Here's a fresh post to continue discussing Sussex news and developments.
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
. . .when Harry and Meghan divorce, I don't see the Queen or Charles getting involved in any custody dispute. Archie is not so so so important that the RF will go out on a limb to gain custody of and that's the truth. At most, the court will grant them joint custody or give Meghan primary custody. The RF will largely stay out of the Sussexes business because Archie isn't George, Charlotte or Louis: those are the kids that matter.
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.
So, an image of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh being presented with their 8th great-grandchild & seventh heir in line to the throne of the United Kingdom has been widely disseminated, including by the Queen in her Christmas Day speech of 2018. I was quite shocked when she did so, since so many questions about the veracity of that image still circulate to this day. It has been said that the Queen wore the identical expression (and outfit) when being presented with a new horse on some prior occasion. The Queen is a frugal woman and it wouldn't surprise me that she often recycles outfits for a quiet day in at home at Windsor Castle, though she seemed extremely casual on this occasion, while her husband was looking natty in a suit. The composition of that photo is very odd indeed, with only Meg & her mother, who seems inserted into the shot at an odd angle (and wearing very similar clothing to her visit at the Grenfell Towers cookbook launch 6 months prior) really positioned to look down at the swaddled bundle in Meg's arms . .which could be Baby Yoda, really, for all we know. The rest of the adoring party seems a bit far away to actually see his face.
Her Majesty let this photo pass entirely with no official word at the time, and it bears reminding that no official Palace photographers were involved. HM has no copyright over this picture; it belongs to Meg and the then-Sussex Royal as it was commissioned by Meg and taken (or 'taken') by her employee. HM therefore has no jurisdiction over this image. Further questions: Her Majesty is well-known to weekend in Windsor, but May 8, 2019 was a Wednesday. Was HM in the habit of spending midweek away from BP, pre-Covid? I wouldn't have thought so. Also troubling questions remain about the metadata of the christening photo, the next time we would see this blessed tot--purportedly taken 2 months later, but showing the same original metadata as this presentation photo--May 8, 2019.
The Queen allowing and even seeming to promote this image of Archie including herself and her consort does seem to legitimize the entire exercise, though it is fairly unprecendented for HM to permit an image of herself taken within Palace walls but NOT by her own selected Royal house photographer--to be distributed. This photo was Meg's own property, which means that she could (and most likely did) profit handsomely from selling this photo of the Queen and 'her baby' to multiple media outlets . . then there was all the merching--calendars, tea towels, coffee table books and so on, of which it must be a part.
By featuring this photo so prominently in her Christmas speech that year, though careful, IIRC, to say only 'a new great-grandchild' and not his name . .
1. Her Maj was rubber-stamping the Sussex family life as completely normal--nothing to see here, folks!
2. TQ acknowledged that a child was born, presumably of Harry's seed, but not going by the legal name 'Archie', meaning he does not reside with the Harkles as promoted. One would suppose that Harry at least has to be genetically involved for the Queen to have included this child in her biggest speech of the year. Would she stick her neck out for a child that is no genetic tie to either of the Sussex couple? If he's Meg's alone by genetics, she is technically guilty of infidelity. Would TQ give Meg's con an international platform if this is true?
3. There is either a surrogate baby who is none of Harry or neither of them . . or maybe no baby at all. There may be a child, somewhere, but the Harkles were never awarded custody, or a surrogacy agreement was negated by some other means. Since the DoS has been known to employ dolls to stand in for 'Archie' more than once, was this the family's way of appeasing a profoundly mentally ill woman? (And let's be honest, Harry's mental health is also a matter of debate for numerous reasons, but he seemed to go along with the faux pregnancy show and since 'the birth' has wholeheartedly participated and promoted the ongoing narrative that Archie is thriving in America, is about twice the normal size for an 18-month-old on all that California sunshine and produce and absolutely LOVES doing Zoom calls with Great-Granny.
SOMEone is having us all on here. But who? Who's the most likely to be lying: The Sussexes or the Queen? Would the Queen lie, though, to protect the interests of the Crown, as she sees it? If, as seems likely, at least several pieces of the pregnancy/birth/subsequent life of 'Archie' are fraudulent, the question becomes--What did/does the Palace know--and when did they know it? Is there a cover-up here? Maybe TQ and everyone concerned really hoped that mentioning 'Archie' in the Christmas speech would coax the renegades back from Canada and the mysterious origins (or complete fiction) of this baby could be managed behind Palace walls. But then the Harkles dropped their Megxit manifesto and keeping the lid on this Pandora's box became impossible. The Harkles are now two loose cannons beyond Palace control.
Since then, there have been the sound of crickets emanating from London re. the fate of this little boy, the seventh in line to the throne of the United Kingdom. When Charles ascends, he will, by constitutional law become the legal guardian of Archie, who will certainly still be a minor, unless ER proposes to reign until she is 111. The law making the monarch the legal guardian of his/her minor grandchildren was instituted for just such a situation of negligent parenting as we see with the Harkles. I think if there were a matter of REAL concern over Archie's welfare, the Sussexes would not have been permitted to take him out of the country, with no surety that he could be provided with stability and safety. What kind of stability has he known, bundled from borrowed home to borrowed home in borrowed jets? We are not privy to what is going on behind Palace walls, viz. possibly trying to get Harry and his son back into the fold. Nobody wants Mugsy. A Harkle divorce *could* be swiftly handled to the Palace's benefit if M&H do not in fact have custody of a toddler. They could threaten to expose Meg's lies and her perpetual non-motherhood. On the other hand, she's so vindictive it overrides her self-protective instinct--she could very well turn any revelations about 'Archie' back on the BRF. "Yes, I lied, but they drove me to it with the pressure--and they KNEW THE ENTIRE TIME."
Either way you slice it, it's bad for the BRF. It will be bad for Mugs too, but either way, she's going to get a big fat settlement from them. With no discretion and no integrity, it doesn't matter how much hush money they pay her--do we actually think she'll hush? Severed from the BRF, she could inflict even more damage with tell-all books and interviews. She'll twist this around to suit her ongoing 'I was a victim of those racist bullies!' narrative.
As you pointed out--the BRF officially gives two flips about Meghan's child. He's not been mentioned at all since TQ's Megxit statement--she did use 'Archie' that time. If Archie is real, really theirs and really in their custody--the BRF has essentially let their most vulnerable member--a blood royal--be abducted from British soil by two highly erratic and selfish people who, all indications point to, use substances heavily and have no viable means of support other than family handouts. Who is caring for Archie? If there's anyone, it's unvetted nannies and hired guns who are not RPOs. Whenever Mug remembers that she's supposed to be a devoted mum, she trots out 'Gotta rush home for feed time!' (like he's a household pet or livestock) or 'I don't want to miss any precious time with Archie by leaving him to come to England."
