivial matter compared with the importance of the 12th of August - a landowner's overall reputation could be badly damaged if his guests did not get a good `bag', thanks to a badly-managed moor or shoot.
The only evidence for the events of 4th August 1900 is in the Register. In the eyes of the Law, the child was legitimate.
Can't remember who wrote that American girls were generally excused any faux pas of etiquette. An English girl wouldn't get away with it because she should have known the right thing to do. Was it Nancy Mitford who said it?
Btw Princess Michael, aka The `Valkyrie', is of Austrian, German and Hungarian descent - a rather different matter.
WildBoar
Sounds like Nancy?
Deborah Mitford became
Duchess of Devonshire by chance.
Chatsworth is magnificent.
Those Mitford girls, wow!!
Love ‘em for their individualism’s
Princess Michael - so passe
The Awokening!!
I hear the street mobs chantIng this at the limo if the duo ever dare return to London...
AnT - and tossing curlicued bananas!
...upon which are curlicue-written, “We want no Nan Bullen”!
Which leads me back to JennS
and Megs short and curlicued!! 😉
You are right about Americans in the aristocracy. Due to Wallis being derided by a PR campaign that saw all her difference to the English as a reason to judge her character and conduct negatively, the issue of her nationality being one of those differences which has expanded into an 'truth' that anyone who shares her nationality is unwelcome in the aristocracy despite all evidence to the contrary then or today.
As for European aristocracy vs UK aristocracy, there is always an existential battle to decide which is more prestigious depending on where your lineage originates.
Both sides think they are better than tye other. And Princess Michael's lineage emcompasses trophy aristocratic lines from various European countries which in her mind makes her superior to all. She frequently boasts of it which prompted the infamous sarcastic comment from The Queen about Princess Michael being much too grand for the British royal family in reference to her lineage.
Meanwhile every aristocrat who can trace their lineage to the Normans is considered the grandest of all on tye UK side. You have the Percy family ( George Percy was briefly in the spotlight as a pitehtial Pippa Middleton suitor).
These Norman aristocracy look down on all newer titles as arrivestes which would include the Spencers (Stuart Aristocrats) and The Windsors ( Hanoverian / Saxe- Coburn - Gotha/ Windsors aristocrats)
Diana and The Queen Mother can look down on Philip because his Greek titles don't count in UK and his Edinburgh title was created (3rd creation) in 1947 compared to their Spencer family and Strathmore and Kinghorne family titles respectively.
On a different note, love Nancy Mitford. And the Mitford sisters generally. What eccentricity!!! And Debo showed them!! Lol. No one thought she'd end up with the grandest marriage of all.
AnT
Nor Peg Pullen!
Sod Off Megs
When all is told
We’re from the same fold
Confusion in language exists
At the end of the day
We’re here for fair play
To see Meghan Markle, Megxits
I just noticed your new avatar 😂😂😂
I do hope he's writing her biography, it can't come out soon enough. It should be warts and all as this seems to be his style.
Amen to that!!
Rebecca - I’m trusting Tom Bower
to deliver the goods, someone has to!
I agree 100%!!
This is the look that all of the organizing experts with YouTube channels aim for. No books, no magazines, no pictures all over the house of the nearest and dearest, no past art projects of children and grandchildren on loving display, just a very sterile-looking environment.
It is far less time-consuming to clean, though, so there's that.
If Hairy Face finds himself more comfortable in that environment over the lush excesses of the ancestral homes, I wonder whether he may have a sensory processing disorder.
Peg Pullen!!!!! 🤣🌹👏
On the other hand, maybe he's just an addict and doesn't even notice.
/Sorry, my mind is wandering waaay off the road this morning and ending on meandering pathways.
@Rebecca
Cloven hooves says it all!
Interesting theory!
So, it must drive him batty to be around a whirling word salad maker with flying wig tendrils, bathrobe belts, strappy soiled stilettos and long waving octopus arms, and her splayed hands throwing avocado husks into the air, or affixing sparkly medals to his cemetery-visiting suit.
However, she does seem to wear a lot of plain white, beige and black wrinkled clothing now. You may be onto something!
And, your theory could certainly explain why gaudy tabloid front pages freak him out, and why he is more comfortable with the plain pink silent plastic doll for his day-to-day son (versus the round two year old they sometimes fly in to employ, and the crayoned image of George they deploy). Hmm! Well done, SwampWoman!
"The videos that we have seen of Hairless All Over and Hairy Face are staged in what looks like a house for sale with blank slate decor. They have a few "coffee table" books on display on a shelf (that nobody reads; they are there for the look). It is less "homey" than an inexpensive hotel room or a hospital room....
If Hairy Face finds himself more comfortable in that environment over the lush excesses of the ancestral homes, I wonder whether he may have a sensory processing disorder."
