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.
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
@WBBM
You are aptly named, you battle-maid you! Kudos for your refusal to bend and for sharing the story.
And to all victims of this horrible disorder. The sinister cruelty towards the people who love them leaves me aghast.
Re. Zoom . .
Duh. Believe it or not, I actually forgot for a couple of minutes about Corona. I don't watch late night TV, or any chat shows, and a few of them have returned to in-studio taping, at a distance. Stephen Colbert hasn't, and he's on the same network, so I should have remembered that.
Still, Rob was pushing it a bit even to get back to his own house, get logged on and camera-ready in 10 minutes, but he could have been having us on about the timing. Like, it might have been a half hour but he said 10 minutes to make it more timely.
A few theories re: Rob Lowe
1) paid PR from Meghan’s team; have an A-list celeb talk about Meghan and Harry as if they are more famous and elusive.
2) it really did happen and gave Rob Lowe a newsworthy plug and publicity- I lean towards this because of the term ‘loch ness monster’ being used. That’s not friendly. Rob Lowe was ‘zooming’ James Corden from his Montecito home, so the 10 minutes ago makes sense.
3) The ponytail; sounds like Harry wears a part-disguise while out. Does he not have tinted windows in his car?
4) it wasn’t Harry and Harry doesn’t live there but a burly ponytailed red-head.
It either happened, or was paid PR from Meghan’s team. Rob Lowe has a pretty big A list reputation to wreck, if it’s untrue. I don’t know how this helps him in anyway (except riding publicity on the Meghan and Harry debacle).
James Corden becoming defensive tells me it is legitimate.
Maybe this is Megs priming the pump for their own appearance on the show? Since JC is having other Monetecito neighbors and he's British too, and Ellen is out of commission--Corden is the heir apparent for the first Sussex visit. JC is a pretty big tool, so he might not have said no. Now that he's the new celebrity spokesman for WW, there's that connection--Auntie Sarah did that back about 10 years ago.
Maybe James loved having a Royal friend in Harry back in the Uk. Now that James has some status in the USA, Meghan is clamoring for association and James is happy to help Harry.
Whatever the case, James and Meghan are attention whores and there is a Royal in the middle.
Loved the interaction and a local celebrity taking the piss out of them and calling it like he sees it. For whatever reason he had. LOL.
Exactly! No one he knows (except Corden) has heard from them or seen them. Maybe the Corden podcast blurb was agent arranged and he hasn’t seen them either? It seemed overly awkward for Corden. He could have easily said, “oh yeah they are buddies of mine and we met for dinner the other day, I can clarify he doesn’t have a pony tail! He has some big plans coming up so stay tuned!’ <——isn’t that what a ‘friend’ would do in that circumstance? Be nice, vague, and complementary? Instead Corden was *crickets* and kept covering his mouth with his hand. Obnoxious (I don’t like the guy personally lol)
Rob Lowe seems super down to earth. Hopefully it was genuine. I have no real reason to believe it was put on, or scripted. Unless it was James Corden’s idea for publicity but even then it would have been funnier and more polished.
Calling Rob Lowe and his hot self to the Nutty Blog! Common, some important people have to stop by here. Make it happen for us!!!!
Ah yes, believed to exist by some; the most `reliable' sighting proved to be a hoax (it was small wooden model). Nevertheless, it was given the formal scientific name of Nessiteras rhombopteryx by an eminent British naturalist.
Many people fell for the joke. The name is an anagram of `Monster Hoax by Sir Peter S'. That's Sir Peter Scott, son of Cptn. Robert Falcon Scott who led the ill-fated expedition to the S. Pole (1910-13).
Nevertheless, we do have earlier evidence that Harry really exists but does N.rhombopteryx remind you of `someone else with a crazy name for whom there are precious few, if any, reliable sightings and who may or may not exist?
------------------
Btw, there are reports on Ceefax that Mills & Boon have published the Duchess of York's first `adult' novel. I don't know whether that's `adult' as in `Phwoar!!!' or simply ` for adults as opposed to a children's book'.
Postern of Fate
Corden really ain’t all that
A plonker, bit of a prat
But Gervais, would bring all on a plate
Whilst James failed to deliver
Rick would make a point, make ‘em quiver
As he shafted them up their rear gate
According to this article, H is `insisting' on a face-to-face meeting in UK.
The polite term for Harry is that he is a `slow learner' - it reminds me of an old joke about the reply to hard-people requesting a mortgage in the days of `mortgage famine' (early 1970s);
`You don't ask - you grovel.'
WildBoar
Megs new book published by Spills & Soon?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-harry-invited-queens-23295321
2 days ago - Another Markle pipedream? It's all `reportedly'.
It's relentless, aggressive begging for the invites.
They were less aggressive about their post Megxit commercial deals.
They really need to be seen with The Queen and Cambridges at those events.
Nevermind that the Palace keeps saying stuff is cancelled or scaled back.
The Sussex begging machine goes on and on as if full scale events are being planned.
Won't surprise me if they try to force their way to any public events as they did for the event where the heir couples were filmed inspecting Prince Charles's investiture props before everyone sat down to a private concert.
So humiliating to see them being shoved aside and herded away by staff.
It would be doubly humiliating for them this time because the royals have dropped any public pretence at cordial relations as we saw last march at CW service.
Btw, isn't it interesting that they are not pushing to be invited to any CW celebrations or commemorations this year?
They are laser focussed on being present at events that are known worldwide and or translate to a global audience eg Trooping and those birthday celebrations.
Their heads will explode when they are kept to the backrow and no public participation in jubilee year of 2022.
Bivouac’ed
For richer, not poorer, was Megsies intent
Not to be owing to Ruskies, in rent
They ain’t got a clue
And will get what they’re due
A pitch back at Doria’s, a tent for a deux
"https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-harry-invited-queens-23295321
2 days ago - Another Markle pipedream? It's all `reportedly."
I don't know but it strikes me as out of touch IF TQ is really "keen to get "back to business" in the coming months" AND thinks TTC is the way to show that.
Admittedly I'm not from the UK. And so maybe I don't understand how much TTC means to the public there. But as a person at-risk of COVID complications (but under 75, not in a nursing home) it's looking doubtful I'll be vaccinated by May now that teachers and grocery store workers have been put in the next group up in my state. No offense to teachers or grocery workers but many are quite young and healthy and there are a heck of a lot of them. And the WHO has said herd immunity won't happen this year. Regatdless of Harry and Meghan, it just doesn't seem to be the best time to celebrate one's birthday with a parade. But it appears the story originated with The Times so....
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1383278/Meghan-markle-prince-harry-UK-return-news-queen-royal-family-megxit-review-latest-ont
According to this article, H is `insisting' on a face-to-face meeting in UK."
Desperate and begging.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/01/11/presumptuous-assume-duke-duchess-sussex-will-return-uk-trooping/. They are denying the Times UK report
Ophrah promote Sheryl's jewelry line reportedly
Ellen DeGeneres shops for upscale home goods with Rob Lowe's wife https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9002645/Ellen-DeGeneres-shops-upscale-home-goods-Rob-Lowes-wife-Sheryl-Berkoff-Montecito.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
Maybe this comment says something about JC's connections ?
Corden’s set in LA is less television studio, more Soho House !!
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/james-corden-2016-interview
Both sides leak furiously to the same reporter at The times.
When the reporter gets their leak from the Palace, it's never "reportedly","allegedly","we are told","sources" etc. It's always a very clearly worded account of whatever the palace wants us to know and it's matter of fact without emotional manipulation though sometimes it has a tone of exasperation. Sometimes it even tells us which royal is behind the story.
When the Sussexes leak to The Times especially when it's a desire they'd like to manifest, it's "reportedly","sources", "we are told" etc. And it's always framed in emotive, manipulative language that wreaks of pity party making demands that simultaneously frames the Sussexes as trying to do the right thing, but the family are mean for not allowing it.
The Sussexes tend to lash out at the times for any palace leaked stories that make them bad, but the times rarely backs down.
A known Hollywood PR tactic is to leak a false rumour and then publicly deny the rumour whilst calling it rubbish and "omg-how-do-these-rumours-get-started" affected incredulity. It makes for alot of copy and conversation gambit on talkshows.
This one is especially funny because of the haute of the language used in the denial. How dare anyone presume!!! Peasants!!!
She specifically made a point of mentioning his red hair in a manner that implied he had plenty of it or enough to be noticeable.
This was later revealed to be untrue when we saw him on his 1st birthday duck rabbit video because his hair had not come in yet nor was any fuzz long enough to determine if it would come in red.
That entire SS crew will cross-publicise each other even if they have to lie to do it.
The photo with the Queen, C&C, W&K,
Anne, and E&S, said it all.
H&M are out, full stop.
Hence the feverish PR.
Desperate for a royal connection.
Sylvia: Do you remember that statement from Ellen about meeting Archie when he was barely 3mths old?
@Aquitaine
Yes I remember that.
Then duck rabbit clip ..
Archie having no red hair
There were many otber mentions of of the red hair
Ellen was the first of many (from SS script maybe )
I found this article in Hello to remind us again
Ellen DeGeneres talks holding royal baby Archie and feeding him ...
The chat show host has been lucky enough to meet Archie!
SEPTEMBER 09, 2019 - 16:14 BSTHANNA FILLINGHAM
The Duke a nd Duchess of Sussex have kept their baby son Archie out of the public eye since his arrival in May, but many of their friends have had the pleasure of meeting the newborn – including US chat show host Ellen DeGeneres. The TV personality has opened up about her time with the royals on The Ellen DeGeneres show, and revealed that she even got to feed Archie – who she said looks just like Prince Harry. She told her audience that she had flown to London and that she had: "Spent the afternoon with Prince Harry and Meghan," and that the baby boy looks just like his dad. She said: "I just want to say it was an honour for them to meet me. Seriously, they are so amazing. They're the cutest couple, so down to earth. And I just hate it, I see them get attacked and it's not fair. They're just two of the most down to earth, compassionate people, they are doing so much good in the world. And they're doing all this work with Botswana for elephants and I love that. So we're all going to do something together
Ellen DeGeneres drew a picture of royal baby Archie after she met him
Ellen continued: "I mean I can't tell you how sweet they are. But the most important thing is I got to hold Archie. I fed Archie. I knew how to hold him. He weighs 15 pounds which is the exchange rate of $17 here. Do you want to see a picture of him? I don't have one, I didn't think it was right to, but I did draw a picture of him and he looks like Harry. He has a body but I just did the face for y'all, he actually has a perfectly circular head. He looks just like Harry. And he had more hair than I did at the time
*There is a drawing by Ellen to add to this assertion of Archie with hair!*
https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2019090977491/ellen-degeneres-teaming-up-with-harry-meghan-talks-archie/
Just an explanation as to why ready with the excuses?
Watch "Ellen DeGeneres Visited Meghan Markle And Says Baby Archie 'Looks Just Like Harry'" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/rn5n6Z8cfXo
I was going to comment about this... Rob Lowe definitely says it was Prince Harry he saw. He would know Prince Harry because he's old enough to remember Princess Diana. Watchers of James Corden show that are commenting on the YT video wouldn't know Prince Harry because they skew younger. James Corden is also good friends with Harry Styles and his band 1D. Hence why watchers/commenters believe Rob Lowe saw Harry Styles instead.
Harry Styles doesn't have a home in Montecito and for months has been sporting shorter hair not long enough for a ponytail. See his Vogue cover and pics that made his relationship to Olivia Wilde public.
The Sussexes are obscure in the U.S. which is why they keep advertising Harry as Princess Diana's son. Their tactic is similar to how Audrey Hepburn's granddaughter is getting her name out there now with a new Audrey documentary.
He and Olivia were spotted in Montecito this month.
Those late night interviews are highly planned and coordinated. No way James Corden was surprised or worried by the story. If he was, he would have cut it or reshot it. There was a reason for peppering the story of Harry's ponytail into the interview. Not sure what the agenda was. Maybe just to expose younger viewers to Prince Harry's name? He and Rache have very little name recognition for most Americans.
Nelo said...
It turns out that it was Harry Styles that Rob Lowe was referring to. He is spotting a ponytail.
................
@Nelo
I don't think that could be correct.
Harry Styles doesn't live in Montecito.
Where did you see this info? thanks
@JennS and Nelo: Harry Styles and his latest flame Olivia Wilde attended the wedding of a member of his support staff a few days ago in Montecito, so perhaps they are visiting there.
@Sylvia: Do you remember that statement from Ellen about meeting Archie when he was barely 3mths old?
She specifically made a point of mentioning his red hair in a manner that implied he had plenty of it or enough to be noticeable.
This was later revealed to be untrue when we saw him on his 1st birthday duck rabbit video because his hair had not come in yet nor was any fuzz long enough to determine if it would come in red.
__________________
Far be it from me to say that Ellen isn't lying, but as a counterpoint...my niece was born with jet-black hair and was a redhead by the age of one. At two, she settled in as a blonde and was one throughout her childhood. As an adult, it's more dark-blonde/light-brown these days.
At that time, 1999, pony tails for men were coming to an end of a fad that started in the mid 80s. It was a fashion statement worn by men who were money makers, such as lawyers. Nutty was correct from the beginning, Meg really does live in the 90s or even the 80s. She must have told Harry that he'd look successful with a pony tail because that's how all the big time money makers wear their hair. Harry is 20+ years out of date.
The cover story of the new People magazine is How Meghan and Harry Changed The Royal Family (yes, her name teceived top billing on the cover.)
