Here's a fresh post to continue discussing Sussex news and developments.
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
Also that he made the same money mistakes repeatedly (p 176) - hence the need for her to support him. What they are is not specified.
1983 Doria leaves, MM is about 2
1987 or 1988 TM sr divorces Doria
1990 TM sr won the lottery and gave Sam a car and TM jr a jewelry shop which failed and then he declares bankruptcy the next year. FF does not state if any money was given to Doria.
1999 MM graduates from high school
2002 Doria declares bankruptcy (supposedly from the failure of the travel agency)
2003 MM graduates from college
2006 to 7 MM starts on Deal or No Deal
2008 Sam graduates from college, Doria is alleged to be working at Didi Hirsch (mental health services)
2010 Doria allegedly stops working at Didi Hirsch
2016 TM sr declares bankruptcy again, tax debts are alleged (not all tax debt can be discharged)
2015 Doria gets license for social work
Harry claims that MailOnline never made the donation they claimed they had.
Harry has supposedly been given a huge amount in damages, personally. He says he will give it to Invictus Games.
@Hikari
The Vocal Yokel
The voice of no reason
Should be held up for treason
She’s determined to have her own way
Whatever she says
Eventually betrays
It’s all about fame, and more pay
Thanks for the timeline from FF. One point:
Doria does not have a social work license. There is only one SW license in CA, the LCSW. She doesn't have one.
https://search.dca.ca.gov/
She registered as an Associate in Clinical Social Work (ASW) in 2015. Although one registers through the licensure site, the ASW is not a license. It does allow a person with the MSW to accumulate the hours of supervised practice required to sit for the licensure exam. One must take 2 years to accumulate 3200 hrs of practice. Some people take longer but not 6 years! (Unless one can't pass the exam but I think 6 years is the max any of time that can be taken)
Meghan may not know the difference or hopes nobody else will. I'll bet Scobie certainly wouldn't. Or Doria may have misrepresented her credentials even to M.
Know this is kind of minor but not really. It's sort of like when people keep acting like there is no difference between a licensed pilot flying helicopters and being a co-pilot.
Strained Relations
Something’s afoot
In the Montecito hut
Nothing is quite what it seems
We’ve not got the handle
On their latest finagle
But the tea seems to be pouring
in streams!!
"Apologies for posting this in bits and pieces:
Harry claims that MailOnline never made the donation they claimed they had.
Harry has supposedly been given a huge amount in damages, personally. He says he will give it to Invictus Games."
The media is carrying Harry's PR spin on the situation.
The DMonline offered to make the donation and went ahead and published their offer as a done deal because they'd accepted their wrong doing.
Harry refused their offer because he wanted to be the one to make the donation rather than allow them to make the donation.
Then he spins the facts to claim that they didn't make the donation aka they lied, and that HE is magnanimously donating his damages. Nevermind his part in stopping their donation.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-harry-wins-substantial-23420878
Thank you. And I agree that such things are minor to most of the participants.
page 175 to 176 FF
Picking up with Sam and TMjr going public with assorted claims of being shunned by MM (both siblings and she had taken advantage of her father and "... leaving him forgotten, alone, and bankrupt."
According to FF, this was untrue. He had always had money troubles, that "contributed" the divorce. Doria did "...a variety of jobs, including designing clothes, and running a small gift shop before obtaining a Master of Social Work from the University of Southern California in 2011 and earning her social work license in 2015." No mention of a travel agency.
Page 176
A mention that MM wanted to take on the role of financially caring for her parents ("...taking on that heavy psychological burden...") at a young age (unspecified). And then that she started sending TMsr money when she got the DoND job "...for seven episodes-a steady paycheck she gladly shared with Thomas to cover bills and other living expenses. She loved him and had faith that he just needed a little help to get back on his feet, even if he would often make the same financial mistakes over and over."
IDMB has her in 34 episodes. It was not a super short gig for her.
Observations: Many families do not talk about money, how to save or make good decisions on how to spend it. Add in that being in that particular industry, I get a sense that there is a lot of focus on the appearance of this level of lifestyle or that level. It would be hard to be around it, seeing people living a glittery existence and not want it or be able to hear a lot of hard conversations about why we can't do this but we can do that from a parent. And, she was not an only kid when the others probably may have been looking for some help from TMsr (right as he was dealing with all the normal childhood expenses of MM before you add in the private schooling,etc).
To extent that he will lie about the DM's offered settlement just so he can have that lie recorded in court documents.
And He tells on himself even as he tells the lie.
I also noticed the timeline you pointed out about Meghan and her "BP made me change the names" misinformation.
Their office was definitely under the BP umbrella by then.
Sometimes i wish BP wasn't so wedded to their silence PR strategy, but then again, when they do leak, it's been glorious to watch because they've exposed Meghan in a way that she can't explain away. .
It’s interesting that Sam goes on about how close they were when in FF, they talk about how MM was never close with either half sibling, didn’t spend much time with them and that they were basically nothing more than acquaintances. That the photo of MM at Sam’s graduation (the one where Sam looks uncomfortable and is leaning away) is the only photo of them as adults.... that there are only a handful of photos of them together. I wonder if Sam will include a bunch of photos to contradict that.
lavender lady, I feel your pain. There is a dark force here who is trying to run certain posters away. I feel bad for the mods, but am very grateful for their help.
The amount DM had to hand over to Harry so that he could donate it to Invictus Games is being kept a secret. Sounds very fishy to me.
It must have been hard for the older children to see mm given everything her little heart desired when at the time of their childhood TM couldn't afford to offer those things.
Not that they begrudge it to her, but hard nevertheless.
And then to see her express no gratitude for what she was given. Just ended up being a spoiled, entitled brat. And their dad broke and heartbroken.
I love all your verses, but you get a rose and a latte today for "The Vocal Yokel"
The Vocal Yokel
The voice of no reason
Should be held up for treason
She’s determined to have her own way
Whatever she says
Eventually betrays
It’s all about fame, and more pay
The behavior of the egregious duo is so terrible, and escalates without moderation. If they were living in 1621 or 1721 or even 1821, they would have very likely been executed for treason against the Crown, particularly Harry, as the blood royal. His 'queen (in her own mind') would have been possibly executed as well, or kept imprisoned in some remote tower in Scotland . . or banished. In those days, banishment meant, set foot on British soil again on pain of death. Now, of course, the Internet and jet travel makes it impossible for any corner of Earth to be suitably remote for exile. The California traitors just never shut up, and we see their pictures and hear their yapping so often, it's like they never went anywhere.
What a shame Charles and the rest of the family never took a firmer hand with Harry when he was an adolescent. Whatever Diana's mistakes in encouraging H to regard himself as William's equal (or even superior) . . she has been gone since he was 12. For two-thirds of his life, he's been allowed to run wild, untrammeled as a weed. It seems that every conceivable mistake has been made in his family's dealings with him. Knowing his limitations as they did (while doing their best to keep them hidden from the public), Harry's family was shockingly cavalier in allowing him to get embroiled into this marriage. He's not competent to make important decisions and he was a sitting duck as a target for unsavory people. I'm starting to favor a quickie Botswana marriage as a means of forcing Granny's hand to giving them the huge blowout spectacle & the titles. QEII couldn't have outright prevented them getting married, but she did have a say in what that would look like. Was there no statute she could have invoked to the effect that due to Meghan being non-British and formerly divorced, a giant COE state-sponsored blowout on television was not possible, nor was a title, until such time as Meg fulfilled her citizenship requirements. The spectre of a registry office ceremony & having to wait 3 years to be called 'Duchess' would have made her bugger right off in search of a more lucrative target.
Meg was already a hardcore Narcissist when she bagged her dimbulb Prince, of course, but ER only fed the beast by giving her a Princess Bride wedding, titles and practically unlimited cash. This debacle is going to go down as the biggest error of ER's reign--trumping Diana's death week and Aberfan and any other minor flaps. It didn't have to happen, but when these two middle-aged permanent adolescents that never met the word "No" collided, a perfect sh*tstorm has ensued.
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-slammed-judge-over-tabloid-criticisms-ordered-pay-mail-sunday-costs-1565800
I'm reading Patrick Jephson's book about MM. He is the former personal assistant to Diana. He says one of HMTQ's faults is that she can't say no.
It's interesting to read how he writes about MM. He obviously sees all that we see with MM, but he covers it by saying, "I hope she doesn't..." when she already has.
Lady C said things are going on behind the scenes. I wonder what they are.
If so, £2500 sounds like a nominal/derisory/contemptuous damages award to me - that's one-fourteenth (approx 7%) of what he wanted- enough to say `Yes, technically it was a libel but it's so petty the case shouldn't have been brought'.
Or did the Mail make a conditional offer that they'd contribute to Invictus, if he dropped the case? That would be admitting they may be in the wrong, but not very much. Only idiots make unconditional offers at that stage - I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that any offer would have been accompanied by the phrase `without prejudice' so it is of no consequence if it's refused.
Or is that what the Mail has to pay in costs or costs awarded against Harry?
All is clear.
Expect attempts at vengeance to be redoubled.
--------------
Think he'll run it thru Archewell and keep most of it?
Transparency is needed here. Why a secret unless you're up to no good?
Pretty funny...judge said H's words were unduly tendentious and were deleted or amended. Haha. Suppose mm and Scoby wrote it?
If it gets to Invictus intact is anybody's guess.
`Costs' are different.
This may well be a precursor of what will happen with Meghan's case, and everyone will repeat the story of the triumphant win and forget she was exposed as a liar among other things.
Human beings are strange. I have been coming across the adamant and confident statements that Princess Anne and Timothy Laurence are separated - the marriage is over. Not true at all. And I don't know what or who the source is. Whatever one says, whatever evidence one supplies, the falsehood continues to be repeated and gather followers to make sure it is passed on.
A Palace source says Meghan herself instructed her team to effect the change in Archie's birth certificate. Meg is a liar.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markles-extraordinary-rebuke-palace-23422958
"'Meghan Markle's extraordinary rebuke of Palace has caused bewilderment - but why do it?'
In a firm statement, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry denied the removal of her name from Archie's birth certificate was a 'snub' against the Cambridges and insisted royal staff were the ones who made the change
It’s fair to say the latest row to involve the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s camp has been met with a sense of bewilderment by many in royal circles.
First was the emergence of a subtle, yet significant, change to the birth certificate of Harry and Meghan’s son Archie.
An eagle eyed royal watcher spotted the change - albeit 18 months after the event - showing two alterations to the document in June 2019, a month after the royal tot was born.
A resulting Sunday newspaper article posed the question as to whether Meghan had herself insisted on the change, perhaps as some form of nod to her late mother in law, Princess Diana.
But at its heart there were in fact two changes.
The omission of 'Prince' alongside Harry’s name was simple enough to correct , a challenge us mere mortals will thankfully not have to contend with, although particularly important for historical record one could argue.
Meghan Markle says Archie birth certificate change 'snub' was 'dictated by The Palace'
Latterly was Meghan’s alteration, but on first examination the original document appears to be entirely accuratw.
The amendment, which garnered the attention of the royal sleuths, saw Meghan's names dropped in favour of stylising the former actress simply as 'Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex'.
A range of royal experts queued up to deliver their verdicts - ‘Unprecedented’ cried one, ‘extraordinary’ said another, as one more declared (quite sinisterly) that perhaps ‘this was an early part of their plan’.
Within hours, palace sources attempted to quell the initial outcry, with the suggestion that both changes were down to “clerical error and nothing more than that".
But no sooner had daylight broken on the West Coast of America, Meghan has instructed her spokesmen to publish an extraordinary rebuke of the Palace, suggesting it was they who “dictated” the amendments, while calling out “senior Palace officials” as the culprits.
Royal sources have revealed this has been met with a sense of “bewilderment” in the Palace.
One royal source revealed to me that Meghan ordered her staff to make the change to Archie's birth certificate in order to "to fall in line with amendments she'd already made to her passport".