Maybe. Seems to me the pictures we've seen of the Montecito interior are pretty similar to M''s Toronto duplex. Not my taste. And if Harry likes it (or thinks about it at all), he probably just thinks it's more "youthful" and "modern" than his "stuffy" ancestral homes.
M does seem to favor the "hotel" look. Even the 5 friends article talked about her laying out robes on her houseguests beds as though it was a hotel (and her guests might have arrived for a visit from all the way across the Atlantic without bringing nightclothes.)
I must be singularly lacking in hospitality because if guests have forgotten their nightwear, they can go buy some. Ain't nobody got enough closets for that.
Good point about the “mansion” interiors resembling Meee’s Toronto rental. The Scandinavian White House trend re-emerged in the late 1990s thanks to IKEA, and shops like The White Company made the most of it, and that would be in keeping with her era of reference. Trends then slid to include Boho and mid century revival and today 20- and 30-somethings are going into grand millennial styling. Which definitely makes the Harkles’ living room set look so much like a non-updated, mid price hotel.
The robes: Remember, Meee was merching for Soho House’s Soho Home brand at the time, the same product line that carried Archie Harrison dishes and serving ware. For all we know (per the ever dark and silent Frogmore House), the guests WERE staying at a SH with her, by the way.
The Soho Home robe is made of “spun recycled polyester” according to the site, so one hopes one’s guests didn’t glide too close to the Soho Home candles or H’s lighter, or Meee’s own fiery thirst for fame.
Someone I know is on the spectrum. Getting them to change clothes is nigh to impossible. If they had their way they would ever only wear one outfit. They hate textures, in food or clothing. And no bright colors.
Loud noises, or a lot of noise at one time as in crowds, make them intensely insane. They can only handle that for a very few minutes.
Change is hard for them to handle. They have to be prepped a lot in advance.
Not that H is this bad. At least he wasn't. But maybe sunk further into the disease as he aged. Or as mm encouraged or forced him off his meds.
So....now another thing to consider. There is a genetic component to all this. Is it possible that his child, if he truly exists, is further along the spectrum? Looks don't reveal this disease. The person I know looks perfectly normal. Looking at them you'd never know there was anything wrong. And yet life is an everyday struggle for them. I could see mm being embarrassed by her less than perfect child.
M does seem to favor the "hotel" look. Even the 5 friends article talked about her laying out robes on her houseguests beds as though it was a hotel (and her guests might have arrived for a visit from all the way across the Atlantic without bringing nightclothes.)
I remember that article, was it just pre- or post-wedding, where some 'friend' or other was singing her praises for welcoming them with such hospitality and warmth to NottCott, must have been, laying out plushy robes and slippers (from the Soho House Harrison line, naturally), and how she poured them afternoon tea like a pro, homemade scones, the lot.
Lies, all lies. Meg was still flogging the idea of herself as a lifestyle maven and curator of perfect Instagram shots of her fabulous life. But everything she's got is basically rented, borrowed, stolen or faked. It's not surprising that she favors the 'hotel' look . . she's basically lived in hotels or accommodations lent to her by others since leaving her father's home.
A couple of dorm rooms at NW before the Incident which mysteriously has her leaving the main campus for the last half of her college career. If she lived in the sorority house, I don't think that lasted more than a year.
Wherever they accommodated her during her stints at the Argentine embassy and Spain, which she also claims to have done a semester in.
After finishing school, whenever that was, she seems to have immediately hooked up with Trevor and moved in with him for the next seven years. There may have been a brief period when she crashed at her dad's or, more likely, Thomas rented her an apartment. Again, not more than a year.
Then the move to Toronto, where her role on the show came with the lease on a studio-owned apartment . . a nice apartment but nothing grand. She seems to have spent little time there after hooking up with Cory and the Soho House crowd. She was either shacked up at Cory's or staying at Soho Toronto or else traveling around. Our Mugsy has spent a lot of time in Soho hotels round the world and various other floating properties. (The preceding is for entertainment purposes only and constitutes my opinion. :))
Then she met Harry, moved out of Cory's, was released from her Suits contract, packed her stuff into storage and jetted off to become a Duchess. It's just been a little over three years since she got engaged to JH and in that time, it's been a veritable merry-go-round of temporary homes:
The Cotswolds property conveniently situated minutes away from Soho Farmhouse. There's no proof the couple ever stayed there, but Harry was able to get some money out of Splash News for their drone pictures of what appeared to be a deserted property.
Various London hotels
Windsor Castle for a few weeks, 'post-birth'. This was when Meg was allegedly picked up by Windsor Great Park police drunk off her face and also when she turned up at Wimbledon with her two friends also in a visibly altered condition.
Frogmore Cottage, if that fantastical saga is to be credited at all.
