Here's a fresh post where we can continue to discuss the Sussexes' royal status, podcast, and biographers as well as Samantha's upcoming book and other royal goings-on.
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
Hikari-- You have said it all. How sad that Charles sees himself as a man of the land (he does manage the Cornwall Duchy which contains numerous farmers and small holders) and Harry would not pick up the Herefordshire organic estate that numerous Nutties salivated after and would have moved to in a split second.
Wills also refused this estate. So the story goes.
Richard Palmer reports that Judge Warby “will hear Meghan’s application for summary judgment in her case against the Mail on Sunday in a remote hearing on January 19 and 20 now. It has been set to start on January 11.”
*******
Princess Margaret's son has taken on the Prince's Trust. He is not and never has been a working royal, does not get government-fnded security and does not ge funded by the taxpayer in any way, so it has nothing to do with a slimmed down monarchy. In fact, giving Harry such a role would give him a worthwhile role outside of being a working royal and being funded by the taxpayer.
Jack Royston says in two tweets that
“Prince Harry’s lawyers claim the MoS ran a libelous story accusing him of turning his back on the Royal Marines. They say forces personnel “will be more susceptible to suicide” as a result. 1/“
“Essentially Prince Harry’s court filing argues the military community will be less likely to access the mental health services he seeks to promote because of damage to his credibility. It centers on claims he did not contact the Marines after Mexit, which he denies. 2/“
“Interestingly, Harry’s lawyers say he wasn’t given sufficient opportunity to comment ‘in breach of the most basic of journalistic standards.’ This comes after he banned his reps from dealing with the MoS and a series of other U.K. newspapers.3/“
***************
I also think it is ok that William and Harry did not want to take on Charles' personal projects (sad, as they come from a family of tradition and service, but understandable), but it is wrong to say that there was no role for Harry other than a supportive/side-kick role for his father and then brother. He could have stepped down as a working royal and played a very meaningful role in his own right in the UK.
I see your logic but I don't agree. I don't believe Harry has the intelligence to run anything. He can only be a figurehead (and he wasn't all that good at that).
The gap year in Hollywood - very descriptive Hikari.
The FF book would talk about how his grandmother was sensitive to him, understanding his needs, yada yada but I don't think he ever really understood his grandmother. This was a woman who made the speech about her duty to the country and not deviating from it.
She was also highly influenced by her mother as her mother was really quite unhappy about her husband being forced to step in as king. There was an interesting point made by an unnamed courtier (p 321) that HM could understand them '"... but the rules don't bend for anyone."'
I also got that she was the one who put in that this was not a complete cut off in March of last year because she was the one who wanted that as an option, not him. To me, that was the extent of her consideration as a grandmother balancing her duty to the country with her grandson that she could see was headed into big trouble even before we got the full extent of the covid ramifications. Can't remember exactly where I thought of that came from.
Tatty, that is an interesting idea: maybe the York sisters aren't interested in stepping in. Maybe they would have been at some point in the past but now, with all the changes in history, the job doesn't look at appealing (especially now that both are married)?
Thanks for the update on Harry's legal adventures (can't let his wife have all the fun!). I have some questions about this:
Thomas Markle was never given any opportunity to respond to the hit piece on him in People magazine, instigated and led by Meghan. There is a saying that comes to mind about people in glass houses and throwing stones ...
Does Harry have any evidence that damaging his reputation increased the risk of suicide or is this more hubris? Sounds like an arrogant, deluded statement that will be difficult to prove.
Did DM make an effort to contact Harry for a comment? Yes. It is not their fault that Harry did not respond for whatever reason. You can't have it both ways - a public position and role and then make yourself unavailable for the press, especially as he is claiming that the press is so influential that they increased suicide risk by their behaviour.
DM has issued a balanced and fair apology. Why is he still pursuing this?
.#1....Meghan seemingly gets her “delay way” again with Judge Warby,,,? Disappointing if so. I have grave doubts about Warby. Maybe there were other mitigating circumstance on the court side, however.
.#2....and Harry continues to whine like a moron who does not accept accountability, and who over-inflates his importance to the military he has repeatedly screwed over (abandoning the Deal memorial and Invictus for his greed and his mummy-hooker, doing a photo opp on top of graves to pout and allow M to merch a thick wool dress).....I think he only cares about the cash impact on his mental health “business” going forward, not anything else.
I must confess that I do agree with you but so very much want a different outcome for the lost prince.
On his own, I don't think he could organize a booze up in a brewery and make a success of it. With Meghan in control, he keeps making a fool of himself, whereas his family seemed to have channeled his few talents successfully before he met her.
You make superb points! The MoS and DM legal teams must be laughing .....
@Sandie,
Thanks for the explanation re: direct and indirect heirs."
Sorry to be pedantic on this point, but there is no such thing as direct or indirect heirs.
The only thing that matters is to be in the line of succession and how high or low you happen to fall and how that affects your life broadly eg will you ever make it to the throne if circumstances are right?
Being in the line of succession is the important part not whether you are "direct" or "indirect". Your position in the line becomes important if parliament deems it so, and if not, too bad.
The fashion to call lower ranked heirs "indirect heirs" is a recent development and seems to be a way to distinguish between the immediate heirs in the line of succession and their lower ranked members.
The lower ranked members are then dismissed as unimportant when history has repeatedly shown that not to be the case. Statistically, nearly 60% of lower ranked members of the line of succession inherited the throne.
What matters is being a member of the line of succession not where you rank on it.
By law we take the first person who qualifies at the top of the line, but again history has shown that parliament can subvert this law if it suits them and pick whomever they want even if that person is at no 51 in the line of succession as they did for George 1 or no 7 in the case of Mary 2 and later her sister Anne who came in at no 8. What matters is that the person they pick is in the line of succession.
Direct or indirect is not and has never been a thing nor is it something under consideration.
Do not forget that Harry and Sussex have said publicly that they will not respond to any calls from the DM or work with them (ha!).
I think Harry thinks he is still aggrieved despite refusing to work with the DM ahead of publishing to correct the story before they went to print.
The DM are covering their bases with the public apology, but they point out that some of Harry's explanation is unverified and they are simply taking his word for it.
Harry clearly still thinks he has royal clout despite discovery proving to be a different beast post-Megxit as Meghan is similarly findingbout in her case.
The DM has developed an extremely thick skin as far as post-Megxit Sussex lawsuits are concerned. They will cover their bases as much as possible, use the lawsuits for clickbait whilst usibg discovery to show up the Sussexes for the frauds they are.
@tatty
I also think it is ok that William and Harry did not want to take on Charles' personal projects (sad, as they come from a family of tradition and service, but understandable), but it is wrong to say that there was no role for Harry other than a supportive/side-kick role for his father and then brother. He could have stepped down as a working royal and played a very meaningful role in his own right in the UK."
The model he should have followed is William of Gloucester.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_William_of_Gloucester
He was born 4th in line and fell to 9th at the time of his death. He was very popular in his time. He gradually transitioned away from royal life duties and was looking to create a meaningful role for himself in the Foreign Office.
Failing that Harry should have taken his military services seriously so that he could stay therein with minimal royal duties for another decade or more especially as he keeps using PR articles and image building to claim affinity to the military life.
However, it's very noticeable that he quit the military the minute proper expectations and follow through were expected of him. The standard PR line about why he quit the army doesn't align to his post army life without the influence of ex-army stalwarts like ELF. If he were genuinely interested in the military and military adjacent charities and initiatives it would have been impossible to divorce him from them and any whining about it only shows that he misses the superficial parts where he is the most important person in the room regardless of his lowly military rank, and have military top brass respect him as if he were on a par with them.
It's also easy to see that he quit the military AND the royal life with the PR excuse that he was going to make more meaningful life choices which he couldn't do under the yoke of these institutions when the reality is that he quit both as soon as he didn't get his way.
@Acquitaine, yes, exactly! And that was even mentioned by Royston in his third tweet (above, at “8:31 pm”).
Surely not!
When Mary II was born (1662) Charles II was on throne, so she was 3rd in line for the English & Scottish thrones, after her father James (Charles's brother and Duke of York, later James II).
When James came to the throne, she was 1st in line as Heir Presumptive (as our present Queen was in her time) asssuming that no young brother was born who would push her down the list. (In Geo VI's reign, Elizabeth and Margaret were 1st and 2nd in line, as daughters of the monarch, until the birth of Charles in 1948 pushed Margaret down one place; Anne then pushed her down to 3rd, then Andrew & Edward intervened.)
Even if you include James Francis Edward (aka the Old Pretender/Chevalier, son of James II's 2nd wife Mary of Modena, debarred because of both parents' Catholicism), and Monmouth, (Charles II's son debarred because he was a bastard,) the maths of them being 7th & 8th still doesn't work.
Incidentally, it's now been established that Anne Hyde, mother of the 2 Protestants, Mary & Anne, herself converted to Catholicism.
January 6, 2021 at 5:45 PM
Hikari-- You have said it all. How sad that Charles sees himself as a man of the land (he does manage the Cornwall Duchy which contains numerous farmers and small holders) and Harry would not pick up the Herefordshire organic estate that numerous Nutties salivated after and would have moved to in a split second.
Wills also refused this estate. So the story goes."
I think William refusing the estate is not as ergregious as he accepted a house on Sandrigham which is a working estate and farm.
Eventually he'll get the two duchies as well as Balmoral.
Harry on the otherhand has never shown an iota of interest in the country life despite growing up in Gloucestershire. Windsor doesn't count as countryside as Eton is in the town.
He has shown a passion for glamping holidays in Africaaah in circumstances that wouldn't look out of place in imperial Britain.
The little snnipets of information we get about his glamping holidays disguised as conservation work reveal he was partying in Africa mostly.
When he gained access to his big trust at 30yrs old, he never tried to buy a property in the countryside. He appeared content to stay at KP in the middle of London city from where he emerged to party and drink in bars and pubs in Kensington and Chelsea.
Hertfordshire estate was never going to work for him.
On a different note, i always think it's funny that he took all his girlfriends or flings to the same Botswana camp to glamp. Talk about a man stuck in a rut.
And Meghan played him by pretending she loved the glamping life. A woman who managed to 'camp' around NZ via starred hotels going by the pictures on The Tig. Whose only nature pictures are those from her childhood with her father. Every adult picture, prose, essay is about city life. Whose idea of country life is soho Farmhouse.
Hertfordshire was never going to work for her either.
It shows how little Charles knows Harry and Meghan to offer Hertfordshire.
In terms of long term planning which Harry and Meghan lack, Hertfordshire should have been a jewel in their crown. 900acres and a £9M grant from Charles to develop it and build their dream McMansion!!!
Idiots.
Mary II and Anne at 7th & 8th???
Surely not!"
You are going by birth order of the 8 legitimate children of James 2. By birth order Mary and Anne were 2nd and 4th born.
I'm going by the male primogeniture at the time which puts them at 7th and 8th behind their younger brothers who unfortunately died young, but were still given predence above them for the duration of their lives.
I strongly feel that he was so indulged throughout his life that he was not given any expectations in life though a rock solid entitlement to others taking care of him was inculcated.
His belief in others taking care of him no matter what is why he never developed himself or bothered to learn anything within and without nor showed any commitment to anything. The minute expectations were/ are laid, he quits. Usually the Palace covers for him.
