Here's a fresh post where we can continue to discuss the Sussexes' royal status, podcast, and biographers as well as Samantha's upcoming book and other royal goings-on.
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
The Queen has always been far too lenient when it comes to her family. They will not be stripped of their titles: if Fergie is still the Duchess of York, then Megalo will remain the Duchess of Sussex. Not to mention Andrew’s appalling behavior over the years and his dear mother looking the other way all along. Charles is torn between his two sons and worried about his own accession to the throne so he will do nothing. It’s wrong and outrageous. Megalo got the best of the two worlds and will continue to capitalize on her title and association with the BRF. William may be able to stop some of their shenanigans but he doesn’t have the authority to put an end to this ongoing saga. I’ve said it before: I am no royalist but I feel for William. Megalo is like an eternal curse to any family not just the royals!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Belvedere,_Surrey
I think it was more a place for fun than a centre of independent operations but I may be wrong.
Geo V, his father, was Duke of York (monarch's 2nd son) but created PoW in 1901. He rook his role seriously.
His father, Edw VII, had been PoW, something of a pleasure-seeker, to put it mildly. Victoria tried to keep him under her thumb, without much success. He was a source of scandal.
Before Victoria, the previous king was William IV, Duke of Clarence, brother of the previous king (he fathered 7 little FitzClarences, I think it was - a real brood anyway. He claimed to be married to their mother but, if so, he married without permission & they were illegitimate. He dumped them all to marry Adelaide, who gave him no children.)
William had succeeded his elder brother, Geo IV, PoW & Prince Regent. George had married the frightful Caroline of Brunswick, by whom he had 1 daughter, Charlotte, who sadly died young. It is thought he begat Charlotte in his one & only act of union with Caroline, on their wedding night. Apparently, when he first met her, he called for brandy - she had appalling BO it was said. Presumably he wasn't quite drunk enough on the wedding night to be incapacitated.)
Previous king was Geo IV, the former PoW & Prince Regent. H is private life was pretty scandalous...
So, having Princes of W with morally questionable private lives, with dubious brothers, is nothing new. I expect HM must take the long view.
He has always maintained that there was no review plan, would be no review per his intel. It was a Sussex construct.
Today he adds that by simple logic, there could never, ever be a review meeting with the US Harkles as we know them today because it might be presumed Harry would be asked how he is doing, how they are surviving financially. If he discussed these details with them at any length, with any depth, they could be dragged into any future Sussex financial shenanigans or tax cases and face questioning. Zonk.
There is absolutely no way they would inviteany funny US-based Harkle games or dodgy business maneuvers with the billion trademarks and Delaware companies and contingency deals (note that the Netflix deal figure tumbled to $112 million In yesterday’s press) into their royal world, and open a nightmarish can of royal worms. Their RF people have enough intel on the duo through various means and know to keep the gates closed.
MM and her sloppy American PR stable would never think of this aspect. Hazza is too spoiled, stupid and coddled to know about the potential issues. They may be desperate for a “review” to get their bills cleared and allowance reinstated or raised, so they may keep putting out press to will it to happen. But they are now an international financial minefield of staggering proportions.
No review, no way.
There will be no March review. If Megs goes too far with merching her Sussex title, then she will hear from Queen's lawyers. Harry will not be invited to England in June for Trooping, Prince Philip's 100th birthday, Diana's statue. If he comes over in June by himself to force the issue, or with Megs, then we might see some fireworks. Really, the entire BRF is happy with them living in far off Montecito. Much less stress and tumult this way.
The BRF will be passive aggressive in dealing with the Dastardly Duo by cutting off all interaction with them. This hurts their Hollywood schemes. The Grey Men are having a good laugh.
The one-year review is going to happen because the Queen has never been, nor ever will be capricious.
Or, in other words, not behave toward the Sussexes they way they have behaved toward her.
I think ERII is probably the least capricious person on Earth. She rarely speaks, but when she does, she means what she says, and sticks by her word, one could say, doggedly. Usually a virtue; at times a little bit of flexibility is useful (cf. the reaction to Diana's death). The Queen is as predictable as the tides.