Meanwhile over at the other big weekly celebrity magazine US, the cover story is how William has forgiven Harry.
Uh huh. Forgiveness will not fully happen until hell freezes over. And even then, William has probably figured out that even if Harry returns to the UK (after a thermonuclear divorce from Meghan) and he brings with Archie and any other children Meghan is able to acquire to live in William’s basement, Harry can’t ever be completely trusted in a personal relationship with him or with matters affecting the family or the monarchy.
Presumptuous to assume Duke and Duchess of Sussex will return to UK for Trooping the Colour due to Covid-19
“Close source distances couple from reports that they had 'set their sights on a return to Britain' for family occasions
ByCamilla Tominey, ASSOCIATE EDITOR11 January 2021 • 8:00pm
`It would be too "presumptuous" to assume that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will return for Trooping the Colour and other royal events this summer because of the coronavirus pandemic.'
`It follows reports that Harry, Meghan and their son Archie, who turns two in May, are planning to return to the UK in June for the Queen's 95th birthday parade, which this year coincides with the Duke of Edinburgh's 100th birthday.'
`The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who stepped down from official duties last year, are expected to attend the event as it is both an official and a "family occasion".'
`However, on Monday a source close to the couple distanced them from reports suggesting that they had "set their sights on a return to Britain" after the US network CBS reported that they were keen to attend "lots of family events".'
`"It's a little presumptuous for any of us to be speculating about whether we can travel anywhere this summer," added the insider'
`Meanwhile, Meghan's case against the Mail on Sunday has been adjourned until the autumn.
A summary judgment hearing on whether the case should still go to trial was due to take place on Tuesday but has been postponed until next week.”
----------
I take it that `being expected to attend' was the situation a year ago. Not now.
I se your point but there is conflicting information on 2 separate articles
Who do we think is lying Ellen or Harry?
Ellen in Hello magazine meeting 3 month old Archie
'And he(Archie) had more hair than I did at the time'
https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2019090977491/ellen-degeneres-teaming-up-with-harry-meghan-talks-archie/
. "Harry stating on Marie Claire rticle October 2019
' he (Archie)? had no hair for five months
https://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/hair/a29502662/meghan-markle-baby-archie-redhead/
I could be wrong @Nelo so I'm citing my sources... If okay with you, do you have the link for Harry's recent man bun? The most recent I found is in June. Circa 2015/2016, all eyes were on Styles' large fluffy man bun. June he had a baby one that I don't think could be mistaken for a ponytail.
Harry Styles' homes:
https://www.capitalfm.com/news/harry-styles-london-home-house/
Harry Styles sighted in Montecito for a wedding not a home he owns (IMHO his hair is short for a pony):
https://pagesix.com/2021/01/04/olivia-wilde-harry-styles-spark-dating-rumors-by-holding-hands/
Recent pics/video of Harry Styles hair in 2020:
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/29/harry-styles-man-bun-london-12919282/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/harry-styles-style-2020_l_5fdb90bfc5b6102009889ef1
I'm a bit perplexed by the ponytail comment. Why is Rob Lowe so sure it's Harry driving into the house? It could be a visitor or staff. Was it a story about a disguise or teasing that Harry is growing out his hair for a new look.
Those late night interviews are highly planned and coordinated. No way James Corden was surprised or worried by the story. If he was, he would have cut it or reshot it. There was a reason for peppering the story of Harry's ponytail into the interview. Not sure what the agenda was. Maybe just to expose younger viewers to Prince Harry's name? He and Rache have very little name recognition for most Americans.
I'm with you--I'm a lot perplexed by that whole interview. I watched it three times. Rob definitely identifies *Prince Harry*, despite the 'ponytail' being more suited to the other Harry, Styles. If 'Just H' is 'really' out solo running errands in his car and he's so obsessed with 'privacy' that he's adopted a hair disguise--wouldn't he choose a vehicle with tinted windows? I just find it incredibly advantageous that Rob Lowe happens to spot Harry within minutes of appearing on James Corden's program, and not at any time between then and last July when they presumably moved in. Rob's 'Loch Ness monster' comment acknowledges the supreme elusiveness of the Dumbartons . . but I'd be more inclined to believe Rob actually saw Harry if he had said that he saw the couple returning with their Christmas tree or spotted Harry drinking a frappucino at a stoplight at some point during the summer. To trot it out as something happening the very hour he turned up on the Late, Late Show . . .highly suspect. Also, clock the fact that Rob seems to have great difficulty making eye contact with the camera during this story. His eyes keep sliding to the left or right of frame, like he's eyeballing someone out of the shot. He's an actor; knows how to work a camera for a Zoom call . . so despite the jocular tone of this anecdote, I sense deception/discomfort, hence the eye darting.
Corden for his part, didn't look at all amused or engaged during this segment. The only time he smiled was when he was telling Rob that it couldn't have been Harry that he saw, and that was more of a grimace. Then he very abruptly, without any sort of segue rushes into 'So, how do you keep yourself busy there in Montecito?' and Rob starts talking about surfing. Unless something has been edited out, he basically cut Lowe off and forced another topic. Hmm. Have instructions been given that the Dumbartons are off limits by the network, since they are so litigation-happy, and RL violated this, leading to JC's very glum face and snippy demeanor . . ? . . If the subject was brought up/concocted as some sort of PR stunt to benefit the DumDums, why was the demeanor so prickly? JC could have closed this topic with something vague and benign like, "Well, it seems like Harry's enjoying his new life and maybe he will visit with us here sometime."
If RL is *not* a fan and expressly wanted to out the pretense that the Dumbartons actually live in the Montecito community, then perhaps he's taking a note out of Dakota Johnson's playbook--Dakota was the first celebrity to call Ellen deGeneres a liar to her face on her own program and confront the fiction that Ellen was a nice, kind person head-on. Dakota is really credited with lobbing the first snowball that started the avalanche of celeb testimonials that revealed DeGenerate's faux persona and buried her carefully-constructed bogus image. Maybe Rob is aiming to do something similar--force the MSM to start examining the thriving California facade Smirkle's PR has created?
Either that, or this was a crafted stunt in aid of the Harkles somehow. It was one of the most uncomfortable segments of talk TV I have ever watched, whatever was going on.
James Corden is a talented perfomer when it comes to musical theatre stuff. I really enjoy his Carpool Karaoke segments and his musical skits with visited guests he used to do, pre-Covid. My enjoyment of his personality must end there, though. Unless he's singing, I don't care to hear his voice or see his smug face. He's earned a reputation for being an entitled prat. Look up articles relating to his 'feud' with Pierce Brosnan and ask yourself who was at fault there? (Hint: not PB) Personality-trait wise, he shares with Smeg an inflated sense of his own importance in the world of celebrity, unlike his predecessor, who remained humble despite even greater success.
I wonder if this Ponytail Harry story is just the tip of the iceberg and there will be more, or if it's going to be swiftly buried. Time will tell. Speaking of time--it seems to more or less Rob Lowe altogether. He is as attractive--more, actually--now, as a 56-year-old--than he was in his Brat Pack heyday of the 1980s. Back then I felt he looked 'too' pretty, almost feminine. Even in his basement, on a Zoom call, without the attentions of studio makeup and hair people, he looked fantastic. I think there may be a rotting portrait in his attic in Montecito . . .
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/d1/51/58d15171b5c5f0f9b3a27130235fd2aa.png:*
Ellen claimed she saw him earlier than this.
Thanks for providing the excerpt of CT's Telegraph article.
`However, on Monday a source close to the couple distanced them from reports suggesting that they had "set their sights on a return to Britain" after the US network CBS reported that they were keen to attend "lots of family events".'
`"It's a little presumptuous for any of us to be speculating about whether we can travel anywhere this summer," added the insider'
Oh, ho, ho. We can read between the lines here with ease. Transatlantic telephone cables were set afire by the rapid, angry call to 'Montecito' disabusing the Harkles of any notion they are getting anywhere near the Queen this year. Two key words: Distanced and Presumptuous. The Dumbartons are guilty of the latter so BP is exercising the former. They will be kept at a social distance from the Queen consisting of the Atlantic Ocean and the North American continent. The Telegraph is the Royals' direct line to Fleet Street, is it not?
Yeah, no TTC or birthday parties for the disgraceful Dummies. Harry's on really thin ice for an invite to the statue unveiling. William will have to bite the bullet and let him come to that--if Wife/Mummy will permit it--because William does NOT have to include 'HER'. I hope to God he does not. Let's see if Harry can choose between the late mother who is his entire reason for existing, or the wife who has destroyed his relationship with the family he's got left. Shall we start a pool now?
The Queen has never publicly invited anyone.
Except for the Diana week when she was contradicted repeatedly by Tony Blair forcing her to change public course repeatedly, she tends to stay on message.
The message currently is that almost all public ceremonials are cancelled and those that haven't been cancelled yet will only ahead depending on covid guidelines each month.
They wont need to. They can throw anything they want up there. For starters they have no concept of quality, so they wont be having a review session for that - anything that contains over a 50% cliche/buzzword mix is IN. Second, they have no fear of risking any litigation because you forego any rights you may have the minute you submit anything.
Worryingly, they do not guarantee your anonymity, and they reserve the right, apparently, to alter your submissions as they see fit - and as much of it as they want, in any way they want. And for this - you get nothing.
Question (pertaining to T&C's; Section 3: License. (Item 3b).
Who are the Archewell Parties who have rights to all your material/info?
------------
Relevant T&C sections.
SPOILER
b. By submitting material which contains your or any person’s name, biographical material, photograph or likeness you are granting Archewell and the Archewell Parties an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable license, in any media now known or hereafter developed, the right to use the names, likenesses and biographical materials included in the Submission in whole or in part for all purpose it deems, in its sole discretion, appropriate. For purposes of illustration but not limitation it may post the name, likenesses and biographical material on this or any other affiliated or non-affiliated websites, include in online uses, film, video, games, publications, educational materials, seminars, forums, promotional materials, etc.
c. Archewell has the right to edit, revise, abridge, crop, combine, condense, quote selected potion of the Submission as it deems appropriate or necessary. Archewell is under no obligation to use the Submission in any matter or at all, its use is in the sole discretion of Archewell.
d. You shall not be entitled to any credit, consideration, notice or payments of any kind.
It has also punctured any fantasies of hers that they'd be invited to red carpet events every night of the week and would be highly sought-after celebrity speakers and show business glitterati. Without Covid interfering, they would have had some momentum coming into Hollywood fresh off their Megxit and would have gotten some bookings/invites as novelties in town. But they've had a whole year to make asses out of themselves and for it to be made plain that they no longer have any Royal good will or support. It will be months yet before Hollywood is fully operational again . . probably most or all of this year. The Harkles are toast. It's just taking longer than we would like.
Who do we think is lying Ellen or Harry?
What is it with these binary choices? I go with both are lying.
The whole Archewell launch has gone dead quiet in recent weeks as the Smirk-n-Jerk PR churns frantically toward upcoming Royal events and the 12-month review . . just a matter of weeks off now. Based on the list of 'conditions' posted on the Archewell website, they are blatantly saying, in black and white--We are going to preempt all your ideas for our own, we will change/use them how we like to enrich ourselves and we aren't giving you a damn thing in return. They are admitting there in writing that their intent is intellectual theft and plagiarism, only it will all be legal because by submitting anything, you are agreeing to be used in this manner and will not have any legal recourse to stand on.
Who, apart from mental deficients and/or masochistic stans would be willing to participate under these terms, and what would the quality of their submissions be?
I think Archewell is going to die a swift, unheralded death just like Travalyst and all their other merching plans/failed applications. They will abandon it very soon, since tons of money generating schemes and donations won't be pouring in. It will go the way of Pontify and Netflux . . which is to say, nowhere. I think we've seen all we are ever going to see from this couple--apart from nasty tell-all interviews. Those will be next.
Yeah, a real unlikeable jackass was my quick estimation. I don't listen to him at all.
It has also punctured any fantasies of hers that they'd be invited to red carpet events every night of the week and would be highly sought-after celebrity speakers and show business glitterati. Without Covid interfering, they would have had some momentum coming into Hollywood fresh off their Megxit and would have gotten some bookings/invites as novelties in town. But they've had a whole year to make asses out of themselves and for it to be made plain that they no longer have any Royal good will or support. It will be months yet before Hollywood is fully operational again . . probably most or all of this year. The Harkles are toast. It's just taking longer than we would like.
ROFLOL, Hikari, you are the biggest optimist I ever met! "And now, let's all look at the bright side of COVID!" (What is sad is that I am nodding my head thoughtfully upon reading it and saying "Yes, that is SO TRUE, there is a bright side to this!")
The top site, Travalyst itself, informed me, without my clicking on it, that I'd visited it twice and stated the last date on which I had done so.
I did not open the site.
Is that another treacherous site like Archewell? Has this happened to anybody else, being recognised by a site without actually clicking on it?
I'm used to the Grauniad trying to make me feel guilty about not contributing but that only pops up if I actually click on the URL to get to the article.
Re. Corden
Yeah, a real unlikeable jackass was my quick estimation. I don't listen to him at all.