But she came to the U.S. Open for several days just after his christening when he was 2 months old and 'breastfeeding', though.
The very final-seeming way the BRF has washed its hands of the Sussexes (apart from sending money, most likely) indicates to me that there isn't a child with them. Otherwise I'd expect every effort being made to retrieve him and make sure he was safe. So, I think he must BE safe, and they KNOW he is safe. Very safest of all is if he doesn't exist, or at the least, if the Harkles have zero access to him and never will. To me, this accounts for their complete lack of interest/concern over Archie.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CrownOfSapphire/status/1358780523469025284
So MM's going to write a book? That's no surprise to me, as she thinks she can do anything. Usually, authors don't announce a book until the ink is dry on the contract, and the publisher will announce it at the same time. If it's of the same quality as FF, it will be in the bargain bin in no time. Do we have to hear about the African birds with their tails looking like they were dipped in paint again?
**************
Speaking of books, I'm half way through reading Princess Pushy, and so far I'm not impressed. It appears that Sam had no editor as she makes grammatical and punctuation mistakes on just about every page. She puts so many phrases in unneeded quotes that it stops the flow of the book.
So far, she's implied that Doria was a sex kitten, manipulative, and absent from the family a lot. Sam dances around the subject, but says that Doria spent a lot of time in Humboldt County, which, at that time, was the weed-growing capital of California (my words). Sam says she could smell an unusual smell around Doria after she'd return from Humboldt County with her friends. She also says that Doria was going through money like water, and that she had Thomas wrapped around her little finger (sound familiar?). She implies that Doria was gay or bi, and that Doria went through all of Thomas' money, then left him.
Doria attempted to make a business out of selling "mood rings" at a kiosk in the mall, but that failed (gee, I wonder why)?
Sam says that MM was a beautiful child, but photos don't show that. MM was an average-looking kid with horrible, misaligned teeth.
On to the second half of the book tonight...
"Former Commission for Racial Equality chairman Lord (Herman) Ouseley told the Daily Mirror: "It is very sad that Prince Harry thinks black people all talk in the same way."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/harry-told-me-you-don-t-sound-black-claims-comic-1606648.html
I think we picked up earlier on claiming that `Meghan Markle's preparing her son for the throne'? It's in several rags and now it's back and on Apple News as well - it's a rehash/repeat but it is sound evidence of her unsound mind - or that of OS.
https://www.newidea.com.au/archie-secret-king-classesArchie gets prepped for the crown
Meghan Markle’s preparing her son for the throne. - by New Idea
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex might have eschewed a royal title – or indeed, upbringing – for their son Archie, but sources say Meghan Markle is still playing the long game.
New Idea Royal Monthly is told that Meghan is all too aware that her one-year-old son remains seventh-in-line to the throne until the William and Kate’s children – Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis – have families of their own.
However, she has, rather morbidly, confided to friends that “anything can happen, so it’s best I’m prepared”.
Indeed even Robert Lacey, royal author and script consultant to The Crown, says in his latest book: “Who knows what can happen in an age of terrorist attacks and global pandemics? Six and seven could well get promoted to three and four, or higher.”
Our source explains that Meghan plans on ensuring Archie’s all clued-up on his royal side of the family – just in case.
“If the unthinkable did happen and Archie was required to return to England and fulfil a destiny no-one would’ve expected for him, a side of Meghan would be thrilled,” says the source.
“She’d get the rank and power that she always wanted – mum to a king, or even if he was just higher up in succession, it would give her the status she never had as merely Harry’s wife. Meghan is nothing if not prepared, and she’ll ensure Archie learns all his etiquette lessons just in case the prodigal son ever needs to return.”
Meghan is said to love the English accent and wants Archie to have one.
We’re told that as part of Archie’s upbringing, he’s being read English literature – and Meghan encourages Harry to do most of it.
“She loves the English accent and wants Archie to have one,” a source says. “She thinks it’s more regal. When he’s a little older she’s asked Harry to educate him on British kings and queens of the past, royal protocols and traditions. At the least, she doesn’t want the snobs in the palace looking down on Archie if he ever returns with a strong American accent and little understanding of his UK relatives.”
English literature? This week `Great Expectations', next `A Tale of Two Cities'? It's cognitive dissonance gone mad and sounds as if disaster is being wished on the Cambridges. The fact that she knows the square root of nothing doesn't seem to hold her back & hubby will be no help whatsover, unless he can throw hand-shadows of Henry VIII and the execution of traitors onto the wall in Bleak House.
I don't think the probable non-existence of Archie would stop her either.
Still targeting youth and lapping up the hysterical fan adoration ...
They really are shameless in grabbing any platform they can.
Princess Tiffany has some good tea about a possible affair between MM and a director- producer on Suits that led to her divorce from Trevor. She believes that MM may be getting close to divorcing Harry and has this guy lined up as her next target.
Princess Tiffany also has photos of an unidentified man that MM seems to be very close with, too, and she provides photos of him. One photo shows him with his arms wrapped around her from behind, and she is leaning into him with her eyes closed, too close as a colleague or a friend, as PT says.
PT says her choice for MM's next mark is Rick Hoffman from Suits. MM accompanied Hoffman on a trip to France for a wedding as his plus one, and shows a photo of MM holding Rick's son, born in 2015, and nobody knows who the mother is.
It almost sounds like there are subtle threats to the safety of William, Kate and their children. No wonder the BRF is keeping their distance from The Harkles.
All of this wanting Archie to speak with a British accent is just a ploy for more PR, as far as I'm concerned. Same with teaching him British history and protocol. And HARRY"s going to be the teacher? That's laughable. Harry can barely tie his shoelaces at this point.
Yep. The guy who couldn't pass his classes is going to be his son's teacher so they can triumphantly return to take the throne. Ha!
The couple were the guests of honor during a digital event organized by poetry group Get Lit in honor of Black History Month, during which Meghan, 39, 'shared some of her favorite lines' with the aspiring performers, while Harry expressed a keen 'interest' in poetry.
I should have known MM wouldn't be quiet for long. And H, 'a keen interest in poetry'? That's a new one. Only the young, which the students were, could have been so impressed (they were in 'a state of utter shock!')
I agree! That's pushing it way too far to expect anybody to believe that dumb Harry reads poetry in his spare time. And MM just looked up some quotes, as she always does.
They are preying on the young and uninformed, as that's the only audience who will believe the garbage that they spew.
This New Idea article is a hoot, innit? I was amused/mixed with nausea when it first came out and was discussed here. I gather that New Idea is akin to our National Enquirer here in the States--maybe twice in its history, the NE actually did break two large political scandals the MSM was not giving credence to--but 95% of the time, the weekly issues feature stories about grandmothers being impregnated by aliens and etc. "National Enquirer" is sensationalist supermarket tabloid fodder at its most fantastical.