Here is, verbatim, the statements issued by Her Majesty the Queen (a highly unusual move, as she normally only addresses the nation at Christmas or when there's been a catastrophe. H&M's exit was not a catastrophe for anyone but themselves.)
Statement from HM The Queen
Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.
I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.
I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family.
It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.
ENDS
Statement from Buckingham Palace
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.
As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties.
With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.
The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.
Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.
This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.
ENDS
These two very brief statements constitute the entire official position of Her Majesty. Nowhere at all is a 12-month review mentioned. The Military--gone. Royal patronages--gone. HRHs--technically remain, but they are barred from using them, so effectively, gone.
The tone is cordial . . the Queen is 'proud' but happy to let them go follow the bliss they were agitating for. Sorry to see you go, but, cheerio, and don't get your bums caught in the gate on the way out.
What good are ducal titles when Harry's family declines to use them or let him anywhere near?
Buh-bye, Netflix. Buh-bye, Spotify. Buh-bye, fraudulent mansion and PR staff.
I think these corporate deals were struck because the companies swallowed the 12-month review fiction, and assumed that Harry would be having privileges reinstated . . there'd be lots to talk about and film from Royal events in 2021.
Not so much.
@Flore
As much as I would like to believe that they will face a harsh review at the end of March, I have to admit that IMO nothing will happen. I know the article was written by a sycophant but I think it is true.
It may seem to us out here like the Sussexes are skating scot-free with their terrible behavior. A resounding number of people (high 90th percentile) want to see all titles gone. I think those will not be going anywhere, but with *all* Royal ties effectively cut, they are pretty worthless--as soon will be undeniable to their corporate deal partners.
Try this on: Nothing big will happen come March, because everything big has *already* happened. The Queen has dealt with this treachery decisively and did so last January.
They. Are. Done. No way back for them. Nope. That's why their behavior has just escalated to worse and worse levels over the last year. They've got nothing to lose and no incentive to behave because the BRF have entirely washed their hands of the toxic pair. All this guff about the Sussexes traveling to London for June events or the Cambridges coming for a visit to Montecito is pure Meghan-manufactured fantasy. PR's all she's got left.
At this point, I gotta say I think it's looking dicey for Harry to be in attendance for Diana's statue unveiling. Covid may prevent him; or his own pride, as he could refuse to attend without Meg and/or a media entourage of his choosing. Meg won't want him to go alone because he might not come back . . .and I'm kind of thinking that her visa to enter the UK has been quietly revoked. Her Majesty nor the Palace said nary a peep about H&M being welcomed or expected at Royal events ever again. She said, "They will always be much loved members of my family." If she expected/wanted them to play any role in events going forward, she probably would have said. 'Members of the family' does not automatically rate 'royal invitations'--particularly as they have chosen to live on another continent.
Grown up heirs and their siblings often had their own separate residences that became very popular socially speaking and even hosted political salons, but the power of the monarch was never diluted nor did anyone think he spoke with independent authority of the Monarch.
Despite Heir financing from the duchy of Cornwall being in existence since 1300s, it was never used as an excuse for the heir to ran his own independent operations with authority in his own right.
Charles has ran CH as an independent operation with authority separate from the monarch. At times he's behaved in ways that directly undermined the monarch especially if it served him well.
William learn from Charles once he got his separate residence by pushing for an actual formal court with authority in his own right.
We are a decade into KP being set up, but early in 2011-2013, it caused confusion because people assumed anything labelled as a palace source was coming from BP/ SJP or if they noticed the CH / KP label that it was acting with the authority of BP/ SJP.
This wasn't helped by the fact that William and Harry were initially and briefly under BP/ SJP until the resignation of Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton when they moved the office to a formal court at KP. This 3rd court financed by Charles.
The only time the heir was allowed full authority and a court of his own was in the 1100s which ended up in a civil war between King ( Henry 2) and his sons.
The next time an heir almost achieved separate authority was in the Georgian period when Frederick, Prince of Wales went to extraordinary lengths to behave on his own authority against the wishes of his father. He always stopped short because he believed in monarchy, but he set himself up as the enlightened variant of his father. It's thanks to Frederick that the *concept of the government's loyal opposition was realised, and it's from him that we get some of our most patriotic songs eg Rule Brirannia.