The amendment was made by Meghan and Harry's personal team when they had their own staff based at Kensington Palace, who in turn reported to Buckingham Palace, so the sharp rebuke of "the Palace" makes even less sense."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markles-extraordinary-rebuke-palace-23422958
It seems I was initially correct and their staff were still using the KP offices. And it was Meghan who ordered the change. A narc must always be in control, dominate. Harry was reprimanded for getting t wrong and she had to fix it!
I believe the above report.
I have been struggling to understand why HMTQ caved in to all of the despicable demands and gave MM everything she wanted, including the HRH title. Surely with MM's past, the signs of disaster were there to see? I cannot imagine the BRF didn't order a thorough background check on MM which would have exposed every unsavoury detail of her past.
*
I have wondered this too on many occasions. I came to a conclusion that the tea must be true about blackmail. And that the internet has been scrubbed.
That's all I got but it makes sense to me.
Trying, trying to make out the end game behind this PR about Archie's changed birth certificate. Whatever the point is... or was... it has been released now by someone for a clear purpose.
Meghan is crafty. She's not 'whip smart', she's crafty. But so are the gray coats at BP. I gotta mull this one over. I'm sure reading some of your excellent analysies will help the mulling.
Given names are a different matter
A baby's name is registered under Civil Law and as we've seen, that entry itself cannot be changed.
If a baby is christened in a church service, ie baptised and named simultaneously, in what is regarded as a sacrament (a rite which is an `outward and visible sign of God's inner, invisible grace') it cannot be changed by Civil Law. It's been given under ecclesiastical law and the records are kept indefinitely. A live birth still has to be recorded in the Civil Register though (a lot of confusion when the law changed in 1837!)
When the clergy officiate at a CofE weddings, they are in effect Registrars. That goes back to when the clergy were the only civil servants
As a judge once clumsily put it, a `Christian name' was `given by God' so his Court couldn't change it.(We have to call them `forenames' or `given names' now, of course)
I do know 2 people who `changed' their names at other sacraments: a school friend changed her given name at Confirmation; and a widowed aunt when she remarried in church. They may just have added extra names by which they were then known. I'm still not sure if they can drop the original altogether.
Pity Rachel didn't think of that when she was baptised just before the wedding. She could have been `Meghan Tinkerbell Markle', who dies if people don't believe in her and clap.
Does she really hate `Rachel' because it has Jewish connotations? Isn't that just a tad racist, for all that she claimed to be Sephardic?
Here, one is married under one's full, formal, clutch of given names (no surname). Diana made a mess of Charles's names: Charles Philip Arthur George. And people were astonished that Harry's really Henry, not realising that royal Henries are often known informally as Harry or Hal.
Meghan is crafty. She's not 'whip smart', she's crafty.
*
Yes she is. As my mother would say, "crazy like a fox".
"But no sooner had daylight broken on the West Coast of America, Meghan has instructed her spokesmen to publish an extraordinary rebuke of the Palace, suggesting it was they who “dictated” the amendments, while calling out “senior Palace officials” as the culprits".
*
Thanks for this! I read the article and all I can say is she has some bodacious audacity.
Balls of steel, that her hubs could no doubt benefit from a borrowing on occasion.
"the court will not permit them to be misused"
"claimant cannot seek to use a statement in open court as a platform for collateral attacks on the defendant."
The quotes below from the Judge show he is aware that Harry was using his money to punish the DM by creating an open court hearing that cost as much money as he demanded which is why he only awarded £2500 instead of £35,000 being sought. I also think this is the same reason he made Harry part-pay the DM's costs:
"Prince Harry's solicitors' costs for the application for the unilateral statement in open court—just short of £35,000—are manifestly disproportionate.
"No litigant of ordinary means would reasonably consider spending such a sum on this exercise.
"The agreement of a statement in open court in this case (that respected the proper purposes of a statement in open court) should have been a straightforward exercise and achieved at modest cost."
I think that every Judge dealing with civil proceedings at the high court is aware of Harry's vendetta against the media and his desire to use the courts to punish them. Not simply to correct the record.
Meghan is heading the same way with her court cases.
In nearly every case they bring, the Judge reprimands them before awarding a token / minimal in damages. Sometimes they simply let them win the argument without awarding any damages.
They will find themselves poorer for it as the judges award tiny damages against the vast sums they spend in litigation. Especially as they keep throwing away money by insisting positive mediation results favouring them require an expensive exercise in self-regard and a platform to lambast their enemies in open court.
And they don't seem to recognise that their lawyers are ambulance chasers with an eye on the swiftly increasing coffers courtesy of the foolish Sussexes. At no point has any litigation showed a restraining hand by the lawyers. To the point of the lawyers being reprimanded several times by the Judges AND looking foolish at each hearing.
All the lawyers care about is the money they are squeezing out of the foolish Sussexes.
The lawyers refusing to restraining them will lead them down a cul-de-sac of being labelled vexatious litigant at which point no court in the land will hear any legal case they bring. And Granny or Daddy Warbucks can't undo that.
H & M are slogging on. I see Harry released another preaching video. Meghan drops off radar when her press becomes really bad and pushes H forward to do the 'work'.
My preliminary analysis (LOL... don't I sound self important!?) of the birth certificate thing is that it was released by Meghan's camp and the secondary story about how the change was dictacted by the RF was released by her as well. I think that she has seen the backlash regarding not taking Archie to England to see his family. The purpose of the story is to show that Meghan has 'endured' treatment at the hands of the RF regarding Archie so that she can be seen as having reasons not to take Archie to see the Royal Family. She wants the public to see that the RF has tried to erase her, thus more or less trademarking, for lack of a better term, Archie as the product of the Royal Family- the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and leaving her Rachel Meghan Markle, out of the picture, which she greatly fears.
The big problem is that the general public just doesn't delve into these things as much as we do. The whole thing just sounds like more b.s. to make smoke, create drama and to muddy waters. The general public, especially in these weird times, is easily agitated. I can't imagine what could possibly give Meghan good PR. There's nothing because she's so snaky. The only time she received any shred of good will was during her pregnancy and at the birth of Archie. She managed to goof that up with all the crazy game playing.
When Meghan said her ordeal at the hands of the public was unsurvivable, it's because she could not come up with a way to improve her image at all. So as all good narcs do, she just threw herself into whatever she wanted and basically f her image.
Harry has never had to work in his entire life so he doesn't know how hard it is to earn money, that's why he and his wife are wasting money on frivolous lawsuits.
Also notice that not for one day have we heard that they donated even £30,000 pounds of their own money to charity. If there is, i can't remember. We only hear fund rasint from their Sussex squad into some charities. That goes to tell you where their priorities lie. They would rather spend millions on lawyers just to be vindictive and for vengeance than give those millions to those in need.
They are bleeding money but they are not earning anything significant yet.
How do you see the palace response? My feeling is that they have completely cut her off. The last time they mentioned her by name was on her birthday which was 10 months ago but when the review is done and they are officially retired as working royals, there would be no more birthday wishes on the royal family's social media accounts. Even after her miscarriage oped when BP responded, she was never mentioned by name. The palace simply said they sympathise with them but want to respect their privacy.
When the palace released a statement about the repayment on Frogmore, only Harry's name was mentioned. When they released a statement after the video asking people to vote, BP released a statement but never mentioned her by name but Harry's name was mentioned. Anything that happens more than once is not a coincidence. The palace are deliberately refusing to acknowledge her existence and its driving her crazy.
I think on the one hand, they were afraid of being called racist if Harry's bride were seen to not have the typical fairy tale wedding accorded to other royal brides, (not realizing it was inappropriate because of her divorces) but also wanted to tout having a WoC in the family and were happy to give a big event to drive that home.
And also undoubtedly to soothe Harry's ego. I can just about see him stomping all around in a rage, insisting his bride have everything Catherine had.
Have the CoE relaxed its rules about divorcees remarrying in a proper church ceremony? That upset me more than anything.
Angela Levin, Harry's biographer, was on talkradio today revealing that she did some research on this birth certificate saga after Meghan claimed the palace demanded the changes. Below is a summary of what she said:
First she rang the Palace for more details and was told firmly that all enquiries about Meghan should be directed to Archiewell - note the change ie last year the standard answer was to redirect all enquiries to SS who were her official representatives after Megxit.
Angela duly contacted Archiewell via email and within 10mins received a response that simply regurgitated the press release already covered by media.
Angela replied by asking for more information contained within the press release specific to the Palace demanding the name change and got no response.
Between Palace response to any enquiries about Meghan and their obvious omission from anything involving the Sussexes, it's very clear that she is in Siberia. Never to return.
The article about her staying behind while Harry visit alone is a very clumsy attempt to cover this fact. She'd rather it's implied that she's choosing to stay behind or is a coward who can't face the family which are both possible.
However, in my opinion it's more likely that she's completely unwelcome as in don't show your face here again. Ever.
Archie's absence is currently being blamed on her, but it actually works out in Harry's favour because it makes him look more of her powerless victim who is holding their son hostage when in reality he has as much agency over the boy as she does and if he wanted his family to meet Archie he would bring him instead of pretending that it is all Meghan.
On Lipstick Alley they keep pointing out that for all his perceived weakness, Harry is actually in control because one sign from him and his very powerful family will rescue him & Archie and leave her behind while making sure all doors are closed to her in the same way that all their celeb friends ran for the hills at Megxit because the Crown always wins.
I'm swayed by that argument.
Knowing the greedy Meghan and how cash strapped they are currently, I'll bet that is her intention too. To keep everything under cover of a foundation. I'll bet Harry is none the wiser.
"Have the CoE relaxed its rules about divorcees remarrying in a proper church ceremony?"
CoE relaxed rules around divorced couples remarrying in church in 2002. They are allowed to have a full church wedding.
Charles and Camilla had a registry wedding followed by a church blessing in 2005 because of the scandalous nature of their relationship upto that point.
There was so much feeling around their wedding that to appease everyone they went that route.
'I cannot imagine the BRF didn't order a thorough background check on MM which would have exposed every unsavoury detail of her past.'
______
This the $64,000 question and we've all wondered about it. Could it be that the BRF did a background check - surely they must have done - but MM forced a wedding by claiming to be pregnant - remember how the relationship was shortly before he engagement (Invictus, Skippy's wedding etc) then lo and behold, they're engaged. Once a fortuitous 'miscarriage' happened, it would have been too difficult to backtrack. Who knows.
I'd had enough of Megalo's snarling face and have changed my avatar to William 'scarfing' her.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markles-extraordinary-rebuke-palace-23422958
One royal source revealed to me that Meghan ordered her staff to make the change to Archie’s birth certificate in order to “to fall in line with amendments she’d already made to her passport”.
--------------
so she was able to change her passport from Rachel Meghan to the Duchess of Sussex without her actual name? I find that hard to believe. Her passport has to have her full name & date of birth on it. Maybe under occupation it says DOS?
The Dastardly Duo might have gotten small signing bonuses from Netflix and Spotify, but now they have to produce in order to get paid. Meaning their productions have to attract consumers to watch and listen.
When is their next podcast on Spotify? They really need to podcast at least twice weekly to get it off the ground. When on you-tube Joe Rogan put out 2-3 podcasts per week.
________________
As far as woke goes Charles has Harry, Megs and the other Royale dilettantes beat. He advocated for the Great Global Reset last June
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8384549/Prince-Charles-launches-Great-Reset-project-amid-coronavirus-pandemic.html
The Great Reset is the name of the June 2020 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) bringing together high profile business and political leaders convened by the Prince of Wales and the WEF[1] with the theme of rebuilding society and the economy in a more sustainable way following the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] In her keynote speech opening the dialogues, International Monetary Fund director Kristalina Georgieva, listed three key aspects of the sustainable response—green growth, smarter growth, and fairer growth.[3][2][1]
A speech by Prince Charles at the launch event for The Great Reset, listed key areas for action—similar to those listed in his Sustainable Markets Initiative, introduced in January 2020. These included the re-invigoration of science, technology and innovation, a move towards net zero transitions globally, the introduction of carbon pricing, re-inventing longstanding incentive structures, rebalancing investments to include more green investments, and encouraging green public infrastructure projects.[2]
Re: as to why BP has let her get away with murder.