New Idea Royal Monthly is told that Meghan is all too aware that her one-year-old son remains seventh-in-line to the throne until the William and Kate’s children – Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis – have families of their own.
However, she has, rather morbidly, confided to friends that “anything can happen, so it’s best I’m prepared”.
Indeed even Robert Lacey, royal author and script consultant to The Crown, says in his latest book: “Who knows what can happen in an age of terrorist attacks and global pandemics? Six and seven could well get promoted to three and four, or higher.”
Our source explains that Meghan plans on ensuring Archie’s all clued-up on his royal side of the family – just in case.
This is just a desperate Mugsy, starved of Narc fuel making noise to be provocative. IF she truly 1. had a son who was seventh in line to the throne and 2. cared about him being prepared for his potential future as the sovereign of the United Kingdom, she wouldn't have dragged him off to North America. He would be learning about his Royal heritage where it actually matters--in England.
“If the unthinkable did happen and Archie was required to return to England and fulfil a destiny no-one would’ve expected for him, a side of Meghan would be thrilled,” says the source.
“She’d get the rank and power that she always wanted – mum to a king, or even if he was just higher up in succession, it would give her the status she never had as merely Harry’s wife.
Amongst this pile of self-serving drivel, two true sentences. Interesting how, in this pro-Megsie article, presumably paid for by Herself, her naked grasping ambition cannot be concealed but leaks out. As a Narc, naked ambition is her default setting and she keeps forgetting that it puts normal people off. As does unerringly ruthless behavior to achieve those ambitions. This is the only True Self she's got.
Meghan is nothing if not prepared, and she’ll ensure Archie learns all his etiquette lessons just in case the prodigal son ever needs to return.”
Yes, she was unfailingly prepared and impeccable during every single one of her Royal appearances and never ever put an elegantly shod Size 11 foot wrong at all. She is the only natural choice to instruct Archie on all the Royal etiquette and deportment she mastered so pristinely during her extensive career as a working royal.
She misuses prodigal here. Prodigal means that Archie willingly and willfully made the decision, and continues to on a daily basis, to remove himself from his Royal family and all its influences. This baby (if he exists) had no say, no choice and no awareness. She and her Dimbulb consort are the prodigals.
In the Bible, the prodigal son repented of all his sins toward his father and crawled back asking for forgiveness. He would have counted himself lucky to live in the pigsty and eat swill, if only his father would forgive him and take him back. Somehow I do not picture Meg and Harry being repentant or willing to live in the stables. Only Palaces and mansions will do for these two unemployed slackers.
Meghan is said to love the English accent and wants Archie to have one.
We’re told that as part of Archie’s upbringing, he’s being read English literature – and Meghan encourages Harry to do most of it.
“She loves the English accent and wants Archie to have one,” a source says. “She thinks it’s more regal. When he’s a little older she’s asked Harry to educate him on British kings and queens of the past, royal protocols and traditions. At the least, she doesn’t want the snobs in the palace looking down on Archie if he ever returns with a strong American accent and little understanding of his UK relatives.”
Yes, God knows how very much she threw herself into the Royal ways of speaking and regal behavior as a Duchess. How she immersed herself in English literature and the long and detailed history of Harry's ancestors. Courtiers had to literally tear her away from her studies when it was Feed Time, so immersed would she get in her books.
And who better to school Archie in the deep, 1000-year-old history of England than his father? Who needs a Double First in History from Cambridge for that? Harry's a blood royal, so he's learned all this history and English classics by osmosis. He got a D in geography and couldn't finish an Art project unassisted, but by gum, he knows his family tree going back to William the Conqueror! The Commonwealth of Nations is significantly younger, which is why he gets confused. But history and Shakespeare? He's solid as a rock.
It's cognitive dissonance gone mad and sounds as if disaster is being wished on the Cambridges.
Doesn't it just? In my earlier commentary on this article, I called it 'the verbal equivalent of voodoo dolls.
I think Mugs and Harry both suffer from ADD and short-term memory loss . . maybe genetic in both cases. Harry sustained a serious head injury when he was younger, plus his faulty wiring inherited from his unstable, dyslexic mother. Maybe Diana's problems, attributed to dyslexia were actually a form of ADD. Or a combination of both. It explains a lot--why she and her son were both devoid of any notable achievement in anything besides sport by the time they were young adults, and why their interests and hobbies were/are shallow.
Meg and Harry are both documented drug/stimulent users and heavy drinkers, which would exacerbate any tendencies to ADHD. Because otherwise, her schizophrenic approach to PR--this cognitive dissonance of saying and acting certain ways, and then hours later, within the same publication oftentimes, saying the polar opposite. Does she really think that nobody can remember what she says from day to day?
I don't think the probable non-existence of Archie would stop her either.
Nor do I. As I mentioned in comments earlier today--If Archie has never been real and has been a figment this whole time--the BRF's course of response or non-response has gotten her this far and only emboldened her to continue and escalate.
If she knows d@mn well she doesn't have a son of her body in her home who is 7th in line to the throne, does she propose to use hired standins throughout 'his' lifetime? Simulated Christmas cards and fake pictures with other people's children aren't gonna do it if, pending some catastrophe befalling the entire Cambridge family, she has to produce a young man who would be ready to rule in the stead of his uncle and all his cousins.
This whole thing reads to me like a threat, from MM to the BRF. It would be so if Archie is real and in her custody. Even more so if she does not have a child. That would be really psychotic but I think we've established that Meg is not dealing with full deck. Any normal person, having told the lies she's told, would not seek to triple down on those lies and shine further attention on her area of greatest vulnerability, and taunt her long-suffering in-laws from afar. Any hope the BRF had that she'd go away and leave them alone if she got the Freedom in America she was agitating for was in vain. The glorious Hollywood A-list red carpet premiere Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous gig isn't working out for her so she's weaponizing what she's got left--the Child Known as Archie. What she's also got is proof that the BRF was complicit in a lot of her scams .. after the fact as may be. They have scrubbed her past. They certainly knew something was amiss during the 11-month pregnancy and the chaotic birth circus, if not in the earliest going. Even if they had compassionate motives in whitewashing her very un-Royal-suitable past, and not sharing the truth about Archie and the Frogmore money--trying to give her leeway in the hopes she'd settle in, find her footing, make Harry happy--I do not think they counted on such a remorseless sociopath as Tungsten is. Nothing surrounding her is normal and everything stinks. The BRF has tried to distance itself, but more muscular methods are required--now that she's issuing thinly veiled threats against the future of the monarchy, and has an army of rabid stans that would possibly hurt William or Kate or the children if they had the opportunity.