*Before Frederick, anyone who opposed the government in any way was automatically labelled a traitor and punished accordingly. The only remedy was to exile oneself and work on a pardon from abroad.
Frederick hosted salons where he invited anyone who opposed the government to air their views without fear of arrest or censure. He extended his protection to them beyond his home so that they could go about their daily lives whilst openly expousing their views without fear of harrassment, arrest or censure. He promoted the idea that opposing govt didn't mean civil war nor should these opponents be viewed as traitors. They simply had differing opinions on the matter whilst remaining loyal to the government.
Politicians flocked to his home and eventually parliament organised itself into those who supported the govt vs opposing parties (the government's loyal opposition). We still organise our political parties in the same way. A fine legacy from an otherwise oppositional prince.
Fascinating! I am going to scour the Internet and see if I can find some documentaries about these most interesting royals!
The Sussexes can't even do a scandal properly. No wonder there are so many stories about surrogates and non-existent babies! Dumping the BRF and the whole of the UK, after spending wildly in a short amount of time, ghosting her entire family, suing everyone in sight is kind of prosaic and mediocre.
Meghan missed out on so much by not being interested in history and tradition because there are so many great stories to find.
"I think these corporate deals were struck because the companies swallowed the 12-month review fiction, and assumed that Harry would be having privileges reinstated . . there'd be lots to talk about and film from Royal events in 2021."
Do you remember the call between Harry and Faux Greta Thunberg?
At one point Harry says the removal of titles is only a misunderstanding.
I think he thought the situation would go back to pre-Megxit because his family had often rewarded him or restored him after his tantrums.
Therefore in his mind it was a misunderstanding that would be restored when everyone had calmed down, and as you say, sold himself to those companies as his former self or at the very least someone who coild still get favours from Granny and Charles.
Thanks for that info. I suspected that setting up separate courts was not a usual arrangement for the POW, never mind his sons. I suppose the arrangement has its advantages and disadvantaged, but I would presume that it is clear for Charles and William that ultimate authority lies with the Queen and they work for her (and it was the opposite with the Sussexes). I do not have the same complete disdain for Charles and William that you have! As I have said before, it is not that they never made mistakes but they seemed to learn from them, stick with it and emerge stronger, and both have accumulated a lot of power that enables them to raise huge amounts of money and create and run huge projects. Meghan's hubris really does not even qualify for measurement so it is pointless saying she has never done anything comparable to measure up to that. She ran away instead of learning from her mistakes and growing into something greater than herself. (Perhaps an absurd thing to say about a narcissist!)
Therefore in his mind it was a misunderstanding that would be restored when everyone had calmed down, and as you say, sold himself to those companies as his former self or at the very least someone who coild still get favours from Granny and Charles.
Yep. Harry's grasp of things is shaky, and so if he 'misunderstood' the Queen's meaning, that's testament to his dimness, or his toe-ragness, but his misunderstanding is not the Queen's problem. Meg wasn't present at that meeting and they didn't let her in on a Zoom call, so Harry is the only in-person witness to what went down. Did he misrepresent the outcomes to Meg, either accidentally or on purpose? I think they've managed to convince *themselves* they are entitled to a 12-month review, but that doesn't mean the Queen is buying.
HRH Prince Toolbag is unaccustomed to hearing unequivical 'No's. The Queen's not changing her mind. It's all gone--everything they were counting on. Expect even more egregious behavior/statements pouring forth from 'Montecito.'
The funny thing is that i see the positive change they've made externally and internally, but i feel manipulated by the PR which is where my contempt comes from.
And i recognise that it's naive of me to expect them to not use PR to manipulate.
The original Megxit statement never asked for privacy nor did it say they were resigning for privacy.
They wanted an galf in/ half out situation that allowed them to make money and to control the media.
I think their media diatribe and self-removal from the royal rota which is used by almost entire UK media establishment is where the "misunderstanding" happened.
The media represented it as them wanting privacy and repeated that misinformation so often that it became the truth.
Their frequent diatribes against the media coupled wiyh media lawsuits calcified that misinformation.
It's become accepted that privacy was a big part of Megxit which allows to call them hypocrites every time they make any appearance in the media.
You could say it's the mefia's revenge for calling them racists!!