So far we have some great guesses:
1. Racism fears
2. Blackmail
3. pre-marital pregnancy
I agree with "Who knows"???
This is her go to in her playbook. Keep everyone guessing. It's maddening.
I find comfort in the knowledge that everyday her "star" becomes a bit more chipped, faded, tilted and flickering. Hopefully to be found soon in the 99p bin along with her stupid book...
P.S. love the new avatar. Will's scarfing is one of my favorite Royal moments.
"I have been struggling to understand why HMTQ caved in to all of the despicable demands and gave MM everything she wanted, including the HRH title. Surely with MM's past, the signs of disaster were there to see? I cannot imagine the BRF didn't order a thorough background check on MM which would have exposed every unsavoury detail of her past."
I'm sure a very thorough background check was done. That being said, I'm also confident Handbag threw a big fit and what Harry wants Harry gets. As to the lavish wedding, I've always thought Charles was behind that. Sort of along the lines of "Harry is a Prince of England and will get what a Prince deserves" kind of thing.
Above all else, the R card.
But looking at the wedding details, much "Royal" is missing. Carpet, top vendors (cake) etc.
And really. does Harry have any friends left there? If I was his friend and invited to wedding and lunch only, not evening bash over Hollywood celebrities he didn't know, well I guess we wouldn't be friends any more
And I'd let him buy his own drinks after that.
Would like to hear people's thoughts on what LCC said "things are going on behind the scenes" means.
My personal opinions include: 1) military appointments gone at the end of March. 2) No Royal balcony appearances. You want to see TTC Harry? Here's a ticket now get in line with the other private citizens. 3) Harry since you live in US now, no need to bother with being a Councilor of State. We're giving it to Beatrice and she is so grateful!
I'd really like to see 4) and oh by the way Love, we're taking back all titles related to Sussex, Dumbbarton, and Kilkeen. Do enjoy your Mr and Mrs titles however. This won't happen but I can dream.
https://youtu.be/8C3uvyjRU2g
maybe it's main aim was putting Sam's book in the shade
--------------
That was my first thought, distract from her sister's book. And also Catherine's selfie video. Catherine was getting a lot of positive press. Can't have that.
I don't agree that its the Sussexes that leaked the Birth Certificate story to overshadow Kate or Samantha. Its actually Lady C that leaked it to The Sun and she confirmed it to Daily Beast.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/buckingham-palace-says-meghan-markles-office-changed-her-name-on-archies-birth-certificate
Points to note in the article
1. Lady C leaked the information and says she will be digging deeper into Archie's birth
2. The Sussexes camp are livid with rage and believe that there was a conspiracy to use the Birth Certificate story to overshadow what they describe as Harry's"BIG WIN" against the MoS. They wanted Harry's win to be the main story but are frustrated and angry that the Birth Certificate saga has overshadowed it.
3. Meghan is still insisting that its the Palace that removed her name but when Daily Beast asks her team if she would change the name and put back her first names, she declined to comment.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rjmyers/status/1356373064544616448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1356373064544616448%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
He was in court complaining that the DM apology wasn't headline news, and next day they lead with this......
Meanwhile the Palace pushback on that birth certificate story is gathering pace. More and more papers are carrying the story from the Palace POV.
They are definitely trolling him.
Would like to hear people's thoughts on what LCC said "things are going on behind the scenes" means.
*
I went back to watch LCC's newest for the third time. This is what she says:
"He is setting himself up for the most massive fall. Harry is determined to make as many enemies as he can, out of people who relish freedom of speech. He is going to use every opportunity to push a censorship agenda. What does that couple have to hide? What secrets are they guarding so jealously, insidiously, so determinedly, and carefully?" ... and
"he is trying to muzzle free speech not just in the US but here too. He needs to be very careful because he occupies a position of vulnerability."
I take this to mean IMO, he is pissing off a lot of high powered people, most likely in the political arena, which we know does not bode well for the RF.
I would love to hear other's thoughts on this, and expound on what this could mean as far as what effect it could have.
LCC latest vid.
Not asking to discuss politics specifically just some broad views on how this behavior of Harry's could effect the mainstream. Possibly a referendum against maintaining a RF?
That would be explosive. And tragic in my opinion. I believe they bring a lot to the table. I don't view the RF as an archaic institution but one rich in culture, history, sentiment, and nostalgia for the British people.
I love the fact that the palace is pushing back on Meghan's lies. But I'm still wondering why she released that angry statement. Is it because she's upset that her former aides have said they will be giving statements in court or is it because the palace has cut her off and prevented her from attending royal events? Something definitely triggered that angry response and I feel it's a combination of both. What do you think?
Harry’s causing problems for the monarchy. I think they’ve learned some lessons with vetting people. We don’t see Eugenie or Bea’s husbands acting atrocious.
The good news for the RF, which they have been doubling down on recently, is Wills and Kate. Pushing that family forward will only strengthen the Monarchy. Times are changing, but they are playing that card very very well.
"Harry’s causing problems for the monarchy. I think they’ve learned some lessons with vetting people. We don’t see Eugenie or Bea’s husbands acting atrocious."
While that's true about Jack and Edo, I'm not sure those were lessons learned from Harry's situation. Of course, the York princesses weren't working royals and that makes a difference. Plus, Eugenie and Jack had been dating for around 7 years before marrying, and were a serious couple long before M was in Harry's life. Bea and Edo not so long as that but Edo was known in "UK society." Maybe he was a jerk to his son's mother, maybe he wasn't. But he was still more of an already-known quantity than M.
I think the major issue is Harry though. Harry and the fit he probably threw about marrying M and Harry now and what a POS he's turned out to be. He was probably always a bit that way behind the scenes with the RF but now more see it.
but are frustrated and angry that the Birth Certificate saga has overshadowed it.
-------------
That makes more sense.
Fussing about something else overshadowing their news, eh?
Turnabout is fair play after the times they did that to the BRF.
Especially to Camilla who had done nothing negative publicly to them, and had worked years on her project. I always thought that was a dirty rotten stunt to pull on Camilla.
The good news for the RF, which they have been doubling down on recently, is Wills and Kate. Pushing that family forward will only strengthen the Monarchy. Times are changing, but they are playing that card very very well.
*
I agree. They are the hope going forward. This is why the pushback is strong from the Sussex camp.
I apologize, but I can't get my cut and paste tool to work properly on the story, so I'll simply offer the link
Please be aware...the story may be triggering.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/833542/harrys-forgotten-girl-tragedy-of-12-year-old-who-moved-prince-to-tears-then-abandoned-by-his-aids-charity/
That story is just so sad and infuriating! The only thing Harry likes about SA is that he can party until he drops. He doesn't have the capacity to care enough about anything but a photo shoot, leaving this poor girl in the most horrible conditions. Deplorable!
I've seen this happen with Angelina Jolie and Sean Penn, two other do-gooders who only want photos and money for their "charities."
Jolie does close-up photos of the children she's "trying to help" around the world, but I once saw a close-up of her tending to a child just like Harry, then the camera panned out, and she is standing there surrounded by reporters. She also left a young girl tied by her ankle to a tree. Just left her there! How can any human being do that?
Sean Penn's photo said he was helping the extremely poor people in Haiti after the earthquake. The caption said something like, "Penn is working hard with the locals to off-load a truck of supplies." But if you looked at the photo closely, everything was covered in layers of dust, including the Haitians. Penn was wearing a navy blue shirt without a speck of dust on it. Maybe he changed clothes for the photo, but I doubt it.
All of these charities are just money-makers for the elite. A few nights ago, I watched a movie where a rich guy says all he has to do is keep bringing in money to his charities, and he gets his cut, so he doesn't have to work.
@Barbara and Lavender Lady
'I cannot imagine the BRF didn't order a thorough background check on MM which would have exposed every unsavoury detail of her past.
@Maneki Neko: It may have been the type of background check to check for a criminal record and to make sure she was legally divorced from Trevor and anyone else she may have been married to. They probably also ran a credit check, but perhaps they didn’t delve into her character.
If the RF learns anything, they should also do a psychological check on anyone who is in the process of becoming a serious boyfriend or girlfriend of anyone in the line of succession and certain other family members. After the debacle of Meghan inserting herself into Harry’s life solely for personal gain, I think if a person has genuine intentions, they will understand why.
At the very minimum, the Queen’s rule that about dating at least five years should be reinstated at the minimum for anyone in the line of succession up to the place in the line succession where they still have to ask the monarch for permission to marry.
If this rule had been applied to Harry and Meghan, we likely would not be having this discussion or any discussion about Harry and his predatory wife. Meghan would have quickly moved on to look for another victim. Time was running out on her career because she had mediocre talent at best and her eggs were getting older and fewer as each month passed. According to a Page Six column in 2019 or 2020 by Cindy Adams, Meghan was well known in elite circles in the UK and on the Continent as a woman who was on the prowl for a wealthy husband. Her main target was Harry, but she would have settled for less as long as he had money and viable sperm to produce an insurance policy/ weapon for Meghan.
For royals covered by this rule who throw a petulant fit and refuse to abide by the rules, allow them to marry, but they must give up all titles including those by birth and also give up benefits from the sovereign grant or the Duchy of Cornwall, plus no grace and favor homes or benefits from similar sources.
They can live as untitled citizens and make their own way in life.
Seems there is another error in Sam's book where she says Tom paid $250,000 per year for college fees and accomodation. I think college fees are about 24,000 per year.
It seems her maths is best not be relied upon for accuracy. Shame because it does seem to confirm Tom paid for tuition and accomodation when Megs claimed she paid those herself. Megs must have paid for her living costs after get some help/grant/award with that from the University I think”
—————
$250,000 is most probably the 4-YEAR m cost, including expenses. Based on our experience, all costs were about $65,000 per year, including all school and extracurricular expenses, trips home, and whatever, at that time period. Also, most students these schools receive some financial assistance or a scholarship. Only a minority pay the full amount. Samantha may have not have been aware of loans and partial scholarships that MM may have had. In any case, I am POSITIVE that it did not cost $259,000 per year 1999-2003 to attend any college in the US.
As for Harry and his refusal to accept that he lost those titles, it's more evidence that he genuinely believes the megxit consequences are a temporary technical mistake to be remedied later rather than reality as he told Greta.
It's actually very revealing about how he was treated behind the scenes - like an ill-manhered toddler who is put in timeout when he misbehaves until he calms down before his privileges are restored except he is 36yrs old and still expects the same treatment.
The fact that he would say that in a court of law shows he thinks the transition was simply toddler timeout whilst he sorted himself out before everything was returned. Perhaps that was part of the reasoning behind the cemetry stunt.
I think the family should have replaced him straight away instead of leaving all those titles and patronages vacant for a year.
The other day talkradio had a serious interview about Harry with a lady from an organisation in the uk called the free speech union. Serious peopoe that you'd never expect to follow Harry's nonsense.
The lady went into detailed diatribe about powerful forces and money determined to remove free speech, and not just the usual suspects like the tech giants.
She said that Harry by hapstance or design was aligning himself with these people and they would use him to gain their goals.
It doesn’t *cost* that much, no, but lifestyle differences between students matter in that number. Some kids go to university absolutely loaded. I think she played the game and used her dads money to do so.
I don't see any way she could have a British diplomatic passport.
Unfortunately, Meghan has gone to the extent of blatantly lying to a judge about co-operating with Scobie for FF, so it is highly likely that she lied to their staff about the name on her passport.
So much for maternal feelings for a newborn son. There she was in Frogmore with newly born Archie and she was working on her branding as HRH The Duchess of Sussex!