You were way more succinct than me, but that 'bout sums it up. I was being as kind as I could be in praising his musical ability, because it is there--I don't like him at all otherwise, but I do have to admit that. I have never forced myself to sit through an episode of his program, but I do check out the Carpool Karaoke segments. The one featuring Paul McCartney was unexpectedly touching and really brilliant and I recommend it to everyone. I think in these moments, in the presence of real giants of the entertainment world, JC can perhaps gain a bit of humility and perspective. He's much more likeable in that situation . .and he can sing. But it's a very particular skill set that is required to be a show host. I think in a lot of ways, it's the hardest gig in show biz, even though it looks like the easiest job going . . .a few minutes of jokes, sit there and read questions off cards. One must have a sufficiently big personality to be the headliner but be secure enough in oneself to pull back and not compete with one's guests. Have star quality but not too much; be funny without monopolizing . . entertain the fans tuning into the show that bears your name . . but stay humble. Be warm but not creepy . . be improvisational whilst staying within the boundaries. Find a way to project enthusiasm and freshness into canned questions without being overbearing or 'too edgy'. Keep the show running to time with impeccably camera work despite the unpredictability of the medium. You might hate a guest; your guest might turn up drunk or not at all . . whatever happens, a show host should be gracious, quick-witted, funny . . and someone who comes across as someone easy to both talk and listen to. Very few people can achieve this, including, IMO, many now working in the medium. James's predecessor Craig Ferguson embodied all of these qualities to me and got me through a grim year of unemployment. Since I wasn't working, I could stay up until 1:30 in the morning, and I desperately needed some laughter. When Corden was tapped as his replacement in 2014, I, along with the rest of America said, "James Who?" Like Craig, a UK-born comic actor who'd had a bit of success but not enough to be widely known to audiences. Not having known him before, I have no idea what his reputation at home was like, where I gather he starred in a program called 'Gavin & Stacey' and had done musical theatre. I am of the opinion that if a person is an insecure yet entitlist douche, these traits do not come about simply because someone gains a bit of professional success and recognition and can afford a better lifestyle. The douchiness is mrerely dormant or visible only to a much smaller circle of people. Fame and power are the litmus test of a personality. Someone who is a genuine, down-to-earth, good person will not be spoilt by fame; someone who uses fame and having money as an excuse to be a divatastic douche was a douche before . . it's just that fewer people knew about it.
Hence I don't buy it when Smeg's former friends and lovers say that 'she changed' only *after* getting a taste of celebrity on Suits. No, getting a job on television didn't change her; it only brought her true personality more to the fore because she felt entitled to be her real self and not hide behind any sort of sweet facade now that she was a 'star'. Same with Corden, I'm thinking.
I will be watching him more closely this year to see if his celebrity endorsement of Weight Watchers has any visible effect. Not that losing weight alone is going to transform his personality. Do I want him to fail or succeed at getting thinner? I'm not sure. He'd be a little easier for me to look at if there were less of him. His face might look less smug if he had one fewer chin.
I would never accuse myself of being an optimist. I'm more a glass half-empty kind of gal and I don't want to sound flippant about a virus that has claimed a lot of lives, including my workplace family where a colleague just lost her mom. But the pandemic has thwarted Megalo's plans to a huge degree. Can you imagine the deluge of pap shots we'd be getting if they could move freely about? It'd be several times weekly. She'd also bulldoze her way into industry events in order to get photographed as an insider, because that's her MO. We have at least been spared a lot of that. She's only been able to gate-crash virtually and that's a lot easier to ignore. Plus she's not been getting the kinds of appearance fees she was no doubt counting on. This year is going to be more of same.
On the downside for us, though an upside for her is that Covid restrictions allow them to more successfully hide their movements, actual location and the actual existence (or not) of an increasingly active toddler. Thanks to Covid, they've got a handy built-in excuse for why they are never seen by their supposed neighbors, or photographed out and about visiting the beach or getting coffee. Even with masks and distancing, other celebs are getting out . . . The couple of times they've been papped, 'dinner with the Fosters' or 'Strolling in Beverly Hills' they could have been absolutely anywhere.
So, they are shielded and can be recluses without comment since everyone is curtailed right now--but reclusiveness is the opposite of what feeds the celebrity machine--and that's exposure. It must be killing her. Sadly, not quick enough to suit us.
Ceefax! I love that it is still around! I did not know. Yes, the DM had a story yesterday, re the new Her Heart for a Compass romance by the Duchess of York (written along with one of her favorite (ghost) writers? I think the title is a perfect description of the D of Y! The D of Y had a photoshoot to go with the release in Victorian garb--nice, at least her arms were covered. But the hair?! It should have been pulled up and back--Victorian style, not falling over her shoulders like a teen. I found the other interesting news (announced by ScoobieDoo) that Eug and Jack were now supposedly living with her ma and pa.
I'm not sure that Hollyweird will recover from this. It isn't *just* the disease but their unrelenting attacks on the movie-going public about how they should live and what they should believe. (Not to mention that their endless iterations of comic-book movies is incredibly lame but there, I mentioned it.) Until they understand that people do not go to movies to be hit over the head with how incredibly stupid and evil the movie industry thinks their viewers are, but instead go for ENTERTAINMENT, they will continue to lose.
I know that I haven't been walking dejectedly through the house, weeping disconsolately because I can't sit in a movie theater with sticky floors and cell phones and rude-ass people that can't resist talking to each other while a movie is running all woke storylines. I miss the in person events like the shouting at the politicians at the county meetings.
I have heard that a lot of support businesses for the movie industry went broke, closed their doors, and moved on to other states. Is that true or overly exaggerated, Californios? Will they come flocking back like vultures to a smelly carcass? (I suppose that depends on if the money is good enough.)
Harrassment, stalker and using Kate to make herself popular.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-surprised-duchess-kate-on-her-birthday/
"Read how Meghan surprised Kate with her sweet gifts and presents"
"Read how Meghan surprised Kate with her sweet gifts and presents"
Does anybody else have to grab for a barf bag when "Meghan" and "sweet" are used together in a sentence, or is it just me?
Yes: 11%
No:. 88%
DK:. 1%
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1383512/meghan-markle-news-prince-harry-return-uk-Duchess-of-Sussex-queen-birthday-royal-poll
I have heard that a lot of support businesses for the movie industry went broke, closed their doors, and moved on to other states. Is that true or overly exaggerated, Californios? Will they come flocking back like vultures to a smelly carcass? (I suppose that depends on if the money is good enough.)
Oh, I agree that Hollywood has been forever changed and the business models are going to be quite different going forward. All the studios are struggling financially . . . so importaint is a huge studio undertaking like the newest James Bond picture . . which has already been postponed twice--it was initially planned for release in November 2019--James Bond has bowed in November in London since anyone can remember, until Dan Craig's tenure, it was like clockwork every two years and officially opened the holiday movie season--it had post-production snags and wasn't ready, so they postponed it to an April 2020 release . and then Covid. It's been postponed again to April of this year--April 2nd--just 21/2 months away. The UK is still in lockdown and Hollywood is shut . . I'm thinking that's not realistic at all. I predict it will be further postponed until November this year. By that point, it may finally go ahead. Surely, one year ago, as this was all hitting the fan, the general thought was that 2021 would see this virus go away and life resume as normal. Now, we are seeing that that was an ill-advised hope. Perhaps April 2022 will look more hopeful but as it stands right now, 2021 is even worse than 2020.
MGM absolutely has to have a big-screen rollout of this film and needs to have the international premieres happen or it may go bankrupt. This is how many resources are tied up in a Bond picture. What happens if they can't show this movie in the number of theatres they want to, and get the international press for it that always accompanies the London premiere, usually attended by members of the Royal family? Even the Queen has graced a Bond premiere. Certainly William and Catherine have been attending since they've been married. But the distributors and theaters have either gone bust or are keeping their doors firmly shut. I don't know that movie watching will bounce back as we knew it. Even if the virus relents and large indoor gatherings can resume without restrictions--will the theatres have products to show? I feel like the film industry will be moving to all streaming platforms. It's already happening, and had already remade television viewing as we knew it even before the pandemic hit.
Unless of course, Oprah has given them her pool house to stay in. It's all very clandestine and dodgy. Meg and Harry cannot afford that place on their current level of income, which seems to be $0, not including any residual handouts from Charles. We've observed here many times that Mugsy is mentally stuck in the 1990s--ie, her high school years--and seems to operate out of a place where it's always 1999. The industry she wants to be a part of has moved way past its late '90s - early Oughts style of operating, and whatever vision she had for herself of Hollywood stardom growing up, it's nothing like that now, presuming that she had any talent, which she doesn't. The new post-Covid reality means that it's going to be an even more competitive industry and it was already cut-throat with 95% unemployment before.
If she'd stayed part of the BRF she'd have been cushioned from all of this. As would Harry. I don't think it's hit him yet, the magnitude of the F***Up he's made of his entire life. La Cucaracha will survive. Even if she has to go back to hooking, she's got her self-delusion to keep her warm. Frankly I expect Haz to OD or suicide before he's 40, or whenever they run through the last of his money.
@Swampwoman: You forgot a couple of things for Harry's disguise: He'd have to wear new, polished loafers, and a snazzy suit, preferably Italian made, well fitted, open-necked white shirt, dark fedora. If Harry dressed like Bruno Mars or Eugene Levy, he could go around completely unrecognizable!
You are absolutely right; he has to dump his current clothing into a thrift store donation box (and they would put it straight in the dumpster). But he does have the anonymous delivery person look going for him if he doesn't have the money to invest in nice suits because Meghan needs more botox.
I particularly liked this part of the article:
Kate, for her part, is hoping for a cordial reunion with Harry and Meghan. The first source tells Us that the duchess has been “desperate to spend face time” with the couple and hopes to “get together” as soon as possible.
I seriously doubt Kate has been desperate to spend ANY time with the twosome.
I've long thought that his 36th year would be a very dangerous time for him. He's burned so many bridges that I can't see him able to go back to the way it was. (Perhaps it would be more correct to say that Meghan poured gasoline on the bridges, tossed a torch on them, and stood by smirking as the bridges went up in flames while he hovered around in the background and didn't even call any emergency services.)
I'm not sure how lucrative that whole hooking thing will be for her now; I'd think a rich and powerful guy would look at the price list and say "You kidding me? For that price, I can get two gorgeous 20-year-olds".
I think Harry could meet a rough demise but I don’t think it will be over money. Charles will always help the man-child to save his personal reputation.
I think it would be met with a nasty divorce from Meghan. She is his only lifeline.
Kate, for her part, is hoping for a cordial reunion with Harry and Meghan. The first source tells Us that the duchess has been “desperate to spend face time” with the couple and hopes to “get together” as soon as possible.
I seriously doubt Kate has been desperate to spend ANY time with the twosome.
Heh. I can see the Duchess of Cambridge, enjoying a glass of after-dinner wine, upon being informed of the story tossing away the wineglass and chugging straight from the bottle.
I agree with @Hikari in that I have thought (since he met Grip) that Drip will OD in the future. If blinds are to be believed (which they are not but often contain a grain of truth) Grip would bring back the best nose candy from her trips to the states. I truly believe the habit is what they have in common and what they give each other permission to do (when no one else would). A suicide or OD is, unfortunately, a reasonable possibility IMHO. But I sincerely hope that I am wrong. (It would only make Grip a martyr and give her the global fame she strives for)
If Drip really was driving around then it just tells me there is no money or. no need for personal security! You're off the hook Charles. And don't look the the US government for security funding Grip.
Oooh, very good point.
Being `taken aback' is not pleasant - I haven't read/refuse to read the report yet so I'm imagining a gift-wrapped anti-perspirant/deodorant at best or a side-winder in a box at worst.
Whatever it was, I bet it was a `shock' rather than a `surprise'
Game over Megs!
"She is also setting it up that should the Cambs not include them in say a state dinner or lunch say with the President, and, or any high profile event..."
You could be right. But what H&M don't seem to understand--- IF the Cambs WERE invited to a state dinner in the US (certainly wouldn't happen before 2022, I wouldn't think) it wouldn't be up to the Cambs to determine the guest list nor is it likely they'd be given a few "plus 1s" to hand out. Just because H&M thought it was ok to take friends on a foreign tour doesn't make it ok.
So why the grovelling to Catherine and William? Could it be that there was a rumour of an announcement that Catherine and William will do a tour to America when travel is permitted and Megs will do anything to get a piece of that action. She is also setting it up that should the Cambs not include them in say a state dinner or lunch say with the President, and, or any high profile event, that Megs has been so nice to Catherine and William that if not invited to join the Cambs tour shows how mean they are for not including them when they have given gift to the Cambs on their birthdays! She is also reminding event organisers she wants invites.
Given the sorry state of things, virus-wise, and politically, in both countries, I do not think a Royal tour of the States is in the cards this year. I think the Cambs would be dispatched to somewhere in the Commonwealth first, as soon as it's feasible to plan an official visit for William and Catherine anywhere.
It would be great fun, liberally sprinkled with schadenfruede if William and Catherine did visit America, and were invited to the White House--sans Grip and Drip of course. The Drips don't have *any* claim to a remotely official capacity, and for somebody who aspired once to the diplomatic service (in truth, Megalo only wanted to hook up with diplomats) for her to think the Cambs would be in charge of deciding the guest list for any tour they did undertake. If they visited the White House, any invites would come from the President and First Lady, and there's no reason to assume the Bidens are impressed with the Disastrous Duo in Montecito. William could put a bug in an aide's ear about MI:5's personal interest in Meg as a potential security risk and that would be that.