Jane at the FBTP blog wrote a really good blog post on this development.
https://fromberkshiretobuckingham.blogspot.com/
'The most recent Prince of Wales was David; no children. I think he tried to set up his own establishment at Fort Belvedere'
After reading your post I followed the link and read more about Belvedere.Apparently David( prior to the abdication) whilst weekending @ Fort Belvedere , was careless with the official red boxes sent over to him. He either did not read them and /or left the contents scattered around for all guests to see.
I copied and pasted part of the article which imo echoes JCMH
With
'Edward continued to pay for the gardeners, insurance and upkeep of the fort in the initial years following his abdication,because it was his wish that he would return there.His possessions from the fort were transferred to the Château de la Croë in the south of France (where he had named the sitting room "The Belvedere") in the spring of 1938, but many were damaged in transit.Edward was informed in March 1940 that the fort was no longer in his possession as his warrant to occupy the grace and favour residence had expired on the termination of his reign and was not to be renewed by the present sovereign, his brother, now George VI.Edward was greatly upset by this, writing in 1940 that "It is crystal clear that this proposed reserving of the Fort by the use of Crown Lands is nothing more than a piece of bluff, and the first excuse that the king has been able to find to deprive me of my right to occupy the place should I ever desire to do so ..."Edward believed that the incident was an example of his 'brother's failure to keep his word to me' after the fort had apparently been reserved for him if he should reside once more in England
@WBBM well said !
'So, having Princes of W with morally questionable private lives, with dubious brothers, is nothing new. I expect HM must take the long view.'
'Prince Harry is ‘heartbroken’ over his rift with the Royal Family' - whose fault? But 'the couple are 'content' in California'. I suppose they have to push the happy ever after image.
What is a toerag? I've never heard that term before. Is it a southern word? I've never heard it used in my area of the country.
None of that stupid thing mm does where the shoe is 2" longer than her foot, leaving a huge gap at the heel, and then creases in the wrong part of the front part of the shoe.
“Toerag” is Brit slang for “A contemptible, despicable person.” I first heard it used in the context of British police procedurals, where are the coppers often refer to the criminal element as toerags, especially the younger street punks who would mug old ladies and the like. In the States, “scumbags” is probably our equivalent. According to the slang dictionary, toerag is derived from the lowest form of street hobo/criminal wearing rags wrapped around their feet because they didn’t own shoes.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/toerag
Now I'm dying to see Harry with an Ariana Grande style 'do.
You are both very insightful.
Thanks for clarifying the 12-month review!
The thing about Harry telling "Greta" that it was a misunderstanding; and, that he was used to being restored to the family after his tantrums was revealing. It was difficult to listen to his incessant, non-sensical babbling during that call.
You two catch the most pertinent details!
Thanks for the explanation! I love to learn new words and phrases.
Concerning the Rob Lowe story, I think he did see Harry and could have been mistaken about the pony tail. He even said he was unsure about that. When he was telling Corden the story, I got the impression that he was lightly pushing Corden for some Harkle gossip, as he would know that the Harkles and Corden are friends.
Montecito is a small enclave of the older rich, and I think if I lived there and knew where Harry supposedly lived, I'd follow him home, too, to see if he actually lived there. It's obvious that Lowe hasn't been invited to tea yet, though, and I think he'd be one that they would try to ingratiate themselves to due to his contacts and his decades as an actor.
OR: Lowe is now friends with the Harkles, and planted that story, making it look like they live there. His comment about the Loch Ness monster means that sightings by their neighbors are extremely rare to nonexistent, so they are either holed up in their Montecito mansion or living elsewhere.
I know this is a dual answer, but it's the best I've got.
I think we've got to wait for more sightings before we decide whether they live there or not.
