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
This was the condition that I had in mind when I mentioned a 6 month rule:
* you are a fiancé, fiancée or proposed civil partner and will marry or enter into a civil partnership in the UK within 6 months of arriving
although it says 6 months of arriving, not engagement. Did they try to make out she'd only just `arrived'?
You and your partner must intend to live together permanently in the UK after you apply
She seems damned by this though, but it's hard to prove that it wasn't their intention to stay.
I agree that `the 2-years already rule' hasn't been met. There's plenty here, I'd think, for her visa to be rescinded.
Everyone remember when a lot of this drama was going on that William made those visits to the MI5 offices?
*
Wow. Yes I do remember that. It makes a lot of sense why he would do that in light of @Charade's statement that Wills is behind the M15 agent's new appointment.
Good catch!
Meg couldn't really renew a visitor's visa every 6 months, that's not the way to do it properly. In any case, she did marry within 6 months of arriving, she arrived in November IIRC, although they hadn't been living together for 2 years.
As for intending to live together permanently in the UK after applying, I think she had no such intention. It seems clear from the start she wasn't going to settle in the UK, in which case the application was fraudulent.
As always with our Meg, this is all very murky.
Queen names ex-head of MI5 Andrew Parker as most senior member of her Royal household
Baron Parker of Minsmere will take up new role as Lord Chamberlain on April 1
He will succeed Earl Peel, 73, who is retiring after more than 14 years in the post
Baron Parker served as director general of the MI5 from April 2013 until last year
Earl Peel was due to step down at end of 2020 but delayed amid Covid-19 crisis
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229043/Queen-names-ex-head-MI5-Andrew-Parker-senior-member-Royal-household.html
"Meghan would only be allowed in the UK on a six month per year visitors visa. If she decided to live in the UK, she could apply for a spousal visa again and start the process over. She was already married to Harry, so she doesn’t need to live in the UK for two years before applying. Most people have trouble meeting the income/savings requirements, but they won’t."
Makes sense that she could have had different visas at different times. It didn't make sense she would have entered the UK in fall 2017 on a spousal visa. (We've gone around and around on how likely it was they could pull off a surrogate birth. I think it's less likely she could have gotten a spousal visa secretly months before an engagement was announced. Or gotten one based on an earlier secret marriage to Harry.) I'm not sure though that the part Jessica wrote about already being married to Harry at the time of the spousal application is true. Yes, the marriage happened within 6 months of the engagement announcement (barely) but not within 6 months of her arrival in the UK. BUT it appears that was mentioned by Jessica because of the 2 year requirement listed. And the way I read it, the living together for two years is just one of 3 ways to qualify. It's not required.
As for saying they intended to live in the UK, they'd already told the Queen and two future Kings that was their intent. What's a little fibbing on a visa app?
One more pt--Also remember it was announced by KP M would be traveling & returning to the US shortly after the engagement was announced. And wasn't she thought to be working on visa issues then? Maybe the spousal visa? (And who knows what else. Archie?)
The UK has a visa waiver programme with the USA for tourist visas. This means you do not need a visa to enter either country if you hold a UK/ USA passport. You are allowed to stay in either country for 6mths on a tourist visa per entry.
To that end Meghan could enter and exit as often as she pleased prior to the engagement on a tourist visa.
Once the engagement was announced, and so publicly, she would need to leave the UK to change her visa as that couldn't be done within the UK.
To that end she had a very visible trip back to the Chicago, USA in April 2018 that we were told was primarily to take care of visa business.
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-chicago-visit-visa-application/
This article has more details about the visa process she applied for.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/meghan-markle-incognito-chicago-immigration.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/04/meghan-markle-chicago-uk-visa-application
The assumption was that whatever visa she got was the start of her path to citizenship.
there are some direct quotes from the book here. The title says that Samantha is making "wild claims" but as i read each part, i thought - yup, i believe that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229781/Prince-Harry-decries-isolated-times-speaks-passion-enjoyment-sport.html
Harry's short video about rugby. His hair & beard appear much darker to me. the camera angle looks a bit crooked. I hate those birds nest prints on the wall. Almost like part of his hair.
----------------
And also the Queen visiting 2/20/2020. Something about she'd either never visited there before, or it was exceedingly rare.
https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty/02020022555317/the-queen-visits-mi5-headquarters-london
1. Doria takes a digital photo (no.1) at Mudslide Manor showing the H$Ms by the playhouse, plus the dogs. No Archie.
2. They have a digital photo of a child(no.2), who may be Archie, Boy of Mystery. He is not available for a photoshoot for some simple reason -eg he doesn't exist or he was born in UK and is still there.
3. An illustrator is commissioned to make an illustration (in `hard copy', paint on paper/board). This is almost a direct copy of Photo 1. but with Archie painted in, using Photo 2 for reference.
I venture to suggest Rache may have painted it herself (her design skills are breathtaking!). Many of the colours look straight out the tube, for eg.
4. The painting is then photographed to produce a digital image with its own coherent metadata; even if it's now in digital form, it is `safe'. There is no metadata to show that Archie has been added, only a slight awkwardness about the figure in scale and pose, often seen in amateur art where arbitrary figures have been added to a landscape.
Would that account for it? I hope it could mean that if there is an `Archie', he's not in their hands.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9229781/Prince-Harry-decries-isolated-times-speaks-passion-enjoyment-sport.html
I hate those birds nest prints on the wall. Almost like part of his hair.
The new and improved Hapless! Now with bird's nest paintings. Same couch, same room other vids were filmed in. No phony baloney books this time.
What I note: Harry is slouching. Sit straight up man! "Come on man!" As Joe Biden likes to say.
Also his nose is red and swollen. Heart condition according to oriental diagnosis. China/Japan.
Good luck Harry and may God speed in June, back to England. You need it.
It's titled "A fairy tale about a miracle royal birth that never happened" from January 7th.
She tells a story about how the staff at the two possible hospitals (Portland and St. Mary's Lindo Wing) would sometimes start pools about things, and so in winter/spring 2019, they started a pool for which venue would end up being the location for the Harkle baby, as well as another one about whether it would be a boy or a girl.
As the due date approached, whenever the workers would run into each other on the bus or in their community, they would chat about the pool and speculate about it and share stories about work, basically.
So then Archie is born, and the staff at the Portland immediately thought of the pool and realized they had lost the bet. But the staff at St. Mary's heard the news and thought the same thing! Then it came out that Harry and Meghan said it was the Portland, but the staff at the Portland were confused because there hadn't even been a midwife signed in at the time of the supposed birth.
They then checked the records for two weeks back and found nothing.
I hope you all found that interesting and I do apologize if someone shared it earlier in January and I missed it.
Hi! I will do a separate intro post in a bit. I've been reading here daily since spring 2019 (?!) and am such a fan of all of you. I love this place and I love the mystery of Meghan and Harry.
The DM is saying that Disney chairman Bob Iger (of the Lion King debacle) is trying to the nomination from Biden to be the US ambassador to London. Hmmm.
**************************
No matter what has happened in the past, or will happen in the future, MM will always be known as Meghan Markle. She is holding onto her title so desperately. If HMTQ removes her title, she will still be known as Meghan Markle, and that's the last thing that Meghan Markle wants. She wants to go down in history as the HRH Duchess of Sussex. Without the title, Meghan Markle is nothing more than one of the thousands of ageing actresses from LA with little or no talent.
The worst thing that could happen to her, in her mind, would be for the world to continue to call her Meghan Markle for eternity. No "former HRH," etc., just little old Meghan Markle, daughter of Thomas Markle and Doria Ragland.
Re hospital bets!
Fascinating information. It is always those little details that bring out the truth, isn't it!
I wonder if we will ever know the truth about The Archie. This story of a royal spawn always reminds me of the X files tv series. You think you might be getting close to the answer. But no, a never ending maze of lies, deflections, and cover-ups--from many different places.
It appears that the anniversary of her beloved father's death is is always a difficult day for Her Majesty. He died so young, having being `bounced' onto the throne at one of the most difficult times of our national life. He was only 56 and reigned for just under 16 years, for six of which (all but for a few days) we were at war. It took a heavy toll on a man who, in 1936, was almost deemed unfit for the job.
The Queen Mother blamed Wallis and David - David had abandoned his duty and Bertie had to pick up the reins. He was generally reckoned to have smoked heavily in response and that was what killed him.
As George VI, he earned the profound respect of his people. When the Royal Train took his body back to London from Sandringham, people stood at the side of the tracks to pay their respects.
The Heralds proclaimed `The King is dead. Long live the Queen!
https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2019/02/04/6-feb-2019-the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-queen/
God Save the Queen!
Now, Harry is on a tour bus with James Corden filming something in the DM. He’s smiling at the photogs who caught him. The man sure does love some attention eh? But geez, does he look washed up. How are they going to make this washed up ex Royal a *thing in the US, with only the help of obnoxious Corden??? Meghan Markle nowhere to be seen. Maybe she’s finally taking her advisors advice and shut up. People hate her, but she’s not the supposed influencer and cash cow-Harry is. If it works.
I don’t think Archie, from my personal experience and my friends who had babies at both, was born at either. It just never made sense to me! And OF course a staff member would talk, give me a break. That would be very hard to *hide*. Beyoncé had her baby and shut off a floor of the popular NY hospital- Lenox Hill. So did Chelsea Clinton. They all had security but not secrecy because it would have been impossible. So a hidden Royal birth at a major central London hospital. Yeah, right.
Interesting! You would think custodial staff would be a great source of information about what went on at a hospital. They would not be divulging any medical information, but only if a VIP may or may not have been in a hospital on a certain day.
It's probably not much help but my husband's dad claimed to know `Mulder's' dad (I suspect it was really his uncle) in East Kilbride, near Glasgow. Four degrees of separation is a bit distant for a psychic connection!
The write-up, and other sources, insist that H & J are `old friends', based on JC's attendance at the Wedding. No other evidence given. I haven't found any mention of anything pre-wedding either - surely the invitation was on the same basis as that of all the other `Slebs'? And wasn't Rache supposed to have sent all his English friends packing?
Exactly. Imagine the security. Protection officers in the hall, down the hall, one in the room, one next to a lift. Protection for three Royals...then you have the nurse, midwife, doctors, helpers, food service, there is a staff member for everything. Pediatrician, OB/GYN. A few people would have signed NDAs, but tell me how you get into a hospital room and out, in completely secrecy without a single staff member telling even their close staff at nearby hospitals (like Sabrina describes). The lucky part they had was being Royal and part of the Rota. Since the whole thing was shrouded in mystery I’m sure the press were barred from asking the hospitals and staff. I think Meghan knew the RF would cover for her, for their own sake.
It just didn’t matter that she is a weirdo, she learned how to snake behind the scenes even more under the Royal protocol and got away with it. Which is why I think they were happy to see her go. She was stupidly playing them at their own game, but also losing.
So, many interesting anecdotes!
Just saw the picture of Hairy on the buses. My God, you would think with his wife's extensive collection of hair pieces, wigs and glue, Hairy would have picked up a few tips--besides there are so many red clown wigs out there for purchase! Hairy can't help his genetic expression, but his hair looks so different compared to the videos thrust upon us (in the real world the camera angles are 360, not just in the front). Smegs should have been holding an umbrella over his head, isn't that her job as a dutiful wife?