I think it's gone well beyond harmless fantasies of the Sussexes now and into the realm of real and present threat territory. Physically, the Cambs may be fine and well-protected, but the whisper campaign engineered by Mugs could still do incredible damage. Do we think that the security services are meeting to discuss whether it remains tenable to have two renegade Royals undermining the monarchy relentlessly from their self-imposed exile? Meg will, God willing, never ever get anywhere near the House of Windsor again, but her actions over the last three years and counting have revealed the weakness at the very heart of the Royal system. The path of least resistance is easy, but fatal. Elizabeth's father didn't take it. The force that drives M and to an apparently equal extent--the avarice for power and wealth and ultimate control--is the exact same that drover Herr Hitler to steamroll over Europe. He wanted to be the Supreme Fuhrer of the whole world.
These two are that grandiose. ER and Charles let the Sussex insurrection slide at their peril. Well, it won't be theirs as such--it will be William and his family that is going to pay the price. The Sussexes are a festering boil on the arse of the BRF and they need to be lanced. Tout suite, Your Majesty. Blood ties be d@mned. Your grandson and his haughty wife are traitors. I'm American and I can see this--why can't you?
OMG, that is the best laugh I have had for ages!!
This clod could only manage a 'D' in geography as the only 'passing' grade he could receive without cheating. If he's so keen on poetry, where is his Literature O-Level?
Remember over the summer when Harry was reported to be working on 'multiple' screenplays across genres? Haven't heard much on those lately, even with so much time to be writing, in California lockdown.
Let's be honest--Harry is so thick, he can barely sign his own name without assistance. Any 'keen interest in poetry' he's got is along the lines of There once was a gal from Nantucket . . .
My sides!
I too remember very precisely that HMTQ acknowledged that she and PP "welcomed their eight great grandchild" during her Christmas 2019 broadcast. No name. No sex/gender distinction.
I have arrived at the same conclusion you suggest in your summation. The BRF has washed their hands of the Sussexes save for sending money, and there is either no child or the child we refer to as "Archie" is with someone else and completely safe from the village nit-wit and the village sociopath.
I just read or heard somewhere (?) that by this past fall, David Foster had begun to pick around the edges, directly with the nit-wit, regarding Archie. After a few, "he is with Doria" or "he is with? or wherever?", Foster began to get very clear-eyed about the situation and backed off on the relationship. Since gossip runs rampant in Hollywood, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the connected glitterati now believe there is no Archie or Archie never made it to this said of the Atlantic.
This is when the smarter people in the Hollywood crowd know to stay away. You don't want to get too much "STUPID JUICE" on you.
Does anybody think it's odd that a charity designed to help children is named after a phase that means smoking weed? Get Lit. It also doesn't have a board of directors yet.
Get Lit also has a page on their website for a charity named Volta, which is "changing the world" through poetry. Yeah, that's gonna work. :/
Get Lit's motto is to "ignite" through poetry. Wouldn't "unite" be a less incendiary word, and a far better goal?
These groups need to stop pandering to The Harkles, who just drop in unannounced to young people's groups. They have no idea that MM is using them for her own gains.
They also have a one-week program that's just $500 (for disadvantaged children???). Well, that's another organization that won't be getting any money from me. It is also going to teach film classes, right up MM's alley.
How much money did The Harkles donate to Get Lit? We all know that it's none, and that the Harkles think that another guerilla appearance for PR purposes is enough for these kids.
Ohhh, their group has played at the White House three times. Bingo! Now we know what MM is doing with Get Lit (I hate that name!)-looking for an intro to the WH. The director and the other people running the show have lots of media connections that MM would love to have.
https://getlit.org/who-we-are/
"There once was a girl from Nantucket..." Hahaha! Yes, that's Harry's speed when it comes to understanding or reading poetry. I'd love to hear him recite one poem from memory. MM, too.
Sorry if I don't reply sometimes; we're out of state a lot without internet access. Sometimes I just don't have the time to find where the blog left off and just start on the last page of comments.
Maybe I'm overly cynical, but the mortgage companies aren't going to be impressed by a title when the payment is due. MM appears to go through money like fecal matter through a goose; if she and Harry can't generate enough money (and do you think that anything they say or can produce is worth multiple millions/year? I know I don't!) then she's going to attempt to move on to another victim. It's her modus operandi.
Now, back to the top of the comments since I read that comment this morning and I'm sure I'm waaaaay behind again.
Just wanted to point out it says "I'm prepared" not Archie is prepared. Meganut thinks she will reign as she pleases through Archie (if he exists).
As of today, I own a paper back version of Samantha Markle’s book. 267 pg, about 5” x 7” . nicely produced.
I read the last few chapters and didn’t find anything exciting that has not already been mentioned, except she really dislikes Doria. I feel even more sorry for Mr Markle for the way she has been treated. Her descriptions of how the tabloids work is pretty scary. I will report on content once I start into the beginning.
Fortunately, the type is big enough and spaced well enough so that I have no trouble reading. Lots of photos that were badly copied/printed in the book. The photos appeared to have been photocopied and then added to the book. Instead of orinting them as images, if that makes sense. All are somewhat faded and fuzzy.
Ohhh, their group has played at the White House three times. Bingo! Now we know what MM is doing with Get Lit (I hate that name!)-looking for an intro to the WH. The director and the other people running the show have lots of media connections that MM would love to have.
By George, she's got it!
/Professor Higgins off.
This is OT for a mo, but if HRH JCMHFKAP is lurking, here's something to amuse his (until now entirely hidden) fondness for poetry. This was an amusing scene from S1:E1 of 'The Crown', and I don't know if Peter Morgan came up with it or it's an old limerick chestnut. In the scene, the King is being dressed for Lilibet's wedding, and a recalcitrant collar stud causes GR to lose his temper and yell at his dresser. Equerry Peter Townsend comes to the rescue with a light of a new ciggie and this limerick as he gets the collar stud to behave and soothes the savage beast. Evidently His Majesty was rather fond of the rude limerick, but he was a Navy man, after all.
To preserve the rhyme, I have to lay it out as written, but you can substitute Meggie for the name of the lass in the verse
There was a young lady named Sally
Who enjoyed the occasional dally.
She sat on the lap
Of a well-endowed chap
And cried, "Sir! You're right up my alley!"
Salads and bowling . . that's how Meg snagged Doofus.
When are the men in white coats coming for them? Or is H already married to Nurse Ratched. (Could that be why she doesn't like the name Rachel? Too close to `Ratched' for comfort?)
I did warm to my subject, rather.