This expectation is so ingrained that he whined in Finding Freedom about Charles and William leaving him to negotiate his own Megxit terms rather than doing it for him.
That's the reason he let's Meghan lead. Whether they are happy about it or not, she's taking care of him and that's how it's been all his life.
We all expect her to drop him, but i wager he'll drop her first tye minute she stops taking care of him and he gecomes fully aware of that fact.
I can’t top your Pin the Tail on the Dumb Ass suggestion, but how about Musical Assistants? The loser has to keep working for them.
What matters is being a member of the line of succession not where you rank on it.
Evidently. Which is why Peter Phillips (#15) compelled his wife to convert from Catholicism to the COE. He would've lost his place in line, despite being too far down for even a Red Wedding-style massacre to get him close to the Crown. He fought tooth and nail to cling to #15, but that didn't prevent him from flogging wedding pictures to Hello! to the tune of 50,000 pounds, or more recently, Chinese milk. I can understand, a tiny bit, the Sussexes therefore thinking that they do should have carte blanche to capitalize on their Royal status. Except that Peter has never been titled, a working royal or supported by the Sovereign Grant. If H and M had foregone the titles and the working royal rota and gone off to live in Hollywood directly after their wedding, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because they'd be on Peter's level. The Phillipses were roundly criticized for these cash-making schemes but it was understood, I think, by the general public that they were not taxpayer-supported. Being the Queen's grandson has opened every door for Peter Phillips but even so, what H and M are doing is vastly more egregious because they are trying to have it both ways--cashing in while also supposedly working directly for the Queen. They suck.
However, it's very noticeable that he quit the military the minute proper expectations and follow through were expected of him.
Yep. A legitimate military career would have been his best option as 'the spare'. But we have learned through this debacle that that "Hero Harry" was never anything more than PR. He was unqualified to even be let into Sandhurst, but they gave him a bye. Once in, he was not any more motivated. Insubordinate and unable to do the work. They made him a Captain, and that was a gimme, too. His presence in the unit was detrimental to troop morale and probably endangered their lives unnecessarily. At least they didn't let him fly a helicopter alone; he would have killed himself or someone else. I think of Harry as the protagonist in 'Big'--a thirteen-year-old boy inside a grown man's body. He seems incapable of progressing beyond that point in his mental outlook. If he'd been an amenable 13-year-old with a drive to master things that are hard--like the boy in the movie--he might have made a decent soldier. But he continued on as a right Royal toerag for 10 years and the Army finally had enough. He was told he either had to buckle down and progress to Lieutenant via a challenging course of evaluation, or get out. No more gimmes. True to form, Harry bailed rather than attempt to be a better soldier, and the Army is well shot of him. He had no real interest in the Royal Marines or in Invictus, given how swiftly he abandoned them, so they are well-shot of him too.
Here is a man-child nearing 40 years of age who cannot 'do' anything and furthermore lacks the humility or initiative to become good at anything. He is, in every sense, a waste of space and his hooking up with Meghan has only served to highlight the truth about him with amazing rapidity. The BRF spent 33 years painstakingly crafting Harry's image and it only took Smirkle a couple of years to completely tear that down.
It will be to Charles's everlasting regret (and ours) that he did not take a clear-eyed look at Harry in the wake of Diana's death and realize that this kid was never going to survive and thrive following William through life. Harry should have been sent, at 14 years of age, to an Outward Bound-style program that works with troubled punks like him. The kids attend high school classes in a rugged setting where they are also taught survivalist skills, self-reliance, discipline and respect for themselves and others. Perhaps a program like this might have salvaged Harry and turned him into a man with something to offer the world. It's too late for him now . . . people do not change their stripes at mid-life. He's a lost cause. The question remains--how much longer are we going to have to watch him self-destruct while inflicting untold damage on his family?
So both Princes may have turned down the Princes Trust, both rejected a farming estate, though apparently William is more enthusiastic now, both Princes wanted to set up their own offices with their their staff.
I wander if they feel Charles would interfere too much in their lives and projects.
I can understand their initial reluctance to get involved, as the younger men they were when these offers were made. William in particular has had a rocky relationship with his father, and until the children were born, leading to something of a rapprochement, were not getting along so well. Harry's defection from the family has had a couple of positive results--I think it has forced William to mend fences with his dad, as he assumes more and more responsibility for his future role as Prince of Wales . . and not having to walk on eggshells around the Harkles or be physically in the same space must be a huge mental relief for everyone.
William is getting more on his plate as the years go by, but he might be more amenable to assuming a role with the Prince's Trust now than when he was initially asked. 10 years of marriage and 3 kids changes a person, and William is no longer the callow, semi-lazy 20-something that initially turned down his father's offers. The Prince's Trust is so indelibly identified with Charles, and is his greatest achievement as PoW, I think, apart from his agricultural and architectural work. His reign as sovereign will be brief, but his lasting impact will be felt long after he is gone through the work of the charitable trust he set up when he was only 28. I was quite shocked to hear that neither William nor Harry had any interest in it, seeing as it primarily works with youth. Frankly, they should have been expected to be involved from the time they were teens. With the exit of Harry and some unanswered questions about the Royal Foundation monies . . I can only observe that the Prince's Trust has been operating without scandal since 1976. It's too bad that Charles's kids pooh-poohed the two areas of endeavour that frankly mean the most to him personally. What a slap in the face. But . . .one's children are not just carbon copies of oneself. William is on the right track with his Earthshot Prize, for example, but if one is going to 'go off to to one's own thing' and hurt one's father deeply, the projects should have merit on their own, when one is a Royal prince being funded by taxpayers. Harry's 'own thing' appears to be nothing but hedonism with a sop to 'charity' for the cameras only, and padding his own bank account. He is a disgrace to his family and to himself.
The organic estate in Herefordshire seems off the table, since none of the current second generation seems at all farming-minded. Maybe it can be held for one of the Cambridge kids to take over. It would make a nice wedding present for Charlotte or Louis one day, presuming that George will be taking over all of Daddy's current holdings.
We are not going to agree because you ignore and shut down the essence of what I am saying.
I have never said that Harry cannot become king.
Yes, direct/indirect heirs is descriptive rather than an official designation, but there is a difference between William and Harry and it is significant and will become more so in every generation. Only two people have to die/abdicate for William to become king. As it stands today, sx people have to die/abdicate for Harry to become king, and that number will increase if the Cambridges have more children and when they have grandchildren.
A death takes William closer to the throne, as it does for Harry, but a birth takes Harry further from the throne, which it does not for William.
You do not have to go so far back in history to find an example of an 'indirect' heir becoming the monarch. Elizabeth was third in the line of succession when she was born. There was every expectation that David would marry and have children and she would never be queen. However, David abdicated and possibly would not have had children even if he had not.
Savannah Phillips is in the line of succession, as are many of others. She is not equal to George in the line of succession. Like Harry, Savannah will move further down the list, but George will not.
The British people cannot practically treat all in the line of succession as equals as heirs, and traditionally they have not.
You are attributing a comment to me that wasn't mine!
Thanks so much for that info about Samantha's book. Wow! I think she is going to make a healthy profit from this book and pre-publication sales should give her the cash to do another print run (but I do not know how long B&N will take to pay her).
To Midwesternati - your comment was spot on! I always felt it was unfair to Catherine to schedule the Harkle wedding so soon after her due date! I think this was one of the earliest, and least acknowledged, attack on Catherine by Meg.
Can you imagine how Meg would have wailed if the roles were reversed?
Catherine does pregnancy, and especially postpartum, so elegantly that Meg felt particularly stung by the comparisons, and it continues to fuel her narc rage. I also think every article about Catherine re-wearing outfits from 10 years ago (which is only possible because of her incredible figure despite bearing 3 children) further boosts that rage.
It’s great reading comments here. Please know how much I appreciate reading all the posts. I know I’m not alone when I say that even if someone doesn’t respond directly to something one of you has said, there are many, many of us reading along, and thanking you silently for you humor, insight and knowledge!
Michael married a catholic which automatically dropped him from the line, BUT he promised and raised his kids in the church of England so their places in the line were safe.
Meanwhile various sons and grandchildren of the Duke of Kent as well as his wife have either married catholic or converted to Catholicism later in life which dropped them all from the line.
Since the amended Succession law of 2013 (came into effect march 2015) which removed male primogeniture, the rule about Catholics was dropped retrospectively for the current members of the Windsor dynasty which restored all the dropped catholic Kents to their appropriate place in the line.
Pity it didn't retrospectively restore Anne to her place which would place her at 8th after Archie.
Btw, Michael was born 7th in line to the throne. Same as Archie. He currently languishes at 48.
Please stay safe everyone. Perhaps the media are indulging in hype, but I am reading about the number of deaths and hospitalizations in the UK and I am horrified.
@lizzie
We are not going to agree because you ignore and shut down the essence of what I am saying."
I think your comment was meant for me.
Mine wasn't aimed at you specifically, but the idea of "direct / indirect" heirs as if they are a thing.
I did not say that everyone in the line of succession is treated the same or that they have the same status nor was i saying we've ever treated them that way nor was i advocating that we should.
My point was to clarify that "direct/indirect' is not a thing. Officially OR unofficially.
The only thing that matters is their presence on in the line of succession because when Parliament chooses and has chosen that is where they go to find the next qualifying heir depending on the required criteria, and not whether the chosen candidate is a "direct or indirect" heir as far as their importance.
I'm not sure what country you are from, so in the UK, it depends what side of the fence you are on, I personally do not know anyone who has tested positive, had covid or sadly died so I'm a bit non plussed by it all, doing the right things as instructed just in case. However my daughter is a nurse in the community (treating housebound patients) and she reports back that there are many covid positive patients, doesn't mean they actually have the symptoms. However, many of her peers working in the local hospitals say that it's pretty shocking - we live in a largely rural area with no big cities. I don't know what to think tbh
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/prince-william-kate-middleton-coming-192324963.html
According to 'new sources' (which are . . .Meghan and Omid Scobie in party hats) William and Kate will be coming to America in 2021 expressly to visit Harry & Meghan. The stench of desperation is really wafting strongly from Montecito these days.
HM may well plan to send the future King and Queen consort to the States on a goodwill visit. They were the toast of New York as new parents in 2014. If Covid does permit them to travel across the Pond, I expect they will give the entire state of California the widest berth possible. Maybe they will tour some of our beautiful national parks. A celebrity retirement community in Santa Barbara probably isn't on the itinerary. But for sh#ts and giggles, William should phone them up in Montecito and tell them to get one of the 16 spare en suite bedrooms ready. That would put the frighteners on the woman who's got to lurk outside her 'own' mansion gates in the bushes to receive packages. 'Cause she's just taking the air. Sure, Jan.
There is a picture of a smiling Kate looking lovely in a gray dress with the snide caption "All those Zoom chat looks add up."
Pot? Kettle?! I doubt Catherine spent $60,000 on her Zoom outfits in the last 6-7 months. And if she did . .she is the future Queen consort of the United Kingdom, doing Royal appearances for the people. Smirkle Dumbarton represents nothing and nobody but her sorry-ass self.
OK . . owing to grave civil unrest here, the likes of which we have not seen since the Civil War, I may be giving the Smirk-n-Jerk saga a rest for a few days.