How very appropriate for Harry -` Brother Cad-Vile'.
I received Sam's book today and am in the process of reading it.
Could the difference in page numbers exist between the paperback and the hardcover?
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-6480#post-68192790
All of his hair loss this year. Sheesh. Guess we can say he was stressed? Only real explanation. Very sudden. He needs to shave his head, but I think he’d look very strange!!!!
Yeah Meghan has some sort of complex with her mom, the ultimate grifter and schemer. Then the pushover dad. No wonder she ended up with weakling Harry! Running around exploiting others has to get exhausting! Right?
Apologies for doing this again!
This long post draws from FF and reveals how Markus Anderson was the one who helped Meghan capture Harry. Very very interesting.
Oh, Harry went along with it, like a lamb to slaughter, and, as the poster pointed out, he had many options and opportunities to get in touch with reality and extricate himself from the grifter.
Could the difference in page numbers exist between the paperback and the hardcover?
-------
I don't think so, I think some passages have been expunged from the book. You know how litigious Megsy is, Samantha couldn't take any risks. I checked Amazon website and both hardcover and paperback have the same number of pages.
Currently on Chartable in the States, the Markles’ podcast is number 176 out of 200 (down 49 spots in one day; in the UK, it’s number 32 (down 6 spots in one day). Anons can do the maths for themselves.
Michelle Obama’s podcast is languishing, too, but she has a best selling book and several announced projects for Netflix. Think she has put Spotify on the back of the hob."
I thought this, posted by an Anon, is interesting.The media is still hyping the Harkles, but they really do not have a huge following or fanbase (and who the heck would want to be supported by the Sussex Squad?).
I am surprised because I thought Meghan had a chance of landing lucrative deals with people like Givenchy, Estée Lauder, Dior ...
Interesting ideas about the Christmas card. I don't think it was that complicated though.
I do not think the photo shows the couple with Archie born in May 2019 as I do not think the card shows an 18 or 19-month old child. No one I've asked (including K-5 teachers who don't follow the RF) thinks the child pictured is much less than 4 years old. He's extremely tall and doesn't have the shape of a toddler (no baby belly) If that child is that young (no more than 19 months)and he keeps growing at that rate, long before he's two years old he'll have to bend over to enter the "playhouse." (In the photo he's on the ground, not on the playhouse floor like Harry is. If he were on the floor he'd almost be bumping his head now.)
More likely to me:
1. The card is not an image of a painting but a digital print that has been run through a program to make it look painted. One that is free online is LunaPic. I'm not saying that one was used but playing around with it will give you an idea of how easy it is to create paintings and sketches from photos.
2. The child is borrowed/rented/a Ragland family member/friend's child
OR
The "child" is a mannequin but you can't tell because of the painting effects. There may have been changes to the head, like photoshopping George's head in.
The horizontal "vine" is either a faux decoration or was photoshopped in I think. While I'm not that familiar with CA vegetation, the leaves don't look like a natural vining to me. And the vine doesn't appear to have any roots in the ground. (While epiphytic plants like bromeliads grow on other plants that vine doesn't appear epiphytic.)
IF it is a paint-by-numbers photo, templates can by made online for free. Better ones can be purchased for only $50-$75.
--------------------------
Speaking of photos, what is that big lump on Harry's head on his right side---DM article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9230619/Prince-Harry-hangs-James-Corden-camera-crew-atop-double-decker-bus-Hollywood.html
If you look at the bottom picture of the article, where he is seated next to her and the baby, it looks like the lump is there.
I think we need to look at some more pictures to get a better idea of it. Maybe lighting and makeup make a difference in how prominent it is in real life.
The Duke of Sussex, 36, appeared at the start of a film online to pay tribute to the sport in footage shot in his Montecito mansion.'
(DM)
Yes, it's hard when you're ensconced in you 16 bathroom mansion when some have young children and are cooped up in a small flat. On a more positive note, H looks a lot healthier and is sporting a nice crisp white shirt and a dark blue jacket. Of MM we have seen neither hide nor hair for a long time. Anything to do with the possible health issues delaying the court case? Is she in Mudslide Towers? If not, it might explain why H is looking so much better.
You are right, looking at pictures Harry's forehead lump has been there awhile. The first link below from 2017 even mentions he has a lump. Sure looks huge now but maybe that's because of the Botox.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/849736/prince-harry-royal-news-manchester-terror-attack-victims-meet-staff
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex
My thought was that she wouldn't want anybody to deduce anything about the the digital history of the image. I do recall someone saying that it is possible to remove the metadata but if it's that simple why didn't she do it herself? Why pay an illustrator, or at least give him credit?. (I did find his name but have forgotten it)
I certainly agree the child is so out scale that he looks years older than his supposed age. It's not just his size but his proportions don't match. If one searches `child body proportions' there are some very helpful images. Most are of girls - this one's males:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/469500329875225348/
`Archie' is `supposed' to be still under two - as if!
I'm now certain that she hasn't brought a child to birth in the last 3 years.
Harry looked fit and impish, H was high spirited 10 years ago after the Army. Megs took the fight out of him, though blame rests with him.
Michelle Obama’s podcast is languishing, too, but she has a best selling book and several announced projects for Netflix. Think she has put Spotify on the back of the hob."
O and Michelle are happening, unlike the Dastardlies. Yesterday I saw a DM headline where they announced 6 Netflix projects. Good for them, even though my politics are 180 degrees opposite. But then Prince Charles, last June at Davos, enthusiastically signed onboard for the Great Global Reset. You can find the DM article on this boondoggle. As in never let a crisis (pandemic) go to waste.
"..."My thought was that she wouldn't want anybody to deduce anything about the the digital history of the image. I do recall someone saying that it is possible to remove the metadata but if it's that simple why didn't she do it herself? Why pay an illustrator, or at least give him credit? (I did find his name but have forgotten it)"
I did not realize an illustrator was ever named. I knew the image was sometimes referred to as a painting or an illustration in articles but I do not recall seeing any credit ever being given except to Doria for taking the original picture. If it has been claimed it was an illustration done by X, that's pretty weird to me. I guess rich people run out of things to spend money on so dumb things are bought. But if I was going to pay someone to paint a picture of my family from a photo, I'd have to be pretty desperate to choose THAT photo. I have dearly loved all the pets I've ever had, but haven't ever wanted to memorialize anybody's rear end!
I don't know how to remove metadata. But it would seem to me printing the final image and photographing it would provide an acceptable embedded date. That can't always be done if picture clarity and quality needs to be maintained. But this image didn't have a particularly clear focus anyway.
Agree about the proportions. Just odd.
Sometimes I thought Flower looked pretty good. Her hair was coiffed, her makeup applied well. Sometimes I thought her outfit was nice, even if it was not appropriately styled (correct season, etc.) or fitted for her (which is absolutely bewildering to me.) More like, oh, that is a pretty dress, etc. For example, I thought her Commonwealth Day 2019 outfit (white & green dress, white coat, green pumps, Victoria Beckham?) was a pretty outfit. There was another all green dress and matching green coat with black beading, which I liked. Designer? Many of her outfits were - meh. But so much of the time she looked really ROUGH. Hair looked rough. Skin looked really rough. Eyelash glue globbed on (was this Daniel's work, did he miss that day in class?) Clothes unkempt. (Did Dorito not teach Flower about an iron? Did not Flower have at least one member of her household staff to help her prepare for an event?) And then there are/were the shoes. The stilettos scraped, worn rough and covered in mud. Stockings run? At BP? I will be direct. Most of the time you can tell a great deal about an individual based on how they maintain their clothing and footwear regardless of the cost of said clothing, etc. Lots of people in this world, with a fraction of her resources and no professional help, look more kempt than Flower. I feel like Flower never got any advice from her female "friends". Did Jessica ever bother to tell Flower she had to clean her shoes? Have them repaired? Were there too many drugs around to bother with these things everyone else has to sort out? Was there too much helter-skelter, bi-polar, devil scheming energy wafting through the atmosphere during this time? God knows, as do we, that the nit-wit can barely dress himself.
So where the heck was Flower all of this time? We know she met the nit-wit in ~May, 2016 (if not before, in passing). She and the nit-wit are back and forth across the Atlantic, really not spending that much time with one another. When did the parading back and forth for the hired paps in front of the gates of KP occur? Did she ever actually LIVE (at as opposed to visit) KP? Was she allowed to? Or from the get go did the RF make the nit-wit keep her in the Cotswolds? Rented house or SoHo refuge? Does anyone think they ever spent a night, one night, at Frogmore Cottage? We know Megs wanted to live at Windsor Castle and HMTQ told the nit-wit an unequivocal NO. But where did Flower actually live from 11/2017 until her departure in 11/2019? Where did the mud come from?
Lastly, I have always thought LCC picked a perfect picture for the front of her book. Harry, from the side, looking straight forward, with what looks like a slight overbite, seemingly noticing NOTHING. And Flower looking directly at the camera, sociopathically staring. Not a terrible photo of her, but not airbrushed, not photoshopped. Pores and wrinkles. Dark underage circles. Average.
Your suggested process for the creation of the 2020 Christmas card is completely plausible. She would have started much earlier than Christmas, 2019.
The most important aspect of this is to BREAK the digitization process. At some point you have to "cash out", "go analog" to remove the digital footprint, even if you go digital again.
I found a name for the perpetrator with the paint and looked him up to discover he was described as an `illustrator', rather than `painter' or `artist'. That didn't surprise me. Of course, like everything else these 2 say, it isn't necessarily true that this is how it was done, although they may possibly think, or hope their fans think, that something done by a `real artist' is superior to something made digitally.
Btw, the open-top bus trip is the sort of thing victorious football teams do, en route to civic receptions. Given that today is Accession Day, are they trying to say something? Is this the stunt we were expecting?
https://www.muo.com/tag/5-free-apps-turn-photos-art-android-ios-web/
Meghan probably 'played around' with whatever app she was using until she had a photo that obscured Archie's face. (Doria's half brother - about same age as Meghan - works in graphic design, so he could have done it under her direction.)
The foliage, red bows and other decorative elements could have been added in the editing phase.
When you look at what can be done, the photo is actually not great, not professional.
As for metadata, the photo was part of a Christmas card, and the completed card was then saved as a digital image. Depending on how the card is done and saved, this could 'scrub' the metadata from the photo. But, I can't find a photo of the card with metadata either. Maybe it is because of privacy policy on behalf of the tabloids?
Photography can be very misleading, depending on distance and perspective.
I am "reading" a biography of Charles via Audible. It is by Sally Bedell Smith and was published in 2016, before we knew of the nit-wit and Flower. The reviews suggested it provided a more flattering picture of Charles. I think it is reasonable fair account of Charles, in part, because I have always understood that Diana was complicit in her own dramas. It is 18 hours +/- of listening and I have 6 hours left to go.
Some take-aways: Diana, a product of her upbringing and her abandonment by her Mother, was left a young naive woman deeply scarred, if not severely mentally ill from the get-go. Really, no one stood a chance. She refused any treatment offered by the RF (paranoid) from the early 1980s through her divorce in 1995. There is some evidence she sought treatment in the two years between her divorce and her death; however, her actions were still helter-skelter while dating Hasnat Khan and in her attempt to make him jealous. As LCC said, "Diana had the ability to move on." In this case, she just chose the most derelict of accomplices: MAF and Dodi.