More hotels in London, Ibiza & a stint as houseguest at Auntie Elton's pad in Nice
The Russian oligarch's remote mansion in Vancouver Island . . if we believe that. Meg & Aitch were papped in the area, but that is no proof that they actually lived in that palatial estate for more than four months. We were meant to think so, however.
After a desperate (luxurious, private jet) flight across the border in the dead of night, a summer at Tyler Perry's modest extra home in L.A.
And now, Mudslide Manor in Montecito, if we can believe THAT. The bland room they broadcast from could really be anywhere. If they are staying there, I think it's a rental because the owner can't find a buyer, and has been renting it out to film production companies per diem. With film production largely shut down for the last year, Smirkles was able to rent it for cheap. Perhaps her 'pal' Oprah let them know it was vacant and available for leasing. I guess it remains to be seen what happens with their 'forever home' if/when all their media mogul deals are cancelled and that legal bill comes due.
Have I missed any?
In Meg's lexicon 'forever', be it friends, houses, job commitments, lasts no more than two years. But she loves the blank canvas that hotel rooms are--short-term luxury with no commitment and no personal touches because she herself is a blank person, a tumbleweed, a non-entity. She invests in nothing but the short-term cash-n-attention-n-hedonism grab.
Is this the lifestyle of a parent with a very young child? Hmmm . . no.
If Hairy Face finds himself more comfortable in that environment over the lush excesses of the ancestral homes, I wonder whether he may have a sensory processing disorder. Hairy Face not only seems to prefer the more sterile environment, but he appears to prefer to wear the same clothing over and over and over again. I have noticed that people that are overly stimulated by lush visual environments also like their clothing simple, comfortable, and the same.
On the other hand, maybe he's just an addict and doesn't even notice.
This is a very good observation. Haz did make that comment about the whirring and clicking of flashbulbs setting off PTSD. I dismissed that as pure bollocks when he said it, but perhaps he was revealing something. If we look back at years' worth of photos of Harry, pre-Meghan, apart from more formal occasions when he was compelled to dress in uniform or a suit, he's always dressed down in very similar-looking clothes to the ones he's got now. If they aren't the same exact items, they are identical styles. I thought it was just a manifestation of 'Rebel Hazza . . Nobody tells me what to do and I dress as I like 'cause I don't give AF and Granny can stuff her stuffy rules right up her arse." Comparatively, William's more casual wardrobe is always neat and classic. Wills could pose in a Burberry catalog; Harry looks like a grubby skater punk that hangs out outside of the Indian takeaway, chainsmoking and talking smack at passersby. This predated Megsy, so he's always been a trial to his sartorially conscious family.
If he were indeed on this spectrum, that would have/should have ruled him out as a member of the armed forces, Prince or no. He really didn't seem to be bovvered by a sensory processing disorder when he was toting rifles around in Afghanistan and playing with helicopters. He could have claimed a medical discharge, except I don't think that's what happened.
There may be a touch of this, especially if he's off whatever medications he's been prescribed. Unchecked recreational drug use and the increasing hopelessness and irrelevance of his life and role in it can't be discounted. The facial hair usually looks neat, which surprises me, since he cares so little about his clothes.
The Soho Home robe is made of “spun recycled polyester” according to the site, so one hopes one’s guests didn’t glide too close to the Soho Home candles or H’s lighter, or Meee’s own fiery thirst for fame.
I didn't even realize that it was possible to recycle polyester. How hilarious! Not even her 'favorite' textiles are authentic but are as plastic and fake as she is!
I have read many places that Narcissists have no aesthetic sense or taste . . just another of their many handicaps. They are so consumed with self, they cannot step outside of themselves and judge artistic standards . . whether sublime or tacky, it's all the same to them. That is why they tend to be obsessed with prices and labels. If something is 'designer' and expensive, and therefore elite, it 'must' be the best by default. They rely on this kind of pre-made directive because they cannot distinguish beauty from ugliness themselves. Somebody with true style can wear a dress from Walmart and make it look like it's expensive. Mugsy wears a $10,000 designer gown like it's a Walmart item. Taste is intrinsic and she has not got it.
I always look at the back of Harry's neck. Most of the time, it's scraggly and uneven, even if the hair on his head is neat. It looks like MM gives him a trim for a haircut, but never shaves his neck.
Interesting about narcissists having no aesthetic sense. That explains MM's clothing and interior design choices.
And you're right about MM having zero taste. She can be so far off on her outfits, makeup and hair. Doesn't she see the same thing that all of us see? With Harry's same shirt, and the wrinkled clothes, I picture a huge pile of clothes, all mixed up on the floor, and Harry and Megs having a free for all every morning, digging through the piles of clothes to grab anything to wear that day. I cannot see either of them having a neat and organized closet. They just choose from the pile on the floor, including the yak wigs.