Arthur Chatto, grandson of Princess Margaret and Lord Snowden is 21 and a fitness trainer. Goodness me, this takes me back to when William was this age. 17 years now, alas, and many follicles ago. In this photo, Arthur looks like a perfect blend of his father Daniel and his maternal grandfather. I definitely see Tony in the eyes. Neither his dad nor his grandfather where ever this buff. Hubba, ladies.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/queen-elizabeths-grandnephew-arthur-chatto-023530469.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9152821/Harrys-heartbreak-Megxit-Duke-distraught-royal-rift-ITV-friend-Tom-Bradby-says.html
By REBECCA ENGLISH ROYAL EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 17:00 EST, 15 January 2021
5.1k comments
Harry's 'heartbreak' over Megxit: Duke is distraught over 'painful' royal rift that has left 'hurt feelings on all sides' after the couple moved to America, their ITV friend Tom Bradby says
ITV news anchor Tom Bradby shared details during ITV interview with Alan Titchmarsh due to air on Sunday
Bradby has known Harry since he was a teen and filmed documentary on Harry and Meghan's 2019 Africa tour
Presenter said the couple are 'content' in California but that Harry is 'heartbroken by situation with his family'
He told Alan Titchmarsh Duke and Duchess were 'pretty happy' but said they 'wrestle with their position in life'
It is understood there was deep concern over 2019 documentary in palace circles as Harry confirmed tension
Prince William was left deeply worried by his younger brother's unhappiness after he watched the programme
That's what the Markle's are: Nothing Burgers. No meat, no bun, no condiments. Nothing substantial.
Just rumors floating around.
This "nothing" is going to run out within the year.
Fears of a Clown
Megs all aghast
Fearing Sammys book blast
Tremblings from “her” with no heart
Let Sam have her say
Could become a “hit” play
Hope Netflix sign Sammy, quick smart
Peter Panemetic
Harry regrets
His thinly veiled threats
And ill thought out, dastardly plan
Him and his honey
Have run out of money
As they watch it all go down the pan
Return to Vendor
Buyer beware
Of the ex royal spare
He comes with much baggage
A questionable marriage
And an entitled, arrogant air
It's certainly used in the UK - toerags are part of the `dress' of the onetime `gentleman of the road' ie a tramp, whose toes projected out of his boots or shoes.
-----------
Thanks, @Acquitaine, for saving me having to add `Poor Fred' - `no more to be said' about him, except that his parents hated him (that seemed quite common among the Hanoverian monarchs) - Fred's views on what should be done with the navy were at odds with his father's.
I also thought of mentioning his brother, Wm Augustus, D of Cumberland whose fate suggests what can happen to disgraced Royals:
Cumberland, (yes, the Butcher) put down the '45 rebellion with great brutality. When the news reached London of his victory at Culloden, there was rejoicing - Handel wrote `Judas Maccabeus' as an accolade, including the march known as `See the Conquering Hero Comes ' (the tune used for `Thine Be the Glory, Risen Conquering Son', how I hated having to sing that when in a choir.)
Nevertheless, when it emerged how his troops had behaved after the battle, there was a public outcry. Cumberland was obliged to take on the job of Ranger of Windsor Great Park - (a new meaning for `gardening leave, perhaps?) - in charge of the digging the lake at Virginia Water - I understand it was by the erstwhile murderers under his command. Some have suggested it was by Jacobite prisoners but I doubt that - large numbers were transported, in effect to slavery in the W Indies, if they hadn't been executed or died in prison already.
As far as we know, Harry hasn't massacred anybody but he's done great damage to Britain's foreign relationships, just as the Butcher sowed fresh seeds of discord between England and Scotland which still echo down the centuries. The Cumberland title is now regarded as badly tainted; Victoria may have used it but it would been a terrible thing had Harry been given it.
I'd like think all he'll ever be trusted with again would be hand-weeding jobs, under heavy supervision. I can't imagine him being much use as an apprentice with Royal Parks & Gardens though. Charles could use him for bashing in fence posts on Duchy land. He might need an armed guard, like Dartmoor Prison working parties had when stone-breaking in the quarries.
Your latest creative offerings perfectly sum up the situation for Grip and Drip!
I do wish the Queen would put an end to this 12-month review nonsense, without giving the dastardly duo more fuel for self promotion. I have droned on about the review being a PR ficton spread and promoted by the Sussexes, and about the loose ends the Queen seems to have left dangling.
@Puds sums it all up perfectly in a post above.
@Hikari has posted the only official communication re. Megxit from the Queen and it is quite clear that there is no review.