It just gets insaner by the day, doesn't it? Whatever happens, this chapter is going to go down as one of the bizarrest in Royal history. It's so rare that two members of such a high profile family--the highest--are acting out so very publicly and certifiably, on the world stage. These two are crackers. They are like a couple of kids playing hooky from school and telling the most outrageous porkies. Meg may be eyeballing the echelons of power in Washington, but even an inept politician has to put in too much work to suit her. She deosn't want to work--she just wants attention and to be paid millions of dollars a week just for breathing. Her husband is the same, but at least he grew up Royal so there's some basis for his attitude. I don't know where hers comes from, but if she hadn't hooked up with Haz, she might be in an institution. She's quite, quite simply mad.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-pays-more-tv-shows-164000965.html
Princess Tiffany has a YouTube channel about The Harkles and is very prolific in her posts. She's from South Africa, I believe. I don't agree with everything she says, but she makes some very valid points.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=princess+tiffany
@Hikari,
I remember that scene from The Crown and the limerick. Perhaps Harry can read this as one of his favorite poems! Substituting MM in the limerick is perfect!
Read somewhere today about David Foster. Someone mentioned he’d been wondering about archies whereabouts, for which h he’s never received a credible answer. Seems he’s no longer visiting with them.
We don’t see any other celebs doing this, even though they have great fame, because they already have careers connections money and power. They don’t need to use it over anons and random kids to hold themselves up even more to
Inflate their perception.
Does Meghan want a White House gig or connection? Sure. She can’t have one due to her titles and what she’s done to the BRF. Politicians have more to lose by playing that game. They don’t need her or Harry and it will get them nowhere. They know this.
But let’s think about this some more: Meghan near politics or the White House. She can’t run, she can’t really do much in the space as it’s the least private space you will find (public servant). What it looks like is she wants paid speaking gigs with lobbyists (lol), or to be in the super PAC fundraisers, and around big donors for Archewell.
The issue with all of her approaches is that when the rubber meets the road (or the cash hits the bank account) she is responsible for what happens. We’ve never seen Meghan need to be responsible or accountable. They haven’t taken any real funds that we know of and Archewell is not listed or registered as a non-profit. She might be trying the for-profit RED approach that Bono did. But, it was Bono. He had scale.
Lastly, the person leading all this political nonsense would be their chief of staff and head of archewell, Catherine St. Laurent, who was previously Melinda Gates second hand woman at the Gates Foundation. The issue there is that Catherine would be experienced given direction at the behest of Melinda. Melinda and the Gates Foundation are loaded. They did the work. Meghan’s done eff all but marry a semi-rich Prince. Harry does not have Bill fame or money.
One thing I know for sure, they can’t continue to call themselves The Duke etc and blur the lines in the foundation world.
This is the only way to deal with a narcissist in the family. (I have experienced this. Soon after we married, we moved 300+ miles away from my partner's mother and have maintained 'geographic therapy' ever since. Soon to be 40 years now and the old bat is still living.)
Twice the loss of the military was mentioned in FF.
The first time (chapter The Family Meeting), there is a long lead with how they were told they weren't going to get everything and that he recognized that his grandmother made a show of support for the decision (p 330 as compared to how he felt that family did not at the Commonwealth Service p 341). Talk of how he was not leaving his responsibilities and does so in a speech patterned after his mother's at almost the same age (pp331 to 332). The chapter ends with this look at how he realized that he, like she was leaving this "...life...of privileged...but also trapped by its circumstances."
Several pages later, now in the last trip in March (p 337), Harry told one of the generals that: "I'm devastated that I am having to step down."
The next paragraph is about how '"It was so unnecessary," Meghan later told a friend of the decision to strip Harry of his military honors. "And it's not just taking something away from him..."' but also the loss of the military community for both sides. "... You can see how much he means to them, too. So why?" The section ends with the the farewell at the Royal Albert Hall as "rapturous". (p338).
IF they were just taking the honors on a trial basis, they probably would not have used the word "stripped". More like taken, removed temporary basis and so on.
I seem to remember that this disconnect by him about the loss was part of the faux Greta call before you get to the wreath laying kerfuffle. Maybe that part didn't register with him or that he thought they didn't really mean it. IDK. I am reminded of the saying:
I am only responsible for what I say and not for what you understand.
I agree there would not have been so much wailing and gnawing of teeth in FF and other places unless Harry had been told his military honors were definitely going to go. I'm not sure why PR-wise he's now acting like maybe they aren't gone except that he hasn't been replaced. And that makes no sense to me unless there was a 1-yr trial period. But like many others, I'm not sure there was ever a "12 months review" in TQ's mind. So who knows.
But I'm not sure Harry ever said to the faux Greta that the removal of his honorary military positions was a misunderstanding.
According to DM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8099967/Full-transcript-Prince-Harrys-bizarre-call-Russians-pretending-Greta-Thunberg.html
re: being stripped of titles and losing royal privileges Harry said:
'No, no, again you mustn't believe what you read, no one has stripped us of our titles. Because of a technicality within the family, if we are earning money separately from within the family structure, then we obviously have been asked not to use our titles in order to make money, which we would never do. But the press managed to jump on that to make it look like we had been stripped.'
I think it's pretty clear from the context he's talking about the HRHs.
That's a great saying! I'm going to remember that one.
It looks like half of the youngsters can see through their cracked veneer.What can the Harkles do now? Zoom bomb kindergardeners?
Every day, I wake up idly wondering whether today is going to be the day that she assaults somebody in public. Maybe a staff member, maybe Harry, but she must be extremely frustrated at this point. Who wouldn't be, am I right? Just look at her, working fingers to the bone to claw her way to success, only to be stymied by conflicting PR, Harry not understanding his role, and that idiot Gavin didn't even appoint her to fill Kamala's term in the Senate. Just think, she could have gotten lots of lobbyist bribes and then used it to clean up in the stock market via the insider trading that isn't illegal for government members like it is for everybody else.
Hollywood was bubbling before Cov19 with all kinds of stupid projects making stupid money for everyone. In this kind of situation the Duo would have been out more, socializing more. Making those all important face to face Hollywood connections. Zoom now rules the day which is pathetic. The Dastardlies coulda been contenders. (movie reference)
They could have done OK, now they look like off the rails Royal rejects, exiled in far off LaLa Land.
HappyDays,
Regardless of the family fall in status- do you think HM will take the titles?
@jessica: If Harry and Meghan eventually divorce, I think HM will take Meghan’s titles based on the titles actually being granted as courtesy titles given to use due to her marriage to Harry. I think Meghan not being a British citizen and never even starting much less completing the process to become a citizen of the UK provides the Queen with a perfectly good reason to remove Meghan’s titles using the reasoning that royals should be citizens of the UK. Also, if they allow her to remain a duchess as a person no longer in the family, Meghan would likely exploit and abuse the title even more than she is currently doing as Harry’s wife. She could do greater damage than anyone can possibly imagine. They would be wise to remove her titles to protect the royal brand and the reputation of the monarchy.