They are grovelling because they *need* William to be seen as their ally. He is the future. They can possibly manipulate Charles, but William is increasingly an influential voice within the Palace. Once he gets promoted to his father's current position, he will have even more power. Charles and William may be at odds in how to handle the Sussexes, but Charles would not want to be seen as warring with his remaining loyal son, and, as Prince of Wales, his lieutenant--to appease the little toerag defector living in California. It must be evident to all, including Charles that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of a hard line taken with the duplicitous pair. Charles doesn't have the stomach for it, but he may hand over all final say about the denizens of Mudslide Manor to his #2. I hope William's first act as PoW is to appoint Lord Christopher Geidt as his Private Secretary (code name: Walsingham).
Also, it looks a lot better to the companies with whom the Suxxits wish to do business that they be seen to be getting along with the family. Their reps for being difficult divas are rampant. I'd be willing to bet that Netflix and Spotify have dumped them quietly already, after the backlash from their subscribers and their stocks taking a beating. The Harkles do not add value for money, only controversy and Netflix in particular can't afford any more controversy. If they aren't dumped already, they probably will be following the 12-month review, when their severing from the Firm will become permanent and public. Buh-bye.
The Elle headline states Kates was `taken aback' by M's `surprise' birthday gift.
Being `taken aback' is not pleasant - I haven't read/refuse to read the report yet so I'm imagining a gift-wrapped anti-perspirant/deodorant at best or a side-winder in a box at worst.
Whatever it was, I bet it was a `shock' rather than a `surprise'
Maybe the gift was a machete, to go with the knife Kate already got? Complete with a photo array of the voodoo doll of Catherine Megalo practices her dark arts on.
Re: Ellen's visit to Frogmore when (she claims) she fed Archie. MM has already stated that she was breast-feeding Archie since birth - what did Ellen do? Grab hold of MM's boobs and shove them into Archie's mouth? The picture that conjures up is absolutely gross!
Months later, Portia (Elle's wife) was quoted as saying "never happened". It was quickly taken down. I think it was around the time Chopra denied sending a baby gift.
___________
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/filming-in-los-angeles-hit-new-pandemic-lows-in-december
Filming in Los Angeles Hit New Pandemic Lows in December
12:00 PM PST 1/12/2021 by Bryn Sandberg
Production in Los Angeles hit new pandemic-era lows last month.
FilmLA released its latest report examining filming in the greater Los Angeles area in the month of December, revealing that film permit requests dropped a steep 25 percent compared to the prior month. Filming activity had already dropped nearly 8 percent in November — but the organization says that permit requests declined from 813 that month to 613 in December. As another comparison, there were 965 permits in Dec. of last year.
The production decline started early in the month and deepened throughout it, according to the report. The week before Christmas, FilmLA issued 143 permits, then 58 the week of the holiday (Dec. 14 to Dec. 20), and 50 the week of New Year’s (Dec. 28 to Jan. 3). With just 21 working days in December, the organization doled out an average of just 29 film permits per day — the lowest daily output it has recorded since last August.
Of course, analysts attribute the drop in production to efforts aimed at lessening the city's COVID-19 surge. While film production remains permissible in Los Angeles County, as long as productions follow the industry's COVID-19 protocols — current practices of which includes routine employee testing, extensive PPE and enhanced sanitation efforts — the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health urged the film industry on Dec. 24 to consider pausing production for a few weeks.
The further they are from their one historical defining moment of ‘Brexit’, the harder it will be to maintain the popularity. She’s found her pop success in negative infamous storylines, not A list roles, good works, happy families. I read a theory that she is starting her own PR company versus outsourcing it to agencies and is trying to get local Hollywood clients. She apparently feels she was an expert at attaining ‘fame’. Fact is, there was only ONE English Prince that was popular in the UK and ‘hear of’ in the USA. Not sure how this makes her an expert in PR. Clicks don’t equal revenue.
The RF must help this along by continuing to give the Duo the cold shoulder. Ignore them as much as possible, don't get involved with them. It is obvious that the Duo crave a new Royal adjacency to enhance their prestige and their deal making ability. The closer they look to the RF, the better they can do in a mostly shut down Hollywood.
In the absence of stripping titles the BRF must be 100% silent, which I admit they have been doing. It is especially insulting, all the twaddle that Megs has her PR team fabricate about her/Happless' glowing relationship with the BRF, how they wish to visit in June. Just for this I would give them no quarter.
Yes, I'm aware of that - my comment was just to illustrate what a total load of "spherical objects" it all was. Just proves that Ellen is as big a liar as MM but are we surprised?
Acquitaine says:
"Read how Meghan surprised Kate with her sweet gifts and presents"
Does anybody else have to grab for a barf bag when "Meghan" and "sweet" are used together in a sentence, or is it just me?"
Any article that describes Meghan as sweet or thoughful and is overly flattering to her where others are desparate for her attention = her bought PR.
I am not a movie or TV person and never have been, but it seems to me like movies are still a big thing. With all the fancy TVs and audio systems now, I can see people preferring to stay home instead of paying for tickets where, as mentioned above, you risk having inconsiderate people ruin your experience, to say nothing of getting head lice, which was a concern in some areas of SoCal when we left 10 years ago.
I still maintain that in the grand scheme of things in recent Royal Family history, the Grifters haven't done much that others before them haven't, and that's why they still have their titles. I mean, my God, didn't TQ's cousin Alexandra sleep with PP back in the day? Yet she is still a well-loved working royal and family member; she is still the granddaughter of a king and that counts for more than naughtiness in their eyes.
I do think H&M will ostracized if they push too far, but harry will always be the grandson of a monarch and much allowance will be made for them, unfortunately.
Also, thanks to all who responded to my question about W & H walking behind Diana's coffin. Haven't been able to get on here much, and I appreciate your kindness in replying.
Here is a link to another article on the subject:
https://www.entertaintimes.com/articles/8129/20210111/prince-harry-tips-uber-drivers-50-uses-pseudonym-hide-identity.htm
After I posted my comment about the Corden interview, I visited Rob’s resume online. I see that he has indeed been very busy on television, and is in demand in that medium. All the TV shows I watch nowadays or from DVD sets or streaming, and The shows that Rob has been in or not ones I follow. He doesn’t tend to appear in big films anymore, and has done a lot of goofy cameos, but he’s definitely still a player on the small screen. I actually started following the west wing after his character, Sam Seaborn, departed after the first season. There was some negative publicity for him at the time, framed as him leaving in a fit of pique that the star vehicle he thought he’d signed on for had become an ensemble drama And his character, who had been positioned as the lead, was being overshadowed by the guest star playing the president, And presumably by other guys like Bradley Whitford. Rob seems to be in a good place these days. I hope his comment about ponytail hairy is not evidence that he is colluding in whatever fraud the Harkles have going. Maybe he really did see Harry, or at least it was agreed upon in advance that he would mention spotting his Montecito formally Royal neighbor, but then he embroidered with the ponytail story and taking the piss by calling H “Loch Ness monster.” Corden Did not seem best pleased with him, but for which part is unclear.
Hi Happy Camper
Yes, I remember the articles about Styles and Wilde in Montecito. The reason I ruled out Styles as the subject of Rob Lowe's sighting was because Styles does not own a home in Montecito.
Lowe says he followed Prince Harry to his house to confirm it was him.
Are you saying you think Rob Lowe may have seen Harry Styles driving to Prince Harry's home to visit the Harkles there?
This whole thing is certainly a weird story!
@JennS: I was basically tossing that bit of info into the Lowe story. Even though Harry Styles doesn’t live in Montecito, he might have ties there in addition to the wedding he attended. Also, Styles being a fellow Brit, he might have had an invite over to the mudslide mansion to hang out with Handbag Harry, especially now that Meghan reportedly threw cold water on Handbag’s budding friendship with Adele when the Harkles were crashing at Tyler Perry’s place last year.
If Handbag is allowed any friends, they probably have to be other men. Meghan’s narcissism would make her too insecure with Harry having female friends, especially since Adele lost all that weight. Meghan also has too much of a need to control Harry, so she will choose his friends if he is permitted to have any.
If you’ve noticed, all of their “friends” are people who have entered their circle via Meghan. It is a way for her to maintain her isolation of Harry, who would not likely confide in or seek advice from any friends who have entered their circle via Meghan because it might work its way back to her, which is a good way for her to maintain surveillance of Harry.
If he has friends he acquired on his own, she has less control and no direct information pipeline the way she probably has with the Fosters,
Kate, for her part, is hoping for a cordial reunion with Harry and Meghan. The first source tells Us that the duchess has been “desperate to spend face time” with the couple and hopes to “get together” as soon as possible.
I seriously doubt Kate has been desperate to spend ANY time with the twosome.
I could believe that Kate would want private time for herself with all the other time constraints: William and the kids, her staff to plan (with contingencies as Covid continues) and so on. Past that, perhaps read a book or watch a movie? Not certain what she would be so desperate to talk to HAMS about. FF was clear that they were different people, different family obligations and different stages in the life of joining the BRF.
And then there were some other bits where it sounded more like the expectation was that because they both married in, this was a link they had in common and therefore they should be very chummy friendly close buddies. So the birthday flowers were not enough or not the right (expected) gift. But yet they had only met a couple of times so how could Kate have "known" what MM was thinking it should be. The whole saga could could also be subtitled: who has a longer grasp on gift giving within the BRF?
Thinking about the grasping toward William. Perhaps, now that HAMS isn't there in their daily life (houses planning events, meals, newspapers) the way it used to be, the daily tension has dropped and seems very far away/not just at Windsor or KP ... so now people have calmed enough and are listening to William as to how to handle them.
Or maybe it is the pleading for both of them to come for the Diana deal?
IDK
It’s wild how Meghan has isolated Harry. I think he is a wanderer at heart, and this scares her. She is incredibly insecure for someone who bagged a Prince.
It’s wild how Meghan has isolated Harry. I think he is a wanderer at heart, and this scares her. She is incredibly insecure for someone who bagged a Prince.
From what I've read on here, it seems to be a narc characteristic. They want to separate the victim from their family and/or friends; it is easier to gaslight them that way.
I am chuckling at the idea of Henpecked Harry (or a body double) driving back and forth, back and forth waiting for someone to ‘spot’ him in the same fashion the Merching Meg once did outside of Kensington Palace!
Apparently we in the USA also have our own COVID variants that are spreading wildly. The State of Florida has vaccinated @ 707,500 in the past few weeks (or roughly half the amount of people that have gotten COVID since testing commenced at the end of March). More would be vaccinated but we have to wait for vaccine to be shipped and arrive.
The last three people to die from (or with) COVID in my county were males right around 60 years of age. Whether this is a coincidence and they had serious comorbidities or whether the mutated virus is affecting younger people, I can't say at this time. Just be aware.
Two Harrys
I don't get it. To me, HS had brown hair and more of it. JH is a ginger and is following in his siblings footsteps for losing it and has a beard.
Maybe I should not become a detective but hair color and beard or no beard are kind of key differences in telling them apart. And with a mask, eyebrows.
Please show me some photos which I could see and say: yeah, I would have confused them.
thanks
I've just had a look at the work of Ian Rank-Broadley, the sculptor commissioned to make the Diana figure.
I now have every confidence that he will produce something magnificent, along traditional lines, whenever it is installed. Rank-Broadley trained at the Slade, which accounts for his fine work which will have the Contemporary crowd muttering into their beards, or copies of Marx as the case may be.
It'll probably `cast shade' on the Markle where looks are concerned.
Excellent idea! I had a look and agree, it is likely to be a magnificent statue that will actually look like Diana, more than the memorial in Harrod's did.
Depending on what the pose is, might we even see MM "unconsciously assuming" it from time to time? Like she rose into her warrior pose...
Did Meghan really prance back and forth in front of Kensington Palace hoping to be ‘spotted’ or ‘papped’?! LMAO. Girl, you’re dating a prince!!! Hello! Grab your guy and go to the publicly-open Claridges and call those photogs. Meet up with the Beckham’s for a date. She is so amateur!
As for The Case of Montecito,
Good gosh. Why didn’t Rob get a pic? Is that weird and stalker? Sure. Does anyone care? It’s Harry, so NO! Lol. Maybe his house was around the corner from the light. I wish he had some receipts though. I agree that the whole thing is weird. Rob Lowe is super connected, so if he’s calling the super infamous couple Loch Ness, then this means they *havent* been mingling at all with the A-list, which he probably finds SUPER weird considering their agenda. So, I think this is rounding out that they don’t even live in Montecito and Rob is half pointing that out. Some weird guy with a pony drove into the home they claim is theirs.
My two cents today!
a) Lowe saw H, doesn’t like the duo as talentless pompous jerks plopping into Hwood for $$$ so....here’s one joke at their expense
b) Lowe saw M and is alluding to the fact that she has so eclipsed H, all you see is ponytailed Megs now...the Uni-Markle
c) Lowe sees H and is alluding to the slang meaning of ponytail related to M’s sexually-based control of H
d) Lowe used the slang term because his pal David Spade may know a lot about M’s Hollywood ponytail past & told him about it
e) Lowe as a Montecito resident knows they aren’t in the mansion and hopes to get traction on the reveal of their lie, for fun
f) Lowe is hinting at seeing H’s frequent double, the one first seen in Canada with the manbun bulge at the back of his baseball cap
g) Lowe saw H, but with Corden, at a past time and flipped the tale into the present just for a reaction
Any of these things would have tussled up Corden if he would not want to jeopardize his own standing with H. He may have been unnerved by Lowe being in a clearly snarky mood, and the possibility that Lowe might reveal other things that Corden’s staff would hear, even if edited our. I am told that Corden has been busily fawning after Oprah for awhile. So, maybe he also didn’t want to upset her royal pets.