It's nothing of the sort - it's a derogatory award, just small change to H, although more than one farthing was worth in c1880:
"Whistler won the case, though he was awarded just a farthing for damages and refused costs. The Nocturnes, brought into the court upside down and lampooned in the press, were now unsaleable. Whistler was subsequently declared bankrupt. Ruskin was appalled by what he saw as Whistler's moral victory and resigned his professorship at Oxford. The fallout from the case affected Ruskin and Whistler for the rest of their days."
https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/art/articles/2018/july/10/why-whistler-sued-ruskin-for-libel/
Sadly, £2500 can seem a great deal of money to people who have little.
Btw: A farthing was one quarter (a `fourthing') of one old penny ie one 960th of £1 sterling. In my childhood, it would buy one Black Jack chew (tho' the sweetshop preferred to sell them at 4 for an old penny) - it was worth more of course in Whistler's time.
So, when former staff say they made the change under the orders of Meghan, they are correct.
"$250,000 is most probably the 4-YEAR m cost, including expenses....Samantha may have not have been aware of loans and partial scholarships that MM may have had. In any case, I am POSITIVE that it did not cost $259,000 per year 1999-2003 to attend any college in the US."
I agree its not possible TM spent $250K per year on university expenses for M. And I agree that on paper tuition costs often aren't what students actually pay at private schools. I was finally able to find Northwestern's tuition costs for 1999-2003 on the Chronicle of Higher Ed. (Definitely a reliable source) Looks like tuition alone on paper (not including fees, books, and room/board) would have been slightly over $100K for those 4 years combined. (M claims she went to summer school as well so would need to add that cost as well as the cost of staying on campus.)
https://www.chronicle.com/article/tuition-and-fees-1998-99-through-2018-19/
So I'm not sure I buy that $250K is likely to be the total TM spent on M from 1999-2003. Even with discounts, we're talking about attending a pricey private school 2000 miles from home. And remember, we're talking about Meghan!
Who would have thought anyone could spend so much money on clothes while making relatively few royal appearances? I realize she wasn't wearing couture at Northwestern but I don't doubt she could burn through lots of money and consider it her due. M's massive over-consumption didn't start with capturing Harry. Remember the 100's of pairs of shoes she proudly showed off on the Tig? I guess I'm just not a shoe person but all I could think of was Imelda Marcos.
And most college kids in the US don't spend time in South America and Europe-- that would add extra costs to attending college even if extra international travel wasn't part of the picture as it apparently was for M. And while I'm not at all sure I believe the super glue hazing story, I'm sure other sorority costs were huge, including the private room cost.
Somehow I doubt M was eating Ramen noodles and Easy Mac, shopping thrift stores, and straightening her own hair during those years!
Never used her degrees, and is a stay at home mom now. Some people use school to husband hunt. :) that’s probably what Meghan was doing and it didn’t work out. She met Trevity trev trev soon after in LA right? One guy to the next. Upwards and onwards is Meghan’s motto.
Do you think the Bc is an honest Harry mistake then? With Portland(w1) verse Lindo/Paddington (w2)?
When filling those out, in these times, we have smart phones to check addresses. Meghan’s outrage over being caught out again on something idiotic has me thinking we are getting closer to the truth of Archie.
Sandie, to get a passport in the USA you need to provide copies of your birth certificate. Meghan’s would only say ‘Rachel Meghan Markle’. She can change her passport name upon marriage providing the marriage certificate. I have no idea what their marriage certificate claims Harry as (can anyone get a copy in the UK like you can do in the US??). Maybe she took Rachel Meghan Windsor?? Regardless, I highly doubt the US government would print ‘HRH The Duchess of Sussex’ as her name on a passport. For one, we don’t recognize US citizens having royalty. Not in a formal way that I know of. Second, there’s no chance she can fill in airline tickets with a title. She has to use a name.
I think she lied again and created another absurd can of worms where nothing she preaches adds up. I don’t think it matches her passport, and I think she only changed her name on the BC for branding purposes. She might as well start owning it. If she’s going to be a weirdo and blatantly grift, just lean into it more so we can understand the story being sold to us. Lol.
It is exhausting trying to make sense of Messy Megsy!
Meanwhile, the media is not impressed by Harry's attempt to claim a victory and 'stick it' to MailOnline. He seems to have done more harm than good to his reputation, despite some supporters (including in the media) claiming a victory for him. (On the positive side, he did get some money for Invictus Games, but it would have been more if he had accepted the initial offer, let MailOnline pay it directly, and not done the vanity stuff about reading the statement in court.) When will he realize what the common denominator is as they go from one mess to another?
You'd think his time in the army might have given him a window into normal life, but alas......
On the flipside, if Harry is the standard of normal within the family, Yikes!!! Lol.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9213465/Buckingham-Palace-denies-Meghans-claim-officials-dictated-change.html
The other day talkradio had a serious interview about Harry with a lady from an organisation in the uk called the free speech union. Serious peopoe that you'd never expect to follow Harry's nonsense.
The lady went into detailed diatribe about powerful forces and money determined to remove free speech, and not just the usual suspects like the tech giants.
She said that Harry by hapstance or design was aligning himself with these people and they would use him to gain their goals.
*
Interesting.
It's possible Harry is pissing off people on both sides of the aisle, people with or without wealth. And rightly so; there's just something smarmy about a senior member of the Royal family discussing such inflammatory subjects especially in light of his grandmother's stand on the issue. It appears deliberate IMO, for whatever reason as has been discussed here.
I believe in free speech as well. I try to not allow my pendulum to swing too far to either side so I work at maintaining a fair balance in my views. But this woke business is ridiculously unbalanced. I scoff at the notion that beyond decency and decorum, I won't be allowed to speak my mind without being cancelled.
It doesn't take a PhD in rocket science to see what the Hap's are up to. LCC hit the nail on the head when she asked what are they hiding. That's the crux right there...
and that they are both just a couple of entitled eejits who can't find their arses with both hands. Obviously...
Thanks.
Thanks for the link for the Sun article That's deeply disturbing what the young woman experienced.
I've studied charities in African countries for personal reasons. I am appalled by the glitteratti's exploitation of suffering individuals for personal gain.
I am currently working with a group to begin exploring how to introduce legislation which will create federal protections of indigenous tribes in many African countries. Tribal protection is long over due there. South America as well as North America has these measures in place.
I wish the article provided more on why the young lady fell through the cracks after Harry's visit and promise
To be fair, he has always come across as sincere in his work in African countries. Why would he do this? Was it after he met Meg? (which would be her MO). Smash and grab.
Presumably, registering a birth likewise requires an equivalent piece of medical certification, signed by the obstetrician or midwife.
-----
As far as I remember, I think the hospital notifies the local register office of the births, in which case, the register office must have a list of births in the local district. I don't remember having to produce anything from the hospital to register my children's births. I checked on Google and don't see any mention of paperwork from the hospital, you just state your details and the name of the hospital. So would Hairless and Hapless have been able to pull that stunt? Funnily enough, I cannot find a copy of Harry's birth certificate anywhere.
https://www.gov.uk/register-birth
@LavenderLady said…
The other day talkradio had a serious interview about Harry with a lady from an organisation in the uk called the free speech union. Serious peopoe that you'd never expect to follow Harry's nonsense.
The lady went into detailed diatribe about powerful forces and money determined to remove free speech, and not just the usual suspects like the tech giants.
She said that Harry by hapstance or design was aligning himself with these people and they would use him to gain their goals.
*
This is not my post.
As well as `lost in translation,’ we have `unfortunate’ to describe her using `dictated’ and there’s also `raises more questions than it answers.’
Whenever I hear that someone being described as `having an unfortunate manner’, I am left in no doubt about what a difficult cuss they really are.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/buckingham-palace-denies-meghans-claims-184331066.html
Is it just another in a long line of sloppy, half-assed mistakes because the pair of them are so arrogant and/or chemically altered, they can't be arsed to pay attention to minor details? Or--is this another form of 'The Devil is in the details'--when pressed to document an event that never happened, perchance--ie, the birth of an infant from her body as the mother on this certain day and time at this location . . . she lists the wrong location of birth on purpose so IF the birth certificate is negated on a technicality of improper address, the more salient deception--was a male child born to 'The Duchess of Sussex' at 5:26 am on 5/6/19 at the Portland Hospital?--is obscured?
Whether Meg intended to or not, if she is not actually the full biological and birth mother of Archie, she has granted her title of Duchess of Sussex to whoever did birth the child. Should Harry then substitute this woman as his wife, since on paper, SHE is the true Royal Duchess? This whole saga makes me laugh, but it's also pathetic in the extreme.
I guess I'm not entirely understanding why this change, purported to be made by Meg's staff a month after the initial birth certificate was lodged, is surfacing right now. The copy of the amended certificate we saw, dated 21 January 2021 was a certified copy of the document requested by a reporter, is that correct? The date of the amended certificate being filed would coincide with the window of time required to pass before a baby born of a surrogate could be formerly adopted by his genetic parents, right? 42 days/6 weeks. Was Meg compelled to remove her name because she was not the 'natural' mother? But that shouldn't be required, unless British adoption laws are different than the U.S. My sister has adopted 5 children from the foster care system. After their court hearing for formal adoption rights, each child was issued a new birth certificate with their new names, and my sister and brother-in-law listed as the parents.
Given the disastrous reception to their various money-making schemes to date . . don't we suppose if Meg had access to that child, she would have arranged for a photo spread in People by now? Archie is not going to get any cuter for the purposes of glossy photo shoots and an active toddler is much harder to wrangle for pictures than a placid infant would have been. These games with the birth certificate are indicative to me that Archie is used as a convenient prop, but isn't actually in their day-to-day custody. Who but a complete moron would not know the most basic details of his first child's birth, and present incomplete information to the registrar when doing this most important errand? At the time of the birth, Harry was ostensibly the most popular member of the Royal Family. If this child was real, and really his, wouldn't paternal pride mean he wouldn't want to c*ck up the matter of his only child's birth certificate? He had staff to remember that kind of thing for him. Yet they are saying the staff DID get it wrong? Why were such basic and blatant errors accepted by the registrar? Prince of the United Kingdom or no, if the street/postal code area is wrong, it needs to be corrected. Period.
I'm with the Palace: the whole saga is 'bewildering'. But only a high-wire artist who gets thrilled with telling big lies would want to stir up yet more controversy about her pregnancy and labor/delivery story and her status as a mother. If she's conned the Queen and the whole world about having this baby and caring for him now, then this is her greatest area of vulnerability. Yet she is basically playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun and DARING the whole world to out for her her lies. It's completely incredible.
It's because Meg is so very much like Casey Anthony (meeting the sociopathic marker for maiming/killing small animals for sport as a child) that I hope with every fiber of my being that she does not have any access to the child called Archie . . which is why she has to show us a painted facsimile of a child on a Christmas card. Because if we accept that M. and H. are the parents and have full care of a toddler who they have kept absolutely hidden away for most of a year, who they refuse to show or share with even his grandfather, uncle or cousins . . Archie could be in grave danger if not already dead.
Caylee Anthony was an active 2 year old when her Narc mother overdosed her on tranquilizers to knock her out so that she could go and party. When the little girl failed to wake up, she enlisted her dad to help her dispose of the body and then made up some cockamamie bullshit tale about engaging an Hispanic babysitter (because she had that fabulous full time job) who absconded with the tot and was never found. H&M seem like the sorts that could totally feed a baby Benadryl so they could party. Or perhaps in a Narc fit of rage over some toddler 'misbehavior' Archie gets some scalding liquid or a heavy object thrown at his little head? I think there is no line which Meg will not cross to protect her fantasy image of herself. None. That's why the situation with this couple is a hella lot more dire than some shenanigans with paperwork or whining in court over mean comments in a newspaper. A child's life could be at stake. If BP seems not to give two f*cks about the seventh in line to the succession (and it has given no indication whatsoever that it does) . . then that is a fair suggestion that there is no reason for concern over this child. Either because he doesn't exist, or the Palace *knows* he is safe arms and far, far away from the Montecito Morons.
Praying that this is the beginning of the end for all their scams and lies.