But Charles decided to marry a girl with whom he had only had 12 dates. (Now I understand HMTQ's five year rule.) Did Philip coerce him? Probably not. Philip was telling Charles to fish or cut bait and not ruin Diana's reputation. After all, Diana was raised to be a wife of an aristocrat (at least) and to bare children. That is it and it is in keeping with late 70's upper class UK society. But Diana wanted it and was coy. In the summer of 1980, months before the engagement, Diana pretended to love the country life at Balmoral. A pretense that stopped on a dime after her marriage.
Charles truly prefers the company (at least platonic) of older women. Some much older with whom he shared passions such as gardening and agriculture, as well as fishing. These women were not lovers, just deep long lasting friendships and mentorships. Charles prefers natural looking women, like Camilla, not really glamorous women, like Diana. And Dickie Mountbattan's role as a surrogate grandfather to Charles. Charles, you just play the field, sow your wild oats, until my 15 year granddaughter, Amanda Knatchbull, is old enough to marry you. (Dickie wanted his blood deeply re-embedded into the highest ranks of the BRF.) They were close friends, but when he proposed to her in 1979, she did not want to marry him. Charles found himself in his early 30's hunting for a girl he liked who presented as a virgin. He would of preferred a woman in her 30s, but that was a problem. And there was Diana, twirling and smiling.
It is all very tragic and sad.
Might the H$Ms go to pains to appear to hide something when there's nothing to hide?
It's enough to lead one into fantasy:
Could she have acted well enough to convince a Woke Somebody, keen on espionage, that she was the perfect candidate to be a Fifth Columnist? Mole? Sleeper agent? Did her mission fail once her profound greed and narcissism were in the driving seat?
What might 007 and M make of it? What happens to clandestine operators when they go rogue? Is this why they are so concerned about security?
Tune in to next week's thrilling episode to find out...
I'm curious what sources various people use for info on the Harkles - what websites, blogs etc they check on a "regular" basis.
When i get on the computer and do a cruise around, the 1st 2 sites I go to are Nutty and LSA. Between the 2 of them, i got a lot of info and usually more links to articles. I also swing by Skippy occasionally. A few other sites (Tiara's & Houseplants) seem to not be posting regularly anymore.
I sometimes stumble and start to fall deep down into the hole of a conspiracy scheme masquerading as this domestic disaster. Fifth Column, the Woke Brigade, NWO, perhaps financed by the man whose name begins with the letter before T, as they say. I have no particular insight.
I will just say this. If this began as a plot to infiltrate and alter or take down the Monarchy, boy did they pick the wrong person. Seamless control is what you would want; someone completely in control of their emotions. Flower is a complete reactor. Albeit, potentially a nuclear reactor.
Oh, and I don't believe for a second that this would be about the nit-wit becoming King and the village sociopath becoming Queen, regardless of her mixed heritage and what was proffered to them. No one would ever go for that. This would be about No One being King/Queen. Ever again.
I usually come to Nutty's blog first. I haven't posted before because I am always about 600 comments behind and I rarely get caught up.
I love the LSA thread too but I get even further behind there.
I watch some Youtubers such as Taz (thanks to Hikari who recommended her a while ago) and Celt Views and Yankee Wally and Murky Meg.
And, of course, Harry Markle.
All of you really are my main source and I think you all. All of you are such good writers with such great insights.
Flower? Thanks for the laughs and your extended posts. Thanks to all Nutties who make extended posts with some meat on them. Some wit too. I am not in this category.
Snap, with regard to sources for information and wondering if there are any other good sources. There are a lot of social media accounts focusing on the Sussexes, but I have not found better sources than the ones you list. Just because I have not found them does not mean they do not exist!
I agree that the meeting between Harry and Tom probably took place via phones, maybe even with video, or even Skype or something like that. That is how Thomas could tell if Harry was there or not (Meghan sweet when Harry was there but controlling and different when he was not) when he was talking to Meghan. As the wedding got closer, Meghan increasngly resorted to terse text messages, and did not even make a call.
All speculation on my part.
Clip of Scobie singing the Harkles praises on CentralAveTV but even worse is the fact that the network's twitter account refers to her as Her Royal Highness!!
https://twitter.com/centralavetv/status/1358105676753629187
The only thing I'm reasonably sure about is that Blossom hasn't borne a child during the 2 years & 3 months.
I hoped that this marriage would bring them both happiness and, despite my misgivings over the engagement interview, I kept my fingers crossed that she was prepared to learn and become a credit to both the US & UK, a well as a source of harmony in our communities.
Then the wheels began to come off the waggon and it seemed deliberate. So I asked myself `Where's this going?' `Who benefits?' `Could someone have set it up?' - ie the classic questions of a criminal investigations - `Cui bono?' and `Who has means, motive and opportunity?'
I didn't like the answer. There are many members of one of our main UK Parties who, IMO, are sailing under false colours - they wear a rose as their badge when it should be a flag. There are also those who preach One World who long to be in charge of it- and if they make lots of money in the process, so much the better. Thus the name you're thinking of was the first to drop into my mind.
I'm sure he can meet the means & motive criteria and could engineer the opportunity - with the rose-wearers cheering the result from the side lines.
If he did recruit Rache, he made a big mistake. Perhaps in some twisted way, her behaviour has thrown any such scheme off course and in time we'll come to see it a a lucky escape, if not a blessing. (We still wonder how things would have turned out had Wallis never been married when she met David.) Or she may not have been set up as a puppet but played into their hands.
We can all see that Rache has been enriching herself and her mother, so, DV, perhaps that is as far as it goes.
I know our system seems odd in a world of republics but it's evolved over the last 500 years and works for us. I want it to continue because the alternative could have a very bloody birth.
"I should say--my son has always been between the 96th-99th percentile for height so I'm not sure he wouldn't have been as big as Archie in the Christmas card at 19 months.Is there anywhere I can upload a pic of my kid at that age (bet I can find one easily on Flickr and blur his face) to compare?"
Well, if there are going to be averages and percentiles for size, some kids are going to be bigger than most kids and some will be smaller! (I don't know how you can easily compare, sorry)
I don't think we were told Archie's length at birth but we were told he was overdue and weighed only a few ounces over 7 lbs. So not a big baby. And the Wendy House "painted" Archie seems to be not just a tall kid, but an older one because of his physique. He's not "husky" at all. In fact, though the proportions are off as @WBBM said, he's slim and seems to have alot of "grown up" hair.
On the other hand, the Duck Rabbit video Archie 6 or so months before looked and acted a few months older than his supposed age, maybe 4 months. That child was certainly "husky" which led people to say he takes after Thomas M. But he was proportioned the way a 1-year+ toddler would be with a pot belly and a low center of gravity. And he was pretty bald. I know kids can change pretty fast but I'm not buying that much change.
I can see MM thinking that's all that you have to do to remain the DoS. Here's the whip-smart legal mind of Rachel from Suits thinking she's a real lawyer again.
The Harkles have been making so many mistakes in their public and private lives recently that I'm beginning to think that they don't have any legal representation. MM is playing at being a lawyer and losing because of it.
In light of the new Hairy pictures on the double decker bus, maybe you need to update your lovely photo (it is too funny though)?
I think at that point in time she truly believed they had met... and it wasn't until some time later that she found out that it wasn't so.
This is what Samantha said (on twitter) in reply to someone asking if Thomas and Harry met (together with Doria and Meghan) at the Thanksgiving meal in the house Harry rented for them in BH.
I thought he had met him because he was there for Thanksgiving but Harry did not show up he had an event or something so that's why everyone was confused. They only spoke over the phone which is why I felt Harry should have flown to ask for my sister's hand.
I'm a perplexed as anyone but thinking along unlikely lines (now called `out of the box') can sometimes be helpful.
Can you make a bald Harry for us? I've been loving your Harry hairstyles!
6th February 2021, 69th Anniversary of the death of King Geo.VI's death, accession of Elizabeth II, now in 70th year of her reign?
Not that we've made much fuss about it.
I put a post up this morning, timed at 9.47am
The California-based pair spent an hour chatting to the influential Governor of the state, Gavin Newsom.
Their video link-up came shortly after they were widely criticised for wading into the presidential election debate.
The virtual meeting happened while Governor Newsom was under pressure to replace California Senator Kamala Harris — who went on to become the new Vice President — with another black woman.
A memo seen by The Sun on Sunday reveals Meghan, 39, and Harry, 36, had the conference with Newsom, 54, once widely tipped to be a White House frontrunner, on October 19 last year — two weeks before the election.
His office refused to reveal what was discussed in their chat. It was listed as an “introductory meeting”.
A spokesman said: “We do not comment on the content of meetings between the Governor and private parties or his staff.”
It came weeks after Meg described the battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden as “the most important election of our lifetime”."
More at the link: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13970243/prince-harry-meghan-markle-democrat-us-election/
They really need to have their titles taken away forever, and be banished. I don't understand how the Palace keeps allowing them to get away with stuff like this. As an American citizen, their meddling is really getting my goat.
I just finished watching The Prom on Netflix and it has the perfect songs for this duo to sing:
“Changing Lives”
Lyrics: We're gonna teach ‘em to be more PC
The minute our troupe arrives
“It’s not about Meeeeeeee”
I'm not caught up on the latest...what was Harry doing on the bus with JC? Did they actually do a karaoke?
From The French Laundry to Dirty Laundry (maybe I should say, Dirty Harry):
Fantastic posts, made my day! Markled?! Does this mean the ineffective, not influential, Governor Newsom will lose a potential recall election this year?
@justsayin'
Great idea for karaoke songs for Hairy and James! I am sure there are sooo many they could choose from. The one they will not pick is God Save the Queen.
Love your new avatar! @JocylynsBellinis, do you think is a perfect Hairy--if he had a few more pounds and a beer in one hand, he would be Onslow.
Re the Harkles and Gavin Newsome
That is really quite funny that he took an ‘Introductory Meeting’ with them because he’s about to get ‘Markled’. The petition to recall the California governor is a few signatures shy of becoming a ‘real thing’. Candidates are lining up for the new job opening.
Even better! Lol
Harry has had that bump on his forehead for many years. Here's a photo of him as a teen, with the bump. It's just that some camera angles don't show it.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/photos/prince-harry-years-17238675/image-51123640
Harry is almost Onslow now, and I think it will only get worse!
@Maisie,
Let's hope that Mm or Harry don't take Newsome's place.
@Jenn S,
I'm not sure if Harry was with Corden for Corden's show or if this is something for Harry's Netflix deal. If it's for Netflix, I doubt it's going to be a hit for Harry. It looks boring, and he looks terrible. I've never found Corden funny, anyway.
PS Your newest avatar is too funny!
@Constant Gardener,
I've been flying through reading books on the royal family lately, and almost every one says that HMTQ likes the status quo and finds it very difficult to make decisions. She just avoids change or problems and leaves the decision-making to her team of advisors. She's been that way since she took the Crown. She'll even hide if somebody is pushing her to make a decision.
This leads me to believe that it's going to be up to others to make the decisions about The Harkles. For me, though, secretly meeting Newsome is the last straw. Somebody needs to oust The Harkles permanently.