@ Sandie - Off topic warning
I'm not sure what country you are from, so in the UK, it depends what side of the fence you are on, I personally do not know anyone who has tested positive, had covid or sadly died so I'm a bit non plussed by it all, doing the right things as instructed just in case. However my daughter is a nurse in the community (treating housebound patients) and she reports back that there are many covid positive patients, doesn't mean they actually have the symptoms. However, many of her peers working in the local hospitals say that it's pretty shocking - we live in a largely rural area with no big cities. I don't know what to think tbh
I've had several family members that have had it; one of my cousins died. She was infected early on when the nursing home that she worked at refused to let the staff wear masks on the grounds that it made the home look bad. *sigh* Most of my family has had it; they had nothing worse than allergy symptoms or colds. Some acquaintances that I have contracted a serious case or died. What I do know is that *nobody* is trying to get word out to people about how to improve their chances except to wear masks that are mostly useless, wash their hands, and stay six feet away.
According to various news sources, the UK is in very bad shape. Hard to know what/who to believe. Not the mainstream media, apparently.
Sally concluded with a statement that struck terror within me, that the RF would push for a summary judgment. I so want her to be interrogated, forced to answer In a specific fashion, using plain English. I want her grilled, blackened ...done in any way! I want her gone.
As to the Windsor name. Of course she’ll capitalize on this name...so much more Royal than Markle. I’m surprised she’s kept it for this long.
I can't recall if it was somebody here, or one of my friends, who said that M's approach to him was based on the premise `I'm you're Mummy - but you can f**k me'.
A brilliant observation, whoever said it.
@WBBM: I can’t take credit for that, but a similar phrase would be that Meghan fabricated a Diana 2.0 persona with lots of sexpot thrown in for good measure, which was specifically tailored for Harry. So he basically married a “mummy with benefits.”
I live in a part of the UK which so far has escaped the worst of the bug.
We're coastal and rural, with an older population, who do as advised, probably because some remember WWII or were young when it was still fresh in their parents' memories. We even cross the road to avoid oncoming people, with few of the groups who appear to be more susceptible, for whatever reason.) It looked as if university students and illicit holidaymakers did raise the level though. I don't know anyone who has died, just someone who had a very close shave.
London though is in a dreadful state - the medics are almost on their knees. Nobody is `lying' about it.
What beggars belief is the activities of the `deniers' - they took to chanting outside a major London hospital where people are dying. At another hospital, they went into Outpatients and took photos of the corridors to prove they were empty - of course they bloody were - it was the weekend, outpatients work Mon-Fri. Yesterday, they invaded the Houses of Parliament.
The deniers seem to be doing their best to spread the virus - I hope it rebound on them. Thank goodness they're being arrested now the lockdown has the full power of law.
At Out-Patients, one is asked not to arrive very early, to avoid queues.
I've a phone appt for an annual check (3 months late) which suits me fine- no driving 10 miles to the main hospital when all is under control -if there the slightest doubt, they'd call me in to check & I can always call them if I'm having problems. I do have to go in later to be wired for a 7-day ECG but I don't expect a problem.
I feel for the US - you don't need that unrest, now of all times. I wonder if the H$Ms will shut up? Btw, nobody, absolutely nobody, is being allowed into Scotland now.
`... is like a rolling stone, which, when a man hath forced up a hill, will return upon him with a greater violence, and break those bones whose sinews gave it motion.'
I wonder?
Happy Camper & Wild Boar
Gives a whole new meaning to
Yummy Mummy!
Without her gnashers
Gummy Mummy...
Placebo Domego
Out in Moundcito
Sits Mamma Placebo
Regretting her action to sue
Back pedalling in water
Poor Tom’s long lost daughter
Is plotting who’s next up to screw
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1380834/meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-titles-hrh-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-queen-evg
"Whether or not the Queen chooses to remove the Sussexes' titles in March remains to be seen but according to a constitutional expert, the couple are "skating on thin ice."
Constitutional expert Iain MacMarthanne explained there is currently no precedent for removing Meghan and Harry's royal titles."
Worth a read!
I've just read your post and checked the Barnes & Noble website, the book is still there. It must have been a temporary glitch.
@Acquitaine 9.42 pm
A minor point and sorry if I sound pedantic, Prince Charles's estate is in Herefordshire, not Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire is north of London, Herefordshire is in the west of England next to Wales. This has been mentioned before but as the names look similar it's easy to confuse the two counties.
@Puds 6.16 am
Re Megalo showing her letter to Palace aides, or getting their help to write it, affecting the privacy: she could argue, or a smart barrister could argue, that as these people were Palace staff they were bound by an NDA, therefore they can't reveal anything they see/hear so that doesn't affect her privacy, staff are not the public at large. I don't know if that would work. Anything is possible.
Had to smile when I saw your comment about JH not being able to return to talk face to face for the review. I saw it this morning on the top part of the DM.com.au site.
Directly above the head line by some relationship counsellor about how to recognise if you are in a relationship with a narc.They do good shade.
Sorry, that wasn't me! I did read the article about how to spot a narcissist, though, and did think of a certain z list actress straight away :)
NB- from `My Fair Lady':
Professor Higgins: `In Hereford, Hertford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly happen'.
Liza: `In 'Ereford, 'Ertford and 'Ampshire, 'urricanes 'ardly 'appen'
@Magatha - Gummy Mummy - gosh, I wish I'd thought of that!
"Re Megalo showing her letter to Palace aides, or getting their help to write it, affecting the privacy: she could argue, or a smart barrister could argue, that as these people were Palace staff they were bound by an NDA, therefore they can't reveal anything they see/hear so that doesn't affect her privacy, staff are not the public at large. I don't know if that would work. Anything is possible."
You are right, anything is possible.
I am not an attorney. But I thought a big part of the issue with the staff participation is that it called into question whether the letter was M's sole creation (as she claimed) if others helped write it. And I don't know the answer to that.
As an analogy, a writer may have have an editor's help with a final product. Does that affect copyright? I tend to think not BUT in that case, I'm not sure who holds the final copyright. IF a publisher has contracted for the work, doesn't the publisher also hold copyright? I don't know anything about commercial publication. My only experience is with scientific journal publications that may have an editor's input too. In the case of ordinary journal publications, the author isn't paid but does assign copyright to the journal in exchange for publication (while unpaid, publication can increase one's salary and aid in tenure/promotion so payment comes that way.)
IF privacy comes down to who saw the letter before MOS published it, i would think NDAs are meaningless. Imagine 5000 people signed an NDA. Would a person be able to argue those 5000 people seeing something essentially didn't exist because the NDA prevented them from legally sharing what they saw? I don't think do. I don't think privacy hinges on whether a viewer can legally share what he/she saw. But it does hinge on a person's right to control what people see and who sees it. And I would think it could hinge on whether a privacy claimant wanted something shared with the press in one situation (PEOPLE mag) and screamed privacy violation in another press situation (MOS) Lastly, I don't think an NDA helps avoid a legal deposition.
On a related note, I'm not sure why the RF would be frantic to stop the lawsuit. Why not let it go ahead? Even if she wins, I don't think M will come out looking good. Why would palace involvement with a court case be so threatening? It's not as though depositions can cover just anything. And personally, I don't see this as parallel to Diana's butler's case at all. Just recently a staff member was sentenced to prison for stealing at BP. Obviously THAT case went forward. It's not as though this case is the first time the RF staff would have had legal involvement.
@lizzie
I agree that even if Charles and Camilla suggested that Meghan write the letter, they have nothing to do with her case, which is about copyright, privacy and protection of data.
Copyright and publishing:
Usually, the author has copyright for the original manuscript; the publisher has copyright for the published version. For most published books, the publisher adds a lot of value in terms of editing, overwriting, design and setting, and carries the costs of everything. The more successful the author is, the more power they have in negotiating the contract. I doubt very much that Meghan can equate the letter she sent to her father with a published version and use that claim to drag staff and royal family into the drama.
As when Megxit was looming, after the Southern African tour, she is using proxies to make empty threats. What does she want? For the royal family to step in to rescue her from spiralling costs and having to hand over her communications and defend herself from the lies that have been exposed? Or is to create a bigger drama for her to smugly enjoy being the focus of attention?
Surely the DM have presented enough evidence to show that they do have a valid defence? Or will Judge Warby ignore the evidence and save Meghan with the victory she wants?
By the way, I doubt that Meghan has handed over all her communications. If she has, they have been scrubbed and she will have a lot of word salad and tears to use to explain that (new life, fresh start, walking away from the toxicity ...).
I think one Sussex staff member now works for the Cambridges, but dragging him into the mess is an annoyance, not a major issue for the Cambridges.
Someone in the Sussex household still has some common sense. Harry has settled his case with the DM. This is actually old news ... DM issued an apology and gave a donation to Invictus Games. Despite what has been appearing in the media, it seems the matter was actually settled a while back.
Regardless, JH cam hardly claim either a medical or religious reason. He is concerned with looking trendy. His protestations are again revealed as bull...
Tourre nails it as usual.
@TourreBakahai(Twitter)
"Beards are only allowed in the Royal Marines if grown for medical or religious reasons, but "let's pretend" Harry doesn't seem to care about disrespecting a uniform he hasn't earned. He knew his hypocrisy would have been exposed in a trial. So does his controller."
@Swampie (off topic)
I would be very interested in seeing that footage. I cant find it this morning.
By the way, I doubt that Meghan has handed over all her communications. If she has, they have been scrubbed and she will have a lot of word salad and tears to use to explain that (new life, fresh start, walking away from the toxicity ...)."
You can't scrub your communications completely.
A techie with forensic skills can restore all your communications.
A good lawyer will have someone with this skillset to hand.
I sure hope the DM gave that donation DIRECTLY to Invictus.
And that Harry has no access to any of their accounts.
It will otherwise enter the realm of lore that the Disney 3m currently occupies.
Samantha says that she has a lot of people from Northwestern University contacting her about her book. I wonder if any of them will give her some good stories about Meghan!"
If this is true, their interest is curious because it has always been notable how little visible support Meghan got from Northwestern AND her high school when she became a duchess.
If i recall, only one teacher at her primary school gave a positive glowing acfount of Meghan and everyone else was silent.
I recall reading more about her father's immersion in her school life from parents and teachers from her schools. How present, helpful and kind he was.
It was only after the picture scandal happened that you stopped seeing anything about his involvement in her life and you started reading about what a terrible person he was/ is.
https://youtu.be/x0NVaPscMro
Samantha says that she has a lot of people from Northwestern University contacting her about her book. I wonder if any of them will give her some good stories about Meghan!"
Just remembered the only visible support for Meghan from Northwestern which was the portrait they commissioned for their alumni magazine cover.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/05/22/23/13835884-7059763-image-a-37_1558564461550.jpg
This portrait is just as fraudulent as she is no matter the artist pretending that it was an original work inspired by aspects of royal portraits he'd used for research.