It has been clear from when the Sussexes fled Canada what their true intentions were. If the Queen did make some kind of promises to Harry, while he sobbed in his soup at that lunch at Sandringham, in order to be 'kind' to a beloved grandson, then she has more compassion and patience than I could ever have.
The virus cannot be the reason for not replacing Harry in his ceremonial military role. Camilla replaced Phillip in one of his during the time of the virus, wasn't it?
I doubt that the Queen can take away patronages granted by her and she would not risk her reputation by trying to influence those organizations. However, unlike Eugenie, Beatrice et al., the Sussexes may no longer use HRH and they reside in America.
I bet the Sussexes are planning to use the vanity positions for the Queen's Commonwealth Trust to do a funded royal tour of Commonwealth countries. The free publicity would boost their royal credentials and keep some doors open for them in America. The Queen needs to shut that down, but she does not have control over that Trust. Doesn't Lord Geidt have a real position at the Trust and cannot he do the job of getting rid of the Sussexes for Her Maj? Do it for Queen and country and the Commonwealth sir!
First butcher Cumberland the horror of Culloden 1746 and it's aftermath who remains the devil to highland scots, then you have Cumberland the traitor who caused the title to be stripped in 1917 and then their is the current heir to the title Ernest August of Hanover, Caroline of Monaco's husband, who is a horror of a human!!!
Damn those music composers.
So many good music compositions with dubious associations.
That said i find it very hard to keep a straight face every time i hear the American national anthem because the music is from a very well known dirty song popular in Georgian gentlemen's clubs.
Was played at Queen Victoria's wedding when Albert walked down the aisle (propaganda that was was an important person and that he had won her heart).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ySZiY9vluNg
Ps: i'm going through a Georgian era appreciation at the moment. Not just in UK, but world wide history. This era was the beginning of modern society and so much that we take for granted in all areas of our lives was gegan or realised during this period.
Thanks Sandie, last one, abed X
Blood Brothers
H&M are on the attack
William needs to watch his own back
Harry thinks he’s the only one
Forgetting Wills, Diana’s first son
Harry was happy in selling his Granny
Evermore happy to sell his own Mammy
Whatever happens at Diana’s unveiling
Could possibly end, in two brothers Adieu-lling
The organist played it, however, as my cousin processed to the altar, on the arm of her father, to marry her beloved. Whoops!
She later denied it but her sister confirmed that I was not mistaken.
Apart from the context of the tune's genesis, I find it difficult to sing, with the risk of an audible squeak on the high note for `Endless is the vic - t'ry' .
It works better IMO in Budry's original French:
À toi la gloire, ô Ressuscité
À toi la victoire pour l'éternité
"Harry will not be invited to England in June for Trooping, Prince Philip's 100th birthday, Diana's statue."
I don't think Harry can not be invited to the Diana statue unveiling unless it's absolutely a matter of COVID. The other events listed are different. Philip's birthday is a private family matter (at least if PP gets what he is reported to want it is), and the traditional TTC, if it happens (unlikely IMO), is both a public family event and an official event in support of the monarch.
But assuming the ceremonial statue unveiling can occur, its not an official event in service of the monarchy. It is an event Harry was in on making happen from the beginning. Both he and Will appealed for public donations. Supposedly both he and Will approved the choice of artist and the final design. And both he and Will are equally Diana's sons.
As others have said, I do think spouses could be and should be left out. It was a little weird to me Will, Harry, and Kate hosted the Diana's "White Garden" event. Not that there was anything particularly wrong with Kate being present, but it seemed to me at the time it would have made more sense for that event to be hosted by just Diana's sons. But at the time, the "Three Musketeers" were everywhere together. So it's possible Will won't want to leave Kate out of the statue event. And if Kate's there, I think M has to be invited. If she's not, that plays right into her hands. And as unseemly as Harry has been to appear to be trying to profit off Diana, it's not going to serve Will to get into a public tug of war with his brother over honoring their mother.
The Suzy Klein doc. looks excellent - thank you. I'll have to watch it later as time is pressing now.
Return to vendor
He comes with much baggage
--------
When I read it, I read this line as 'He comes with much garbage
Pretty much the same thing in his case.