She also thinks C was startled and immediately tense and perturbed because he realized that Lowe may know a lot. She and others do think that if Lowe saw the H, as he seemed firm on that part, that he decided to toy with Corden with what he would actually say about it. He may not like Corden any more than he likes the Harkles and their phony ilk.
But as an incorrigible fame-chaser, Corden left the bit in for press. Or was advised to leave it in; his Tv ratings are merely basic.
All just speculation of course.
This has been stuck in my head since I read it yesterday. Was this snippet released before or after Lowe's interview with Cordon was released? With the renewed speculation on whether they really live there related to Lowe's comments I'm just wondering whether we'll find out we were right and they're not living in that mansion but with Doria or something, and H&M are going to try to use E&J as "proof" that they're not doing anything the other royals haven't done.
You can see he is always working. He has been kicking around so long that he really knows the local real estate markets. Lowe and family are very wealthy in their own way.
_____________________
The actor Rob Lowe has sold his luxe Montecito mansion for around $45.5 million, the Wall Street Journal reports. The "Parks and Recreation" star and his wife, the jewelry designer Sheryl Lowe, initially listed the parklike estate in 2018 for $47 million. Then, last year, they reduced the asking price to $42.5 million.Oct 21, 2020
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1383808/Prince-Harry-news-Meghan-Markle-queen-95-birthday-trooping-colour-return-sussex-ont
I'm going to borrow a comment made in today's Telegraph about a couple of our politicos and apply it to the H$Ms:
`They are two cheeks of the same a*se',
- to which someone else added that he was looking for the hole in that argument...
This shows a typical development of a narcissist's ploy -
1. Make an outrageous statement
2. Deny it and assert that a critic invented it in their nasty twisted mind.
Possibly then:
3. Wittingly or unwittingly, confirm that they had indeed said it in the first place.
https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/posts/inside-meghan-markles-mom-and-archies-sweet-bond/
The Sussexes are still pushing for an invitation to Trooping the color. They leaked to Hello Magazine. They really want to attend the Queen's birthday and they are becoming desperate. Who knows if it's part of the reason they are cosying up to the Cambridges.
Since titles are going be left alone for now...... DENY them any all Royal adjacency. This is the currency they deal in, in Hollywood. Deny it!
The BRF has to show the Duo no mercy. Don't let them anywhere near the BRF this June when we have coming up-
Diana's statue unveiled
Prince P's 100th birthday
Trooping of the Colour
Crumpet said… I found the other interesting news (announced by ScoobieDoo) that Eug and Jack were now supposedly living with her ma and pa.
This has been stuck in my head since I read it yesterday. Was this snippet released before or after Lowe's interview with Cordon was released? With the renewed speculation on whether they really live there related to Lowe's comments I'm just wondering whether we'll find out we were right and they're not living in that mansion but with Doria or something, and H&M are going to try to use E&J as "proof" that they're not doing anything the real royals haven't done.
I expect a birth announcement at any time for them. If they are in the final countdown for baby's arrival, why go to all the trouble moving? If they are looking for a larger house for the expanded family (or have gotten one and are making the usual repairs and updates that one does before one moves in unless one isn't extremely wealthy), then it would make sense to move in with the parents (who have plenty of room) for privacy and security. If they were actually planning on moving into or had moved into Froggy Central, they must have felt *extremely* betrayed by the H&M announcement.
Thanks for the link about Archie & Doria.. I wasn't in the mood to vomit so I didn't read the article-- just read your summary.
They are kind of stuck re: Doria. They either have to claim she lives with them (maybe as "the nanny" and that scenario has issues-- if she wasn't dead can you imagine Diana ever being described as the "nanny" for Harry's son?) OR they risk being accused of violating the lockdown and putting a senior citizen's health at risk from repeat visits. If they say she lives with them that's not really consistent with the romantic view of their relationship they try to sell either. Even though Doria is apparently now a saint (along with Diana) she's still a MIL and living with them also takes away from Doria's creds as a strong and independent woman (although I think she lost whatever "independence" creds she had when she mostly quit work once the ink on the marriage license was dry.) And if they claim she lives with them in Montecito, she could always be papped 90 miles away in LA out for "essential" business like dog-walking. So they just hope sugars will go "aw, how sweet" and not think about what's actually being said. But the line about getting to know Archie covers their butt COVID-wise.
Telling you what they think of an `inadequate' present is a trait I've noticed in another narc of my former acquaintance - there's no pretence at politeness or concealment. No `How lovely!'
`Bad Lip-Reading' at the wedding got it right when they interpreted H as telling her he's got her a special present:
`...it's a golden unicycle'
`That present's a fail, then!'
Even the engagement ring in it's original form wasn't good enough for her.
I agree that I think Lowe definitely knows something, and is deciding to bring it out (I assume on his own, versus a PR decision). I didn’t know he had a podcast too. Oh oh!
@Ian’s Girl,
Lol, thanks, I was trying to describe what I meant and am brain dead from a lot of family things going on, and work, and that term just hit me. Glad it made sense!
Excellent point about their “stuck-ness” with their Doria-Archie construct.
I am far behind reading posts here the last week, but I read yours just now and it hit me that for someone who loves quoting big numbers (millions of US dollars from Netflukes and Pontify) and mansion toilets (16, 19, flush onward!), and devoted marketing staff (are we up to 12 now), M is remarkably silent on the number of nannies and housekeepers they “employ” for the “mansion” in Montecito.
They swing between loneliness and struggle, to having it all. Doting playhouse parents, to invisible plastic Archie. Saint Doria, to ghost.
At the point, whatever they say, I assume the truth is the opposite.
Vulgarity warning:
I'm going to borrow a comment made in today's Telegraph about a couple of our politicos and apply it to the H$Ms:
`They are two cheeks of the same a*se',
- to which someone else added that he was looking for the hole in that argument...
___________________
I think they're both the hole...*L*
"Wait a minute,
Did Meghan really prance back and forth in front of Kensington Palace hoping to be ‘spotted’ or ‘papped’?! LMAO. Girl, you’re dating a prince!!! Hello! Grab your guy and go to the publicly-open Claridges and call those photogs. Meet up with the Beckham’s for a date. She is so amateur!"
She pranced up and down the road infront of the DM offices which is very close to KP.
She picked lunch hour to do this when DM journalists would be out at lunch in the whole foods supermarket which is in the same shared buildings. They frequently shop for their lunch in that wholefoods branch.
I remember DM journalists discussing this on twitter saying they were entertained by her walking up and down that section of the road, clearly wanting to be papped and so eventually they sent out a DM photographer to put her out of her misery.
These are the resulting pictures which include M standing at the main road facing public entrance gate of KP instead of the discreet private entrance reached via a shielded alleyway that is not open to the main road or near the DM offices.
Btw, notice the signals of her clothing
1. Prince Harry's often worn cap which he still wears in a failed attempt to be incognito as he goes about his business and is often papped wearing.
2. The hunter wellingtons - because only someone who thinks soho Farmhouse is countryside would wear hunters in the city on a concreted road surrounded by tall buildings and gridlock traffic
3. The poverty bag - part of her PR campaign to convince us then of her humanitarian credentials meanwhile she's also carrying wholefoods shopping bags which are the opposite of affordable food.
4. The wholefood bags - to signal her dedication to organic food.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3925422/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-Meghan-Markle-spotted-London.html
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/10/22/3A3CFFF400000578-3925422-Dressed_to_shop_Prince_Harry_s_girlfriend_Meghan_Markle_is_pictu-a-16_1478816033784.jpg
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/10/22/3A3CFFF900000578-3925422-image-a-20_1478816100761.jpg
As for their numerous articles released to let the world know that they sent gifts for Christmas and even gifts for Kate’s birthday, it shows how tacky and desperate they are! Who goes around telling everybody that they sent gifts to family members??
Talk about how to look a complete idiot...regardless of the messages she was trying to convey.
"...she clearly knew what to expect with the British weather as she stepped out in some practical wellington boots..."
There was rain in London on Friday 4th & Sat 12th November 2016 but none in between unless the Mail delayed publication of the pic. So the boots should have been smart leather ones - not Hunters, for Pete's sake.
Kensington High St isn't a grouse moor, not that she'd be bothered to find out the difference. It's a wonder she didn't wear waders and pretend to fish for salmon in the Round Pond, or carry a shotgun. Btw Tweeds and/or olive-green waterproofs would be right with Hunters, not black.
I'd love to know what the real huntin', fishin' and shootin' set said, assuming they read the Mail. Would this be the point at which American Nutties would say, in pitying tones, `Ah, bless the child.' I bet they hooted and snorted with mirth.
I constantly debate with myself whether Markle has a certifiable brain disorder/memory problem where she legit cannot remember the various stories she has told, to keep a semblance of a cohesive narrative going, whether she's so sloppy/careless/high when sending new PR nuggets to her various agencies that she just doesn't give AF if she contradicts herself OR if she is fully aware she is contradicting herself, very often within the same publication on the same day, but this is some sort of purposeful strategy that only makes sense to her. I knew HG Tudor classifies her as 'Mid-Range', an almost purely instinctual being who does not have self-awareness of her own behaviors as being in any way off-kilter. Even as an example of a major personality disorder, she presents as basic. Sophisticated thinking is beyond her purview. But is just garden-variety linear thinking too much to expect?
1. She has already promoted dozens of times that Doria has helped take care of Archie in some sort of nanny/loving Grandma capacity for extended periods. According to her, though not verified by any corroborating evidence, like any sightings, Doria moved in with the couple in Frogmore Cottage during the last month Smegs was expecting and stayed with them for 4-6 weeks after Archie was born. Meg made it a point to have printed how very helpful Doria was and how they had dismissed all the staff, all the better to 'bond as a family', including Grammy Nanny.
2. When the couple moved to L.A. and stayed at Tyler Perry's for three months (according to them), it was published that Doria had moved in with them and was back on Nanny duty. It was during this period when a blurry photo of a barefoot Doria pulling a very pale but strapping-looking toddler in a vintage car stroller in a driveway surfaced in that German magazine. Nutties speculated that it was in fact a picture of Doria with a 18-24 month old Meg circa 1983 . . .and I'd certainly say it looks like it could be. The pictured tot looked way too large for a just-1 year old as Arch was supposed to be at the time.
So after the alleged move to Montecito in July (so they say), Doria did not accompany them, all the better to exploit the 'Cruel Covid, separating the loving Grandma from the grandchild with whom she has such a 'sweet bond'. Although with every passing holiday since then, her PR has floated the idea that they'd be spending it with Doria.
Even if Doria is not able to see 'Arch' at the minute due to Covid--she has, according to Meg's previous narratives, taken care of him for 3-4 months of his life as a a full-time caregiver and spent every available holiday with him since his parents returned to California. AND she Zoom-calls with them so often, Archie is easily calling her 'Grandma' and seeing her several times per week that way.
But Doria has to wait until the pandemic is over before she 'can get to know Archie properly'. That is a direct quote from today's article.
she just doesn't really 'know' him.
What?
Apparently to a Narcissist, being talked about for a confusing or vile reason is just as good as being talked about for being a kind, ultra-famous, ultra-glamorous humanitarian/producer/director/writer/star. Being just a run-of-the-mill 'normal', I can't grasp this at all. Narcs are obsessed with their facade management, and we've seen this in living color with Smeg. Image and money, control and being thought perfect in every way--these are their drivers. How does a schizo PR blitz where her fabrications and actual ineptitude/laxness/possible stupidity aid her aims?
She reveals herself . . does she realize it? Personally, I wouldn't expect Doria to have a substantial relationship with a figment of Meg's twisted imagination. If there's no baby, and Doria has never actually been back to London since October 2018 when she supported her 'pregnant' daughter at the Grenfell cookbook launch, and the two (2) photos that picture Doria in the frame with 'Baby Archie' have been digitally manipulated to insert her when she in fact never left L.A.--then, no, she sure can't know him 'properly. If Doria had been present at the presentation and christening of her first grandchild, wouldn't Meg have taken more photos with her mom? Even just ones of Doria and herself, since they are 'so close', right, and since Doria is her entre into cred for 'blackness'.
Apart from photos of Smeg as a very young child, there are very few pictures of her with Doria at any stage of her life. Doria got trotted out again when Smeg started dating Harry, and there's a photo of the three of them together. Photos of Doria on the wedding day. But almost zilcho pictures of just Meg with her mom. I recall one wedding photo and one photo of Doria with Meg and Tom taken when Meg looked to be around 13 or 14. Mostly, Doria is a ghost. Very like Archie in that respect.
Oh, not forgetting that 'Doria' was the photog for the 'Christmas Card'! So yes, she has been to Mudslide Manor! She's taken photos of Archie--
This line belongs at the end up there.
WBBM,
That whole pap stroll outside the DM was a hoot. Posies to you for going above and beyond and actually looking up the weather reports!
The English tolerate eccentricity and even champion it but I bet she got some stares and laughs from passersby as she doggedly beat a path on the pavement round and round in her wellies. I bet her bunions were killing her. Too bad Princess Anne wasn't on the premises and got a view of that. I think there would have been a confrontation and Meg would not have prevailed.