He straight up copied the portrait of Empress Victoria of Prussia without bothering to edit anything about it except to add Meghan's head instead of the original face of the Empress:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mFeofpOW8dg/V1RdLS3GB_I/AAAAAAAAAOc/NyzDcgzksIsyI_OZN2XfdMD0KDBZXKgNQCK4B/s1600/aa1fa60e2d5a69a9ccd61ea3ee124fbb.jpg
He added the Spanish royal family's Fleur de Lys tiara which is still in use:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6VacSeIgG80/WLDmwUm9EuI/AAAAAAAAApg/Aay3ONF_0wclXyj0wJrg06ETuuO1B143ACLcB/s1600/Fleur%2Bde%2BLys%2BTiara%2B%25281906%2529%2Bby%2BAnsorena%2Bfor%2BQueen%2BVictoria%2BEugenie%2Bhere%2BQueen%2BLetizia%2B1.jpg
This level of obvious fakery is par of the course with out Meghan.
The artist is American and is same guy who did Beyonce in similar dress but with lemons as perhaps one of the Spanish Infantadas or QEI era. (my sense of attire from different eras can be close but also err).
https://obrienillustration.com/beyonce/
walking away and shaking my head
Harry And The Fate Of His Haughty And Supercilious Ego.
Thank you for the link to HG Tudor. He has a beautiful, deep voice which is well modulated. A pleasure to listen to (as well as the content).
I think so, too. I look forward to listening to the rest of the series. I think he is chiefly reading fro his earlier material, but he’s got quite a few deep pauses that indicate thought, like he may be amplifying his remarks. HG classifies himself as a top grade highest evolved Narc. I don’t know if it’s actually true, or just a piece of brilliant self promotion, because he is doing very well out of this business of his, but he’s got an Smeg pegged, and he is laughing at her along with the rest of us. I note that he seems to accept that Smeg gave birth to Archie herself but he’s wise not to touch that issue with a barge pole. As a man he is likely completely uninterested in the ins and outs of her plumbing. Women, especially ones who have been pregnant, have more knowledge about how realistic or not megs whole presentation is RE Archie. Most men wouldn’t feel qualified to comment on a woman’s stomach.
I am still struggling to digest the “I am my mother’s son. And I am our son’s mother” gibberish. I cannot believe that H went along with it thinking that reminding every potential donor that he’s Diana’s son will help him cash in more $$$. Dear God he’s more stupid than we give him credit for!
There is something unhealthy, creepy even, about this mommy and me and Megalo trio. Something is not right. Being 36 and defining himself as his mommy’s son - a mother who has been gone for 2 thirds of his life - is both pathological and shameful. Plus, as sad as it is, he could not have been so influenced by his mother. He was too young when she died. He is just exploiting whatever good press she may still have...
He is spiraling. His mother was 36 when she died. He proposed to Megalo on her 36th birthday and was adamant to marry her when she was still 36. He is 36 now. He is out of control. Megalo is thriving no doubt. After all, he is still his mother’s son and she is their son’s mother i.e. she is the new Diana (but a woke mixed race California cool sexy gal ) and also the only adult in their family!
I truly feel sorry for William, remember Diana’s first child?
https://obrienillustration.com/beyonce/"
Thank you so much for the above link.
One minute please....
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Gasp
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤪🤪🤪
The level of ignorance by the artist AND Beyonce is breathtaking.
You got the period right. Tudor.
It's a wierd merger of 2 of Elizabeth 1 portraits (original below):
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2BCgZT7vnkbFWnNeeoDUvks1Dnz5UzfEJfA&usqp=CAU
http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/elizarmada.jpg
Both were painted in the year that Elizabeth 1 finally defeated the Spanish Armada in the 1580s though the 2nd portrait is the more famous one and is called the Armada portrait. Both were designed to showcase Elizabeth's power and military strength.
Portraiture in the Elizabeth era was taken very seriously in terms of the PR message it conveyed to the audience.Same aspect survives today, but not as intensely as back in the 1580s when these portraits were painted.
To that end the following:
1. The face is Painted to show her face clearly, but not the wrinkles, pockmarked face due to the lead paint, bad wig etc.
Expression solemn, but unyielding ie not to flatter her, but to show she's a powerful being.
2. By this stage The Queen had forbidden any attempts at realism or softness in her portraits on the grounds that it undermined her monarchical grandeur so almost every portrait from 1570s onwards are stylised copies of the only portrait of herself that she ever liked.
3. She was very proud of her long and elegant hands which were consequently added to almost every portrait of her. It's funny that Beyonce's portraits sticks with Elizabeth's hands.
4. The red wig is unintentionally funny on Beyonce's part because Elizabeth wore it for purely vanity reasons to show that she was young, vibrant Queen with a full head of hair the colour of her larger than life father Henry 8 red hair.
4. The symbolism in Elizabeth's portraits was deliberate statecraft. Pearls were a symbol of her virginity as was the black and white colour scheme (virgin Queen imagery), the juxtaposition of Elizabeth's face at the centre of a big extended collar ruff was mimicking the Sun's rays and therefore Elizabeth being the sun radiating warmth, the Crown in the Armada painting represents Brutus of Troy a descendant of Aeneas, the first King of Britain from whom the Tudors claimed their right to rule and in the context of the painting asserting Elizabeth's right to rule. There are several other symbols in her paintings eg mermaid, globe, scenes on the sea, columns etc, but i'll stick to the elements kept in Beyonce's portrait.
Compare with Beyonce's mish mash of a portrait.
When you take away the Elizabethan elements, what is she trying to convey? Bees? Oranges and lemons? What's the feather in her head?
Let me take a guess
1. Lemonade the album
2. her real life beekeeping hobby and the nickname given to her fans
3. The feathers section of her website
So wierd.
I've read somewhere that Beyonce has Creole ancestry. If that is true, you'd think she'd ask for paintings of French or Spanish Queens to copy if she's going to use European portraits as source material.
The photo is from a 2013 appearance M did at the Paley Center.
https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/5716995/meghan-markle-job-wikipedia-model-activist-three-days-public-prince-harry/amp/
It was also used on a self-published biography in 2018 by Katy Holborn. (Has all of 7 reviews on Amazon.ca)
https://www.amazon.ca/MEGHAN-MARKLE-Meghan-Markle-Biography/dp/1980939128
The "artist" claims the fleur de lis in the tiara/crown is there because it is her sorority's flower.
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a26447585/beyonce-jay-z-meghan-markle-portrait-artist-reaction/
The "artist" claims the fleur de lis in the tiara/crown is there because it is her sorority's flower."
That "artist" is as much a fraud as Meghan where he creates a fake reason to justify his obvious plagiarism and gets away with it because people don't research his portraits.
Many royal watchers were called racists when they pointed out the blatant copy of the Spanish tiara.
I cannot believe that H went along with it thinking that reminding every potential donor that he’s Diana’s son will help him cash in more $$$. Dear God he’s more stupid than we give him credit for!
Or . . .crazy like a fox. H has glommed onto the memory of his late mother and his family relationship as the *only* thing he's got to offer in this new $$$$-making venture in the New World. They can take away his military associations, his spot in the working rota, his allowance, his grace-and-favor home . . they can't take away the DNA that ties him to Diana and he (with Meg's urging) is gonna merch that connection to the end of this sordid affair.
All his life he's had to trail behind William, coming second. Well, guess what, dumba$$---William had first dibs on that womb. The first hand-me-down of many. William had, owing to his benefit of two more years of acquaintance, the more substantial relationship with Diana. She relied on him to be her little man, however unfair that was to him. He's got the greater stockpile of memories. Harry has admitted that he barely remembers this mother whom he is so relentlessly posthumously exploiting. William keeps his grief and his memories close to his chest, only selectively referencing his mother when it is relevant to whatever charity he is promoting. He must be pierced to the heart every time dumba$$ little brother comes out with more bleating about how special *he* is by virtue of having been born to his dead mother.
I truly feel sorry for William, remember Diana’s first child?
Me, too. So much. He is going to have to shoulder this irritant/thorn in the side for the rest of his life and future reign. He lost his mother, too, and owing to his position and his greater age, was just expected to buck up and cope, while his younger brother continued to be spoilt and indulged and not pressured to to d*ck all on account of 'being bereaved, poor Harry.' Were there ever, at any time, cries of "Poor William!" I don't think so--I think he was expected to get on with things and display that very British, very Royal stoicism and stiff upper. He was 15.
William not only lost his mother and wasn't really encouraged to properly grieve her, but he was also estranged from his father until more recently AND, as we are now discovering, never had a sibling who could be a support and comfort for him in any meaningful way. The public has been told for years how tight their bond was--Just Diana's two boys against the world, always having each others' backs. The truth is I believe, a lot more stark for William: Motherless, essentially fatherless, and required to be the emotional and custodial caretaker/babysitter of a younger brother who was a little toerag mental deficient and completely absorbed in himself. The one who didn't really remember their mother and just spent their shared adolescence skivving off and getting into trouble. Where was William's crying shoulder? He didn't have one, until he met the Middletons. The rift with Harry started, as is universally acknowledged, long before Smug . . during the two years the two boys shared at Eton. Harry still carries grudges that William did not 'do more' to 'smooth his way' at Eton and allow him access to all of William's friends and activities. Not that such would have even been permitted by the school since Harry was two years behind. It's not logical, but then, Harry's not capable of logic.
Valley of the Prolls
Megs and her chappy
Pretending they’re happy
Forging their own royal way
What next from these clowns
Matching tinsel foil crowns
Trooping the Dollar, Archewellth Day
There is something unhealthy, creepy even, about this mommy and me and Megalo trio. Something is not right. Being 36 and defining himself as his mommy’s son - a mother who has been gone for 2 thirds of his life - is both pathological and shameful. Plus, as sad as it is, he could not have been so influenced by his mother. He was too young when she died. He is just exploiting whatever good press she may still have...
He is spiraling. His mother was 36 when she died. He proposed to Megalo on her 36th birthday and was adamant to marry her when she was still 36. He is 36 now. He is out of control. Megalo is thriving no doubt.
Thanks for the reminders about the 'cult of 36'. And it seems that Haz shares some twisted psycho-sexual hangups/perversions which were shared by his late Great-great-uncle David, also embroiled in a sadomasochistic dominant/submissive relationship with his American Duchess. It's not healthy, well-adjusted or mature, but it's what they crave. Debasement and abuse, both mental and physical.
Harry's obsessive fixation on his dead mother is unhealthy and completely the wrong way to be handling his bereavement. He didn't really try to merch Diana's memory until getting embroiled with Smirk, but now he's got to--Diana is all tied up with their 'brand'. He's got nothing else to flog.
Master Crass
Harry’s new aim
To change his surname
Hoping to impress his new mates
This jack with no trade
Master of none
Should change his handle to, Bates..
CDAN blind about Netflix not liking Markle's first project because it's a "vanity project".
@Girl with a Hat;
Here’s the entire CDAN post. My guess is that a company like Netflix will not be terribly patient with Meghan and her sidekick Harry. They are allegedly paying them big bucks and need to make their investment back plus they need some profit. Businesses in this day and age generally aren’t willing to throw money down a toilet for two twits like the Sussexes. Netflix is not a charity to benefit the terminally vain.
I am hoping there is language in their contract with the Sussexes that has timelines and the right to reject shoddy product. Meghan wants quick, easy money, premiere events, status and any other goodies she can scrounge for herself.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 07, 2021
Blind Item #9
Apparently the first project on offer from the alliterate one has not been received well by the people with the purse strings. It wasn't supposed to be a vanity project, but is turning into one.