Of course, I could be wrong and the RF could just make an already massive mistake even worse.
I was I think not entirely clear. The charming ladies who asserted to me 'we ain't women we is gells, in't we' which was what they decided about themselves was back in England and not - as you rightly divined - America.
One always presses post too soon and had I not done so I would have added to my list of feminists Justin Trudeau and his 'I - am - a - Femi - nist'. (dabs eyes with pocket handkerchief scented with eau de sincerity.) This is the same feminist who assaulted a female in the Canadian parliament. Always beware of men claiming to be male-feminists and men offering to freshen up your drink. Their motives are not honourable and are only interested in loosening your knicker elastic - if you get my drift.
I am feeling a little like Basil Fawlty and The Germans. 'Don't mention the war (against women) I mentioned it once but think that I got away with it'. and then 'you started it, no we didn't, yes you did, you invaded the workplace'. lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchess_(Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland)
"I love that not al of the kids in the poetry group Get Lit were happy to see the gruesome twosome. Half of them had annoyed looks on their faces."
Let's not forget that they are teenagers.
Getting a half a roomful of teens impressed with you even superficially is impressive.
It is what it is.
The question is why Garry and Meghan are trying to impress teenagers? No poetry readings in their age group?
They have no talent or credentials to sell.
All they are doing is flexing to teens for the adulation.
It reminds me of stories of faded hollywood stars whose desparate gandlers boughtb'fans' to mob the deluded stars to bolster their self-esteem.
This poetry podcast is on the same level.
Legally, Meghan is only holding onto those titles due to her marriage to Harry.
Post-divorce she loses the lot for 2 simple reasons.
1. All divorcees automatically lose the HRH.
2. Only UK / Commonwealth citizens can hold titles.
Eg Angelina Jolie was made a Dame in 2014. Does anyone think Angelina is not flaunting her Damehood out of a discretion? Or for that matter Steven Spielberg who was made a Knight in 2000?
They hold their titles in their own right and they understand that they are honorary.
Meghan holds hers by courtesy ie not in her own right and even then only via a marriage technicality which makes it highly probable that a divorce strips them completely for the 2 reason above.
Title is the peerage titles.
You are styled HRH ( HM, HSH, IM etc)
And titled Duke, Earl, Viscount etc
It remains debatable whether Prince is a title or a style or both because the only recognised Prince title is PoW.
Thanks so much for sharing as you read Samantha's book. Very interesting!
See https://mobile.twitter.com/boxmontessori
Your bad karma can harm ya.
Before you know it you can blow it.
Without Covid they coulda, woulda, shoulda grown it.
Their Hollywood dreams that is.
Well the first thing you know ol Megs a millionaire,
Megs said H lets move away from there
(those boring old farts in their castles)
Said Californy is the place we gotta be
So they loaded up the private jet and moved to Beverly.
Hills, that is. Swimmin pools, movie stars.
Glittering deals worth Billions
From Netflix
Spotify
Like Scrooge McDuck diving into his cash vault
For your amusement ...!
Imagine earning a living talking such inconsequential drivel, and then someone with appalling grammatical skills earning a living by writing about it? Kind of reminds me of the Sussexes!
And it continues ... Rare look inside their home? Nope we have seen this background on at least two Zoom calls!
@moz said…
"I love that not all of the kids in the poetry group Get Lit were happy to see the gruesome twosome. Half of them had annoyed looks on their faces."
Let's not forget that they are teenagers.
Getting a half a roomful of teens impressed with you even superficially is impressive.
It is what it is.
Heh. A friend of mine, a (divorced) military guy that was often an absentee father due to deployments, wanted to have a memorable vacation for his teen-aged daughter. He planned a two-week vacation that was all about her. He thought she'd be really impressed if he took her to Paris, the Louvre, restaurants, shopping. He told me that she just rolled her eyes and pronounced it "BORING" (I could even hear the sing-song "BORING" in my mind's ear when he relayed it). He was crushed. He was actually teary-eyed as he relayed a play-by-play of her boredom with everything to me. He felt that he was a complete failure as a dad.
I just laughed and told him to cheer up. She might be telling HIM how bored she was, but I guaranteed that she would be relating all of her incredible Parisian vacation to her jealous friends who would then be comparing her dad to THEIR dads and finding them wanting. "Oh, sure, you dropped $2,000 on Disney, but Emily's dad took her to PARIS for TWO WEEKS!"
So, yeah, impressing teens is HARD because even if they ARE impressed by meeting an actual Prince, they won't admit it. Plus, teens overestimate their competence and underestimate everybody else's competence. When I was a teen, I thought that everybody in their late 20s was at death's door from old age and slow reflexes. I can only imagine my massive eye roll should I have been forced to endure the prattlings of a princeling and his ol' lady about my area of competence. To those teens, Harry and Meghan are notable for being able to function somewhat at their advanced ages.
My own grandchildren have their eye roll moments with me because I'm a very strange person that still carries old-fashioned things like maps and an Atlas with me. "But WHY? Nobody needs maps anymore, you can use your phone. Oh, wait, you don't even have a good phone. You have a Garmin!"
When I tell them that I go places with no cell phone service (not even Verizon), they are astounded. They can't conceive of venturing beyond cell phone service. When I tell them that relying on an electrical device that could break, be stolen, or try to take me on roads that no longer exist in a location that I am unfamiliar with could be dangerous, I have ventured once again into eye roll territory.
"Lizzie: HRH is not a title. It's a style.
Title is the peerage titles.
You are styled HRH ( HM, HSH, IM etc)
And titled Duke, Earl, Viscount etc
It remains debatable whether Prince is a title or a style or both because the only recognised Prince title is PoW."
You are correct, of course. As an American, I do know the difference at an intellectual level but it's not ingrained in my thinking so I do use the wrong words sometimes.
But what do you think English Harry meant when he said this to Faux Greta? (Italics added) "Because of a technicality within the family, if we are earning money separately from within the family structure, then we obviously have been asked not to use our titles in order to make money..."
Or what the Sussexes meant when their BP office released this as part of their statement at the time of Megexit?
"The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family."
https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0
Finally, the reason I originally posted the Greta material was to show it wasn't referring to Harry's military honors. I still don't think he was referring to those because he keeps using the plural "we" and saying "our titles." But what do you think?
QueenTT did a channeling on Meghan, which I found on another Tumblr blog (I think she puts readings on the Sussexes on a side thread). She still insists Meghan is not pregnant, but does pick up an illness that could just be a cold. She also does not pick up pregnancy vibe from the latest image of Meghan. Interesting ...