No doubt passersby thought her a mentally ill person. But she is, so they wouldn't have been wrong. This was supposed to be the week she moved to London to be with Harry in twue wuve and play house with him at Nottingham Cottage, right? Well, she *was* unemployed, so I guess she did have all day to loiter in the street in front of the DM. To me the whole stunt is illustrative of the probability that she never lived at KP, nor was Harry promoting her as his GF who'd 'given everything up for love' and moved across the ocean to be with him. Suits had already let her go and with it went her studio-owned apartment. She'd already dumped Cory and stolen his prized kitchen electrics. So she put her stuff in storage and came to London to stalk Harry. I read in another article that Haz never returned her calls on the day she turned up in London for twue wuve. She wanted him to send a Town Car for her and she ended up getting her own taxi because he never answered his phone. Certainly wasn't waiting outside of customs at Heathrow to claim his lady love. It was suggested in that piece that the papp walking stunt was actually to force HARRY to acknowledge that she was in town and she wasn't going away.
So, if that was mid-September, with Harry refusing to take her calls or send a car to bring her to his home it really defies logical explanation as to why he's parading her in front of the world media 6 weeks later as his fiancee, innit? Particularly if they were *already* engaged and had been for over a month? But he refused to pick her up from the airport? Nothing parses in Meg-World. It used to be entertaining but now it's just so exhausting.
IMO Rob Lowe was mocking both the Harkles and Cordon for his association with them.
-------
THIS !!! I agree that Rob was mocking them. He's an actor and did it in a very believable way. and Cordon was shitting himself and changing the subject because he wants an "in" with the Harkles. Maybe even afraid Rob was going to keep on going.
I've little doubt that the Harkles are attempting to make contact with some of the celebs who live in the area. And i think they are being snubbed. They would love to be seen at lunch with A listers. But it's not happening.
Sylvia said...
@Hikari
I agree with your observations ...
Pictures of MM & her mother together are rare and they do not seem as close as reported.
There are however some interesting photos of both MM & Doria taken at Cliveden were they were both staying at the time of MM JCMH wedding .
MM's facial & body language pictures are revealing
One instance of Doria waving back to the onlookers shows MM's expressions looking noticibly peeved, possibly at Doria getting any attention at all.
At one point MM practically shoves Doria ahead of herself then MM steps back in order to get a lone shot if herself without Doris in the frame. Typical MM pose hogging the camera as per usual.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018051848729/meghan-markle-mum-doria-cliveden-house/
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018051848729/meghan-markle-mum-doria-cliveden-house
**@Maneki Neko
Just a quick thank you for bringing the article about Harry and Rob Lowe to the blog. I jumped on it right away and forgot to tip-the-hat.
-----------
Thank you :) I thought it would be nice to bring some levity to the blog but didn't know the ponytail story would cause quite a bit of discussion. Love your new avatar!
@Lurking with Spoons
It was announced that Eugenie and Jack had moved back in with her parents 3 days ago so 2 days before the Rob Lowe story.
@Acquitaine
Thanks for the pix. I do remember Megalo and her 'Alleviating world poverty worldwide' bag 🤮 - one couture dress at a time. The Hunters boots were ridiculous, particularly on a dry day.
Apropos of nothing, I remember reading very recently that Archie's British nanny had gone back to the UK. I'm surprised Megs didn't hire an American nanny - the Brits are so nasty and racist - but who is the lucky nanny now?
"I think they're both the hole...*L*"
My first thought was a new moniker! the Sphincter Twins!
That's why the journalists were amused by her behaviour infront of their offices because they were following directives to leave her alone, but here she was walking up and down infront of them clearly wanting to be papped. This pap stroll was a tacit nod to the DM to start reporting on her ie ignore Harry's letter.
After she returned to Toronto following this papping, she started to organise papstrolls over there every few weeks, but despite these organised pap strolls, it did not lead to a feeding frenzy of paps.
The reason for the lack of frenzy was that as well as his public loveshield letter, Harry simultaneously sent a letter to the IPSO saying he was going to throw his royal privilege behind the ongoing parliamentary debate on press freedom that was rumbling at the time. He would back the side calling for curbs on press freedom. His position was that the UK media are masters at creating tabloid fame and frenzy around a subject and therefore if any of the IPSO members succeeded in creating a tabloid frenzy around Meghan even if the pictures were taken abroad, he'd hold the IPSO responsible and join the vote.
https://popbitch.com/2016/12/part-iii-battle-royal/
At the time the UK media was still cowed from the fallout of the phone hacking scandal and these parliamentary debates were the end game in consequences for media.
The media was therefore careful NOT to write or publish anything about Meghan or the relationship that did not have their explicit approval. Any papped photos or articles during this timeframe were directly arranged or approved by Meghan and Harry. There was no running media commentary from that point through to the engagement.
The media got around some of this by interviewing family members and making sure the family were directly seen to be making their remarks - plausible deniability. However, you will remember that these interviews rarely got any follow up from media debating the merits of what her family members said.
The engagement is where the media frenzy was allowed to be created because the Palace itself was creating it to sell Meghan as the new incoming royal and the media was needed to acquiesce to their strategy and that allowed the media to allow others eg Ninaki the discarded friend as well as Gina the discarded PR to tell their stories.
I know there is an accepted theory about Thomas and the infamous set up pictures, but behind the scenes something else was going on which makes the entire episode more sinister.
Despite the media backing down following that legal letter in November 2016, Harry continued to send threatening legal letters to IPSO throughout 2017 and early 2018.
On 9th May 2018, the final parliamentary debate and vote on curbing press freedom took place which the pro-press freedom side won. That closed that chapter and removed the dark cloud hanging over media.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/labour-bid-curb-press-freedom-fails-mps-vote-against-plans/
https://www.ft.com/content/280e18dc-53a1-11e8-b24e-cad6aa67e23e
On the eve of this vote, Harry sent another of his angry, threatening letters to the IPSO this time accusing them of Harassing Thomas and directly quoted those set up pictures.
The media waited for the vote outcome before they responded. DM led the charge by exposing the pictures were set up. It was a bullseye straight at Harry.
On Twitter many UK journalists across all sides and outlets cheered the DM on. A particularly memorable tweet from a Guardian journalist said that Harry should clean house before accusing the media of colluding to harass him and his family when said family were colluding to be in the media. Another cheered the press finally letting out this habit of the Markles and wanting to out Meghan's arranged papstrolls as well.
THere is a MarieClaire story from Aug 2020 that quotes Finding Freedom. The story is about the Harkles learning that their "romance" was about to be outed while they were at a Halloween party at Soho House Toronto with Eug/Jack. FF says
"Their relationship had leaked to the press—and it was reportedly one of Princess Eugenie and father Prince Andrew's employees who told the Sunday Express."
I had never heard that before. Was that common knowledge before FF was published or revisionist history by Meg to make Eug look bad and somehow explain why Meg "outed" her pregnancy at Eug's wedding? Would Eug/Jack fly to Toronto to attend a party with the Harkles? Seems a bit much for a weekend, but I'm not uber-wealthy and maybe that's what the ROyals do.
I really want to know what Eugenie did to Meghan to have her so determined to ruin Eugenie's reputation and happy moments.
It can't just be about a tiara as crazy as that is too.
I can't believe Harry hates his cousin this much. She appeared to be his closest cousin who effectively organised his social life and included him in private events and holidays. Someone he could hangout with safely.
Re. the DM/Wellies stroll
If this was only two days after Harry had blindsided the family with his letter excoriating the press for harassing the girlfriend no one knew existed til then . . it seems this couple hasL A) always been at cross-purposes in their media campaign . . cf. this occasion; the pastoral stroll with Archie-doll in Canada while Harry was absent . . he says, 'Don't', she does it anyway . . or B) Haz is aware of what she's doing in direct contradiction of their clamoring against press intrusion and supports it 'cause she's convinced him of the reason it needs to be done . . keeping their name always in the press.
Schizo, regardless.
****************
@luxem
Re. the Halloween party
I'd never heard that either. The Halloween party story has been exhaustively covered and there's a scene of 'Meg' and 'Harry' attending such a party in silly costumes in the first Hallmark movie dedicated to 'their transatlantic soulmate love'. Eugenie and Jack were never mentioned in connection with this. A Halloween party with the Soho House crowd does not seem like sufficient excuse for flying across the Atlantic. Why would Eugenie be affiliated with Soho House in Toronto, anyway? If she's a member, wouldn't it be a whole lot more convenient to party with Meg and Harry at Soho House in London? Surely there were Halloween festivities closer to home to join in on. And the clandestine romance was more likely to be outed with Eugenie in attendance, since she is as famous as Harry. Two Royals in one place? Sure hint that something's up. Not sure I believe this one. Unlike Harry, Eugenie did have a regular job to get back to, and Halloween is not a national holiday that rates several days off work, like Christmas.
The pregnancy display at Euge's wedding was all about the matter of the emerald tiara, I'm pretty sure. Eugenie's was not the same one Meg wanted, but the fact that Euge got 'Meg's color while emeralds were withheld from Smeg is never going to be forgiven. I also think Meg wanted to give offense to Andrew as well because she ran into him at some kinky party/yacht occasion or other, with or without Epstein.
If everything that Meg has done/who she has done/knows was laid bare, I think it'd be even worse than we think, and we already suspect that it's bad.
Now I have to go to the urban dictionary and look up 'Ponytail' to add it to my 'Roast Chicken' knowledge. Thanks to Meg, I'm being well schooled in depravity.
Heh, me, too! After reading the urban dictionary reference, maybe he sneaky said that Harry is giving the, er, oral satisfaction to males?
Thank you so much for sharing your story. What strikes me is two key attributes that Harry does not have:
* Strength of character
* Intelligence
Meghan 'worked on' his weaknesses and fragilities, and he just does not have the strength of character to stand up against what is wrong (far easier to just go along with his wife). He also does not have the intelligence or talents to lead an independent life. If he leaves her, where does he go and what does he do? He surely is not that stupid that he does not realize that he set torch to all the bridges to home and family, at her instigation? And there is Archie ...
Wow, it took you 8 years to close that final door. I suspect that the only way I could do that (and a very slim chance of that!) would be to block it off and get on with things, as you seem to have done.
In 2008, there was an exhibition of photos of Diana at Kensington Palace. There still are rooms open to the public at the palace, and William and Harry had not been living there since their mother's death.
The photographer who curated the exhibition ended up being the wedding photographer for the Cambridges (or was it engagement?), two years later.
Willam and Harry had a private viewing, accompanied by their respective girlfriends at the time (Catherine and Chelsey).
He describes the princes as having different personalities - William more like Diana and Harry more like Charles! I found that very interesting.
I think the women they married and the time they took to build a solid relationship before marriage seems to have had some influence on how they matured.
Hopefully you can still find the excerpt from the article at this link:
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/image/640241440333627392
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog/explaining-meghan-markle-and-prince-harrys-deal-with-netflix-and-their-upcoming-ventures
but I think we all doubted that the Sussexes are having hundreds of millions of dollars handed to them by Netflix and Spotify.
How much of what is out there about them is made up, how much is PR, how much is friends and other connections blabbing but remaining nameless, and how much is official palace sources leaking but remaining nameless? All so messy Megsie!
Well, I did it. I went and looked.
Rob’s demeanor during that interview seemed to suggest That he was being naughty and daring the host to do anything about it. If this is what he meant by usage of the word “ponytail”, That he was definitely being provocative. To all appearances, James Corden did not take it at all well. It seems like more than the basic meaning of a casual hairstyle for those with long hair was in play.
The plot thickens!
You never see Lowe on twitter going on about politicians. He keeps his views to himself because he is "right" sympathetic and able to keep good relations with the liberal Hollywood elites who do the hiring.
Well done Rob! And married for 25 years plus, a HollyWeird rarity.
Eugenie & H - i do wonder what happened with that relationship. Beatrice too. He used to be very close to his cousins and they would party a lot. I'd always heard Harry was closer with them than W. I remember reading years ago, that W didn't fully trust them because they were known to gossip a lot. And they would also carry info to Andrew & Fergie & Fergie would relay a lot of the info for favors ($).
`I really want to know what Eugenie did to Meghan to have her so determined to ruin Eugenie's reputation and happy moments.'
Answer: You don't have to do anything unkind to attract the wrath of a narcissist, apart from, say, presuming to be the centre of attention at one's own wedding. A narc female just can't stand that! (I'll spare you my stories this time!)
Perhaps it was double-whammy for the Markle - grabbing the limelight for the `pregnancy' would have given her an almighty boost but also I wonder if kicking Eug in the teeth was also a move to separate H from a potential source of support in the future? An early move perhaps in isolating him from someone with whom he'd always had a good relationship.
@HIkari - i think you are reading more in to the ponytail reference than it is. Guys with long hair in a ponytail being "cool" is one of the in things in CA. From stuffy H Royal type things to long hair/pony tail hippie woke Harry. I really do think i was "tongue in cheek" put down of H (& M).
For the record, it was not I who broached the 'urban' meaning of 'Ponytail'. Like 'Roast Chicken' it is an innocuous, everyday word with a deviant meaning that is a source of hilarity to those in the know. Which I wasn't, until about and hour and a half ago as of this writing when I looked it up.
Apologies if it was someone here who mentioned this other meaning; it may well have been The Deceitful Duchess over on Tumblr. Both roast chickens & ponytails are popular in Meg's world, but maybe not just as everyday objects. Meg isn't a wholesome person, with wholesome motives, and the people she surrounds herself with and ingratiates herself to aren't wholesome, either. Harry was well-versed in this world before he met her and that's how they crossed paths. Weren't no wholesome conversational dinner date arranged by a mutual friend, that's for certain.
Ponytails are ubiquitous for sure among the younger generation, a member of which Hazza must be placed at the geriatic end. Harry Styles is 26. Harry still acts 26 or 16 or even 6 but he's pushing 40. Still, there are guys much older than he who rock ponytails.