I knew that there was symbolism is the paintings (Henry VIII's was showing off his sexy calves, cut off the circulation and it created lifelong problems for his health).
Beyonce has something called the Beyhive for her fans and she wears a lot of feathers.
People bring such interesting knowledge and talents to this blog project.
Cheers Puds 🥰
Last one before I go shopping!!
Shylock Foams
Just took a look
At Megsies faux book
The one filled with schmalz, doggerel
It’s now to be found
For under a pound
The Hound of Markleville
#FreedomWriters
At least one member of the Markle family is excited for Samantha Markle’s upcoming book, The Diary Of Princess Pushy’s Sister Part 1.
Meghan Markle's Family: Everything We Know About the Royal In-Laws
“I’m just very pleased that she’s accomplished this book,” Meghan Markle’s father, Thomas Markle, exclusively tells Us Weekly about the upcoming title, which is set to be released on January 17. “Let’s let her talk to you about the book.”
I’m a children’s librarian, and I can’t help thinking what a cute children’s book or maybe series of them the tale of the Queen’s rats would make, Like Ratatouille, only royal. The rats may have an entire society in miniature of upstairs and below stairs. Think of all the trinkets they have taken over the generations to furnish their apartments behind Palace walls. A vermin infestation is no joke, but rats are pretty intelligent and very hardy. The queen has lost all but one of her beloved dogs, but maybe it’s time to get some royal cats on staff. I had a single rat once in my house. I didn’t know anything about it until I almost stepped on It’s stiff body on the hallway floor outside my bedroom. There wasn’t a single mark on it, so I think my little orange ratter gave it a heart attack. She was a small cat and this rat was at least a third of her size. Never again did I have a problem with rodents.
Not being British and knowing very little about Buckingham palace, I do not feel qualified to write the story. Any of you British Nutties who have perhaps taking the tour or have a gorgeously illustrated coffee table book of the palace should think about it!
I'll stick with the cat option but it was interesting to hear that these big houses I look at and think about the lifestyle sometimes also have a different lifestyle choice about rodents or snakes.
It can't be Spain, Sweden or the Netherlands because there is no Crown Prince but a Crown Princess. That leaves Luxembourg, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Norway, Denmark, and the UK. I wonder which one it is?
For those Nutties thinking that maybe the CIA was pushing Meghan to join the BRF, here is a small amount of vindication in that they do seem to be involved in some aspects of the European monarchies.
Due to various title removals, abdications and usurpations throughout history, the laws removing titles and or removing a person's rights or claims to the throne already exist in one form or another.
All it requires is the Queen to ask the privy council to rule on it. Their report is then presented to both houses of parliament who vote on it.
As the privy council is comprised of members of both houses from all sides of the political aisle plus members of the judiciary and constitutional experts, their report is fait accompli to the parliament.
As Harry is at no 6 in the line, it doesn't require consultation of the parliaments of the other realms.
Considering that it took just 2wks to complete the process of removing David the King in 1936 with snail mail and consultation of church and parliaments across the Empire, i think removing Harry would be less than a day's work if The Queen willed it.
MEGHAN Markle is like Yoko Ono as she "stole one of Britain's cherished folk heroes", according to a historian.
[...]
In an interview with Elle, historian Robert Lacey describes similarities between the headstrong women.
He said: “Meghan is curiously like Diana in her subversion of the Royal Family.
“The other person I compare [Meghan] to is Yoko Ono; a determined, original woman who came into a set of British folk heroes and stole one of Britain’s cherished folk heroes.
“She [Yoko] made John [Lennon] her own.
“The same is true for Harry and Meghan.
“Harry seems very happy to have been stolen away.
“The price of that is leaving the Royal Family."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1381281/meghan-markle-yoko-ono-prince-harry-royal-family-beatles-duke-of-sussex-ont
My favourite from the comments section:
Ok but there’s a no return policy.
------------
That `portrait' - I see the `artist' calls himself an `illustrator' - I'm not sure if that's significant.
I hadn't realised the work originated with North Western - that puts an entirely different complexion on it - context is all when considering the meaning of an art work. Does NW teach Art History? If it does, there will be people on the staff capable of commissioning something with a subtext.
Is it possible that it was a tongue-in-cheek hatchet job intended to be `read' by those such as us? After all, they knew a great deal more about her than they were prepared to let on? Painters used to conceal all sorts of hidden and not-so-hidden symbolism in their work - like the painters of the Low Countries who used apparently straightforward still life work to convert Catholic references?
Was it intended to tell us `she's joining the Royals, so we have to appear proud of her, but we know she's a fraud'?
There's a saying that `everything in a painting is intended, whether or not the artist knows it.'
Corgis originated as cattle dogs, perhaps terriers would have been a better choice as ratters? Manchester terriers were highly prized for that job but sadly they are now a vulnerable breed. The would greatly benefit from Royal patronage.
https://www.british-manchester-terrier-club.co.uk/about-the-breed/ for example.
https://www.british-manchester-terrier-club.co.uk/about-the-breed/
Spacing above was unfortunate.
The Cambridges have lost a beloved brother, brother-in-law and uncle. Someone on social media did a collection of photos of Harry with William and Catherine. They were close and got on very well. Of course brothers have tiffs and the rivalry between them was not toxic, as it is now being interpreted, but based on much love and affection.
Charles has lost a son that he may have often found problematic but there is no doubt he loves him very much. Photos of him with the Cambridge children show that he is really enjoying being a grandpa, but he is blocked from that with Archie. Camilla is also affected as she wants Charles to be happy, but she is also a great granny.
Unlike Meghan, Harry got on well with his close and extended family, and family get-togethers and more formal family occasions were part of his life. That foundation and structure is gone. A Zoom call is just not the same.
The mental and emotional consequences for him must be immense and is quite obvious in how he looks and speaks, even though he may be in denial himself.
That his family can carry on with meaningful and happy lives is because they have the support and structure and sense of duty and genuine commitment to things that are far bigger than themselves - all of which Harry has lost.
HG Tudor classifies Meghan as a mid-level/range narcissist and claims she is not conscious of what drives her and how despicable her actions are, and thus cannot change. Even when she switches on the tears or adopts facial expressions of concern or interest, whatever, she is acting. (She does sometimes choose the wrong response, which has been caught on camera, like the time that old guy fell off his horse at TTC.) She not only comes from Hollywood, but was on sets for soap operas after school. She did not need to take acting classes (as most great/successful actors do) when she was trying to be a star as she had learnt everything she personally needed on those soap opera sets. She was right - she captured a prince who was her access to all her dreams come true!
Of course Harry is an idiot. I am not denying that. But we live in a world where too many not only tolerate the toxicity of someone like Meghan, but dress it up as something to be admired.
Yep, let's spin this and simply ignore how dishonest we are being and how insulting this is to the Queen and the BRF.
It was the Sussexes who wanted the half-in-half-out deal and who are desperately clinging to the royal connection.
It was the Sussexes who spread the false story of a review. The Queen does seem to have kicked some decisions down the road in terms of implementation, probably to soothe a grandson blubbing in his soup, but probably also out of concern and willingness to help if needed. If you understand how the British and especially the BRF communicate, the Queen has made it quite clear that they are out for good.
As always though, Meghan's PR is a confusing mess:
Yes, there is a review and the BRF desprately want their stars back and are ready to submit to their terms.
Yes, there is a review, which was forced on the Sussxes and is so patronising because they are thriving.
BP, in the meanwhile, is sending out the message that there is no review! And the public are baying for titles to be stripped and Harry to be removed from the line of succession (the calls to pay back the money seem to have subsided).
What kind of pathology makes people so tone deaf?!
Counsellor of State
My reading of the legislation is that Harry cannot serve as Counsellor of State if he is not a resident of the UK. Is anything going to be done about that or is the Queen going to leave a loose end dangling?
The following article has links to the legislation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State
Note that the Duke of Edinburgh is no longer on the list of those that can be appointed as Counsellor of State when required:
https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state
To my knowledge, neither Andrew nor Harry have ever been called upon to serve as Counsellor of State (e.g. when the Queen was abroad). Charles and William are her go-to choices when she needs to appoint someone from the list.
Craig Prescott discusses the problem in this blog and confirms my understanding that a Counsellor of State must be domiciled in the UK:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/01/21/craig-prescott-harry-and-meghan-regency-counsellors-of-state-and-a-slimmed-down-royal-family/
https://the-cat-with-the-emerald-tiara.tumblr.com/
"My reading of the legislation is that Harry cannot serve as Counsellor of State if he is not a resident of the UK."
Not so sure Harry doesn't qualify to be a counselor of state. The law apparently says "domiciled" it doesn't say "current resident." (I think that's what Frogmore is for these days.)
I am not an attorney nor am I a UK resident but here is what Wikipedia says about domicile, bold text added.
"In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently (i.e. if that person has moved to a different state but has not yet formed an intention to remain there indefinitely)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law)
I agree it's problematic to have only two functioning counselors when the law calls for 5. I do expect Andrew was called on in the past particularly when QEII and PP traveled abroad frequently. And Will's only been a full-time working royal since 2017 (not that the Act requires that but in practical terms....) And as your linked constitutional law article points out, the pool will shrink to one when Charles is King.
I agree. I've long thought that, given what her legs look like in high heels, she could easily play the part of a customer in the film `Kinky Boots.
Not fully understand his privilege and opportunity.
He’s shown extremely poor judgement.
As an analogy, I can’t imagine one of our (any) President’s offspring moving to China or Russia and disavowing American values. It would be incredibly insulting. I suppose because this is U.K./USA it’s tempered.
It seems Meghan doesn’t understand (or bother to care about) the dynamic she has placed Harry, at all. Being how she is ‘busy all the time’, and looks to be uneducated in British culture perhaps she really doesn’t understand what ‘succession’ or a ‘constitutional monarchy’ means and Harry’s place within it.
What they’ve done is baffling. There’s no amount of money that can replace the culture and Status that Harry grew up in.
Shocker!
She does this every time. It’s empty threats right now but if Sam hits the best seller list I’d bet money Meghan will sue since she wants all the profits.
Low class!
*If they are indeed living where they say they are living; however, they have taken creative license with the truth in the past (which is a nice way of saying "lied").
https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/01/07/did-miami-beach-doctor-56-die-from-receiving-covid-19-vaccine/
At this point, over 400,000 people in Florida have been vaccinated; all are medical personnel, people in long-term care facilities, people at extremely high risk due to health challenges, and we are gearing up to begin mass vaccinations of the general public aged 65 and up. This is the first deadly complication (if it was indeed linked to the vaccine, and I think that it was) in a healthy person that I know of here.
There is a smaller risk of death from the vaccine than the COVID even in his age range; however, if you have blood clotting disorders (as I do), you may wish to consult your doctor. Considering the millions of people that would be in line ahead of me for the vaccine and that the SA variant may make the current vaccines moot, I won't have to worry about making the decision about risks versus benefits for that particular vaccine.
@jessica What an odd coincidence! I literally JUST read a comment from Sam that that isn't true. She called it "ridiculous" though not sure why; she must know her sister better than we do!