Here is the link to Lady C
Start it at about 5' as there is 5 minutes of stuff abt a competition. I'm going to listen to it now.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7uBqqp4BWI&feature=share
How is the hip, Tatty?
A member of the public requested a copy of the birth certificate and then contacted Lady C and subsequently the media.
Lady C makes the case for freedom of the press, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with her argument, but it is a good one.
She says that Meghan and Harry have bought this on themselves with their behaviour ('this' being the scrutiny and speculation and criticism).
Archie is not simply a private citizen but in the line of succession. Hs birth certificate is of public interest.
If Meghan and Harry want to be private citizens, Harry should be demoted to an earl!
As for surrogacy, there are valid questions but she was cautious about speculating.
She says that the birth certificates for Diana's and Sarah's children was wrong because you need their other names as a unique indentifier. The only person who can only put their title on the birth certificate is Queen Elizabeth II as she is the only person ever with that title. I disagree with her argument as at the time, Diana was the only Princess of Wales and Sarah was the only Duchess of York so the dates indicate which Princess of Wales and which Duchess of York.
Ok, from the palace spokesperson: the surrogate announcement that was purported to be from the Kensington website is confirmed to be a fraud announcement and not from them. (Which we all knew because it came from a tweet or IG generator... fake a tweet etc).
They did not reply to her question was Archie born of a surrogate (I wouldn’t expect them to reply).
She wishes she hadn’t written a book on Megan and Harry because now she gets a bunch of questions about Archie, which she blames on HAMS for conducting themselves in such a weird crazy (my words) way which made everything questionable.
She gets letters (not comments, phone calls or emails, actual letters) from all over the world with people who have questions about Archie and she regrets getting put in this position of trust from these strangers who have questions.
She has taken on a personal beef so to speak with Harry trying to muzzle free speech and speech on the internet and that basically she has taken it on as the point of the matter that she is willing to look into the Archie matter. She feels she herself has had a tougher time with the press and you don’t see LCC trying to shut anything down.
She maintains archie’s Birth is a matter of public interest. He was born to a member of the royal family and is in the line of succession. He isn’t just a private individual.
It appears that to Meghan, branding is more important than being Archie's mother.
Just my opinion!
UK: the birth mother is the legal mother because the birth of a child is an observable event, almost always with witnesses. The genetic parentage of the child doesn't matter, even if both the would-be father and mother used their gametes for in-vitro fertilisation, followed by implantation of the embryo in the surrogate mother.
The `parents' who want the child have to adopt it. It isn't legally `theirs' until they do.
US: the baby is recognised at birth as the child of those who commissioned it. No adoption required.
It looks as if the H&Ms may have slipped up, in addition to M possibly missing the point that birth of a child close to the throne has to be `of the mother's body' when the mother is legally married to the father. No test tubes, turkey basters or warming pans allowed.
Lady V thinks HAMS are dangerous.
Thanks for your comments. Adding travel expenses, her sorority expenses (often a wash in housing and food costs, as you are then not paying the university for them), and whatever else she could squeeze from Daddy, I don’t see how she could spend $1 million in 4 years, no matter how rich her tastes were. Good job finding the tuition, Lizzie. I thought it would be about 40K, so it was less than I thought.
People who were students with her at Northwestern recently have said the “glueing someone’s eyelids together” incident is not true and did not happen.
So after Archies birth by Megs or someone of course Megs needed to have a holiday. She must have needed to put Archie on her Passport and this is when a discrepancy was found, her Passport and Archies birth certificate didn't match, nor did Harry's. All that would be the HAMs responsibility or the security team?.
Still not sure why dropping her first name on either document was needed. Megs didn't know how she should be addressed by that stage? Still pondering on if Megs acquired a UK Passport without citizenship.
You cannot get a UK passport without citizenship.
A Child has to have their own passport.
Markle only has her USA passport, she probably updated it with her married name.
HRH, Duchess of Sussex is not her legal name.
With regards to dual citizenship, (she doesn’t have that either) you can only have one passport.
Interesting that Lady C starts off by saying this topic is very delicate and is a legal minefield — and she is stopping to gather her thoughts very carefully.
Yes, I thought so, too! I was also intrigued by the other things that she is hearing that she is *not* going to speak of at this time.
It is a very strange situation. I'll be waiting for the denouement with popcorn handy. As private citizens, their family is, of course, none of my business. As an heir to the throne, however, it is definitely the business of the citizens of the UK.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-6447#post-68042290
"Going by his own facial expression at his wedding I think he knew by then he'd bought a lemon but carried through and hoped he could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I can also speculate this realization increased his resentment of William and many of the attacks on William (Rose) were spite. He seems the type of personality to be pissed off and blame others when he makes mistakes. Here's Harry in this catastrophe of a marriage and there's stupid, pompous William with his oh so perfect wife and oh so perfect children, fuck him."
Hikari- YES Meghan and Casey Anthony are incredibly similar. Both born extreme narcs, sociopaths, and extreme liars, both with doting parents, mostly the fathers. Both attractive and spoiled even though their families were middle class. No cost was spared for these girls. The perfect recipe for complete breakdown in charactor. If you any of you are unfamiliar with the story of Casey Anthony, ugh, it's not pretty but it's a textbook, classroom case of this type of Attractive-Female-Born-In-The-Perfect-Storm-Of-Cicumstances Narcissm. Really makes you shudder.
Let's hope and pray that Meghan is NOT like Casey in that horrible way.... It does well to remember that Meghan needs Archie and needs him badly. Whether you believe he's a flesh and blood boy, or whether you don't, she needs the boy.
Could someone clarify requirements to be a “Princess”? I thought that Meghan can never be “Princess Meghan,” but is now entitled to style herself “Princess Harry” now because she is married to a royal prince. I read an excellent discussion on LSA about this, but can’t find it now.
I think if Lady C thought Archie's birth circumstances were straightforward and he was born 'of the body', she would have said so. I think she's the opinion there was a surrogate but obviously can't say so. Only my opinion, of course, but that's how interpreted her video.
She branded Hairless and Hapless "very dangerous individuals".
It's well worth a watch.
RIP Captain Sir Tom Moore. :(
By the way, I think Catherine wanted her names on her children's birth certificates as she is proud to be their mother, and to her children she would be Catherine Elizabeth (Mummy, of course), not HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.
It appears that to Meghan, branding is more important than being Archie's mother.
I think you have summed that up neatly. Yep. It would be a lot easier to regard motherhood and the child as simply a branding tool if the child never actually existed. 'Archie' was a construct in her mind before (or if) he was ever born, since she was registering/copyrighting variations on 'his name' before she was ever married. I believe the earliest ideation of 'Archie/Archewell/Archeway' was in April 2018. Most women fantasize about potential names for future children--but to trademark a business plan/foundation under the name of a child one hasn't even conceived yet (allegedly) takes some real balls. I think Meg was absolutely determined to trademark this company with some variation on 'Arche. I never pegged Mugsy for a Classics scholar, to be fluent in Latinate root words. I'd be willing to bet cash money that she's been looking for some excuse to trademark an anagram of "Rache" since her middle school days. So when this baby boy came along, through whatever means, in her mind she HAD to name him Archie . . (But we call him 'Arch', because . . Rach.) Having come up with Arche, maybe with the aid of Scrabble tiles aka Rosemary's Baby, she then tried to fit a meaning to it to make herself seem so idealistic and educated. I think it is a bona fide coincidence that an anagram of Rache happens to have a Latin meaning as well . .but the whole name Archewell is so convoluted and labored. Not even Harry knows how to pronounce the name of his own 'charitable foundation'. It's plowing similar ground as 'Travalyst'--another labored and nonsensical company name that is hard to spell or say. More word salad as corporate branding.
If 'Archie' had turned out to be a girl . . would she still have been named 'Archie'? Or Rachel? Meg seems to have abhorred the name Rachel, never having used it. She's always gone by Meg, even when monogramming gifts to herself. Which is why maybe she thought she was being Soooo clever with the Rache anagram that nobody but her would figure that out.
"Rache" (pronounced RAH-ka) is German for "Revenge", and features quite prominently in the first Sherlock Holmes story "A Study in Scarlet". The BBC series that aired now 10 years ago used this in the teleplay for the first episode. Not that I think Mugsy studied German or is a Conan Doyle fan. In the story, a murder victim is using the last strength in her dying fingers to scratch out the name of her daughter. In fact, this creature known as Markle is not fit to wear a name like Rachel, which is full of dignity and the history of suffering. She just offends me on every level.
She does say that the BRF are slow to move on some subjects, and that this is one of them, if they ever make a move at all. Patrick Jephson, in his book about MM, says that HMTQ finds it difficult to say no to people, especially her family.
@tatty,
I'm worried about "Archie's" welfare, too, if he actually exists. I've been saying that The Harkles could have presented "Archie" to HMTQ, but it could have been any baby that was presented to her. How would the BRF expected a scam of this magnitude? The only way they could have known that Archie was "of the body" at the time he was presented to them, they would have been to do a DNA test on the spot. If somebody presents a baby to you as their own, how do you really know that it is or isn't theirs by natural birth?
I think it's interesting that Lady C wants a witness to royal births again. I think a DNA test should be mandatory for all royal births after this fiasco.
@WBBM,
If this is a baby from another mother, how could Portland Hospital report a birth on the day that MM said she delivered? The obstetrician would have to have seen the live birth to record it. It makes no sense. Is somebody at Portland Hospital complicit in this ruse? This puts the hospital's reputation in jeopardy.
Look at the definition of "archetype" from Merriam-Webster:
"Definition of archetype
1: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : PROTOTYPE."
Hmmm.
One thing I've wondered since the beginning is how much free-speech covers. We are entitled to our opinions but to what extent? Where is the line drawn between what is an appropriate expression of opinion of a public figure and what could be considered liable? Harry and Meghan try to make a mountain out of every molehill. Lady CC tiptoeing around the Archie-possible-surrogacy story makes me feel that is one area that could bring trouble for discussing.
There are now about 8 reviews. Some 5's and some 1's. Obvious the M Sugars really blasting Samantha personally.
"Great overviews of Lady C's newest videos, everybody! I think Lady C made it somewhat clear that Archie is not of MM's body. She discusses the "bedpan incident" where a royal baby was smuggled in a bedpan into the birthing room and, in her unique and very careful way to as to not be sued, likens it to the Harkles situation."
The Bed Pan incident was a false rumour that was used to drive the legitimate King from the throne in a bloodless coup that replaced him with his daughter and SIL.
Since then, royals have made sure that there is no room for such mischief or any type of mischief surrounding their births and to reassure the public at large that royal babies are legitimate and were born legitimately.
Meghan and Harry have created so much obfuscation around Archie's birth that any rumour questioning his legitimacy is gaining ground as the preferred truth just like the bed pan incident.
And Lady C is saying that if a ground swell of people believe the false rumour to be true, the same fate could befall Archie and his parents parents as happened with the child and parents from bed pan incident or worse it could backfire spectacularly on the royal family itself unless they carefully manage the situation so that it doesn't affect them.
IMO, BP making clear they had nothing to do with the birth certificate is a good step in the direction of keeping themselves shielded from the shenanigans of Archie's birth.
A duke ranks higher than a prince so, Andrew, William, Harry use the duke titles.
Technically, Catherine can use the title and styling HRH Princess William; Meghan could use the title and styling HRH Princess Henry (now verboten for her ... the HRH part).
Prince Michael of Kent's wife uses the title HRH Princess Michael of Kent because that is the highest-ranking title he has (his brother has the duke title).
It particularly annoys me when Scobie calls himself a royal reporter and royal expert but insists on calling Meghan 'Duchess Meghan'. It is actually devaluing her because it is not a valid title, and is not recognizing the valid title, which is a high-ranking royal title, she has and can use.
"...... the "bedpan incident" where a royal baby was smuggled in a bedpan into the birthing room...."
Lady C is telling this bed pan incident wrong.
There was no baby smuggled in a bed pan.