When she married A A-J in 1960, there was quite a fuss about his divorced mother. Divorcees were not permitted in the the Royal Presence - lest it signal Royal acceptance of divorce, not on for the Supreme Governor of the C of E. So where could she sit in the Abbey?
Margaret chose the Succession.
If only Harry could be `persuaded' to relinquish his place, it would be a relatively simple solution...
It says everything that he hasn't gone for this option, even if it would have given him the private life he claims to crave.
I forgot to add that Harry's beard is his outer manifestation that he is now a man. It's the only choice that he's made himself, and his ego makes him keep it trimmed and neat. That's all he's got to remind him that he's a man and not a little boy. Beards are also a way of hiding the true self, like a mask.
Indeed. However, one thing about military life is that it is *very* scheduled. You are on duty from X to X and you will perform specific duties. You eat breakfast at this location at this time. You eat lunch at this location at this time. You eat dinner at this location at this time. While the PR folks may have touted the idea of Hero Harry, I somehow doubt that he was placed anywhere that he may have endangered others or been in danger himself. As people have noted, he did not do well in the military; however, he has done even worse outside. He may function best when leading a *very* scheduled and predictable life.
I have seen the video of the woman briefly interviewing Meghan that is claimed to be the source of the story about Meghan having a child.
It is a 'celebrity' golf event. The woman doing the interview is the PR who arranged it, but never represented Meghan (and had probably not met her before that day). It was not an A-lister event so the woman got what she could through agencies, i.e. Meghan as a celebrity caddy for the event.
Darn it but I cannot find the video now, but, nope the part about Meghan being a mother is not something I remember from the video. Keep the following in mind:
The PR woman organizing the event and doing the interviews was tired and probably knew little or nothing about the C-list actress desperate to promote herself and be seen everywhere. IF Meghan had a secret daughter why would she tell a woman she does not know and keep it a secret from the rest of the world? How contorted does your story have to be to try to make this true?
If anyone can find the video (uncut and un-doctored), I would grit my teeth and watch it again and post a transcription of the interview.
If true, that put MM and Harry right in the White House, and puts MM one step closer to running for office.
However, how can a prince of the BRF become so entwined in US politics? Anybody think HMTQ will act on this (if true) as that is a direct influence of a Brit prince involved in a foreign country's politics?
one thing about military life is that it is *very* scheduled. You are on duty from X to X and you will perform specific duties. You eat breakfast at this location at this time. You eat lunch at this location at this time. You eat dinner at this location at this time. As people have noted, he did not do well in the military; however, he has done even worse outside. He may function best when leading a *very* scheduled and predictable life.
The other advantage to military life is that one is told exactly what to wear, and when, and has a very limited range of clothes to choose from. Summer and winter uniforms, dress blues; fatigues. Harry has his civilian 'uniform'; too bad he didn't feel more comfortable in something a bit more presentable. Even the guys who work at Best Buy or similar are more neatly attired than Haz.
We can see by the events of the past year that Harry is NOT thriving after 'finding freedom'. Elizabeth R runs the Royal family very much like a military unit, with strict schedules, protocols, wardrobe standards, meals . . and an event calendar you can set your watch by. She has lived her life by this predictable clockwork for almost 95 years and it seems to have reaped benefits. Harry certainly functioned better when he was being managed within the fold. If you compare Harry's looks and demeanor circa 2015, when he was fresh out of the Army to now . .only 5 years, and the decline has been extreme. It's a wonder he didn't derive more comfort and security from his regimented life in the RF, since he speaks so fondly of his Army days . . I think it's the having to defer to William, honestly, which was the sore point.
I did not realize that Samantha is so well educated, far more so than Meghan. And she has achieved so much in her life despite having a disability from a young age. I guess she must have little time for the self-pitying whining of her entitled precious sister, or for her grand view of herself!
Yes, Noelle, Samantha's first child, does look similar to Meghan. A while back I posted a link to a story in the UK press (pre-wedding) of Meghan's family, including photos. Back then, no one thought Meghan would ghost her entire family, except Doria.
Just a thought, and not even a theory ... do you think Meghan thought that such accomplished women in her family might overshadow her?
I remember that video, too. And I remember that the woman definitely says that MM had a child. I can't find the video, either, though.
@SwampWoman,
Interesting theory!
So, it must drive him batty to be around a whirling word salad maker with flying wig tendrils, bathrobe belts, strappy soiled stilettos and long waving octopus arms, and her splayed hands throwing avocado husks into the air, or affixing sparkly medals to his cemetery-visiting suit.
...................
**@AnT
ROTFLOL! What a delightfully hysterical visual this conjures up!
Thanks for my first bust-a-gut moment of the day!!!