Perhaps I'm just a cynic, but I think the reason that Sam would not be worried about a lawsuit is that she's reserved some particularly juicy tidbits about Rachel's life that she hasn't put in a book. Be a shame if a lawsuit brought it out (grin).
Has anyone seen Lady C's broadcast today on youtube? She speaks about being approached to try to up end one of Europe's royal households by presenting a program on how one of Europe's monarchs is not very woke and how the Crown Prince would do a better job, and she implies that the CIA or the US State Department is behind it.
A few years ago I would have dismissed it as BS. Now, however, I believe it and I think it is disturbing that no one is paying attention to her claims.
Thank you for that post! I too have been wondering how or why Drip has been left as a Councilor of State. It would be a final "no longer associated with the Royals" move to have him replaced with Beatrice. The outcry that Andrew is still one could be soothed by having him "retire" and replaced with Eugenie.
I think the reason this is not being done is the embarrassment it would cause Charles to have his wayward son finally and totally cut off from any Royal duties.
And please, if we ever have public events again, NO Grip and Drip in any pictures. No where close enough to the Crown to allow a paid pap to take and leak pictures of how close they are to the Royals.
Samantha says that she has a lot of people from Northwestern University contacting her about her book. I wonder if any of them will give her some good stories about Meghan.
@Girl with a Hat: I think Meghan’s university days are pack full of her nastiness to others, including the two girls she hazed who were injured. A woman (I believe on Quora) wrote that she was on the disciplinary committee that investigated the hazing incident. The woman wrote that the committee was comprised of people who belonged to other chapters of the sorority at other schools.
She did not say what the injuries were, but said there were medical bills for the victims that were paid, but she did not say if Meghan’s chapter at Northwestern paid or if the bills were Meghan’s (so Thomas would most likely have paid) responsibility.
She wrote that Meghan’s fellow Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority sisters at Northwestern went silent when they were interviewed by the committee, perhaps because the incident was regarded as being so serious that their chapter charter could have been revoked. She also noted that after the incident, Meghan had her records at Northwestern sealed.
@SwampWoman
How dreadful if one survives two waves of the virus and then the vaccine kills you.
Both the South African and British variants have been tested by at least two American companies for vaccine efficacy and have beem given a thumbs up. Pfizer and Biotech? I assume that more have been tested because the vaccine for South Africa will be coming from India (but perhaps an American vaccine that is being produced in India?).
The South African vaccine schedule is interesting ...
Phase one is health care workers.
Phase two is for essential workers (such as police, teachers, retail), those over 60, those over the age of 18 with two or more comorbidities, and those living in crowded conditions (such as prisons and shelters).
Phase three is everyone else.
There are further categories for priorities within each phase.
I doubt that there will be enough vaccine to complete the list, and the local press is coming down hard on the government for the delay in getting the vaccine (but they knew from October that there was a variant and probably wanted to make sure the vaccine works before handing over a huge deposit).
Sorry, I think the vaccine for phase one is manufactured in America but the one for phase two is manufactured in India.
It is not generally known, but behind all the political rhetoric there is a lot of collaboration between American and South Africa in the medical field. Despite being thought of as a country full of abject poverty and ignorance and violence, South Africa is actually very advanced in the field of medicine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9123151/Meghan-Markle-officially-misses-chance-Brit.html
Did she actually say that it was a European royal family?
I listened and thought that it could perhaps be Middle Eastern.
European royalty is not as important in today's global politics as it historically had been.
If, like me, you now need cheering up, and bearing those rats in mind, may I suggest investigating `Rats in My Room' `sung' by the inimitable Leona Anderson (no, not the current one but a lady in her 70s, in the 1950s, who wore a horrible hat.)
The CD is called `Music to Suffer By', available from Amazon. much as dislike that firm. Various of her numbers are on Youtube, including `Rats in my Room'. That and other tracks, such as her version of the `Habanera' never fail to make me smile despite how low I might feel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Anderson
Not to be confused with Florence Foster Jenkins - Leona was self-aware.
from
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9123151/Meghan-Markle-officially-misses-chance-Brit.html
Really? This is the first time I've heard she'd already met the residence requirement. Can any one add to this? When did Suits end, for example?
Predictably, the Douchex PR Is working overtime to paint a rosy picture of supreme happiness even as public outcry ramps up to the max for the stripping of Harry’s titles and his removal from the succession and being a counselor of state.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/amp35159871/prince-harry-meghan-markle-royal-exit/
"Meghan did achieve 'permanent resident status' in the UK before marrying the Prince in May 2018.'
from
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9123151/Meghan-Markle-officially-misses-chance-Brit.html
Really? This is the first time I've heard she'd already met the residence requirement. Can any one add to this? When did Suits end, for example?"
From my read of UK regs, she needed to live in the UK for 2 years as the partner or spouse of a UK citizen to achieve permanent resident status (although she'd need the 3 years to apply for citizenship.) If the engagement period counted, then it seems to me she has 2 years by November 2019. If only the time from marriage onward counted, she didn't. And no way she had it BEFORE marrying Harry--- the sentence from the DM is either flat out wrong or poorly written.
https://www.internations.org/go/moving-to-the-uk/visas-work-permits
Meg & Harry are so happy now y’all! Their marriage is “thriving”...Because all thriving husbands Look like hostages undergoing interrogation by the South Koreans. The ice is thawed between them and the family, and they laugh and joke around in Zoom chats so often, The wondrously advanced toddler called Archie Has been calling Charles, The grandfather he’s never actually met, “Pa”—-Since he was one.
It’s really amazing how gullible Smug thinks we are.
Do we know when she moved into Nott Cott?
...when the clock started ticking for her as a formal partner of H?
Wasn't they supposed to have been winging backwards and forwards across the Atlantic as they were based on the opposite sides?
They supposedly had their first date in July 2016 - I wonder how much time she spent elsewhere? For citizenship there's a limit to the amount of time one can spend out of the UK - is there a similar requirement for residence, to establish an initial intention to live here?
I agree with you - if you believe that, you'll believe anything.
https://youtu.be/zFcLbLkRjIw
Leaving aside whether she ever actually lived at Nott Cott prior to marriage, supposedly she began living there before the engagement was announced. The engagement was announced on Nov 27, 2017, I think. Counting forward, 2 years would be Nov 27, 2019. At that time they were "on vacation leave" but still technically living in the UK. (Can't remember exactly when they left but they were there for the November 2019 Remembrance events.)
So it seems to me she's got the 2 years for permanent resident status (for someone qualifying as partner/spouse) which isn't the same as meeting the time in residence to apply for citizenship.
And yes, in 2016 they were flying back and forth. And in the engagement interview couldn't even agree on when they started dating in 2016 but it seemed to be May or early summer So she definitely hadn't met the 2 years in the UK when she married Harry in May 2018. Sloppy reporting or sloppy writing at the DM.
According to the link i posted before:
"Obtaining permanent residency is a straightforward but lengthy process. This right can lapse if a permanent resident spends more than two years continuously outside the country. In order to apply for permanent residency, you must first have spent a certain amount of time in the UK, which varies depending on your visa:
Spouse or unmarried partner to UK citizen: two years"
How interesting! Seems that a simple throat swab would be able to tell whether or not you are shedding virus. It does seem strange because I thought (perhaps erroneously) that while you *could* breathe in the virus, it wouldn't be able to replicate? Durn, I'm going to have to dig deeper into the research.
I don't think anyone knows if the vaccine prevents people from being carriers. So I'm not sure if herd immunity is actually possible with this virus but I hope it is.
If one of the vaccine's effects is to blunt effects of the virus by preventing/slowing viral replication and therefore people get less sick or don't get sick at all, that wouldn't mean they couldn't be carriers for some period of time. (Same thing is true for the flu shot even when there's a good match.)
I'm not sure how those issues can be studied ethically because intentional exposure can't be done. I may be wrong but I'm not even sure we know absolutely if unvaccinated people can have low enough levels to be undetectable by standard tests and yet still sometimes be able to pass the virus on. If that can't happen, then testing might reveal vaccinated "carriers." But wouldn't it have to be done daily? And that's not going to happen.
I have to wait to catch Lady C's broadcast until after 4 YO grandson goes home and SwampMan retires for the night (grin). That being said, the CIA and US State Department have been pursuing a globalist agenda.
Thank you.
Re Lady C's most recent YouTube.
Did she actually say that it was a European royal family?
I listened and thought that it could perhaps be Middle Eastern.
Lady C never said the royal family in question was european, but that was my impression. How much input does she have on the royal family of Bhutan?
Apparently she was offered a quarter of a million (pounds? dollars?) just for a TV program!! Those globalists are never short of funds, are they? Can you imagine how much Meghan was offered? Montecito Palace is peanuts for them.
Perhaps its coming out now because the Palace has washed their hands of Grip and Drip. No Palace legal machine to back up the Harkles.
MeMe would have to use her OWN money to sue. AND she would have to have a valid legal reason--much harder to du in US
I would read more deeply into the science except that I had a 4 YO grandson whose spinosaurus was picking bushes for the triceratops herd (that would be me) to eat. The plea that I am working wasn't cutting it.
@Hikari....Did you intend to write the North Koreans? I think Meghan probably has that effect on Harry.
Harry was not soldier material. He actually cursed his senior officer in the USA, and was an insubordinate towards his British high command. How do I know this? Because of my close connections. Harry has had major problems, and not because of his dead mother. His father actually set up a disco and bar in the basement (ground floor) of his country estate. Charles let his sons run wild. What kind of parent literally pushes this stuff on teenage boys? Why? As a parent, it does not matter to me if people called me Jack the Ripoer - parents need to spend much more time with children, especially after a loss of either a father or mother. Less time talking to trees and “cultivating his garden” as Voltaire aptly wrote in ‘Candide.”
William was truly the luckiest guy in the world to date Catherine and marry into the Middleton family. A family that is an ‘English Rose” in having loving family, a very American and worldwide admired trait of pulling the family up by hard work. Middletons do not build bars for fifteen year olds. They work, but make sure their kids are educated. They do not respond with nastiness to all the hate shown to them for almost twenty years. They are the backbone of what people call the British way of be quiet, and carry on. Attacks on the Middletons by the HAMS is sad and shows weakness and a dense, almost mental retardation of brain matter. Very sad and shows weakness and stupidity on the part of the non-soldier Henry and his side-kick, maybe vice-versa, Rachel.
I read about the home club. Charles wanted to let the boys party but suffer no consequences of being found out in public. Drinking parties, sex parties. Charles apparently didn't want drugs there but............ it happened.
Harry has never really had to suffer consequences for his actions as the RF always covered it up.
Oh dear. I have inadvertently besmirched South Korea, a friendly nation.
I absolutely meant to say North Korea, and I’m going to blame it on my AutoCorrect! Thank you for the catch.
Although I'm sure Charles made mistakes as a parent, and I'm dismayed by the person Harry seems to be, I find it hard to blame Charles as much as you do. The disco hangout was for both boys, for example. And in the UK the drinking age is 18 as it is in most countries, not 21 as it is in the US. The age of consent is 16 and the school system is different from what we have in the US. So I'm not sure teenagers are considered "children" there as they are in some parts of the US. And even in the US, some parents do allow teenagers to party at home, thinking it's safer.