The Queen had a public delivery of a baby boy as was custom which was witnessed by the usual court favourites.
Unfortunately the King and Queen were catholics in a protestant country and the new baby was going to be raised catholic which was not welcomed in this protestant country. Anti-catholic sentiment was very high and a catholic heir to the throne alarmed the protestant court, parliament and public at large.
A rumour was started by the King's enemies that the Queen hadn't really given birth, but had instead smuggled a baby in a bedwarming pan into her birthing chamber.
The rumour took off like wildfire because court enemies including the Queen's royal step daughters spread rumours that The Queen had pretended to be pregnant and they were unsure whether she'd ever given birth at all.
The hysteria of a catholic heir + a rumoured changeling presented as legitimate heir was the perfect excuse used by the enemies to 'invite' an invader from Holland ( William of Orange) to rescue England from this new "catholic tyranny".
The King gathered an army to face the invader, but chocked and abandoned it before any battle was engaged and fled to France with his Queen and baby son never to return. His son and grandson spent decades invading England and UK trying to regain their throne - the famous Jacobite rebellions, but were finally defeated at Culloden in 1746.
The defeated grandson lived an increasingly unhappy, pointless, drunken, messy life in exile with intermittent attempts at joining forces against his former country, married a few times, had several illegitimate kids. He lives on in popular myth as the plucky Bonnie Prince Charlie due to the heroic way he escaped Scotland after the defeat at Culloden, but the reality never matched the romantic fantasy.
"It particularly annoys me when Scobie calls himself a royal reporter and royal expert but insists on calling Meghan 'Duchess Meghan'. It is actually devaluing her because it is not a valid title, and is not recognizing the valid title, which is a high-ranking royal title, she has and can use."
Omid is wrong to call her Duchess Meghan. Only someone born of the title can use their first name with the title in that manner eg Princess Anne or Princess Beatrice or Princess Charlotte or Lady Diana etc.
That said using her Duchess title is correct because her titles are courtesy of her husband's titles and they do by the highest ranked title of duke which highest ranked courtesy title is Duchess.
Prince Michael, being a younger son, never received any peerage titles which is why his highest rank is Prince and his wife goes by Princess
His brother and cousin are also Prince ie Prince Edward and Prince Richard. However, they got higher ranked peerage titles of duke and that is why we know them as The Duke of Kent and The Duke of Gloucester respectively rather than by their Prince titles. Ditto their wives are Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester.
Portland has never officially acknowledged that Archie was born there nor given the names of anyone in the birth team. What was reported in the media (doctor who delivered Archie, and so on) was speculation and neither the Sussexes nor Portland confirmed or denied those reports. Even the reports in the media of the route to the hospital and who was in the cars was never confirmed by the Sussexes or any of their staff.
I am still sceptical about surrogacy because of the sheer number of people who would have to keep a secret, but I agree that the secrecy and baffling completely unnecessary nonsense around the pregnancy and birth are a creation of the Sussexes and give rise to and feed the speculation. Surrogate? Not likely, but possible. I think the root of the problem is that Harry and Meghan are a couple of arrogant and entitled brats who never appreciated nor understood the responsibility of their privilege and had no respect for those who bestowed that privilege on them.
Thanks for the "warming pan baby" story corrections. I didn't think Lady C's version matched what I had read but yours does. But I've also seen a version that claims the Queen did give birth (publicly) but the baby was sickly and died so a more robust baby was quickly found and smuggled in via a bed warming pan.
Mr Joseph Soap marries Miss Gladys Dish. Together they were called Mr & Mrs Joseph Soap, she being Mrs Joseph Soap/Mrs J Soap. Were she widowed she'd be Mrs Gladys Soap/Mrs G Soap.
That custom still survives but not as frequently as before.
The RF gave up trying to insist Diana should be called `Princess Charles...' and finally conceded, despite her not being of the Blood Royal. Prince Michael's sister is Princess Alexandra of Kent, both being children of the `old' Duke of Kent (Geo VI's brother Henry).
----------
Is it a case of `Harry Bonkers and the Half Blood Prince'?
----------
Sorry Lady C - I don't feel much compassion. Ask me again when they're both certified.
Thanks for giving me the real story of the bedpan incident. This is the first time I've heard this explained that way.
Does this sound like anybody else we know?!
Harry's been rumored to have at least one love child (a result of the wild weekend in Vegas that the BRF and security forces couldn't erase) . . and though chances are pretty good that he will not survive marriage to Meg, he might find another wife someday. Someone of Meg's caliber only even less choosy, because he'll be a washed-up, drunk past-40 by then.
Main difference being--Harry has done this to himself. He chose her; he alienated his family and all his friends and sources of support and ran away to exile. What's going ot happen in about 8 weeks' time when March 31st comes and goes, and he still doesn't have those military appointments back? Nor any invite to show off his uniforms?
Harry is extremely thick and prone to not listening but it seems like Granny was awfully vague if he is laboring under the impression that he will be reinstated as Captain General Royal Marines and get his shiny (faux) medals back. Apparently he has released a statement about Invictus being postponed for the second year running. Covid is a handy excuse in this case for him not being higher-profile with the veterans. The games are slated to happen in the Hague in spring, 2022. Will Harry still be invited? That remains to be seen. Were I the management of the IG, I would completely sever all ties with JCMHFKAP. He showed his true colors not once but twice--first Deal and then the Netflix fiasco.
ER has not done him any favors (or the Marines) by leaving the post in abeyanace, as though Harry has just taken a sabbatical of one year for some good reason. Did the Queen think he would reconsider and agree to come back to London after a couple of months, to get Hollywood out of his system?
Is somebody cutting onions in here? :(
Meg is a high-wire artist extraordinaire. She tells the most blatant fibs, which can be *easily* verified to be untrue with 2 minutes or less of the most rudimentary fact-checking. Asserting that one is fluent in a South American variant of Spanish, but is just too modest to 'perform' on request (or substitute French) is an example of a story she has told repeatedly without consequences, since hard proof that she's lying doesn't really exist. Rote clerical paperwork is another matter, but Meg is such pathological liar that she insists on doubling down and tripling down on her most ridiculous assertions even when they are PROVEN falsehoods.
*
Bear with me Nutties.
Recently @Acuitaine posted a link for Tony Ortega who runs the blog the Underground Bunker. Mr. Ortega has devoted his work to exposing Scientology.
In his blog he posts a comparative look at Ron. L. Hubbard and Elon Musk. It's an interview with author Jon Atack. Here's where it gets interesting and where I thought of Megsy. According to Atack, both Hubbard and Musk are fans of a very obscure book on power and domination. Ortega writes:
"Hubbard lusted after fame, wealth and power, and was clearly willing to abandon moral restrictions to accomplish his ends. By his own admission, Hubbard was a showman. He was a natural entertainer, able to captivate some people with his charm. It often took prolonged, close contact for those so charmed to see that he was arrogant, extravagant, eccentric and a liar on a grand scale. Even then many continued to believe in his genius.
Hubbard could be dismissed as a fabulist, a compulsive storyteller, whose exaggerations were harmless. But he was far worse than this. His avarice, coupled with deliberate deceit, became outright fraud. Hubbard plainly made fraudulent claims about himself and his supposed research. He also made fraudulent claims about the money gathered ostensibly to further the publicized aims of Scientology. ****This was not harmless puffery: It was conscious deceit designed to make him ever more famous, influential and wealthy. The poverty and suffering of those believers who sustained his opulent life-style must also be taken into account".****
Who does this sound like???? though I would put the word 'genius' in air quotes.
Here's the link to the post from Ortega's blog.
https://tonyortega.org/2017/02/01/the-odd-and-slightly-troubling-thing-elon-musk-and-l-ron-hubbard-have-in-common/
Whether Meg has read the obscure book (I highly doubt it) she IS aware of these psychopathic techniques to gain power.
Scary to think this is who a Prince of the Realm has aligned himself with...
"One thing I've wondered since the beginning is how much free-speech covers. We are entitled to our opinions but to what extent? Where is the line drawn between what is an appropriate expression of opinion of a public figure and what could be considered liable?"
IMO the question of liability is what puts limits on free speech in the modern world.
People become averse to consequences either to themselves or to the public at large.
To the degree that i accept legislation of speech, i always want a very clear line and very limited legislation that has been debated exhaustively, but overall i do not think speech should ever be banned.
I am of the Voltaire school of thought on free speech which advocates for the free speech of people or thoughts that i hate, dislike or disagree with. Privately or public figures.
Allowing free speech that i hate, dislike or disagree with, is where our collective freedom lies because it allows for exchange of ideas and a mutual agreement on how we can make improvements and go forward in harmony.
The minute you limit speech of those you hate, dislike or disagree with, you stop your own growth because you live in an echo chamber that never tests or challenges your way of thinking. You never see the problems because no one dares to voice them and or you drive them underground where they thrive to explode in a horrible way you never see coming and are therefore caught unprepared.
History has shown time and again that the worst suppressors of free speech tend to couch their efforts as doing it for the good of society. My response to them is that Lenin and Stalin were keen advocates of good speech and suppression of free speech for the good of society.
It's no accident that the 1st amendement in the American constitution is about free speech because they were leaving societies / countries where speech was a matter of life or death and so-called accepted speech depended on the whim of the rulers or the church or whatever whimsy the powers that be decided that day which made acceptable speech arbitrary.
Human society has been much improved by free speech in my opinion. Good and bad.
James II fled, dropping the Great Seal Of England into the Thames in vain hope of stopping Parliamentary business in his absence. He did not abdicate but returned with his army to Ireland but was defeated by William III's troops at the Battle of the Boyne (1690), a much misunderstood battle (but I shan't go there)
His son, James Francis Edward aka Old Chevalier/Pretender made his major attempt on the Crown in 1715 (`The Fifteen') but there was another attempt in 1719 which ended with the Battle of Glen Shiel.
The grandson, Charles Francis Edward Louis Philip Casimir, made his big effort in 1745-6, only to be defeated on Drumossie Moor, now better known as Culloden, now another misunderstood battle from what I've heard in Scotland.
It is thought that CE made a number of incognito visits to Landon and was been rumoured to have been received into the C of E at the church of St Mary le Bow in Fleet St. It all came to naught.
Some time ago, I predicted that if H survives he'll end up just like Charles Edward - in exile, an embittered alcoholic with failed relationships all around. As far as I am aware, he married only once, to Louise of Stolberg etc. His long-term mistress was Clementina Walkinshaw.
A couple of twists in the story: when we sing `O Come All Ye Faithful' we're singing a disguised Jacobite hymn dedicated to the infant Charles Edward, just as `Thine be the Glory' refers to Butcher Cumberland.
There's heavy irony that James II's first wife, Anne Hyde, was always held up as the `Protestant' wife. It has recently been established, however, that she converted to Roman Catholicism.
********************
What concerns me is that Lady C says that all of the newspapers are afraid to print anything negative about The Harkles because they fear being sued. C'mon, editors and reporters! Do your jobs and report what you know.
'a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.'
The law and opinions about libel and defamation are complex and there is a lot of information out there. But, in short, an opinion can be labelled as libel or defamation (depending on who you are and how many people you influence and the measure of the damage you supposedly do).
Are the Sussexes likely to sue anyone here? How deep are their pockets and what would they gain from doing so other than trying to bully people into silence? And who would they choose to sue (it is not practical to sue everyone on every social media site)? They prefer doxing, using compliant media to do the deed for them, but even with that - they cannot dox everyone.
There is a reason why the rest of Harry's family don't go after nor pay attention to social media sites like this! There are sites where people are saying really horrible stuff about the Cambridges and threatening the Queen, the Cambridges and now even Harry. Maybe the secret service, whatever they are called, in the UK keep an eye on those sites, but the Queen and the Cambridges know that going after individuals through the court or by doxing is a foolish use of energy and money.
"Did the Queen think he would reconsider and agree to come back to London after a couple of months, to get Hollywood out of his system?"