I agree about Adele. I was so disappointed when I first heard her sing after all of the hype about her. She's really not that great of a singer. She's also not singing with her diaphragm and is ruining her voice by not doing that.
@Pantsface,
Harry has had that bump on his forehead for many years. Here's a photo of him as a teen, with the bump. It's just that some camera angles don't show it.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/photos/prince-harry-years-17238675/image-51123640
Hmmmm. Wonder if he sustained the injury that caused that bump in riding accident? Damage to a frontal lobe can affect cognition and temperament permanently.
Fixed it so you can see him better!🤣
I wonder about that head bump, too. Sometimes, it looks like he has a plate imbedded in his forehead, and at other times it looks like a bump.
I thought about brain damage, too, and polo or his other sports could have caused it.
BTW, If they have so much money, why haven't they joined the polo club that's near their Montecito home? You have to be invited to join by another member, then you have to go through the club's board for acceptance. The dues are steep.
Of course, all of the other things, from trainers to saddles cost a fortune, too. Did Harry ever have his own string of polo ponies?
Hahahaha! I have no words. I'm just sitting here laughing!
@ ConstantGardener
Re the Harkles and Gavin Newsome
That is really quite funny that he took an ‘Introductory Meeting’ with them because he’s about to get ‘Markled’. The petition to recall the California governor is a few signatures shy of becoming a ‘real thing’. Candidates are lining up for the new job opening.
Y'all, I just read the viral comment of a California senior in a public high school thanking Gavin Newsome for NOTHING, as in no sports, no sports scholarships, no proms, no graduation, a totally wasted senior year. And here's the thing: The rich kids in private schools were able to compete in sports and get sports scholarships; only the public school kids were denied. How messed up is that? The kids that NEEDED the scholarships the most in order to attend college were denied the opportunity. The children of his donors did not have their activities curtailed.
No wonder Markle is a supporter; she was a red diaper baby that wouldn't have had her activities curtailed by his orders. The problem is that she is either too oblivious to the hoi polloi or too involved in kissing a** and Harry is, well, he's an outsider that doesn't even realize how bad this look is politically. They're trying to be the cool people partying at the Palace of Versailles while the crowds outside are gathering torches, pitchforks, and starting to mutter something about off with their heads.
I understand the premise behind the "stay out of it and maybe it will work itself out" mindset. A monarch that micromanages every tiny detail would be a Royal Pain as differing orders are issued to different people and chaos would ensue. In a case such as that, stability and slowness to action might be the better course.
That being said, just DAMN. Harry should have been firmly disciplined 30 years ago. Somebody needs to do it if only to keep him from publicly embarrassing himself.
PS- JennS- thanks for the laughs, always love your avi :D
Narcissits are generally not happy people. They don't want to see you having fun & enjoying yourself when they are such empty, souless creatures themselves. They are often jealous of your close relationships with your familY friends, knowing that their "friends" are often long gone. They seldom maintain a close bond with anyone.
Jest of British/Pollocks
Get on board with the double crossers
Acting like a pair of tossers
Ring the bell Harry, please
Your integrity’s shattered
Up next mobile chippy, Cod n Battered
With a side serve of Megs flushy pees
H&R. HuffnPuff
The wheels of the bus fell off
Whilst their snouts were still in the trough
It’s really quite funny
Their hopes of big money
Were dashed when they fled in a huff
JennS
Love your new avi
Song for Haz:
“You’re a little touched you know Onslow baby”
Harry got it wrong, again.
We said release the Kraken, not Karaoke!!
I like Adele
“Rolling in the Deep” is very apt for H&M
Reckon Harry gets her to repeat the line
“We could have had it all”
Win some, Newsom
So *Gavin and Stacey (JC)
Bought into their contrived malarkey
They’ll soon be aware
Befriending this pair
Will end up in controversy
*Comedy written/acted by JC
`Red diaper baby' is a new one on me (apologies, I can't now find who used the term). What do we know about Thomas's politics?
Senator McCarthy must be rolling in his grave.
Swampie, I agree, The Queen prefers
“Pick your battles” over constant battling.
Wise choice.
But she does need to wrap her velvet gloves
around Haz neck!
WildBoar, red diaper baby is more of a Trotsky,
given her fondness for outdoor ablutions😉
"I understand the premise behind the "stay out of it and maybe it will work itself out" mindset. A monarch that micromanages every tiny detail would be a Royal Pain as differing orders are issued to different people and chaos would ensue. In a case such as that, stability and slowness to action might be the better course.
That being said, just DAMN. Harry should have been firmly disciplined 30 years ago. Somebody needs to do it if only to keep him from publicly embarrassing himself."
I agree the Queen should act or at the very least there eventually should be something more than "no comment" from BP somewhere around the one-year mark. Personally, I'd be satisfied if they were simply cut off financially (fully cut off), Harry's honorary military positions were filled by Anne, Will, Sophie etc., H&M were removed from the Queen's Commonwealth Trust (could go to Will & Kate-- Kate has only 19 patronages after nearly 10 years of marriage. Regardless, it should at least go to people living in the CW) and Edward was appointed as the royal patron for the National Theater. (No need to remove non-royal Meg. Many organizations have multiple patrons.) And as much as I'd like to see it, I think title removal won't happen and truthfully, IMO, probably shouldn't.
But I'm not sure it's fair to blame TQ for how Harry was raised. (@SwampWoman-- maybe that's not what you meant but that has been said here.)
I mean, 30 years ago Harry was 6. I do remember that when Will was young (4-5, I believe) it was reported TQ did berate both Charles and Diana for not keeping Will's behavior in check. Supposedly both Charles and Diana were amused by his misbehavior and weren't disciplining him. He WAS known as Billy the Basher for the violent approach he took to getting his own way as other kids and paid staff painfully learned, after all. And who can forget at Andrew's wedding it was TQ who had to run after 4-year old Will to keep him from possibly getting run over because he decided to chase along beside the wedding carriage while C&D were not paying attention.
But if you've got a mother acting almost like her kids' sister and telling them "be as naughty as you want just don't get caught" realistically what can a mother-in-law do? Especially when the daughter-in-law isn't all that emotionally stable? But has the world convinced she's a "breath of fresh air" and is the best thing to happen to the family since, well, maybe ever? And while maybe it's fair to say Charles is weak and that's because of how he was raised by TQ, is that really completely fair? After all, we just recognized how young she was when she ascended to the throne.
We've gone around and around trying to decide who or what made Meghan the way she is. Genes? Indulgent Thomas? Grifting or absent Doria? A Catholic school that, in trying to encourage a charitable attitude and acceptance of the less fortunate, actually taught "moral relativism" and the desire to profit from any charitable acts? Growing up at a time of "participation" trophies? Being on the set of Married with Children? Living in LA? All of the above? Plenty of blame has been tossed around. Still, I don't believe we've ever said maybe it was the fault of one or more or Meghan's grandmothers.
This is where i insert my 'i told you so' jig clip, preferrably debbie Reynolds doing it in Will & Grace.
Why? Someone was arguing with me a week ago about the attraction of royal to established, accomplished people.
What do the Sussexes have to offer the Governor of California. One who has many problems to solve in his state and is facing a recall challenge?
Moreover at a time when Meghan and Harry were being censured for wading into US politics which meant any meeting with them at that time would not be a good look for the politician.
We know why Meghan wanted that meeting or we can approximate her reasoning for it, but why Gavin?
The only thing these 2 have to offer is their ( perceived) royalty.
And the most accomplished people on the planet make fools of themselves to meet ( British) royalty.
It's a brand that can't be bought.
I’m of the opinion that most everyone now thinks Newsome makes terrible judgement. Most wouldn’t be shocked that he took a meeting with Meghan. She seems to meet people on the way down in their career, anyway. Corden is looking at going back to the UK, and they owed him for the failed podcast. Personally the Corden PR about missing the UK? No, his ratings are terrible and he knows his time is limited.
I think regular people are desperate to see Harry do well. Maybe because of the tragedy of diana, maybe because of the sympathy for the poor shmuck caught up in the abusive marriage (which is pretty much the only thing they headline about). Everyone knows he will always be Royal. He has a rich and welcoming family to depend on when Meghan is done with him. Meghan is not the end of his story.
So, I think Corden is playing the long game. I think Newsome has poor judgement. (Newsomes ex-wife is a Meghan Markle- Kim G. who is currently famous for dating Donald Trump Jr.). Meghan would dump Harry for a super famous political dem in the USA. No doubt.
Senior Officer: `The question is, will the men follow him?'
NCO: `Yes Sir, but only out of curiosity.'
What if Harry isn't the only one to be a bit low on the IQ score ?
Diana's nickname at school was “thicky” IIRC?
Isn't Bea dyslexic? Although nothing to do with IQ I believe.
Didn't HM’s old nanny say something about her (TQ) being a bit obsessive-compulsive? And now we learn that she would go so far as to hide rather than to have to make decisions.
What if consanguinity has had an effect ?
What if they don't have much to say about anything and it's the men in grey who are actually in charge? Does this mean the RF are just puppets to be polished up and displayed ? Taught to read speeches as best as possible ? A picture of a zoo with exotic animals come to mind to chase that of a circus.
What if they have trouble accepting their fate ? I'm sure W and C would be happier living as landed gentry.
I remember when Diana came on to the scene thinking she didn't fit in - too pretty and affected (My Shy Di ). I liked my royals as they were - bland, frumpy and standofffish.
Don't get me wrong, I love and respect Her Majesty the Queen and dread the aftermath of her disappearance. Like WBBM I can remember the King’s death and the Queen’s Coronation and the red white and blue in everyone's windows. Would such fervour and respect still be there today?
As an expat living in Europe I know that here they've been long gone.
All this above, of course, is fruit of my imagination.
BTW I wish they would knuckle down and do something about the 2 renegades.
@Lizzie
I think the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust
should go to Edward.
He’s visited Australia numerous times,
on behalf of his father, to present
Duke of Edinburgh awards.
I presume he’s also visited other
Commonwealth countries in the same capacity.
"I think the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust
should go to Edward.
He’s visited Australia numerous times,
on behalf of his father, to present
Duke of Edinburgh awards.
I presume he’s also visited other
Commonwealth countries in the same capacity."
Good points. The only reason I did not consider Edward is that the Trust is focused on young leaders in the CW so I thought someone younger than 56 should be at the helm. Of course, the Duke of Edinburgh awards are also focused on youths so maybe that doesn't matter. Whoever it is, it shouldn't be non-working royals who have chosen to live outside the CW. And who don't seem to know anything about the CW other than to use the members' national flowers to decorate a veil!
President/dictator of Romania whilst walking in her own garden at BP. I don't blame her for hiding in the bushes - it was probably the worst State Visit she's ever had to endure.
As a guest, he was insufferable. His security damaged the wallpaper, looking for bugs (electronic, not entomological). Clearly he was judging her reign by the standards of his own iron rule.
With regard to OCD, the only hint I've come across was a mention of Lilibet as a child, lining up her toy horses at bedtime.
I do wonder to what extent the child-rearing theories of the 1920s & 30s damaged HM and then Charles, influenced as it was by the Behaviourist school of thought which tended to regard childcare rather as an aspect of dog training? This of course followed rigid Victorian ideas. The idea that to show children warm affection was tantamount to spoiling them and turning boys into `cissies'.