I agree the Middletons seem to be a solid family with much to offer. But according to most reports Will didn't start dating Kate until 2003. He turned 21 in 2003. I don't believe most people think basic "character" is formed quite that late in life. (And Will did continue to have some pretty wild times during his 20s with some published stories claiming alot was "covered up" for him too.) So I'm not sure the Middletons should be credited for who Will appears to be today while Charles is blamed for who Harry appears to be.
Finally, Meghan didn't copy the fedora from Harry's hot-tubbing RPO if that's what you were suggesting when you wrote "she started wearing the hat to be part of H’s “group.”
M was photographed wearing that goofy hat at her wedding festivities when she married Trevor in 2011. (And even earlier in her "look at our backs" Save the Date card) Harry's Las Vegas hot tub photos were taken a year later in 2012.
When I was in university, aka college in America, the drinking age was twenty-one, not eighteen. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) led the crusade to up the age of drinking to twenty one. Meanwhile, you can buy a gun, vote, volunteer to be a soldier, or drafted, and be put to death for crimes, at age eighteen.
What parent puts in a disco, bar, etc. for young teenagers? Parents who allow their under 21 year old children to hold parties in their homes, and allow their kids to drink are breaking the law. These parents are jailed. They are, in many states, not just manslaughterers, but murderers if any child drives from their home, drunk or high, and kills anyone. The parents are not treated as bar owners, for example, as bar owners check licenses of drinkers, and must refuse to serve alcohol to anybody considered inebriated. Parents are given zero forgiveness if they were not at home while their kids party. America is not Hollywood movies.
Both William and Catherine took a gap year before attending St. Andrews University. They met the first week of school, after bumping into each other in their shared dorm. They were dating, basically living together in William’s dorm room at age nineteen or twenty.. I saw the video of Catherine modeling a see-through netted skirt, with William and his buddies whistling and stamping their feet for her, in the front rows. Second year they moved into a home together, off campus.
William was an over-indulged kid, like Harry. William was not very duty conscious as a young man. He had difficulty being the star of every party, the indulged next king to every friend and girlfriend. He had a much tougher time than his protected and not bright younger brother, adjusting his spoiled life, with two mostly absent except for photos parents, then losing his mother, who selfishly told him everything she hated about everyone. William became one of Diana’s many shoulders to cry upon. Who does this to a child? Who talks and downgrades the father of your children, except for mentally ill people like Diane?
The Middletons have never responded to the years of non-relentless hatred towards them in all media. They have the backbone that made them a success. How dare anybody attack them, for their commoner daughter and sister marrying the heir to the crown? William owes his strength of character to people who have never said one thing in their own defense. How can Just H attack Catherine, and her family? What kind of creature is Just H? Maybe Just H was born to be number two, not just in birth order (yes, babies of family are usually more wild and spoiled than the first born, in every family, with a few exceptions. It is the nature of the beast, or Mother Nature. First born and only children get all the attention. Que sera, sera.).
The official dating start in 2003 was provided by Will and Kate. They claim when they first "moved in together" they were just friends sharing a house. Obviously I have no idea. I do know the photo of Kate modeling the transparent dress was taken in 2002, the year Will would have turned 20. But even if Will was 19 when they began an intimate relationship, many people would think character is pretty much set by then. So I just can't see giving his in-laws credit for Will's character while blaming Charles for Harry's. That's not a criticism of the Middletons but I just don't think Will's character suddenly developed in his 20s.
I do agree birth order can make a big difference as can genetics. And as I've said before on this blog, I don't think Diana's "Good King Harry" routine did Harry any favors nor did her insistence the boys be treated the same. But at some point Harry is responsible for who he is. And if that's not by age 36, then when?
I wouldn't put a party room in my house for teenagers but I just don't see the disco room as pivotal in who W&H turned out to be. I'm pretty sure many of the families W&H grew up with treated their sons in similar ways.
I do remember MADD's role in raising the US drinking age. Not sure that's helped anything, but the fact remains that the US is an outlier among countries where alcohol use is acceptable and legal. The legal age is 18 most places.
During her gap year, she spent a few weeks working crew on a yacht. One of the crew members told the papers that in a conversation regarding the mutual destination of university for William and Kate, the latter offered up the titbit that she'd already met him in high school.
Eton and Marlborough play sports against each other. William had a few away matches at Marlborough though it's not known if they met up then.
What is known is that they met through Emilia Jardine-Paterson who grew up with William and Harry and had become friends with Kate at Marlborough.
Emilia took Kate to Club H at Highgrove and that's how she met William for the first time.
For reasons unknown their earlier meetings have been ignored at large in favour of the more memorable meet cute at university and then that fashion show triggering their romance.
You can still find some old articles detailing some of this stuff, but most have been expunged to maintain the PR friendly meet cute at university story.
By the time of Diana's death when he was 15yrs old, he'd already turned away from the his parents' drama and was on a collision course with Diana about her media stunts and habit of calling paps on herself.
He had stopped inviting his parents to school events or to go to high profile events or even spend considerable time with them to avoid the inevitable drama or paps or both.
Every single woman or girl he dated came from a stable family, is very stable and secure and has gone on to form a stable adult life for themselves. Even the aspiring actress / Singer he dated just before Kate.
Before the Middletons were the Craigs. He remains very close to the Craigs to this day. So close to the Craigs that he attended their family wedding in 2008 instead of his own cousin Peter's wedding leaving Kate to introduce herself to The Queen at this, their first meeting.
He famously said he proposed to Kate during a Safari holiday on the Craig's land in Kenya. He credits Jecca Craig in awakening his passion for conservation and visits their conservation park annually - alone. It's been years since Kate has visited Kenya. I'd wager her engagement and 1st year of marriage is the last time she's visited.
William remains very close to the Craig parents and the patronage set up by Jecca, Tusk, is one he has always and remains devoted to.
Between the two sets of sensible parents, the Middletons and the Craigs, William saw and learnt what stable family life can look like.
It took awhile for him to translate that stability to his own life, but he did seek it out from a very early age unlike his brother who seems to have sort the hedonist life and enabling partners and has ended up jealous at William's life without understanding how or why William ended up in that life,
This article from 2005 regarding Harry's Nazi uniform says so much about the level of neglect in that household.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/out-of-touch-out-of-control-how-harry-s-joke-backfired-on-royalty-486932.html
Charles was fine with being the fun parent whilst leaving the actual raising to nannies, boarding school and his private secretaries.
Diana was not much better though she had a better PR game at positioning herself as a fabulous hands on mother when she was not.
In hindsight, William was the only parent in that household. He had to parent his mother and his brother while Charles showed more attention and care of Camilla.
That Charles wanted to be the "fun parent" after the divorce may be true. But earlier, I think Diana claimed that role. Isn't she the one who said "you can be as naughty as you want, just don't get caught?" And early on, didn't Charles like doing the boys' baths according to Diana? So it wasn't all nannies way back then.
Good point about the influence of the Craigs. I know people were surprised when Will went to Jecca's wedding and missed Charlotte's first Easter (although I'm not sure what Easter is supposed to mean to a not-quite-one-year-old.) But obviously he was still close to them.
It's another way he plays up the Diana card AND winks at the public to regard him as the lovable, cheeky scamp constructed by palace PR to great success.
Unfortunately no man survives "lovable scamp" beyond their 25th birthday and hopes to be taken seriously or be respected. That's something beyond Harry's understanding.
William told Diana: Mummy, Martin Bashir isn't a good person': Princess Diana's lover Hasnat Khan breaks his silence to savage Bashir over THAT interview - and reveals Prince's fury
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9127777/Princess-Dianas-lover-Hasnat-Khan-breaks-silence-savage-Bashir.html
Remember:
M declared she would `modernise' the Monarchy.
M appeared to believe that she was entitled to be Queen.
M somehow gave us the impression that she intended to `save/dominate/be the most important woman in the World.'
M expressed an opinion about our population structure and how it should be changed.
Now, did these thoughts arise by Spontaneous Generation in the steaming pool of contorted notions that is her deluded mind?
Or did person or persons unknown, not `friends of Britain', plant the germs - the `source of the action'- in her receptive ear? Promising her the wealth and power (especially the power?) she'd always dreamed of?
Did it all depend on her discrediting HM, the first in line and then the second, so thoroughly as unwoke & racist that we would reject them? Then, until such time as the third came of age, H would be Regent? Perhaps, she believed she would be so popular that we would clamour to retain her as our anointed Monarch? (never mind the Cambridge children?)
Unlike the rumoured other mixed-race actress, and now Lady C, she did not say `Get thee behind me, Satan' - or words to that effect?
We don't know who these others might be, assuming they exist, but I do wonder if Markus had some sort of covert role. Maybe not your friendly local *** spook but a stooge doing someone else's bidding.
I hope our security chaps had a really good look at her when tasked with cleaning up her image. (After all, when I was engaged, aged 24, I had to be vetted by the MoD. If I hadn't passed, my junior-officer fiance wouldn't have been allowed to marry me and remain in the Army.)
God willing, HM was forewarned about what might be afoot. If so, there would have been very strong reason for the lavish treatment she received.
The story, originating in the DM, about Hasnat Khan is most interesting.
I was not aware that he had been invited to the ceremonies to open the Diana memorial fountain and garden a Kensington Palace. He seems to have been accepted, by William at least, and his relationship with Diana acknowledged. I wonder if Hewitt got an invite? I doubt that he would have kept it a secret if he had, but it is likely that William and Harry saw more of Hewitt than they did of Khan. Unless Khan has lost the plot and is lying?
William seems to have been a shrewd judge of character from an early age. Harry should have listened to his brother and not rushed into marriage with Meghan!
What struck me about Khan also is that he really knew Diana but loved her just as she was and also respected her right to be her own person and make her own decisions. Harry married a person the complete opposite of Khan!
I can't imagine that he'd be very welcome at the unveiling. Nor can I imagine MM being allowed into the country for it but stranger things have happened. If the H$Ms are still together they'll probably set up a tacky shrine in the US and milk it for all they're worth.
I was referring to the fountain and garden at KP, not the statue.
https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/hyde-park/things-to-see-and-do/memorials,-fountains-and-statues/diana-memorial-fountain
The Princess Diana Memorial Fountain, Walk and Playground are in Hyde Park. It was the Queen herself who officially opened the fountain in 2004.
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/princess-diana-memorial-garden
The Princess Diana Memorial Garden is at Kensington Palace (and supposedly temporary). I think there was already a sunken garden there but it was replanted with her favourite flowers and renamed. That was in 2017. About a month before the Harkles' announcement of their engagement and photo call in that very garden, William, Catherine and Harry did a photo call in the garden, but I don't know if there was an official opening ceremony.
Sad that Hewitt is so poorly.
Markle copying again?
Listen to the song Clair by Gilbert O’Sullivan- and the baby laughing at the end!
I knew I had heard that finale to a song somewhere before..
https://youtu.be/SjkP3Gwt_g4
Kate Middleton earns new title on birthday as gushing fans compare her to Princess Diana
[...]
Kensington Palace tweeted a photo of Kate in a facemask with the heartfelt message.
The tweet read: "Thank you for your kind wishes on The Duchess’ birthday.
"Birthdays have been very different in recent months, and our thoughts continue to be with all those working on the front line at this hugely challenging time."