Rob Lowe's comment is very out of left field and therefore provocative because it is demonstrably *false*, if we are in fact talking about real Harry's real current hairstyle. Hazza has *always* worn his hair short, even when not in military service, and there were pictures making the rounds this fall about his new, even shorter coif. There is no possibly way that Harry grew enough length in 2 or 3 months to have a ponytail visible from another vehicle. At *most* it might be touching his collar. If Harry were determined to embrace California style and grow a ponytail (though since he has virtually no hair on the back of his head any more, it would have been an interesting effect)--why did he debut a 'sleek new haircut' on September 22nd?
https://www.purewow.com/news/prince-harry-haircut
Admittedly, 3.5 months is enough time for some folks to grow hair noticeably, though mine grows about half as fast as other people's. I managed to grow my hair enough for a chin length bob after about a year (thanks to the 'Rona, or I would have had it whacked sooner). I think to get from 'shorn' to ponytail in 3 months is pushing it, though.
So that leaves:
1. Rob saw a person other than Harry
2. Harry was wearing a fake pony by way of disguise, but it didn't fool his Montecito neighbor
3. Rob was making a veiled reference to something sexual which made JC very uncomfortable, leading to a swift change of topic.
Rob's been around the block a bit and nearly had his career derailed in 1988 for a sex scandal, so he's no babe in the woods. If this was all in good fun and just good natured joshing around about Rob's Montecito neighbor and presumed new pal of Corden, seeing as he attended the SHAM wedding. There seemed to be a decided subtext going on that was known the participants in that extremely prickly and uncomfortable interview. It's kind of funny that 'Ponyboy' would invoke 'Ponytail' but I get a distinct feeling that more than hair growth was being alluded to.
I wouldn't bet any money on Rob Lowe being invited back to the Late, Late Show.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13745506/harry-meghan-markle-netflix-deal-shows-the-crown/
Those names were quaint when they were invented in the 1960s. 'Ponyboy' and 'Sodapop' were very wholesome street names. By the 1980s, they really seemed like something out of Leave It to Beaver.
Is he? That's disappointing. And here he'd earned some major brownie points with me for discomfiting James 'Toolbag' Corden so visibly. According to xxxx, RL is 'the opposite of woke', and right of center. Doesn't seem like Big O would want anyone like that as her BFF. Perhaps they limit their friendship to Montecito-centric issues only.
. . . and I think it was an inside joke egged on by one or the other... making fun of the press and gossip so to speak
Rob's motives for the Ponytail story remain opaque, but whatever they were, he didn't appear to have informed the host of his intentions. The body language of both host and guest was very weird. I would definitely say 'tense'. Nearly a year into the pandemic, both of them should be used to the Zoom call medium. Media-trained professional actor/performers have a huge advantage over regular folk when using that medium. But that whole segment was so uncomfortable . .if you didn't pay any attention to the words and just looked at their faces and body language, you'd think neither one of them had done this before.
You certainly wouldn't get the impression that they liked one another. It felt like barely disguised animosity on both sides, not like they were sharing the same in-joke at all. If Rob Lowe is BFFs with Oprah--and they do share a Montecito connection--but I would think that James Corden would also be on at least amicable terms with Oprah, if not besties. They share an industry and a job within that industry (talk show hosts), would share politics in common and they would have crossed paths at the Harkle wedding. Even if they didn't have an in-depth conversation at that time, they share in common having been on tha guest list despite not knowing the bridal couple personally. (It's possible that both James and Oprah knew Harry slightly from a previous encounter, but neither of them knew Meg. they were both selected over any number of 'personal friends' of the bride and groom to be at this wedding. So I feel a thread of interconnectedness running through all the celeb guests at the SHAMS wedding, regardless of whether they knew one another beforehand. Members of that guest list are all people who can ostensibly do something for Meg in return for the generosity of an invite to a Royal wedding.
That is a crap-ton of money. I had no idea the amount he received ran to 6 figures. I thought it was along the lines of 20 - 25,000 pounds each to William and Harry from the remainder of the fund.
What is it exactly that the 'Sussex Royal charity' achieved during its very brief existence? It was barely incorporated with the paperwork before it was dismantled.
The bulk (or all) of those funds were given to the Princess Diana Memorial Fund before William transferred those into his Royal Foundation.
This is really upsetting. In essence, Harry was given a payoff with charitable monies because he threw a fit.
Were I a British subject, I think I'd be howling for a Republic.
"The bulk (or all) of those funds were given to the Princess Diana Memorial Fund before William transferred those into his Royal Foundation."
I'm not sure that's true. I don't think we know (although we could probably find out) exactly how much came from that Diana fund. And exactly how much has come in since earmarked for any of those continuing projects. But the initial Diana fund money did not go into "Will's" foundation. The money was transferred to Will and Harry's Royal Foundation in 2012, many years before the existence of Sussex Royal.
Harry was a co-owner of the Royal Foundation (established in 2008 by W&H) for many years after that. (Or whatever term applies for a foundation if not co-owner, co-principal?) So the transferred money likely includes other funds, some of which Harry helped raise while a co-owner.
I didn't think the fact that there was a transfer is problematic. I thought the issue was where it went-- Travalyst which isn't a charity.
The issue isn't Sussex Royal per se. IF Sussex Royal had existed longer, then Harry's share of Royal Foundation money would have gone there. When that closed, if the money then went to Travalyst, only Harry would be implicated instead of both Harry and Will.
@JennS
I thought it would be nice to bring some levity to the blog but didn't know the ponytail story would cause quite a bit of discussion. Love your new avatar!
..................
Thanks - I found it ready-made on the web but must admit to enlarging the ponytail!🤣
Lord knows I don’t know much about accountancy. Numbers bring me out in hives, Which is why I opted to study literature. In retrospect, I should have got an accounting degree. My friend’s daughter Who graduated with her BS in accounting just three years ago works for a big oil company locally. She crunches state and local tax tables all day long for their subsidiaries, and sits in a cubicle. She also makes $70,000 a year, drives a company car, has an expense account, and just bought her first home last fall. She’s 26. When I was 26, I was working a minimum wage mall job and sending out resumes for teaching jobs to no avail.
As far as I understand it, there was not much money left in the Diana memorial fund when it was closed, but if it was incorporated into Will and Harry’s new royal Foundation, then we could call it seed money for the future projects of the new fund. So it was accumulating interest and adding more value, Plus I would expect that for at least several years afterwards, donors were contributing in Diana’s name, either unaware that the fund bearing her name had officially closed, or wishing their donation to the royal Foundation to go toward a project she championed. I don’t have an issue with William and Harry starting their own charities—In good faith—But from the way these transfers were handled, it seems like some monies which were allocated for Diana’s fund have been comingled with Perhaps a lack of clarity to the donors that this is what was happening. Had Harry and Meg Not flaked out on the royal family, and stayed part of it, then Sussex Royale would have stayed viable. But we all know that Sussex Royale was never set up as a philanthropic entity, but was going to Soli merchandise it’s name to enrich the Sussexes personally. There may have been an occasional sop to charity Like donating $3000 worth of children’s clothing despite a grandiose lifestyle. What did Meg give to Mayhew—25 pounds or something like that? It’s an embarrassment.
It was completely inappropriate to Allow H to plow his half of those funds into his for profit business. That money should have been held in trust until such time as he was ready to launch Archewell. Which is another of their grifts as far as I’m concerned—-no matter what they say, their aim is to get money for their private use. A lot of these donations to the Royal Foundation would’ve been sizable corporate ones, Doing it as a tax write off… But there must’ve been many smaller donations made by pension her grandmothers and the like...It is that who are being stolen from as H lives it up in A multi million dollar mansion in California. There should be an investigation, and if everything is on the up and up, great let him keep that money to support sustainable tourism for the masses. I have a feeling that everything is not on the up and up though.
Here is sammys https://mobile.twitter.com/TheMarkleSammy/with_replies
Also found another twitter (linked to Sammys) that has this:
Victim of systemic, institutional racism.
Princess of UK
Duchess of Sussex
Countess Dumbarton
Baroness Kilkeel
VP Commonwealth Youth Trust
Patron: Royal Fdn, National Theatre, Assoc of Commonwealth Universities, Mayhew, SmartWorks
Director: Sussex Royal Fdn
1. As Harry was leaving the Foundation to start his own, it was agreed to split the monies in the Diana fund 50/50 between the brother's charity foundations. Harry was free to use his 50% portion towards any charity endeavour of his choosing. William would continue the Diana fund alone going forward with his 50% monies to facilitate grant giving from the fund.
2. A transfer of charity monies raised for Harry and Meghan's wedding ( their engagement fund) was transferred to them. Ps: considering Meghan's ongoing boasts that they were so popular at the time of their wedding that they earned a billion dollars for UK plc, their engagement fund was minuscule. They raised just under £145K. Compare with WK's engagement fund which raised just under £1M and only needed a small top up from Charles to create the £1M required seed money to start the foundation going properly.
3. They transferred monies that were raised via various charity organisations for Harry's initiatives eg coach core etc.
4. The accounts revealed that Travalyst was started within the Royal Foundation and the £145K transferred to it was restricted funds already carved out of the Royal Foundation budget to develop the initiative. It wasn't a commercial entity under the Royal Foundation's oversight. That happened post split.
Overall i think they'll find that William doesn't have any case to answer. The royal foundation transferred unrestricted funds to Sussexroyal on the understanding that it was a charity.
They transferred restricted funds to Travalyst while it was still very much in development and not quite developed properly. I speculate that it would fall under the conservation tab within the royal foundation, but the accounts merely list it as an initiative under development.
Harry and his handlers screwed this up with all those shell companies they created and trademarked things they should never have trademarked. Further they listened to Hollywood Meghan and her advisors and changed the
companies which caused their lawyer to drop out of being the company secretary for all these companies.
Probably thinking they knew better they replaced him with the ambulance chasing Shillings who appear to simply milk their wallets rather than insist on better legal moves.
Travalyst was finally registered as a commercial vehicle and all the monies in SussexRoyal was transferred across to it. Or was it vice versa?!
It's interesting that they changed the name of sussexroyal to MWX trading when we know that MWX trading was registered as a commercial company which owns the trademark Travalyst.
The charity commission is treading carefully in their investigations because this involves William and he retains royal privilege which means kid gloves though there doesn't appear to be any wrongdoing on his side of transactions even if he didn't have that privilege.
Harry's transactions are transparently suspect plus he no longer has the protection of royal privilege. It's funny to see him stamp his feet in attempts to intimidate and or make his mess go away. He is finally facing real world consequences that aren't easily solved by his throwing a tantrum.
At some point he'll finally realise that he can't sue the entire world for making him face the consequences of his decisions and or he will be registered as a vexatious litigant at the courts.
Publishing in August, HER HEART FOR A COMPASS is available to pre-order now at http://smarturl.it/HerHeartForACompass
@SarahTheDuchess #HerHeartForACompa
the video i just saw with her announcing it. She is quite the character
Thanks so much for the info! Two questions:
1. While I don't know details, I do know charitable contributions can be tax deductible in the UK. So it seems to me (like @Hikari I'm not an account type) gifts to charity (older Diana fund, RF, SR) may have been shielded from income tax. If that money later become the property of a non-charitable company that meant, in effect, a sort of end run around the government occurred. Is that true?
2. W&H started the Royal Foundation in 2008. So I'm confused when you say W&K's engagement fund started the foundation properly. Was it just sitting "empty" for several years?
----
Hindsight has benefits, of course. But I do wonder why it was thought it was reasonable to add Meghan to the Royal Foundation when Harry married. Kate was added earlier as a married in, but it seems to me it would have been perfectly natural for H&M to set up their own foundation upon marriage. It was decidedly odd to me to expect two almost-middle aged brothers and their wives to share in one foundation even before the conflicts were known. While most of the RF don't have foundations anyway (they have trusts and there are good reasons for that IMO as a non-accountant) none of them share trusts with sibs and their spouses.
So I wonder why there wasn't an earlier split. If the palace had done it right, H&M could have still had forced "velvet glove" oversight. Maybe the idea was Will as a "controlling older brother" would oversee, but if so, that was kind of a screwed up unfair idea.
I personally think the Royal Family and whoever it is behind the scenes running these foundations and everything else was quite thrilled to have " a woman of color" join The Firm to appeal to the increasingly colorful British demographic. I think they were as cynical as Nutmeg to an extent, and were more than willing to play on her race as a means of making the Monarchy more appealing to a broader range of the British public.
They were immediately ready with the whole "Fab Four" thing and were wanting to push the four of them as one unit. I think they were more than happy to let H&M have a bigger role than what you might ordinarily expect The Spare to have as far as public appearances and such. Obviously not as a co-monarch or anything, but I suspect they were salivating at the prospect of two relatively young, good-looking power couples to carry on where the oldies will soon have to leave off, and loving the idea of having someone of mixed race to show how thoroughly modern and woke the RF had become.
The Grifters just couldn't handle having to play what was probably going to be a very close second fiddle to W&K. They really could have had the best of both worlds, had they taken their time. I really believe they would have had plenty of the fun and glamour and none of the more crippling responsibilities had they just played it cool for awhile.
Of course they would never have been allowed to outshine W&K, but I don't think W&K are so egotistical that they would have minded sharing some of the spotlight.
Are you ready?
$750 million yup.
how many tickets do you think M&H will buy?
Powerball Lottery is up to $640 million
geez - in my dreams..........