Those ideas were still around in the 1940s, as I know to my cost. Dr Spock way have been published in 1946 but his ideas didn't filter through in Britain until later, when things swung the other way, all that `free expression' beloved of `progressive' parents, satirically described in Betjeman's verses `Huxley Hall' (published 1954) - given in full at
http://spentwavesriot.blogspot.com/2009/05/huxley-hall.html
I've heard it said that dogs and horses are the only creatures to treat HM naturally, just like they do anyone else. Rather sad really.
God Save the Queen
Despite what historians say
Much repeated, regurgitated hearsay
None of us knows
What the Queen feels, or shows
Most of its rubbish, per se
Unless it's an election year then they pretend to care about us and make promises they have no intention of keeping and tell us what we want to hear.
However, even the most dim, most ineffectual politician is not going to turn down a chance to meet a member of the British royal family no matter how lacking in substance that royal is.
This is because politicians ( and others) can meet anyone in the world at a click of their fingers if they are in the appropriate political or high end position, but the one thing they can't order is a meeting with a British royal.
And as beleaguered as Gavin Newsome is, given the Sussexes standing with the family, dollars to nuts they reached out to him and not the other way round. And he jumped and took that meeting. Simply because of their royalty and no other reason.
Meeting them doesn't enhance his standing in any substantive way, but he did. And that is the magic of royalty. Which is the argument i was making about royal association.
It's rarely about substance. It's always about kudos.
Meghan and Harry 'held secret meeting with Democratic California Gov Gavin Newsom' just weeks after they 'violated' terms of Megxit deal by wading into politics with thinly veiled dig at Trump
• The Sussexes took part in a virtual hour-long meeting with the Democratic governor on October 19, according to a memo obtained by The Sun
• It is not clear what was discussed in the meeting
• Newsom's office told The Sun it does not comment on 'the content of meetings between the Governor and private parties or his staff'
• At the time, the presidential election was just two weeks away
• Newsom was facing mounting calls to line up a woman of color to replace then-California Senator Kamala Harris if she was elected vice president
• In September Meghan and Harry were accused of 'crossing the line' in a Time 100 video where they appeared to take aim at Donald Trump
• They told American voters to 'reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity' in 'the most important election of our life'
• Members of the Royal family are supposed to be politically neutral
• Meghan and Harry stood down as senior Royals effective March 2020
• But they promised that 'everything they do will uphold the values of Her Majesty'
By RACHEL SHARP FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 23:40, 6 February 2021 | UPDATED: 03:25, 7 February 2021
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are said to have held a secret 'introductory meeting' with California Governor Gavin Newsom in the run-up to the election - just weeks after the former Royals 'violated' the terms of their 'Megxit' deal by wading into politics.
The Sussexes, who now live in the Golden State, took part in a virtual hour-long meeting with the Democratic governor back on October 19, according to a memo obtained by The Sun.
It is not clear what was discussed in the meeting with Newsom's office telling the outlet it does not comment on 'the content of meetings between the Governor and private parties or his staff.'
from CDAN, via http://www.agcwebpages.com/BLINDITEMS/2020/OCTOBER.html
I wonder if this A-/B+ list actress/singer would be so welcoming of her future holiday guest if the actress/singer knew her husband has slept with the future holiday guest. Katharine McPhee/Meghan Markle/David Foster (Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Will Reportedly Spend Christmas with David Foster? and Katharine McPhee)
Any rumours about her sleeping with Gavin Newsome?
I have been reading Sam's book. A fast read.
Considering that TMsr did not have the higher education, he really pushed for his kids to find things they wanted to do and he would pay for the education (lessons). He paid for broadcasting school/lessons for Sam (p 104), acting lessons for M at a young age.
I am sorry to hear it but rest assured you are not alone in your Victorian style upbringing. Sometime in my thirties a young lady whom I wished to marry spent a couple of days at my parents home. She later said to me that although my parents had some nice stuff the atmosphere was cold. We did not marry and after that I kept a future prospect as far away from my parents as possible - she then concluding that I was ashamed of her - damned if you do; damned if you don't.
We have now gone to the equally unacceptable though opposite degree and I am no longer interested in wedlock.
It's a long article. Front page, above the fold.
But it looks like influencing government for their own benefit is nothing new for this crowd. So perhaps we shouldn't expect a slap on the hand to any of her descendants who try the same thing.
I am reading my mother's 1971 diary and their being not eight but seven days a week the bottom quarter of the right hand page is printed with a little cartoon and some cheering words from which for this week in that year I learn that there are in London an excess of thirteen thousand women and there are as many as seventy-thousand females under the age of twenty four still unmarried - still unmarried I tell you - men to the rescue. Clearly the writers of this diary want to do to female singledom what the government want to do to Covid-19. The number of unmarried men is not mentioned.
Talking of females I could not help but notice that in my Mother's Women's Institute 2000 - yes the W.I. - diary which for each day has printed an intriguing fact not one of the entries I have so far come across concerns a member of the female sex. Hmmmm.
About the Sussexes, I believe Meghan went to see him because she was interested in Kamala Harris seat and I agree with Acquaintaine that it's their royalty that made them accessible to him even though I believe they must have lobbied to see him.
"Being that we are both Hapless, I feel like we are almost brothers" "Did I mention you are an awesome governor!" "Granny thinks about you whenever she eats an avocado toast, in between the fresh shot wild game courses. Grans eats everything we bag at our Sandringham shooting parties, except for red squirrels, because my father is their Royal patron"
___________________
Prince Charles Praises the “Charming and Intelligent” Red Squirrels Who Live In His House.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/01/prince-charles-charming-and-intelligent-red-squirrels
Does she really think the California governor would speak to her privately if she wasn't married to H??? Talk about abusing her royal privilege.
Some nobody actress from a d-list soap, with no acting skills whatsoever. No government experience. No business skills or experience. No education that appeared to do her any good.
Out of a job, no assets, snagged a prince under dubious circumstances, bad mouths the Queen of England. Yep, she seems like a shoe in to be a senator. Not.
If Flower thought/thinks someone of power in the USA, regardless of political party affiliation, is going to "give" her a US Senate seat, she is simply DERANGED and should be locked away immediately. She is a danger to herself and to others.
Forget about what the proletariat would think. An action such as this would raise the ire and vitriol of early other politician who has had to go out and work their a** off, raising money, schlepping to and from neighborhood gatherings, community centers and town halls and starting at the bottom, like local School Board or County Commissioner. The only way it flies to "give" someone a US Senate seat is a lifetime of SPECTACULAR achievement in a challenging discipline. Although she might be too conservative, one could see Meg Whitman being offered the seat temporarily until a general election is mandated by law and then she would have to actually run for the seat and win it. Yes, I know Kelly Loefller was "given" the Georgia seat, but at least she and her husband have a lengthy consistent history in the financial realm.
Flower forgets that she could not even manage getting herself to and acquitting herself adequately at meet and greets around the UK.
"Has anyone seen the article in The Guardian headlined "queen lobbied for change in law to hide her [embarrassing] private wealth"? This arrangement was "concocted in the 1970s." A shell company was formed to hide her wealth, then dissolved later (I was skimming by this point.) I wonder if this is when she moved funds to the Caymans?"
I wonder why this has been printed now?
This information is public knowledge. She strengthened it in the early 00s to extend it to Charles. And added an exemption to FOI laws for her and Charles's financial affairs.
The Guardian is stirring up mischief by pretending they've just discovered this information given they spent 30yrs under their previous editor doing their best to investigate and reveal all the private arrangements involving the royals. Especially when they admit in the article that they sourced this information from the national archives which are public source available to all.
Under the previous editor they were like a dog with a bone in their crusade against the royals and it caused sufficient alarm at BP for Queen to strengthen the privacy laws around her and Charles.
To be honest i'm surprised the current editor (started in 2015) is doing this because under her tenure the guardian has gone from being extremely hostile to the royals to supporting them and especially supporting Meghan. I never thought i'd ever read a sincerely positive story about the royals in the guardian.
Under the previous editor, any royal story in the Guardian was extremely hostile and was always framed as 'royals are bad' even when reporting positively about them.
For anyone who hasn't read the story, here it is:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
Parents may repeat the pattern `inherited' from their parents, or the pendulum swings the other way and they are excessively indulgent towards their children. Perhaps HM changed her approach for her 3rd & 4th children? It could explain a lot.
Btw, The male/female ratio is paradoxical - more boys than girls are born but males have a higher death rate at all ages. We shouldn't explain it teleologically (eg `It's so that it compensates for the higher death rate') but I've read it may be the `ghost' of a prehistoric preference for male offspring - though how that could work isn't entirely clear, given that in theory equal numbers of X- & Y- carrying sperm are produced.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9233863/Katharine-McPhee-looks-chic-white-floral-dress-masks-shopping-LA.html
Beats Rache's preggers look hands down.
Re your mother's diary. Fascinating.
I wonder if the number of excess women helped contribute to the push for women's rights in the late 60s and 70s (in the era of less single women, when most would have been bearing children and raising families)?
PS. Marriage is overrated (in many cases)!
Interesting points re the men in suits. One day soon will all the men in suits be suitably woke (being graduates of UK higher education institutions), what will that mean for the monarchy?
In a related vein...Have the woke/cultural Marxists/social worker/social justice priests of the Church of England damaged the church beyond repair (or perhaps made the church more relevant, it seems not from what I have read)? What happens when there are no more defender(s) of the faith? Does the faith change or just die out?
Any CofE folks here more suitably informed?
This sounds similar to the calls MM made to Toronto police because she was so famous that people were bothering her at home.
Scobie said in FF that because MM was being so horribly hounded by the press and others, that she had to go through the two-day SAS terrorism training course after an unusually high number of threats against her. He neglected to mention that all royals go through that course.
Oh, Scoobie, those tall tales do catch up to you, don't they?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12789915/finding-freedom-omid-scobie-police-threats-burn-house-down/
Please take this kindly, as it's one of my hot buttons, and I'm sure that you're unaware of it.
You mentioned "Talking of females..." Female what? Racoons? Elephants? Female human beings are called women.
*****************
The best thing that women could do during that time was to be educated, going to college (university) and getting their degree or even advanced degrees. I only had to look at my mother in the 50s and see that her law degree was an enormous step forward. She was one of only four women in her huge law school class, graduating second in her class, with my father being the first. I couldn't have asked for a better role model.
When she dies, who inherits her great private wealth?
Marriage is however an institution which despite the women's libbers assertions of it being a form of slavery remained and remains enormously popular: well over ninety per cent of females (ditto) marry at least once before the age of forty-five. Sadly divorce is also popular and before the said mentioned age; after that not so much. Far too much of this cheaper to keep her stuff.
Even so the day before yesterday I was watching the opening of the 1979 Lady Vanishes - a much better film if I may say so than the 1938 Hitchcock original - and I was remembering the Hitchcock where in an early scene the heroine aged about twenty-two is returning to England for the sole purpose of marriage and not exactly looking forward to it. In the 1979 a much-married American heiress is somewhat more blasé about her coming nuptials. Somehow I cannot quite imagine that either of these women, had the movies continued marrying either Michael Redgrave or Elliott Gould. Who wants to marry either a musicologist (Redgrave) or a journalist (gould) - if you are an heiress, I mean.