Maybe she thought she's give him a year to get it out of his system like the Amish do with their teens or follow Aborigines culture of walkabout....except he is 36yrs instead of being a teen.lol
If the Harkles had presented a well-thought out request to 'step back' from a high profile slate of engagements in the UK for a period of one year, to . . bond with their son, introduce him to his American grandparents, and done some low-profile charity work on behalf of the Queen in the original place--Canada, and lived relatively modestly . .and not gotten involved in American political wokery and shameless money-grabbing . . I think this gap year would have been granted, with provisions, but without the acrimony. Of course, M & H's nakedly self-serving agenda was all too transparent. If they had been in any way sincere about not causing embarrassment to the Queen and merching themselves, they could have had their 'break' and been welcomed back. The Tindalls and the Phillipses have lived abroad for part of their marriages without bad-mouthing the Royal family.
I just want this to be over. Even more I want it to end very badly for the money-grubbers.
"A couple of twists in the story: when we sing `O Come All Ye Faithful' we're singing a disguised Jacobite hymn dedicated to the infant Charles Edward, just as `Thine be the Glory' refers to Butcher Cumberland."
To my eternal shame i really love Thine be the Glory and O Come all Ye faithful is my least favourite carol.
Speaking of twists, our national anthem God Save The Queen/ King is largely a Jacobite song that was first sang to celebrate CE landing in Scotland
Thomas Arne, the Georgian composer, took the tune added bits and bobs from other composers like Purcell, changed a verse or two and organised his new creation to be sang in a London Theatre in support of the Georgian King against those dastardly Jacobites.
Given his magic touch at composing songs that the public liked, God Save the King, took off and became very popular and was sang everywhere in the pubs, taverns and theatres etc.
It's one of the few national anthems in the world that wasn't created by decree from executive governing branch of a country or even some sort of competition for best song for a national anthem.
Of course in it's current version we pretend verse about the Scots doesn't exist.
Libel?
'a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.'
The law and opinions about libel and defamation are complex and there is a lot of information out there. But, in short, an opinion can be labelled as libel or defamation (depending on who you are and how many people you influence and the measure of the damage you supposedly do).
________________________
In my last post I mentioned the word "liable" as I was referring not only to defamation but to claims of cyberbullying or anything else Meghan and Harry could possibly come up with. I've seen discussions about this on other forums and I wonder if Google would be held responsible or perhaps blog owners/moderators before the commentors? I know there have been regulations passed that don't hold the forum provider (ie google) responsible but I wouldn't be surprised to see this challenged by the ever-whining pair or changed as Donald Trump has suggested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
In a nutshell it treats the internet like telecommunications such that they are protected from liability as a result of the public using them.
To use an analogy, say you were plotting to rob a bank and you used the telephone to organise it. No one can prosecute the telephone company for you using their services to rob that bank. Nor are they held accountable for your language as you organised said bank robbery and the manner in which you spoke to your cohorts.
In this way the internet is a utility, and that section 230 protection covers social media worldwide.
Obviously in 1996, no one had a clue at how the internet would look in 2020 and how it would be used. The public seems to view it as a public square where anything goes.
The question is whether it is a regulated public square OR speakers corner?
There are calls to strip section 230 to regulate the internet.
Given how it's used in 2020, If 230 is stripped, it will turn the internet into a publisher that can censor, editorialise, promote etc in the manner of a newspaper editorial room with all the attendant liability that they operate under. Plus the public will have to pay to use it in much the same way we have to pay newspapers.
Others do not want 230 stripped, but updated to reflect the current understanding of what the internet is compared to the 1996 understanding.
If 230 is stripped, the first thing that will suffer is freedom of information because all spaces providing chatter will have to police content to be allowed to publish AND to ensure it is acceptable to the publishers.
The calls for 230 to be stripped say that the social media giants are already acting like publishers whilst making money off everyone with or without their consent and doing so arbitrarily and with clear political bias so they might as well lose the protection so the rules of engagement can once again become as transparent as they used to be.
Sophie continued to run her PR business for a number of years whilst Edward ran his production company for a few years. They performed the occasional royal duty.
Never complained, always respectful.
Sadly, they were exposed in so far as working outside the family meant meeting all sorts to pitch business ideas and whatnot which ended up with the media playing cruel trick on Sophie AND Charles lying about Edward using William for PR points which tarnished Edward's reputation.
They resigned their professional careers, took time out to create their family - a very dangerous proposition for Sophie - before returning to the royal fold and simply getting on with duties as required.
Harry did indeed think he was simply being put in timeout as far as his military titles were concerned or whatever solution was presented to him was merely temporary due to a technicality because look at this effort to keep the titles:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/02/02/prince-harry-desperate-keep-military-titles-despite-moving-abroad/
Sorry,sorry, sorry
I've made the very same mistake twice now - misread Fathers's Brithplace as that of child. Whether it's my eyesight going or not, I don't know. Or whether it's the confusion that the Sussexes sow...
Please disregard everything I've said about Paddington - I got it wrong.
I shall delete these posts later - I had to flag up the error as I can't sleep
She probably thinks that she can legally use her HRH Sussex Royal brandvname now without interferance from BP because it's supposedly on her son's birth certificate.
In the US, she'd have had to file papers and go to court to legally change her name. And even then it's up to the judge to approve the name change or not. They seldom refuse, but there are instances where it's been denied.
I think all of this is being put out by Meghan now because a big reveal is on the horizon about Archie's true birthday, surrogate mother, all things because eventually, truth will out.
Awhile ago, Thomas Markle said that Megs and maybe her mom? had shown some interest years ago in Scientology (maybe when she was a teen?), but he managed to keep Megs away from it.
My understanding is that the anthem was sung at Drury Lane for the first time as a morale booster when the Jacobites were marching south. London was in a panic, with runs on the banks, and the Trained Bands were mobilising. The verses are pro-Hanoverian, the ones with the Knavish Tricks are the Jacobites.
That is, today's Scots who hate that and other verses are choosing to believe that Culloden was an `England-Scotland international' match, to put it crudely. It was most certainly not. Some clans were `out' for the Jacobites, other loyal to the Hanoverian Government. Both armies included Scots and English.
There was considerable support for Charles in England but the English had been disarmed by the Game Laws (these took firearms away from the lower classes to stop 'em stealing the ground and feathered game nurtured by the landowners.) There was a measure of support for Charles in London.
Charles army turned back at Derby on 6th December.
The English fear was that Charles would be an autocrat like his grandfather, great grandfather and gt.gt Grandfather -(Jas II, `Kings are like Gods' he said. See Banqueting House Ceiling - Rubens' `the Apotheosis of James I').
Charles II at least claimed that his words were his own but his actions were those of his ministers, although his development plans for Winchester suggest he dreamt of aping Louis XIV, from a base that was handy for nipping over to France on the QT. He was more subtle than James, who was given to interfering in matters such as the election of College Fellows in Cambridge, also I believe the judiciary, to put his own candidates into place.
Whether Charles Edward would have pursued such policies, however, is debatable and not to be assumed.
Moreover, the situation has to seen in terms of Continental power politics, where the French kings (Louis XIV in particular) pursued total Absolutism (`L'etat, c'est moi') along with expansionist imperialism.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1392158/royal-family-news-queen-prince-harry-meghan-markle-titles-megxit-prince-charles-kate-news
@Lavenderlady, well said. Thank you for posting the L Ron information.
Awhile ago, Thomas Markle said that Megs and maybe her mom? had shown some interest years ago in Scientology (maybe when she was a teen?), but he managed to keep Megs away from it.
*
Thanks for your kind words.
You are welcome! @Acquitaine gave me the link to The Underground Bunker and I've enjoyed the reading there quite a lot.
I think Megsy has a few reasons why she has been attracted to Scientology. Money, power, control, fame, money, adulation, position, money, connections, did I mention money?
Of course in her pea brain she would start her own "church" so she could get the most benefit/money and of course be the Star.
All joking aside, I do believe she would delve into it as a way to network in HW since she's bombing with everything else she's tried.
Someone said that we don't know any of the doctors associated with the birth. Thanks to FF, we do.
Page 284 Meet Dr. Penny Law ("one of Portland's top obstetricians-as well as a countess" - the wife of the seventh Earl of Bradford).
She does do a lot of C-sections but is "pro-natural delivery" (what ever that means).
Page 284 "... Meghan did not deliver by C-section, although the couple refused to comment on the details of the birth."
The book goes on to say that "doctors" visited FC every day leading up to the day of the birth.
What we don't know is if any of the press ever saw these doctors visit each day just as we don't hear of the press seeing the two cars leaving for the hospital.
I still say it doesn't make sense that JH would be the one driving when their security guy would just be sitting in a seat in the car on the way to the hospital (and unable to take the wheel if something happened). page 283
I cite the pages when I can as it is easy to say they said X but no one really knows or has proof (ex: she was a yachtie but except for a couple of pictures, there is not a lot of other supporting documentation).
So, I get suspicious of the statement that they declined more details about the birth. It might be factually correct but is that because it was really a surrogate? or why at her age they didn't make her stay longer? or that his new baby tests were normal? Or that she left against medical advise because she had some not a full hospital set up in FC after coming home?
I'm trying to make it easy for us to track and point out potential conflicts in their statements.
I recall that there was some sort of deadline by which the original birth certificate was required to be filed. At the time, the certificate was eagerly awaited in the hopes that it would shed light on the curious pregnancy/birth.
When it was finally filed, great attention was given to the fact that MM was listed as the “birth mother.”
Therefore, it’s quite alarming that this very detail was quietly amended. Is it possible that the ‘mistake’ of omitting Harry’s title of Prince was actually done deliberately to establish an excuse to later correct/change the birth certificate?
Perhaps I’m giving the Harkles too much credit for a clever ruse?
I loved your comparison of MM to Cruella De Ville careening in her over-the-top car.
The Harkle’s lie-mobile must inevitably crash!
Its from The Telegraph
Prince Harry determined to keep military titles despite moving abroad
Duke gave up honorary titles when he stepped back from royal duties but wants to retain them and spend more time in Britain
By
Victoria Ward
2 February 2021
The Duke of Sussex is determined to keep his honorary military titles and wants to spend more time in the UK, The Telegraph understands.
He will fight to keep the three patronages he was forced to give up pending a one-year review of "Megxit", having made clear in his recent libel action against the Mail on Sunday that he considers his military links pivotal to his reputation and his future.
The Duke's three honorary titles – Captain General of the Royal Marines, Honorary Air Commandant of RAF Honington and Commodore-in-Chief, Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command – are one of the few remaining issues to be resolved following his decision to step back from his role as a working royal.
When he and the Duchess of Sussex moved to the US, he agreed to give them up for a year until their position was reviewed in March, but they remain the one aspect of his former life that he is desperate to cling on to.
"His military work is one of the most important things to him," a friend said. "Of course he wants to keep them."
The Duke of Sussex visits 42 Commando Royal Marines at their base at Bickleigh, Devon, in 2019
The Duke of Sussex visits 42 Commando Royal Marines at their base at Bickleigh, Devon, in 2019 CREDIT: Finnbarr Webster/PA
However, it is widely believed the Duke will have no choice but to let go of the titles given that he has no plans to return to the royal fold. The Queen made it clear at the Sandringham summit last January that he could not opt for a "one foot in, one foot out" approach to official duties and her attitude has not changed, a palace source confirmed.
Several names have been mooted as the Duke's replacements, including the Princess Royal as the first female Captain General of the Royal Marines, although more recently it has been claimed that some in the force have pushed for the Duke of Cambridge, who served with the RAF, to take on the mantle.
The Duke of Sussex firmly believes the 10 years he spent in the Army, as well as the continuing ties he has with organisations such as the Invictus Games Foundation, make him the ideal candidate. When he relocated to California, he did so with the full intention of regularly travelling back and forth between the US and the UK to maintain connections, one friend said on Tuesday, insisting that it was only the pandemic that had forced him to stay put.