The tweet sparked a frenzy from royal fans who rushed to react to the message on social media, with many praising the Duchess and referring to her as "The Children's Princess."
[...]
The "People's Princess" moniker is still used to refer to the late Princess of Wales and it now seems royal fans have refashioned the title to suit Kate.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1381836/kate-middleton-title-birthday-princess-diana-royal-family-evg
The Children's Princess title for Kate was pushed by KP years ago. It didn't take then because Kate was pretty stiff and unnatural with children. That was before she had any children of her own. Things changed once George was born so maybe the title will stick now? Still seems a bit silly to me. It's not as though Diana was The People's Princess until after she was dead.
Which could be overshadowed by the summary judgement.
https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-samantha-biography-diary-princess-pushy-sister-1558626
About Harry you wrote:
It's too late for him now . . . people do not change their stripes at mid-life.
About William you wrote:
10 years of marriage and 3 kids changes a person, and William is no longer the callow, semi-lazy 20-something that initially turned down his father's offer
Maybe Harry can change too, once out of MeAgain's clutches
I was confused about the sunken garden and was surprised to find out that it is regarded as temporary, and that when Harry and the Cambridges did their walk in the rain to visit the garden and be photographed: it was months after the garden was open to the public; and Meghan was firmly ensconsed in Nottingham Cottage by then and probably had got the proposal.
If Meghan wasn't willing to furnish the court with the evidence they requested, you can bet that the request for summary judgment will be negative. After all, how can the judge make a judgment when he/she cannot see all the evidence the lawyers deem necessary to the case?
She is wondering if this was caused by Meghan? He does seem to have that flat appearance to the bridge of his nose in the photos, but I suppose the injury could have been caused by him walking into a door when he was drunk.
I agree! I feel like Warby has been kind of lenient as far as these requests for evidence go. If she has missed another deadline perhaps he will finally have enough. Although it hardly seems as if she would dare...(although I have said that before).
It sure would be fun to see that evidence.
I am not familiar with summary judgements. Would there be any reason why Warby couldnt give the win to the MoS next week?
I suppose Warby could say that the evidence is lacking to award the win to MoS, and/or because of covid, etc. the court must be lenient, etc.
But I have no legal training, so I am just speculating.
I used to work with a NATO clearance and the efforts required to handle information were less exhaustive than they are to post here. Sometimes, there are 6 challenges to finish in order to post.
@Hikari
About Harry you wrote:
It's too late for him now . . . people do not change their stripes at mid-life.
About William you wrote:
10 years of marriage and 3 kids changes a person, and William is no longer the callow, semi-lazy 20-something that initially turned down his father's offer
Maybe Harry can change too, once out of MeAgain's clutches
Those two statements may seem contradictory but we are dealing with two vastly different individuals here. William did have the good fortune to find a good woman for him while he was still in his early 20s, and the influence of the Middletons has been considerable. This match stood the test of time (not without roadbumps) for nearly a decade before they married. Even in his younger party-prince years, William was taking a very cautious, sensible eye toward his future bride. He did not want to repeat his father's mistakes.
William also displayed, at a young age, a stick-to-itivness that is missing in Haz, excelling at Eton and getting his university degree. I'm sure without the safety net of being Royal, he could/would have worked even harder at his grades, but there is no hint of scandal or cheating surrounding William's exam results or his legitimate entrance into elite Eton or St. Andrew's. Charles pulled strings to get his younger son into Eton and Sandhurst when Harry absolutely had not met the most basic requirements for entry. He was therefore set up for failure in direct comparison to his brother. Being given a bye in all areas of his life never compelled Haz to work toward any sort of achievement, and we are seeing the cumulative results of this now. He's kind of making the boy king Richard II seem like King Solomon with his post-Megxit behavior.
Hapless Hazza's personality is too stunted and embittered, entitled, nasty and delusional to be changed. At the beginning of this saga, it was easy to attribute all the negativity to Meg alone--but she has found herself the most willing mark and co-conspirator. The way they are behaving now is the way that Harry has always behaved behind the walls of his Palace protection, in the Army and everywhere else. He is a head case. Meg is a head case. Together, they are a perfect storm of dysfunction, but now that we know what Harry *really* is, they make twisted sense together. She was the key for his lock. He would have run away years ago, when he was dismissed from the Army, but he lacked the initiative and the balls to do it solo. He's as lazy as they come. We can speculate all day about whether a woman who was content inside the Palace structure and encouraged him to be so could have remade this sorry excuse for a person into a better man . . but it's a moot point now, I think. Besides, it's not fair to lay all the responsibility for 'making someone a better man' at the feet of another person, be they spouse, parent, sibling, friend, teacher, whoever. The drive to 'be better' has to come from within. Others can nurture this drive, but only Harry himself can light that match. He hasn't got it.
Thank you for your thoughtful response! It is a complex subject but you made it easy to understand, thanks!!
I dont ever hit "Im not a robot". it stays checked for me.
I only hit " Publish my comments" and it stays checked for me.
I would like nothing better than for Harry to discover some humility and admit to his family that they were right about Meg and he was wrong, and acknowledge the culpability for his own behavior. Ever since William got married and started having children, I wanted Harry to find a good woman for himself, too. Meg is not that woman. She ensnared him with manipulative games and apparently, the kinky sex stuff he's into . . but then, a lot of us are convinced that Meg's side hustle pre-and during 'Suits' was as an escort. The more this sordid show goes on and Meg reveals more of her true motives, I am hearing less and less dissent that Harry didn't in fact, foist his prostitute on his family as his marriage partner. Whether he actually felt 'love' for her at any point from then to now is up for debate. It does seem pretty clear though that by the time they got engaged, they had already laid plans to grab as much Royal boodle and attention as they could before running away to Hollywood to make more boodle merchandising Harry's Granny. That was always the plan--surrogate baby and all. Their whole wedding show was a parade of Duper's Delight from start to finish.
Meg has been classed, by popular opinion and also by a number of self-proclaimed clinical specialists as a Narcissist. I think Harry is one also, albeit a beta version. Harry seems a bit more malleable to his surroundings and while he his life was being managed by the Royal family, with its strict schedules and expectations for his deportment and emphasis on charitable works, Harry was doing better. A lot of it was for show even then, but his minders kept him presentable and got him where he needed to be on time and kept a lookout for his health. Now he's on his own with Meg, a woman who only sees him as a useful appendage to her schemes, rapidly losing his utility. Meg only cares about Meg, so this partnership is ultimately detrimental to Harry, despite what he thinks he may be getting out of it. I peg him as a narcissist, too. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have turned his back on his entire family and all his friends with such cold ruthlessness. Meg was urging him to do it, but I've come round to the idea that he isn't just her devoted puppet, doing what she says because he loves her so much. No, it's worse than that. She gives voice and reality to what he's been thinking and wanting to do for years, but didn't have the organizational skills or courage to do it by himself. So all the bile . . hateful, insinuating articles, nasty remarks about alleged affairs and how mean, cold, bullying, what have you, the Cambridges are . . .are flowing from Meghan but Harry is not disputing any of it. Because that's what he thinks, too. They both hate his family for not giving them everything they feel entitled to.
So, to sum up, I do not believe that there is any redemption forthcoming for Harry Windsor of Montecito.
Thank you for the tip. I will try it now.
It works! thank you again.
Thanks for the reminder of what the young Wm was like. One of my chums is at 2 or 3 degrees of separation from him and this helps explain why she wasn't particularly impressed with him in the past.
A person who would attend a highly prestigious solo event with the Queen of Great Britain high off her face has no respect for anyone or anything. Megalo's behavior fails to any longer surprise, but it's the 'all-in' nature of Harry's involvement--and, as we note, a number of articles spewing forth recently that name Harry, not Meg, as the force behind 'Megxit'. Whatever. The both of them are vile. If it has in fact escalated to physical abuse (of JCMH), then that's hardly surprising. Meg has never been original a moment in her life and, if she is the abuser in this relationship, she's following the textbook progression toward her victim. First, she removed him from everything and everyone who was loved or familiar . . .fed his paranoia, inflated his ego with love-bombing, only to proceed to tear it down by means of belittlement and verbal abuse and physical control. The next stage is physical abuse. The victim either continues to rationalize the escalating violence and gaslighting as his/her fault . . deserved for some perceived fault of their own or else something they are imagining . . Were Harry a woman, he might wind up in the hospital, the police station or a shelter for victims of domestic violence. This is all conjecture, of course . . but those continually ciculating rumors of a massive pay-off to a staff member who had bodily harm inflicted upon them by Meghan (projectiles of hot liquid/crockery) has never been denied by any official sources or made the subject of one of Megalo's litigation-happy lawsuits. Hence . . .truth, as far as I'm concerned. The partner (or minor child, or pets) of such a person are in grave danger.
I repost a small section of HM's excellent commentary that tickled my funny bone.
After the pit-gate faux visit to the Canada House (January 2020), MM then promptly dashed off to leave hapless Harry to deal with the negotiations of what they could take with them. The knives came out to attack members of the RF, and all those who support the Monarchy, because the duo needed to look like victims. Initially some people believed the tale, that the duo were forced to flee the UK, but once certain plans had been uncovered that indicated this exit had been in the works for more than a year, that mood changed rapidly and the public began to see the Sussexes as greedy, fame hungry and power thirsty deviants, who would use whatever they could to achieve their aims.
It’s doubtful MM would be asked to promote Dove or any deodorant brand after pit-gate, and many believed the visit was to butter up the Canadians in a bid to get the government to pay for their protection once they had stepped down, and to gain some perks. It didn’t work as Canadians revolted, unhappy that their taxes were being used to pay for the duo on a long term holiday . . .
I know someone who attended school in Canada with Prince Andrew. They had a very good opinion of him.
They said that he made his bed almost immediately upon getting up, and he tried out for all of the sports teams, including ice hockey, but didn't even know how to skate. They thought he tried very hard to be the ideal prince - athletic, conscientious and liked by everyone, if not too bright but reserved.
How many people would say the same about Prince Andrew now?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9126669/Winners-losers-Megxit-year-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-bombshell-announcement.html
It has been my observation that people will put up with all sorts of dysfunctional behavior from bosses, colleagues, teammates, etc., if the person in question increases their bottom line in some way. MJ's competitors & teammates put up with his getting all of the favorable calls, as well as his sometime abusive behavior because they knew his talent, fame & success had a trickle down effect on their wallets. Also, they were on TEAMS, they played on team sports & knew what that meant. Do the Harkles? Joe Biden will pick up the phone from someone who has, or can, give him a big donation. Who's bottom line have the Harkles added to? Has anyone actually made big money from being associated with them? I know her makeup guy has a contract with a Japanese cosmetic company, but have their charities, or any other entity, ever been able to cash in on them? I know some gossip site said that Megs thinks 'Archie' needs to earn, but so do the Harkles. That's how things work in the non-royal world. Maybe they think they deserve to be paid huge sums for being so 'nice' & 'kind.'
Harry has always been given a bye because he's a royal, Megs has not. She should know the score by now, plus if they damage or end the monarchy, any hope of hanging onto that gravy train is over. Show us your cards, Harkles.
EXCLUSIVE The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have abandoned social media. A Sussex source tells me Harry and Meghan have "no plans" for social media for their Archewell foundation and are "very unlikely" to return to any platforms personally.