"@Acquataine, but why is the Queen being secretive about her finances? What is there to hide?
When she dies, who inherits her great private wealth?"
Everybody hides their wealth. Wealthy people more than ordinary people, so in general terms The Queen is not doing anything extraordinary.
Secondly, wealthy people are always looking for ways to minimise a true estimation of their wealth to give themselves an advantage whether tax purposes or in The Queen's case stop media using her wealth against her.
During the 1970s when she lobbied to keep her wealth splashed all over the media, the country was going through a really bad, sustained recession and was genuinely so poor that it had called in the IMF.
It would have made her look like one of those dictators from the 3rd world with fabulous wealth presiding over poor subjects.
That said she might have stopped the media ( and others) reporting her true wealth, but she didn't stop them from reporting that she paid no tax at all nor had she ever paid it.
I remember growing up knowing that she paid no tax at all. A fact that was often reported by the media and especially by the guardian.
I remember the circumstances, the year and the Prime Minister who finally forced her to start paying tax and even then she only agreed to a voluntary arrangement and the % paid left to her discretion.
Given her easy tax arrangements, i was surprised to discover that she had money in tax havens. I guess the little tax she occassionally hands over to the treasury is still too much in her book. I always laugh at statements often repeated now that she pays the appropriate tax on her income. Appropriate for who?
The freedom of Information exemptions came about because the Guardian was on a crusade to expose their financial dealings. It was a loophole that could be used to circumvent the earlier, shielding laws.
Due to the sheilding laws, a gap exists where information used to be. And PR misinformation has filled that gap so that the general public now believes or is confused about her wealth.
This confusion is greatly helped by misinformation in the media. The only way to separate some fact from alot of fiction is to study the history of the family. You soon come across information kept in unexpected places that tells some truth.
Yes, I was saying that the calls to police sounded like the story that MM cooked up in Toronto, which came down to harassing the Toronto police with repeated phone calls. Most people here are familiar with these stories, so I didn't go into detail.
I think it goes without saying that MM has tried everything to be the world's biggest star, and she has failed. Her media tricks are legend now, so I didn't feel the need to write down every thing she has done, that have been gone over here again and again.
I'm certain that her pathology is a part of this. We all know how devious MM can be, and it seems to have begun at a very young age. That points to pathology, intensified by being a spoiled and coddled child who seemed to have few boundaries put in place by her parents. Yes, drugs would intensify an existing problem.
@ Nelo,
I think that HMTQ will follow past royals and will divide her personal estate between her children, with smaller amounts going to lesser members of the royal family.
As for the Queen, "hiding her finances," would you discuss your personal finances with the world? She probably has off-shore accounts.
I was taught that is extremely gauche to discuss your finances with people outside of the family. I've never discussed my finances with friends, or worse, the press, and never will. That is extremely private information.
I have no idea of what you're blathering on about. Adult females are (or should be) called women. All members of the human race are homo sapiens, so what's the point there? And most women's libbers don't think that getting married is a prison. Only a very few, small militant women's liberation groups feel that way, and it's resulted in comments like yours, because that's the only view that you've read about.
As for your marriage comments, what does that have to do with anything we've been discussing?
I think it might do you some good to do a little (ok, a lot) of reading about feminism, what what it really means, and what it's goals are, beginning with the right to vote and equal pay for equal work. It has nothing to do with women hating men.
"In a related vein...Have the woke/cultural Marxists/social worker/social justice priests of the Church of England damaged the church beyond repair (or perhaps made the church more relevant, it seems not from what I have read)? What happens when there are no more defender(s) of the faith? Does the faith change or just die out?
Any CofE folks here more suitably informed?"
In UK, the church is dying. It's succesive top priests aka the current and former archbishops of Cantebury were too busy being woke to defend it or energise it. The former Archbishop was an actual druid or rather his faith and belief was of the druidic tradition which made his membership and eventual appoihtment as Archbishop rather puzzling.
The recently retired ArchBishop of York, John Sentamu, was an outspoken conservative who publicly defended the church and tried his best to energise it, but one man can't hold back the tide.
Sentamu's handling of the church was in line with African CoE churches which tend to be simultaneaously conservative and spiritually inspirational unlike their dry British counterparts.
I was really appalled by the priest's tweet about Captain Tom.
It revealed callousness, unkindness, intolerance, racism, bigotry, and much more in a person who is a clergyman.
Moreover one who is already facing or has faced the same type of attitude due to his various identities.
If he were your standard political activist or even ordinary person, i might have simply shrugged and moved on.
But a priest!?! Talk about Pharisees in the house of God!!!!!
I pity his congregation.
Re: The Queen's finances.
Me too. And i agree.
And i think the Queen is no different from anyone in that respect.
However, in her case she also had the media to consider. They would have used that information against her.
And they did use that information against her whenever they could.
The fact of her not paying taxes was used against her.
Agreed on all points. They would have used the info against her, and they did.
What did the priest say about Captain Sir Tom, who was beloved by so many?
The archbishop sure was taken in by MM. He was fawning all over her like a randy schoolboy.
A nationwide clap for Captain Tom was organised similar to the weekly clap for the NHS in recognition and gratitude of his life and his achievement at the end of it.
And this Reverend tweeted this in response to the national love of Captain Tom and the organised clap:
https://archbishopcranmer.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Jarel-Robinson-Brown-tweet-3.jpg
Captain Tom was barely cold that's how quickly this idjit tweeted.
Then had the temerity to complain that he is being subjected to abuse online, pulled the R and G cards with the pink news launching a campaign on his behalf about his victimhood instead of his callous tweet.
I'm so upset by this story that i even dislike his profile pic which looks more like a modelling headshot than a man concerned with souls.
Oh, that's just horrible what the priest said. Captain Sir Tom gave such joy to so many in times of such deep sadness, worry and trouble.
I highly doubt that this priest will be knighted or be as beloved by the world as Sir Captain Tom. What did this priest do to help the nation? Say a few prayers? Who will cry at news of his death? Definitely not the world, as Capt. Sir Tom was. We lost a great man in Capt. Sir Tom.
How many people will lay flowers at this priest's grave? How many people will clap in his honor? None. That will be his legacy. The world will not care when he passes.
The only info about who took the photos is just a business name at the bottom that says by "TheMegaAgency.com." Does it look to you like they had their own photographer who sold them to this agency? Or maybe Corden's got a deal with them? Here's the squib in their "about us" section:
"The Mega Agency is the fastest growing agency in the editorial content licensing business. Each day Mega receives and distributes more than 13,000 images and videos – one every six seconds - to global media publishers in more than 40 countries.
Mega has offices in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Salt Lake City, London, Rome, Milan, Copenhagen and Sydney. Our compelling news, sports and entertainment content is provided daily by more than 1,200 contributors and media partners across the globe.
Editors can also browse a rich, deep archive of more than 30 million pieces of content on a state-of-the-art digital platform. Providing gold standard service for customers and contributors alike, Mega can service all your content requirements."
https://themegaagency.com/
OHhhhhh! As I read more on the mega site, I see that Mega was founded by Kevin Smith, a former Mirror reporter and founder of Splash News, a known photo agency that MM calls for photo ops:
“Mega has grown rapidly since being launched last year by Kevin Smith, a former Mirror journalist and founder of Splash News.
********************
It's interesting that Mega just happens to be the first four letters of MM's first name. Anybody else find that just too coincidental? I wonder if the Harkles have a financial stake in Mega?
The only thing these 2 have to offer is their ( perceived) royalty.
And the most accomplished people on the planet make fools of themselves to meet ( British) royalty.
It's a brand that can't be bought.
@Acquataine: But to Harry and Meghan, it’s a brand that can be sold.
(At least as long as HMTQ and Charles allow it!)
I do wonder if she pays income tax on her personal wealth like the "regular folks". Sounds like maybe she's got offshore accounts and doesn't??? Maybe same with Charles?
And what is up with Opus? His posts are very different than normal.
Yeah, that's an interesting turn of events about Harry, The Mirror/Splash News, isn't it? Small world, huh. Sounds like MM is calling the paps again, this time for Harry.
Trevor and Corey couldn't take her where she wanted to go, therefore they had to go. I think Harry will be discarded as soon as she finds another wallet as he's not working out.
@Swamp Woman: I’ve mentioned this before, but haven’t seen any replies. Meghan dropped Trevor and Corey because she wanted fame, wealth, and status. She got the whole package with Harry, snd hooking up with Harry confirmed a status that Meghan will likely not ever be able to obtain from any other man she might chase — she became royalty with a capital “R.”
My guess is that a divorce from Harry will be extremely nasty. It will make the partings of Paul and Heather or Brad and Angelina look like Sunday church picnics. I think it could also mean that because she only lived in the UK for a short time and never even made any sort of serious effort to become a British citizen, Meghan loses ALL royal titles and benefits and Harry gets custody of Archie.
People might point out that Diana and Sarah Ferguson kept their titles without the HRH, but they also are/were British citizens, which is why I think Meghan might try to keep her claws sunk into Harry and not divorce him. As evidenced by her actions, including the recent news of Archie’s birth certificate being changed, her titles mean everything to her. Without a title open doors, Meghan would fall out of the public eye faster than a one-hit wonder from the music charts. And she knows it.
Regardless of the family fall in status- do you think HM will take the titles?
If HM doesn’t take the titles, I think the RF is in for a wild ride. All of Meghan’s employees don’t just say they may work for ‘Archewell’ on their LinkedIn, they say they work for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I don’t know a single one that doesn’t route through a tax haven.
That’s the common practice.
MM won't leave Harry unless she has another man lined up who also has more wealth than Harry. Let's keep a lookout for possible new men in her life, married or not, possibly in politics.
She needs Harry right now for the publicity, but I think his expiration date is running out. MM will be looking for a newer, richer model soon.
Historically, I'm not sure if monarchs ever paid tax because in the past the money ultimately funded the monarch (I'm thinking of 1066 onwards, taxes were imposed to fund a medieval monarch's army whenever he wanted to push his claim to his former lands in France. Also, King John gave the Channel Islands the choice of staying part of Normandy and being subject to its laws and taxes (and English attack), or staying loyal England - and free of being taxed by the king. Charles I 's problem with Ship Money was that those living inland couldn't see the point of the Navy. Nobody liked the idea of a standing army either, lest it be used against them.
I recall hearing in the 1970s that Philip had done a deal with Inland Revenue whereby all profits from Royal estates went straight to the Treasury. It was so much simpler, and cheaper, than IR staff calculating the tax due at so-much-in-the-£. Philip did much to improve those profits, btw. Funny how we only ever hear about one side of that deal.
IR now lets us all off paying the first £1K's worth of saving-account interest as rates are so pathetic that it'd cost more to administer than it's worth.
The only name I can find is for the road east of the Cottage, running approx NNW-SSE - that's Frogmore Drive. The others probably do have names but you need a larger scale map than seems to be available online
The `A-Z' for Slough, Windsor, Maidenhead etc might have the names - many suppliers.