The Duke's video message announcing the postponement of this year's Invictus Games was also held up as proof of his unwavering support for military causes. In the video, released on Tuesday, he insisted that its "mission will continue to shine through" even though the event, due to be held in The Hague this summer, was put back until next spring.
The Duke's commitment to the military was at the heart of his recent libel action against the Mail on Sunday. The false allegation that he had snubbed the Royal Marines since stepping back from his role as a working royal hit a nerve and he won an out of court settlement which he donated to the Invictus Games Foundation.
Although he has always been open about how much his military links mean to him, court documents only served to highlight this intensely personal bond. The Duke argued that his reputation was "inextricably tied up with" and "substantially" dependent on his links with the military.
He said the offending article would have caused "huge damage" and "serious harm" to his reputation, particularly in the eyes of military and ex-military personnel who might believe he had "snubbed and turned his back on his comrades".
The Duke revealed he was "particularly frustrated and saddened" as it was his "sincere ambition" to continue to help current and former military personnel, using his reputation and his platform as a former Apache helicopter pilot.
The world is much diminished by his passing. He was heroic in an age that desperately needs heroes.
Vaya Con Dios, Capt. Tom!
Cheers Hikari - Latte & Lemon Meringue
Witless for the Prosecution
The trials, and tribulations
Of Megs machinations
The truth will come out
Beyond all reasonable doubt
As the world joins in mass celebrations
Its from The Telegraph
Prince Harry determined to keep military titles despite moving abroad
Duke gave up honorary titles when he stepped back from royal duties but wants to retain them and spend more time in Britain
Thanks for posting. Looks like the Grey Men had to figure this one out for the Royale dufus (plural) such as organic cattle farmer/global reset man Charles. The Greys figured that cutting out Handbag from his military investments is what would bother him the most. In his boring or bad nights in Montecito H thinks back to his glory days in Afghanistan with his mates as he co-piloted (whatever he did) the helicopters. I cannot fault H for being sentimental.
And Montecito is an actor's retirement community/ also for established stars like Oprah who have no need to be close to the action in LA/Hollywood. Rob Lowe too and others who are connected enough to live remotely.
The Dastardly Desperados are neophytes in this game. These two save_the_planet phonies were appalled by the LA homelessness so fled to Montecito
This makes more sense with his behavior this year. He didn’t think Megxit is real. He thinks it’s half-in/half-out. Omg. Lol. It would be funny if it wasn’t sad. He didn’t want to leave the UK, his wife convinced him it was for the best. I think he realizes it is not.
If I were a Prince, I’d want to go home too...especially after being stuck in a house all year with Meghan due to Covid.
An Officer and a Gentleman
As we farewell Captain Tom
Life lived to the full, with spirit, and aplomb
He fought the good fight
Uniting his country in plight
As he rallied around
With his feet to the ground
Raising 32 million to date
He typifies what makes Britain great
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/the-harkles-grift-falls-adrift/
Author makes the point Harry didn't win "damages" in his recent lawsuit over his military role because the case never went to court. It was settled except for the apology issue. That's when he tried to claim £35000 in legal fees but got smacked down by the judge.
I doubt IG will get much if anything.
-------
RIP Capt. Tom
Jessica - Half-a royal does appear to be a
sandwich short of a picnic!
He really doesn’t seem to understand
what he’s done, or the consequences.
Someone should have explained,
Megxit wasn’t just for Christmas.
Halfa Male and his Mega Fail!
Last Post Harry - Royal Reveille
Halfa Male and Mega Fail
Still don’t get that Megxits real
One foot in and one foot out
Never carried any clout
What they failed to understand
As they flitted, hand in hand
They’ve revealed their core is rotten
One day soon they’ll be forgotten
His sense of entitlement is truly baffling. He seems desperate to keep those gifted titles as Megalo is reinventing his image to war hero! These will come in handy and necessary. Otherwise, who is he today? What is his identity?
Surprised though that they put that they live in Frogmore Cottage, Windsor Castle - I thought Frogmore Cottage was in Windsor Park or the grounds but its not Windsor Castle
Just seen some awful nasty comments from the vile Sussex Squad in regards to Sir Tom Moore, I wonder how they will react if Meghan & Harry pay their respects?
@Spanner
You’re right
According to Wiki, Frog Cott is part of
Frogmore Estate.
Within Windsor Home/Little Park.
Not part of the castle.
Can the document now be interpreted as meaning there is/may be a child with the Duke of Sussex as his father but not necessarily with Meghan as his birth mother?
Removing Rache's names seems to imply that his `mother' is not `uniquely' Rache, ie she may not have carried him. Whether she contributed an ovum or not remains an open question. (I hope she didn’t use her own egg, so the child escapes the genetic implications of having her as a parent.)
Throughout history, babies have been born without even the mother being sure who the father is but seldom is the name of the mother in any doubt.
Apparently, a child has been rendered legally `motherless’ by removing its presumed mother’s identity from its `birth certificate’. Very curious. And if the name of the father's lawful (awful?) married wife has been removed, does it imply that the child is no longer seen as legitimate?
Did Rache really do it herself, to fit her other documents? Did she think it made her sound more regal, bearing in mind how HM is styled on her later children’s birth certificates? If so, she hadn’t a clue what she was doing and what it appears to say. As we’ve said many times, she doesn’t think things through.
Of course, I may be reading more into Lady C's video than is justified. What do you think, Nutties?
I suppose Rache could try to change her surname by Deed Poll to `(The-)Duchess-of-Sussex’? Fortunately, there are restrictions on changing one’s name with illegal intent, say, to pass oneself off as someone else. Mustn't give her any ideas though.
Btw, I’d still love to know where her apparent belief that she’s more important than HM, and is entitled to the throne, originated. Did it occur spontaneously in her twisted mind or did some person unknown whisper it in her ear?
The first thing I did this morning was to delete all the erroneous posts of yesterday. If I've missed any, please let me know.
Caught - Markled
I am a very model of
a modern Captain General
I’ve let down all the troops,
unlike my Grandpa, venerable
Discarding felled Marines
To pursue Megs Disney dreams
Remembering Invictus
Subjected to Megs rictus
No thought for military groups
‘Twas all about HAM’s, and their scoops!
"@Spanner
You’re right
According to Wiki, Frog Cott is part of
Frogmore Estate.
Within Windsor Home/Little Park.
Not part of the castle."
Well, Meg was reportedly determined to live at Windsor Castle. And she seems to think information recorded on a BC carries a different legal meaning than it does.
In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and
"Ravelin"
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more
Wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by
"Commissariat"
When I have learnt what progress has been made in
Modern gunnery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy
You'll say a better Captain-General had never sat a gee...
Although the first half is way off the mark. Can he even tell the difference between `vegetable, animal, and mineral'?
Another Birth Certificate article in DM,
Rebecca English.
I’m wondering whether they are pushing
for Megs to sue, which would allow the
release of the Kraken?
From the new Harry-Markle.....Meghan sure to toss a snit fit. These lawsuits are supposed to bring in money, not lose money. All the more reason to send the Hapless sperm donor overseas in June with his trusty begging bowl, to wheedle more cash from Grans and checkbook Charlie.
I recall mentioning the Duke and Duchess of Plaza Toro (`The Gondoliers') as a good fit for both of them. He's the woefully inadequate soldier and together they abuse their status for cash.
For some reason, I always visualise Barry & Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves from `Hi-De-Hi!' in the roles. Perhaps that's who the Harkles will turn into?
https://www.atvtoday.co.uk/79622-bbc/ - especially the photos of them in `prairie' costume. Make what you will of the write up.
WildBoar - Nothing wrong with your marbles!
Haz not knowing the difference
between vegetable, animal and mineral
is how Megs commandeered him 😉
I think this fiasco over the removal of Meghan's first and second name from Archie's birth certificate point to the fact that she did not give birth to him and that Archie is the product of a surrogacy arrangement, so having her name on a birth certificate would surely be illegal if she did not give birth herself.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9216429/How-DID-trivial-change-Archies-birth-certificate-cause-toxic-row.html
Exactly- explains the swift ‘dead of night’ escape after only 4 hours, as well. Also, the Palace refuting her (which is rare) means they want nothing to do with her con and are willing to expose her.
“ These lawsuits are supposed to bring in money, not lose money.”
Exactly! Megalo is a very litigious person. Didn’t she sue the IRS and lost when she was a nobody?
Also, she fails to understand the differences between the American legal system and the British legal system. She is convinced that suing is lucrative while hoping for a big fat out of court settlement check...
Hahahaha WildBoar Yes!!
Barry & Megonne Windsor - Allgrieves
Perfick!
Jessica
The fact no media spotted a car/helicopter
says it all. It didn’t happen.
All media would have been on full alert
for weeks. Hospitals/residences etc.
The BRF can and will sue - however, they pick and choose rather than scatter shot the targets
And they donate the money won rather than use it on themselves.
They let their lawyers do their lawyer thing and step out of the way.
DM article about the thank you notes for the Christmas cards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9218149/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Christmas-thank-card-shows-couple-Australia.html#comments
One comment was about it should be Montecito Palace and another one noted that the crown was still on the stationary and thought that was supposed to not be there. And then the comment of this is how far back they had to go to get a photo of JH smiling.
https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-sister-nearly-choked-expose-thomas-markle-1566219
I can see Samantha's point here. Meghan was in a position of massive privilege, not only in terms of wealth but also in terms of an entire team of people and palace machinery to manage her image and her exposure. Samantha and Thomas had no such support or privilege, and came from a completely different culture and circumstances. They were from LA - land of fame and celebrity. Their only support from Meghan was self-serving instructions, couched in overblown, manipulative, emotional rhetoric.
Supposedly staff at KP begged Meghan and Harry to let them reach out to her father and offer him some support and guidance, but they refused.
The media came up with some torturous back route that they supposedly used so that they were not seen taking Meghan to hospital.
The odd thing is that the Cambridges were in residence at KP when their three children were born. Three times (and when she was taken to the hospital for the first pregnancy) they drove from KP to Lindo Wing and no one saw them!
The Sussexes created the media storm around them, but I wonder how true it was that there were media camped outside Windsor main entrance day and night. It was supposedly night when Meghan was taken to hospital (but I think it was Summer so it was probably still light). So what if someone managed to take a photo of the cars leaving Windsor? The chances of them being pursued on the highway and having press waiting at Portland are remote. Besides, press and the public camped outside Lindo Wing for days if not longer for the Cambridge births, yet no one saw them arriving (three times) and the atmosphere was one of joy, which the Cambridges understood and shared as they left the hospital with their newborns.
The Sussexes seem to have some serious psychological issues that does not bode well for their marriage, parenthood or any kind of career.
Just for interest, I stumbled across this.
The Queen visited when Catherine was in hospital with HG for her first pregnancy.
I think one of the problems with Meghan is that she is so caught up in being different, in control, better, that she 'shoots herself in the foot'. Instead of iconic royal photos (and even perhaps a photographed visit of a senior royal) she gets mushrooming theories of surrogacy!
The grifter climbed higher up the social ladder than anyone would have thought possible, and then completely messed up.
Jocelyn - pondering on Arche
Jabberwocky
Megs and her games
She’s got a thing about names
Arche is pronounced as Arkie
A bit off the mark
A stab in the dark
Arche then follows on to an-archie
One comment gets to the core of the problem:
I think this fiasco over the removal of Meghan's first and second name from Archie's birth certificate point to the fact that she did not give birth to him and that Archie is the product of a surrogacy arrangement, so having her name on a birth certificate would surely be illegal if she did not give birth herself.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9216429/How-DID-trivial-change-Archies-birth-certificate-cause-toxic-row.html
This!
It ties the mystery up neatly into a bow of concise logic...
Samantha thinks the wedding should have been postponed when Thomas had a heart attack. Samantha is completely out f touch with the costs and huge operation behind a royal wedding. You don't postpone at the last minute.
Samantha says Meghan divorced Trevor after having an affair with someone on Suits. That one I can believe!