Meghan grew up with a sister who ghosted her own mother, essentially, a mother who disappeared from her life for most of her teenage years, a sister who fell out with her own children and pretty much ignores her on brother. Meghan dropping her entire family must seem like normal to her. As for Doria, I think she is useful because she needs financial support from Harry, among other things.
Ultimately, as we grow up, we develop our own values and take responsibility for our own actions, but she did learn ghosting (from Samantha) and using family (from Doria) close to home.
I think both Harry and Meghan talk a lot without thinking of the sense and integrity of what they are saying! At the time of that conversation with fake Greta, he was isolated from his family, friends, country ... everything; completely under the control of Meghan and probably filled with a mix of exhiliration and apprehension about Megxit (plus the confusion of the PR Meghan was spreading at the time). He might have been a bit confused!
Harry confused? Say it isn't so! :-)
Meghan and Harry were told not to use the HRH in any context.
I am not sure about HRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. I think she does use the HRH Princess for the books she has written.
There does not seem to be a consistent rule. If the Queen tries to create a consistent rule to deprive Meghan of the titles, it will affect other members of her family who have done nothing wrong. To me, that Meghan remains an American citizen and now will never get British citizenship is the card that the Queen can use, and I wish she would!
I think the Queen and her courtiers had recognized that Meghan used the royal family to create a brand - HRH The Duchess of Sussex/sussexroyal - and intended to cash in on it for the rest of her life. The Queen did not want to strip Harry of titles and styles, but as long as she is married to him, unless the Queen rules otherwise, Meghan can use the titles and styling. If they get divorced, all bets are off!
"As an American, I do know the difference at an intellectual level but it's not ingrained in my thinking so I do use the wrong words sometimes."
It took me awhile to understand the difference especially because the other royal houses seem to take them all as titles.
I think the British just decided to be contrarian just to spite their European neighbours in that centuries old cultural battle they fight with them.
Upon reflection last night, having spent far too much time posting yesterday when I was on work time, I have made the sacrificial decision to give up following Moldy Meh-ghan and her Hapless Handbag for Lent. Social media in general, really. It's going to be really hard, and I might allow myself a quick peek here if something major happens--like a divorce announcement, the unmasking of Archie as a Reborn (4 year old size) or some bombshell over the alleged review of Haz's military appointments. But this pointless toxic couple that contributes absolutely nothing to the world which is positive takes up way too much space in my head than is healthy for me. They do have entertainment value for us, but they are aggravating and infuriating in equal measure.
So if you don't see anything from me for the next 6 or 7 weeks, I'm OK (well, OK is relative)--just taking a sabbatical. Starting a week early because I'm that fed up with the Suxxit pair.
I will miss reading your posts!
You are right to make this decision for yourself. Why absorb negative energy more than necessary? I myself am journaling and enjoying my new grandchild instead of trying to keep up with individuals who have nothing good to contribute to my life-meaning the antics of the Harkles.
I enjoy the tea but not to the extent that it disheartens me and detracts from my life. Life in the era of Covid is hard enough...
Blessings!
If your PR appearances have to be THAT tightly controlled, then maybe you need to step back all together and see what you are doing wrong!
Speaking of Black History Month, it would have been a much better honor if the Harkles had a podcast with Messica and her favorite influencer, Sasha, and they talked about racism.
@Jenn, let us know if Samantha reveals whether M had a cat named Archie growing up and what happened to it. I am fearful that the demise of the cat is much more sinister than we think given the comment about Sam's brother!
When Edward and Sophie worked in the private sector after their marriage, she continued to use her maiden name and he was known as Edward Windsor to draw a distinction between their commercial activities and their royal selves. That's the example the York sisters are repeating.
People don't remember this, but in the 90s when Fergie needed to find a money supply and all she had to trade on were her titles, she deliberately targeted America because it was seen as being far away enough to distance her commercial activities from UK and The Queen.
As if an invisible wall existed between the 2 countries. She made a point of keeping all her commercial activities either in America or abroad for this reason.
And because UK media didn't slavishly report her activities in detail, most people in the UK didn't pick up on it beyond knowing that she was peddling herself in America.
To this day most people haven't seen her commercials or documentaries or know what her commercial deals were beyond WW. It's only when she had catastrophic failures that the UK media reported it all in detail.
And at all times she professed her loyalty to the Crown and never, ever badmouthed them even when asked in interviews about Philip banishing her.
Like Edward, Andrew goes by his lesser title as a surname in his commercial activities ie Andrew Inverness and sometimes Andrew Killyleagh - his titles are Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. Exception is his pitch@thepalace charity where he uses his styles and titles in full.
The Michaels fall in the same category as Fergie in their use of their styles and titles for commercial activities. All lowkey and all abroad and always respectful to The Queen.
Most importantly, as Hugo Vickers said the other day, all these people have been loyal to the Queen so she's let it slide.
I think the Sussexes' disrespectful, high profile approach to their commercial life has caused this area to be reviewed and in the process force a rule / convention to be created. Kinda like Diana and her HRH games which forced The Queen to create rule about automatic loss of HRH on divorce in 1996.
Thank you for letting us know. It is probably a good thing to lance the boil, of the Ducharses, so to speak. May your 40 days in the desert away from all things gruesome bring clarity and renewal.
I think they put out deliberate misinformation about their titles by placing emphasise on the HRH style and then proceeded to break the spirit of the Megxit agreement as far as the ducal title. That's why everyone is outraged.
It's baffling that the Palace is quick to correct them when they cross other lines, but seem fine with them blatantly breaking the Megxit agreement on titles.
Since most people don't understand the difference between HRH and the ducal title, mothballing the HRH doesn't seem to have been any kind of sacrifice or punishment.
The Sussexes can keep up the illusion that they suffer no loss in status due to their mothballed HRH as long as they stay in America or countries that don't care, but you saw the hissfit over the CW service......they felt that loss of status.
It's become clear that they are using the duke title in a way that breaks the spirit of the agreement so i'm in the camp of those that say they should remove them and have them be Prince Harry Mountbatten-Windsor and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor.
It's beyond creepy and thankless that Harry and Meghan keep selling themselves to teens and refer to themselves as 'young' to merch to them.
To a teenager....anything post 30 is ready for the cemetery nevermind late 30s.
I remember at 19yrs old being hit on by a 27yrs old. My reaction was ....eeewwww he is oooooollllld! lol.
These days i get impatient teens snatching any and all electronics from me on the grounds that i'm too slow and and not upto the latest tech in their minds.
It's endlessly amusing how much they underestimate my capabilities and their astonishment to find that i can do more than they can especially when their electronics fail them.
No worries on my part. Besides, I've never seen the world in terms of gender, racial composition, religious beliefs or political positions. I see it in terms of competence vs. incompetence.