On one hand, Omid consistently attacks members of the royal family on his Twitter page and the next thing he is in OK Magazine telling how Meghan wants to heal the rift between them and the RF and plans on sending the Queen flowers for her birthday
Why is their PR so haphazard. Is it Meghan that realeased an angry statement against BP few days ago over Archie's birth certificate that now wants to heal the rift? Please can someone explain the PR strategy of the Sussexes because it's begining to look like they are all having bipolar disorder, including Scoobie.
How can you talk about healing a rift yet you keep attacking the RF members at every turn?
https://www.ok.co.uk/royal/meghan-markle-prince-harry-uk-23448894
@Aquitaine - re the curate at All Hallows by the Tower
I share your views. To me, he looks like a smug male model, so I shall try imagining him striking a manly pose in Damart thermals.
Just my opinion.
Btw, I was on holiday once and there was another guest who seemed to be always looking round to see who was admiring him - someone said they thought he must be a model. I passed his room when the door was ajar and glimpsed him striking a `Charles Atlas' pose in front of the mirror - and realised why he was familiar - I'd seen him in the Damart catalogue. Vain women are bad enough but it's repellent in a chap. Not what one expects in a man of God.
It is a pity that people of your own sex do not necessarily agree with you.
Having returned from the United States where I had been working and living, I, one day in the typists room used the expression (as Americans do) 'you women' to which the 'women' replied en masse 'we ain't women we is gells'. I have not used the term since that gentle rebuke and much prefer the term ladies as in 'My name is Emily Howard: I'm a lady'. I will however though I am a bit mystified by it bear in mind that the word female may be kryptonite for some. Not quite sure why you are getting your knickers in a bunch in what looks like a sense of humour failure over an Americanism though I suppose 'woman' is better than the awful 'you guys' when spoken of either women or a group of men and women.
You really do not want to hear my views on the subject of what is known as Feminism so I will save you the misery for it is no more of interest - at least on this blog - than my views on any of the other wishful-thinking ideologies. Meghan Markle as she is always keen to inform is a Feminist and uses the term as a badge of superior moral-status (self-awarded). The DoS tells us that he is a male-feminist and yet I keep reading how he gives the impression that the old lovable roguish Las Vegas-visiting military hero Prince Harry has since meeting the said Markle had his testicles removed. Even former Tory leader William Hague (the younger) was not averse to wearing a T-shirt in public emblazoned with the words 'this is what a feminist looks like' - so now I know all about Feminism. Why by the way - now I think on it - is the term 'feminist' when it surely should be, following your nomenclature, 'womanist'.
"@Aquitaine - re the curate at All Hallows by the Tower
I share your views. To me, he looks like a smug male model, so I shall try imagining him striking a manly pose in Damart thermals."
The curate's social media has alot of pouting selfies. Literally photos of him posing like an insta model complete with selfies taken infront of reflecting surfaces as you see insta models infront of bathroom mirrors.
I'm sure we want presentable curates, but when did we order an insta thot in the church?
And the immediate flip to victimhood due to backlash from his tweet remains revolting.
Feminist= the original term coined to describe the movement to establish the personal, social, economic and political equality of the sexes.
In short: women are not chattels or the property of their menfolk.
Womanist= a term that defines the movement within feminism that deals specifically with black women. Same ideals as the feminist umbrella, just a different chapter. Originally coined by Alice Walker in 1979.
In short = there are cultural issues faced by black women that aren't necessarily easily addressed by the overall feminism umbrella.
It's all a game to him.
He doesn't know that all it will take is one phonecall for his world to come crashing down.
Meanwhile his goddess has ensured she has a lifetime safety net via Archie.
This was posted by an Anon. I think it is someone fantasizing and just making up fake news, but I do think there is a grain of truth in it, and I do think Meghan is pregnant. Why she is hiding this one and did all that belly cupping, belly rubbng, coat flicking, smug struttng with the first pregnancy was probably a case of insane over-acting and defiance of royal protocol and image. (The Anon is clueless about bipolar disorder. Meghan is definitely not bipolar. There are other glaring errors in the submission, besides the poor writing skills.)
"I work with expectant mothers and have clients & contacts in the same area as Meghan, and the doula gossip is that Meghan is indeed pregnant this time around
However she is extremely abusive towards staff working for and very rude. One doula I know got things thrown at her and I know a few reputable highly recommended doulas actually either resigned or refused to work with her.
The other fact is that Harry isn’t involved at all with the pregnancy and Meghan doesn’t talk about him or Archie either which is quite damming especially with a lot of local gossip saying he’s never there neither is Archie and that Meghan constantly has parties or an unknown man there who is tall, white, dark hair and blue eyes.
Doria isn’t staying there either and again isn’t ever there. Doulas, her doctor, household staff & everyone else seem to be walking on eggshells. She won’t listen to any advice or help given by professionals and in my opinion with studying psychology she’s definitely bipolar with narcissistic traits.
She also won’t go to the doctors office or to classes to prepare for birth and child rearing, says that nannies exist for that reason only."
Why I said Archie isn't particularly a safety net is because of Fergie. We see how Fergie ended up. Despite having two kids for the Queen, she was still scourging and collecting money from shady people to make ends meet. Her saving grace was that Andrew loves her and was still providing for her and she kept on living with him even after the divorce. Yet, Fergie ramped up so much debt that she started collecting money from the likes of Epstein to stay afloat.
Whatever will be given to Meghan if and when they divorce will be for basic upkeep. There is no way she will get more than what Fergie got. I don't mention Diana cos Diana was the mother to the heir and Princess of Wales. Charles is rich. How rich is Harry?
Meghan will be in the same position that Fergie was and won't get more than Fergie got.
Don't also forget that in all of Fergie's shenanigans, she never attacked the royal family or carried out a smear campaign like Meghan is doing. The Queen still likes her and was inviting her for family events.
Who among the RF members likes Meghan? You best believe that they will ensure they provide just the bare minimum for her. I don't see anyone going to extra mile for her like the Queen did for Fergie. She has burnt all her bridges to ashes and when the inevitable divorce comes, she will only get the basic amount, which I believe won't be enough for the lifestyle she believes she deserves.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CrownOfSapphire
Her latest post, about photo editing (16hrs ago at time of writing) is priceless.
The taxation situation in England was not as straightforward as it's European counterparts nor was it a permanent state of affairs until the late Georgian period.
Soon after 1066, parliament carved out the crown estate whose sole purpose was to pay for the instrument of government. Government then was defined as army, judiciary, parliament, Royal household and the monarch's expenses in their duties as King. The King was to manage the estate to create the revenues needed.
The legal charter that created this estate made it very clear that it was completely separate from the King's private estate and was to remain a state property at all times. That remains the case today. Ditto the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster though Lancaster is more complicated in acquisition.
Due to the Crown estate, England was the least taxed Kingdom in Europe until the modern era. Taxes were only raised for specific reasons and only after the King had requested parliament to vote on it. Each taxation was treated as a single issue and only granted for a specific reason and for a limited time.
Parliament wasn't always accomodating - see Charles 1.
Kings always came into conflict with parliament when they approached it for taxation which unfortunately was needed due to mismanagement of the Crown estates and or ruinous wars abroad.
Successive Chancellors found creative ways to raise money for the King without having to resort to parliament eg confiscating church wealth in Henry 8's reign or Charles 1 insisting that every man who earned more than £40 had to present himself to his coronation to be knighted and failure to do so would result in a heavy fine.
The population also tended to revolt if taxation was too high or sustained too long.
Overall taxation as we understand it began almost by hapstance. A new tax, the income tax, was raised to support the Royal navy in Napoleanic wars. Later it was revived to support army in the Crimean wars.
Politicians were pleased at how well managed the income tax had turned out AND they needed to fill a gap in the nations treasury caused by wars. They therefore voted income tax permanent.
The monarch paid taxes until the abdication 1936. The new King was poor being a 2nd son. The abdicating King had built up a personal portfolio of wealth from a lifetime of duchy of cornwall income as well as inheriting their father's private wealth as the eldest son and as a monarch.
The new King had to buy back and or negotiate the family wealth from his abdicating brother which ended up including a lifetime annuity in the millions by modern standards.
Starting his reign in debt, George 6 negotiated a deal with govt that exempted him from all taxes to help him build back what he had given David.
This deal held until 1992 when Queen was forced to start paying taxes after public opinion showed that the public was angry about her exemption from taxes.
Instead she negotiated a deal that allowed her to pay taxes voluntarily and at a rate left to her discretion as opposed to the statutory rates the public pays.
Headlines in the international press are misleading, and this is what is actually happening re. coronavirus in South Africa:
"After disappointing news on Sunday that the AstraZeneca vaccine that arrived in SA last week is not effective against mild to moderate disease caused by the dominant Covid-19 variant in SA, known as 501Y.V2, it has emerged that health workers will from next week be vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Pfizer vaccines."
I think i should have been clearer that Meghan's safety net as thin as it may be is still there compared to Omid.
She'll bankrupt herself because of her, but the family will take cate of Archie and that care may include some help for her.
Omid is nothing without Meghan. He is utterly despised by the UK media, widely viewed as Meghan's puppet. And when he is officially branded a liar in court in the autumn as will she, his propects will dim even more.
He is stupid to burn his bridges for such an unreliable goddess who has shown no loyalty to him.
I enjoy much of your commentary but what group of women would ever respond with a statement like 'we ain't women we is gells'? I don't know any Americans who talk like that. LOL!
Some of the Sussex squad accounts which I believe she runs always attacks anyone who they feel should be on their side but as much as likes any post from the Cambridges.
Meghan gave Omid his entire career. She put him in the royal rota. He made money from finding Freedom. He makes money from his podcast and contributions to GMA. He sells stories to tabloids according to Dan Wotton. So everything that he is, he owes to Meghan. Unfortunately for him, the day he becomes neutral or unbiased in his reporting or stops attacking the RF, she will cut him off and at this stage, if she cuts him off, he's gone.
She's his lifeline, so he has to go above and beyond to keep her happy and Making Meghan happy means attacking the RF. That's the only way you can make her happy.
If he was wise, he should have branches off into entertainment reporting, so that when Meghan cuts him off, he won't be left high and dry.
I think that the observations about Fergie and money being a cautionary warning or observation are good. JH doesn't have the resources his father did and even his father's were tied up so HM had to do something to help him out for cash to hand over to Diana.
Nelo, you are absolutely right that she is biting the hand that feeds her.
Why is the PR so whip lash back and forth?
I think that there beneath the still waters, there is a lot happening under the surface between the various parties we don't see. I suspect that when something doesn't happen as PT (princess thundercloud) wanted, then we see some lashing out at the BRF.
Sometimes when people aren't getting what they want, they escalate in hopes that the other side will break down and give X to them. Maybe this escalating leading up to the one year mark is where they are looking at the future and it doesn't have the cash flow potential it did when the contract was negotiated? perhaps trying to renegotiate?
In a twisted way, some think that if they throw themselves into trouble, that the beloved will come rescue them no matter what (because that's what love/family means). I knew couples where one of them was testing, always testing the other to prove "their love/devotion/commitment". Maybe the back and forth is testing (just thought of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park testing the fencing as I wrote that) to see the response before the end of the year?