It was listed with a horde of other sites in response to my simple Google search - I had not clicked on it. This reminds me of their tricks with `Archewell'.
IMO it stinks.
This is from Byline Investigates:
Meghan Markle’s bid to win a ‘Summary Judgment’ in her case against the publishers of the Mail on Sunday will be streamed live to the public in a “watershed” moment for English and Welsh civil courts, @BInvestigates can report.
MEGHAN Case: Judge Opens Virtual Court to Public Gaze – Here’s How YOU Can Register Before Today's 4pm Deadline:
https://twitter.com/BInvestigates/status/1349983406608719872
Perhaps William and Catherine were taking the long view and the plan was always to 'hand over' the foundation to Harry when William took over the jobs of Prince of Wales (Duchy of Cornwall) and then king? It will be a while before the Cambridge children will be able to take responsibility for that legacy. Charles has that very problem with neither of his sons wanting to take over the Prince's Trust and thus Princess Margaret's son stepped in to 'keep it in the family'.
I think they quickly realized that adding Meghan to the mix was a disaster! It seems she has no regard or respect for family, tradition and legacy. I wonder if William picked up on that early on and thus tried to get his brother to rethink making such a disastrous marriage?
I'm not going to try to register as I'm not clear when the hearing will be. I've got a medical appt that might clash if it's next week. Hope other Nutties will get a chance to follow it in real time.
"Perhaps William and Catherine were taking the long view and the plan was always to 'hand over' the foundation to Harry when William took over the jobs of Prince of Wales (Duchy of Cornwall) and then king? It will be a while before the Cambridge children will be able to take responsibility for that legacy."
Maybe.
I wonder if that was the plan, it was ever discussed with the Sussexes? OR at least with Harry? Knowing what we know now, I wonder if H&M would have thought that was a good idea even way back then as it is a little too much "in service of the Cambridges." Not that I personally find anything wrong with that since a ranking system is an essential part of a monarchy but....
Given that Will in his later 20s didn't want to take over his father's work on his trust, I do wonder if he would have assumed Harry would want you take over Will's work at an even older age? The POW's trust seems a more logical fit for a future POW than a brother's work may be for a brother. And it was always a little weird W&H set up the Foundation and had their own independent office at KP while everyone else but Charles ran out of BP. I do remember some people thought W&H always should have been based at CH. Partly for avoiding duplication of costs but also to avoid having all kinds of competing "Firm" offices, independent calendars, and "scattered" endeavors.
You may be right but @Ian's Girl's idea re: capitalizing on the "Fab Four" may be right too. Or it could be even simpler and just be a matter of following the path of the least resistance. I don't know how consistently "hands on" W&K&H ever were with the actual Foundation anyway. If @Acquitaine is right, it sounds like that while the Foundation was set up in 2008 by W&H, it didn't really do anything until money came in after W&K's engagement fund appeared sometime after April 2011. I do wonder if the Foundation was set up partly to show Charles they "had a plan" when both indicated an initial unwillingness to consider joining the Prince's Trust.
And in 2017/early 2018 when decisions woild have been made about the future of the Foundation, W&K were probably distracted with Kate's pregnancy with Louis, Will leaving the EAAS, their move to London in fall 2017, school selection for George to start real school... It would have been easier *at the outset* just to add Meghan rather than split things up then. And almost immediately M managed to lasso the Grenfell cookbook funds to run through the Foundation....funds that someone (sorry can't remember who) pointed out on an earlier thread probably weren't completely dispersed back to the community...funds that on paper now belong to Travalyst?
Quite a mess.
Are you ready?
$750 million yup.
how many tickets do you think M&H will buy?
Powerball Lottery is up to $640 million
geez - in my dreams..........
There have been a LOT of follow ups of lottery winners...where are they now, etc., that showed them to be broke, dead, or both. For some people, having an unlimited amount of money for recreational pharmaceuticals could have deleterious effects on their health. (A steady diet of strippers and blow can actually be bad for you, who knew?) For others, relatives kill them for the money. Others fall for every begging sob story from their 'friends' and relatives and, before they know it, they're back in the trailer park. I think the successful lottery winners are the ones that stay anonymous by lawyering up, putting the money in a trust, and keeping quiet about it.
I wouldn't even need a crystal ball to foresee the M&H show ending in the sad recreational pharmaceutical demise group. Actually, I can see poor Harry being helped across that bridge to the beyond by his 'loving' wife because she wouldn't want to share.
That being said, if I remember, I may buy a couple tickets and chance the consequences (grin).
It isn't just lottery winners that are victimized. My late brother-in-law left his second wife pretty well set with property, insurance, and pension when he died suddenly (nothing to his kids from his first marriage but they are doing well on their own). HER kids set upon her like vultures when she sold their property and arrived back 'home'. She was quickly picked clean by her kids and grandkids "borrowing" the money (she had had enough to last her the rest of her life); now she is living in an apartment and working at Walmart in her 70s.
So take care if you want to investigate it.
Approaching it via the Companies House site at
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house
seemed safer...
Ve-e-ry in-ter-est-ing ...
The only details now shown are:
TRAVALYST LIMITED
12546940 - Incorporated on 3 April 2020
"C/O Cms Cameron Mckenna Nabarro Olswang Llp Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London, United Kingdom, EC4N 6AF
All other info has been scrubbed.
This is an international law company - the c/o (`care of') suggests to me that this is only a forwarding address. `Travalyst' is now elsewhere
As for Megsy, her definition of `winning the lottery' didn't include the jackpot she hit here in the UK- as a gift, that was a `fail'. Like Kate's flowers and the golden unicycle, she rejected the royal life, for all its privileges and wealth, with as much noise and venom as she possibly could.
Interesting that her university career was seemingly funded by her father's dubiously-won dollars.
Megxit review is CANCELLED: Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are satisfied new arrangement is working and there's 'no need' to revisit one year on, royal expert claims
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's scheduled 12-month review following their split from the royal family has been cancelled, according to one royal expert.
Speaking to True Royalty TV's Royal Beat, Vanity Fair correspondent Katie Nicholl said that while the Duke, 36, and the Duchess of Sussex, 39, are being observed closely about the commercial deals they're making, nothing they have done so far suggests the planned one-year review needs to go ahead.
While Covid restrictions have grounded Prince Harry at the $14 million mansion in Los Angeles that the couple share with their 19-month-old son Archie, it's unlikely there will now even be a face-to-face Zoom call to discuss their commercial affairs with the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.
(DM)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9151069/Megxit-WORKING-no-need-planned-one-year-review-Royal-expert-says.html
How reliable is Katie Nichol?
Is this the Sussexes trying to take control of the situation? ...
We are doing so well that there is nothing to review, other than Harry's ceremonial military appointments, which of course he can continue with from Montecito and the Queen will just have to decide who covers the cost when Harry wants to jet off to the UK, don a military uniform and make a public appearance (as long as it is not us, we do not mind who pays).
I suspect that the above is their thinking. Control, dominate with the image we want to project, get what we want.
In the meanwhile, the Queen says nothing except that they are private individuals, beloved family, but private (and let's not fuss about line succession as there are dozens of people in that queue who are also private individuals).
Harry as Counsellor of State? I think he should step down from that.
I wonder about the HRH. Surely the Queen has more than enough evidence that they should never be allowed to use it? (Think Fergie without any redeemable qualities in personality or character.)
At least with the so-called review firmly established as fact by the media doing the bidding of the Sussexes, the Queen can no longer kick the can down the road and will have to make some decisions and make an announcement about that. As we count down the weeks waiting for that event we have Meghan's court case and the hearing about a Summary Judgment.
Her columns were therefore more insider-y gossip - true or false, but certainly interesting considering the sources.
These days she's strictly a Sussex friendly PR shill disguised as royal expert and journalist. I don't think she has any contact or networks in or near the royals and their social circles. She frequently regurgitates articles previously published in other UK media with her own, Sussex friendly framing about a day or two after they were published originally.
And the Sussexes use her to put forward their line and preferred image narrative. Especially after the embarrassment of FF and attendant Omid interviews. Katie appears to have become the preferred Sussex shill above Omid who no longer receives their exclusives.
I've just spotted this and haven't had time to read it:
Megxit review is CANCELLED: Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are satisfied new arrangement is working and there's 'no need' to revisit one year on, royal expert claims...."
This is Sussex face saving PR getting ahead of any story that reveals that there is
1. no review
2. or never was one
3. or it's already happened
4. Their requests for extensions were denied (remember how Harry would magnanimously fly over to renegotiate in person?)
5. It will be more than obvious when Anne or William or somebody else attends an event that was previously their preserve and meanwhile there was no review as publicly expected.
That DM Queen article in December (19th December) made very clear that they are out by order of The Queen.
They've been scrambling and begging ever since.
I also think they are trying to get the royal family to back off from reviewing their commercial life as they've indicated they would do by preemptively telling the palace there is nothing to see whilst also invoking the 3 top royals and claiming this is their directive.
Invoking the top royals by claiming they are OK with behaviours usually poorly received publicly is a tactic Harry clearly learnt from William. During the long 6-7yrs of refusing to work or making poorly received decisions, William's PR would send out statements which always included a variation on the line,"Charles/Queen have agreed with this decision/ think this is a good idea / have given it their blessing". It was a huge tell in all his articles.
There is a pointed words about how he bought Sam a car and a jewelry shop for Jr which failed).
Yes, Katie Nicholl is a sycophant. At the moment, the Queen has not made the decision on Prince Harry keeping his military title. Is the rest just wishful thinking on the part of H&M, like Meg's birthday cake etc? As always, we can never be very sure of anything.
Maybe they will surprise us and eventually produce something solid and good and lasting and ethical and decent and admirable.
I have been wondering about something and know there are some history buffs here. Is it usual practice for the heir (Prince of Wales) to establish a separate court? Charles operates from Clarence House if I am not mistaken. And what about the sons of the Prince of Wales? It all seems to depend on character and ethics doesn't it? Although Charles and Willam have separate courts, they seem to communicate well with the Queen's court (although there might have been some friction in the past?). The Sussexes fell under the umbrella of the Queen's court at Buckingham Palace but ended up causing all sorts of trouble for the firm (not to talk about Andrew and his shenanigans!). But is a separate court in a completely different building quite a common practice?
Perhaps the Queen was giving Harry the space to do the right thing and voluntarily give up his ceremonial military position? Perhaps at the time, the Queen knew nothing about California and their ambitions there, but was led to believe that they would settle in Canada (a Commonwealth country where she is still head of state)?
"Megxit review is CANCELLED: Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are satisfied new arrangement is working and there's 'no need' to revisit one year on, royal expert claims...."
Oh, yeah? Who says? was my first reaction - then I saw it was nothing to get excited about...
I wonder what the reaction to this stuff, telling HM what she is (not) thinking, is at the Palace?
Interpreted, it means `Harry and his woman don't want the arrangements changed because it suits them nicely and think that HM is wrong not to see things the same way as they do.'
------------------
Btw, the jostling for position on the balcony can be seen as another manifestation of `How dare another woman presume to be in the limelight when I'M there? Even if she's the birthday girl and Queen of the United Kingdom and other territories, to say nothing of being Duke of Normandy?'
(I kid you not about the last title! In the Channel Islands, the bit of Normandy that stayed loyal to the Crown, she is `Notre Duc').
Yes, the Royal Foundation remained dormant from 2008 to 2011 when WK's wedding fund got it started.
During that timeframe, Harry and William were completely dedicated to their military careers so it was very premature setup timeframe.
However, the reason it was set up was a seriously held idea designed by the royal machine to promote William and Harry as a band of brothers who were united and mutually surportive.
That is when they began to promote them as a duo. I don't think anyone thought further than that image or took into consideration that William would eventually become PoW and King.
Or perhaps they did, but in context of the much discussed slimmed monarchy this was an early exercise in getting them to work as a duo to support each other.
Having their wives join the foundation was very much an extension of the same idea.
Unfortunately we know Harry interpreted this to mean a co-monarchy with same perks and privileges for both brothers.
It worked well when Kate joined because she's a team player. Whatever doubts or grievances Harry developed, he kept with the programme. Meghan would never fit in simply because at base she's not a team player and she needs to be the most important person at all times even if that sabotages the work in hand.
I remember thinking that she was not going to work well with William when they had that ' Fab Four' conference in 2018 when she kept talking over William and or contradicting his comments whilst Harry and Kate deferred to him throughout.
I agree with you that KP as a separate office should never have happened and infact only happened after Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton retired. It's a huge red flag as far as Charles and The Queen's lack of authority and cowardice.
At no time in history has the heir to the heir and spare had their own ooerations. The heir's operations always remained under the strict control of the monarch even when the 2 were feuding. Charles used his financial independence courtesy of his duchy to force his own separation and autonomy from The Queen.
And then made the same fundamental mistake to allow a separate base of operations for his heir and spare.
That's why Harry thought it was a perfectly normal demand to ask for his own base of operations.
William had to things driving his decisions above and over his own issues:
1. For the longest time he didn't get on with Charles and was never going to work well with or under him. Charles is both a coward as far as William is concerned plus he prefers to farm out his responsibilities to his private office so William insisting on his own office was a problem neatly solved.
2. He has always been saddled with parenting Harry which meant he got stuck with him as an adult and having to figure out what to do with Harry instead of keeping him at CH, if they must, or BP as they should have from the beginning.
January 7, 2021
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.
Meghan Markle/
PS - went to the market & bought my lottery tickets - fingers crossed