We all have areas of competence and incompetence. If a person is speaking to me about the importance of family while on their sixth spouse, not going to listen to their advice on that. If Mr. or Ms. Unsolicited Relationship Advice is a highly respected and sought after tax attorney, THAT is the advice that I will listen to.
If a person is screaming that they are being discriminated against because they are a certain gender, religion, or color, my first thought is that they are incompetent and cannot do the job, so they distract from their incompetence through the use of the "DISCRIMINATION" defense a la Meghan Markle.
I suppose it is like the hairy eyeball that I turn toward the people screaming "Me, Too!" about their sexual harassment in Hollywood or elsewhere. "I had to have sex with this man in order to get a lucrative movie part that I was paid millions for!" "So, you're admitting prostitution?" "What? NO! I'm a VICTIM!" "No, the victims are the women (or men) that were denied the opportunity for the job that you were able to get because of the sexual favors that you were willing to provide."
Good luck with the work!
A break from the Sussexes can help with clarity (a breath of fresh air!), but, in my case, does not bring fresh insight convincing enough to change opinions!
Well said, agree with you 100%
On the other hand, I once worked out that it's only 40 days and nights if we don't count Sundays - I gather that every Sunday is a feast day anyway, penitential season or not, according to some in the Church.
So if you are suddenly struck by a vital insight, please don't feel that you've broken your `fast' by posting on a Sunday!
Thanks for staying with the conversation about titles and commercial activities and other things royal, and filling in the information gap.
HRH Princess Michael of Kent had a business as an interior designer but had to give that up as all commercial activities for HRH royals were frowned upon back then, or something like that.
Although she and her husband are not working royals and thus not funded by the Sovereign Grant, they do sometimes represent the Queen and do take on royal patronages and did live rent free on Crown property until the rules were changed (I think the Queen pays their rent for them).
* Prince and Princess Michael represented the Queen at the Belize independence celebrations and at the coronation of King Mswati III of Swaziland.
* Prince Michael also supports a large number of different charities and organizations, as HRH Prince Michael of Kent, and Princess Michael supports him in his work.
* Princess Michael is international royal patron for the Cheetah Conservation Fund in Namibia, as an HRH.
* She has published a number of books with British publishers, as an HRH Princess, has written articles and does lecture tours.
and so on ...
Her website:
http://www.princessmichael.org.uk/
What the Sussexes wanted is not too different from the Kents' relationship with the royal family, except they used a lot of pomposity (progressive new role ...) to describe what they wanted, they chose to live outside the UK in a nn-Commonwealth country (but so did the Duke and Duchess of Windsor), and Meghan never became a British citizen and never will (nor did the Duchess of Windsor).
In my opinion, it was their arrogance and disrespect and untrustworthiness that was their undoing, not rules, which do change and do have some flexibility (and I think that suits the monarchy), and perhaps that is why they are such a tricky problem.
Hikari, I understand. I too feel like I get swept up with way too much negativity and I intend back off on H & M as well. Well, more just not allowing it to get to me as much as it does.
I have to point out that I received Samantha's book last night and started reading it. I'm a pretty fast reader. Let me just tell you.... I wouldn't waste money on it. There are very few, if any startling revelations. It's frankly not that good. I heard others say that pages were deleted per Meghan's lawyers. What is left is boring and flat.
The main point I've gotten so far is what we all know. The entire family appears to have been obsessed with little Meghan. She was spoiled and entitled. The family raised a little narc who has grown up to be one of the most famous narcs in modern times.
The focus really does seem to be on Harry ... a last-minute push for the Megxit they wanted?
The letter unravels in terms of grammar in the last paragraph, but otherwise is a standard royal letter.
Good idea to take a break, I think we all need a Harkles detox. Enjoy your break x
----------------
they want their son to live an ordinary life so they will not accept any title if given.
But, they will be living at their home at Kensington Palace
How does a child have any semblance of an ordinary life living at Kensington Palace? Of course, it's an infant and maybe by the time he realizes his mother is a Princess, they will actually get their own place and live as "ordinary" people.
"she and Jack want their child to live an ordinary life and eventually work to earn a living.' Sources also revealed the couple will choose an 'ordinary' name for their first born.
Yup, i'm chuckling here.
Thanks for you SMarkle book comments. I also hope she has an editor for Book 2. I’m sure she just could not afford ir. She is interesting—lots of different jobs and places, good at “making do,” smart and resourceful and is upbeat despite her setbacks and disabilities. To sum up, she has made a lot of lemons into 🍋 lemonade.
I feel she has painted the relationships and various households accurately and clearly. Samantha thinks, based on talks with her dad, that Meghan insisted that Tom Sr disown (“get rid of”) Samantha and Tom Jr. Meghan thought of herself as an only child and must has been embarrassed by them. Tom’s invitation to the wedding was contingent with ditching his older kids. She is even more gross than I thought if this is true.
Is is obviously important to Samantha that she present herself to be smart, competent, and a nice person instead of trashy. She was treated so badly by the tabloids.
@WBBM: Well, there's Winnie the Pooh which the Queen and Princess Margaret got, as they were printed in the 1920' and '30's. And all of Beatrix Potter, and Mother Goose... but you are probably right and they will start him on Dickens and such...pretty heavy going for a little guy.
Today, David Copperfield. Tomorrow, Brave New World!
it conveniently keeps H occupied and out of her hair.
"Yes, Eugenie had a boy, 8lbs 1, born at the Portland (I think we can thrust this baby was!)."
So much for the suggestion that The Portland would be unhappy to be publicly associated with a royal birth.
"How does a child have any semblance of an ordinary life living at Kensington Palace?"
Many people have grown up in KP and turned out normal.
1. Princess Margaret's kids, David and Sarah ( grew up in apt that is the Cambridge family home at KP). David is a trained Carpenter with a luxury interior design company - DavidLinley.com, Sarah is an artist.
2. Duke of Kent's 3 kids;George, Helen, Nicholas. George is a retired Diplomat, Helen is an art dealer, Nicholas is a lobbyist for social issues centred around autism and pro-life choices.
3. Prince Michael of Kent's 2 kids; Frederick and Gabriella. Frederick is a banker and Gabriella is a journalist
4. Duke of Gloucester's 3 kids; Rose, Alexander and Davinia. Alexander works in International security after leaving the army. Rose and Davinia are completely private.
The RR for NBC and CNN, Victoria Arbiter grew up at KP.
KP also houses military personnel's families. Usually high ranking military who occupy several apts.
I think you may have misinterpreted my comment re the Portland. I never meant the Portland would be 'unhappy to be publicly associated with a royal birth.' What I meant was that if we are told Eugenie had her baby at the Portland, then we can trust this information (unlike when another baby was supposedly born there two years ago).