Archie: Well, it could get really messy like a toddler playing with paint. Ultimately, they could appeal to the court in the Hague about the custody. My impression (child custody is something I don't really follow) but that they do tend to rule that the mother cannot do what she pleases (thinking of some cases where the mother returned to a South American country and tried to keep the USA child from returning. Another factor would be the Biden administration and what or how they would think of wanting to handle this as it would impact relations with the UK long term. I mean, Clinton returned Elian Gonzales to Cuba (not quite the same two parents versus one surviving) but thinking long term.
Could she be preggers? possible. It would dovetail nicely with why she now needed delays in the court case (her age, doctor's want her to be on bed rest, maybe even claims of complications).
Meghan Markle won't come to the UK this summer because she 'doesn't want to be away from Archie' who 'loves being on Zoom calls with the Queen', Finding Freedom author claims
Meghan Markle, 39, won't come to UK this summer because of her 18-month-old
Royal expert said the Duchess of Sussex 'doesn't want to be away' from Archie
Omid Scobie explained it 'seems easier if Prince Harry, 36, does the trip solo'
Meanwhile he revealed Archie 'loves being on Zoom calls with the family'
Added the Duchess will likely 'send the Queen flowers for her 95th birthday'
Comes after a royal expert said it would be a 'snub' if Meghan didn't come to UK
Etcetera, etcetera, Yada,yada,yada
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9235843/Meghan-Markle-wont-come-UK-summer-doesnt-want-away-Archie.html
Of course, Archie will help with HM's birthday card.
Pull the other one, Omlette.
Not a royal expert, otherwise he would not be calling Meghan Duchess Meghan.
How old is Archie supposed to be? As WBBM said, pull the other one.
Meghan had no problem leaving newborn Archie to fly to NY to watch a tennis match. Nor to leave him in Canada while she went to the UK for Megxit and then the 'farewell tour'. She had no problem with taking him to South Africa for a photo op with Archbishop TuTu.
Who is the idiot at DM writing such absolute nonsense without question?
According to a biography of Charles by Sally Bedell Smith (2016), HMTQ had to pay the entirety of Diana's settlement to the tune of $28M in 1995 (or 28M pounds sterling, apologies for not remembering, but I think the amount is a US dollar figure.)
According to the author, The Duchy of Cornwall is more regulated with stricter controls and a Board of Directors (my words.) This was evident during Charles' foray into the real estate development of Poundbury, Dorset. The author states that Diana's settlement funds came from a capital call on The Duchy of Lancaster. Charles simply did not have the personal wealth, in liquid funds, to pay for his divorce settlement in 1995.
I was going to post the same re. MM not wanting to be away from Archie.
'Meghan wouldn’t want to be away from Archie and it would be very tricky to factor a small child into their travels with all the restrictions that could potentially be in place.'
Oh, pur-lease! She had no qualms being away from him when she went to watch a tennis match in NYC, even though that was pre-covid. Can they not travel together as a family? And it has nothing to do with covid. This is a thinly disguised excuse, the question is what is she up to? Is there no Archie/is she hiding Archie/is she afraid H will stay and Archie with him?
Royal expert Nigel Cawthroneclaimed: 'If Meghan decided not to attend for no reason it would indeed be a snub to her royal in-laws and mark a nadir in the relations between the royal family and the Sussexes.' I'm sure they'll all breathe a sigh of relief.
When I see people talking about how the RF will want custody of Archie, I just laugh cos it's amusing and it means the person isn't paying very close attention to the body language of the BRF. All the 'Queen misses Archie stories' are just fluff pieces. No one in the RF is interested in Archie as much as people think they are.
Compare the leaks from Clarence House when George was still a toddler. Remember how CH will leak to the press about how the Cambridges aren't allowing Charles access to George unlike how the Middletons have access.
Such leaks were so common that it was obvious Charles was upset by the Cambridges closeness to the Middletons. But have you seen any similar leaks about Archie? No. The generic reports are how the Queen, Philip and Charles miss him but that personal slight that Charles felt about not seeing George enough isn't there.
The Sussexes shenanigans during Archie's birth turned everyone off and unconsciously killed off any warmth or bond that would have developed between him and Charles and other family members.
So no, no one is going to the hague over Archie. No senior royal family member would get involved if they is any custody battle because he isn't that important. His parents took him away when he was barely seven months,so no one has been able to bond with him. Not Charles, the Queen or Philip.
Notice that most of the Archie zoom calls with the Queen comes from the Sussexes camp. Every single one of such stories were planted by the Sussexes. Archie is just like any other great grand child.
"Thank you for the clarification, Aquitaine."
You are welcome.
Also, i thought i'd expand on how The Queen was forced to start paying tax in 1992.
As mentioned in previous comments, the media kept bringing up her tax exemption all the time. I grew up knowing that the Queen paid no tax.It was slowly becoming a sore in the public discourse.
Anyhue, 1992. Windsor castle is almost destroyed in a fire. The Queen asked parliament for taxpayer funding to restore it.
Cue lots of angry editorials about a Queen who pays no taxes and yet expects taxpayer money to refurbish her home.
John Major, PM at the time, used the situation to force her to abandon the no taxes deal and to start paying taxes albight on her terms.
He also forced her to open up the Palaces and to create the royal collection so that it could be viewed by the public. The monies collected from all these viewings were to help with the refurbishment and some upkeep going forward.
I suspect the Queen got her money after she agreed to these changes because Windsor Castle was refurbished in record time.
The one thing that has fallen under the radar is the annual grant she receives for building maintenance and repairs. She's received that since her reign began in 1952 as part of the civil list.
She's let those buildings fall into ruin whilst using the money for other purposes. We got a glimpse of misdirection when BP admitted in 2015 that the money used to refurbish William and Kate's homes had come from money that was supposed to go to BP repair. The monies used were so extravagant that the palace explained it as creating a residency for William that was suitable for official duties to include meetings with the great and good. He would begin his royal duties that autumn. He didn't. Instead he got a job at EAAA and KP sat unused officially for 2yrs.
Meanwhile, BP was so ruined that it needs close to £400M to be refurbished. This has been set at 10% of The Crown estates over 10yrs. Any surplus from that money is simply directed to a reserve account to be used by The Queen at her discretion without oversight.
So far, in the 2yrs since the refurbishment began, that reserve account has £44M.
I get angry about this because she still receives that maintenance grant even as she receives 10% for BP and uses any surplus as she pleases. That 10% is carved out of an estate that pays for govt. Govt that has expanded to include emergency services and social services. And no one wonders why govt employees' pay is either frozen or kept ridiculously low to accomodate this type of thing.
In 2015/16-ish parliament had a review of royal household finances and came to the conclusion that there is alot of wastage and nobody cares.
And didn't recommend any remedies beyond releasing that report.
The only note regarding The Queen's responsibilities as far as the royal household finances was that she is badly advised. A sentence they trot out every time her finances are called into question including the panama papers.
@AnyaAmasova said...
"@Elizabeth1847
According to a biography of Charles by Sally Bedell Smith (2016), HMTQ had to pay the entirety of Diana's settlement to the tune of $28M in 1995 (or 28M pounds sterling, apologies for not remembering, but I think the amount is a US dollar figure.)"
Diana's settlement was £17M. Don't know what that would be in dolkars as i can't recall the fx rate.
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-USD-1995
The conversion rate in 1995 was £1 = $1.52- $1.61 depending on time of year. So £17 million equalled about $26-$27 million.
According to this site https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1995?amount=27000000
$27 million in 1995 is equivalent to around $46.1 million today.
Would M settle for that?
So I dug into www.freebmd.org.uk. It's a bit odd:
I found a marriage between William S Scobie and Maryam Vafa in S. Glamorgan, registered in the 3rd quarter of 1977 (ie it took place between 1st July and 30th September).
The brides's name would fit with his mother being of Iranian origin - Maryam = Miriam/Mary in Arabic & Vafa is an Iranian/Arabic family name.
They had a child apparently called `Omia William', birth registered in 3rd quarter of 1981. Looking up `Omia' got me nowhere and I suspect that somewhere during transcription a `d' was misread as an `a'. I've seen it happen before in similar circumstances when the transcriber doesn't know the name because it's from a different culture. Thus in the published 1901 Census for England & Wales, the conductor Adrian Boult was rendered as `Adnan' Boult, suggesting the transcriber was more familiar with Arabic names than European ones. (The transcription task had been assigned to `guests' of HM somewhere in the prison system.)
Scobie's birth sign on one of the `sleb' sites is given as Cancer, which fits with a birthday in weeks 1-3 of July, so I think that's evidence of our man. He's 39, if that's the case.
Otherwise, and apart from 1 or 2 references to earlier jobs he may have had, the Internet is strangely silent, with no evidence of anything apart from the spiel he churns out for the H$Ms and info. he himself perhaps provided to some uncritical sites.
The English language is rich in contemptuous terms for `nonsense' but I can't seem to find anything quite venomous enough to cover the vacuous piffle/complete balderdash/utter codswallop he comes out with.
Why is their PR so haphazard. Is it Meghan that realeased an angry statement against BP few days ago over Archie's birth certificate that now wants to heal the rift? Please can someone explain the PR strategy of the Sussexes because it's begining to look like they are all having bipolar disorder, including Scoobie.
Everyone prefers coherent and disciplined PR. Megs has so many PR people coming and going that this is impossible. So Megs is happy enough with next best thing, which is to just hustle PR and placements out into the DM and other media...Every freakin' day. Yes sometimes she has PR lulls. But our Megsy is happy enough with, "There is no such thing as bad publicity"
To be fair to Megsy, in these Cov19 times most of Hollywood is trying to keep themselves in the public eye via the DM/other media plus these lame, embarrassing group zoom collaborations. Before Cov19 their publicity was organic because it accompanied a movie or book release. Hollywood is in suspended animation, so bored Hollywood actors are pushing their stuff out there so they don't sink like a stone, forever.
All payments and salaries are going to be cut in Hollywood. This means all levels of actors plus the crews working behind these projects, such as lighting and make up. Streamed movies bring in half the revenue of theatrical releases. My estimate at least. Just look at what happened money-wise with the major movie Tenet, which was supposed to be a tent pole movie from an anticipated director. It looks like a solid sci-fi movie I would go to see in a theater.
Meghan Markle has 'some very serious and lucrative book deals on the table' that she’s 'considering' after being 'approached by numerous publishing houses', Vanity Fair reports
There's nothing that our accomplished thespian cannot do! What sort of books will she pen? Cookery books? Self-help books? (how to deal with a narc?) How to get your claws into a rich man? Romantic novels?
Publishing houses must have been impressed by her autobiography. Oops, no, sorry, that written by Scobid & Durrand. In fact, I started writing without reading the article and having looked at a paragraph, it said 'it’s likely Meghan will move in to creating self-help books soon, which the mother-of-one’s a fan of.'🤣 As this comes from VF/Katie Nichols, perhaps we need to take this info with a large pinch of salt but at least this gave me a laugh.
So many talented writers struggling to get a publisher to take a chance on them and this awful woman supposedly has publishers tripping over themselves to publish whatever word salad codswallop she can come up with? They should be ashamed of themselves! (The pre-royal Meghan would have loved the publicity tours and the rounds of all the talk shows, but this new Meghan cannot possibly leave Archie!)
Does Katie Nichols make this stuff up or does she get fed this rubbish (and there is an endless stream from her) from a Meghan connection?