As others have said, I do think spouses could be and should be left out. It was a little weird to me Will, Harry, and Kate hosted the Diana's "White Garden" event. Not that there was anything particularly wrong with Kate being present, but it seemed to me at the time it would have made more sense for that event to be hosted by just Diana's sons. But at the time, the "Three Musketeers" were everywhere together. So it's possible Will won't want to leave Kate out of the statue event. And if Kate's there, I think M has to be invited. If she's not, that plays right into her hands. And as unseemly as Harry has been to appear to be trying to profit off Diana, it's not going to serve Will to get into a public tug of war with his brother over honoring their mother.
I was thinking of this scenario a few days ago. Thinking how delicious & hilarious it would be if an announcement were made that only Diana's sons may attend statue unveiling, however, at the last minute Kate appears. Megs is home in Cali, her rage so violent that her wig begins to spin. More & more it spins until an undercurrent of air propels her upward, upward! Hopefully, she is outdoors so that her whole being is shot into space. Poor Harry must go on somehow; does he go home & will the people want him back?
The virus may just come to the rescue, and even the level of lockdown. The former would limit the number of attendees and the latter may force it to be a virtual ceremony with pre-recorderd contributions by her sons (but would the claw insist on making an appearance?).
I would say that Catherine would not mind staying away to keep Meghan out of it, but I suspect that would annoy William no end and he would want his whole family there.
Awful having a narc in the family isn't it? And even worse if you are a public figure as a life of service rather than celebrity (it goes without saying that both come with immense privilege).
I predict that Meghan's PR will be in overdrive so the entire unveiling ceremony will be dominated by the Meghan narrative. Whether she ges the invite or not, she will be the story, even if her and Harry have parted ways by then.
"When is the unveiling of Diana's statue going to be?"
Supposed to be for Diana's birthday, July 1.
I agree Will may want his entire family there but that means H&M and Archie too unless COVID intervenes.
And Will's family could see the statue prior to the unveiling after all. There could also be pics released after the official event. After all, it's going to be in the Cambridges "backyard" in a sense. What I don't think can happen is not inviting M but including Will's wife and kids, none of whom knew Diana either. And for all we know, the statue was H's idea more than W's.
If the children did attend it would cause a press feeding frenzy.
I somehow doubt the children will come, so as not to overshadow the occasion . Even though it’s an important event for them, they may take them to a private unveiling.
I really think it needs to be William, Harry, and the Spencers only for this, it’s a minefield, and I think William knows this.
I understand it. I have been in the unenviable position of being ordered by a parent to be at an event that absolutely does not concern me in order to make sure that two brothers don't attempt to stab, strangle, or otherwise mutilate each other. It does suggest to me that the brothers were at odds before MM appeared on the scene to exacerbate things.
Dumbarton Dumbarses doubling down on demands...
In this, yet another “royal expert” ...WARNS...That it would be a “dangerous mistake” if the Queen strips off Harry’s military titles, given the—wait for it—“Huge role he plays in the Armed Forces”. (Not forgetting all of those legions of royal Marines whom H fears will commit suicide because he is no longer their Captain General.). The Queen would be “losing a valuable asset”.
Shall we ask Lord Dannatt how valuable he feels Harry’s asset is?
The wreath walking cosplay in November is hailed as a “bold move”...and oh look, the review which HM “will be forced to undertake” has been moved up to February. She is the Queen—who’s gonna force her? And didn’t we have a flurry of articles just yesterday informing us that the Mexico review had been canceled, since both parties saw no need for it...Because the valuable asset to the British Armed forces is now a medium logo in Montecito California
What a shame her Majesty can’t deal with these traitors who threaten Her Majesty and incite insurrection from afar the old fashioned way. How much more peaceful it would be!
Harry is a medium logo; it says “Property of MM”
😂😂😂😂 you just made my morning- thank you!!
You wrote yesterday 11.01pm (sorry, I'm catching up on some posts):
Royal patronages--gone.
Sadly, it seems Megsy is still the royal patron of the National Theatre. I don't know about the rest but this is very disappointing.
The entities ask for these royal patronages--it lends prestige that leads to more donations etc. HM then appoints. Grip was given the National Theatre as she is an "actress" (Goodness, HM should have given it to Dame Judi Dench or Maggie Smith--they are national treasures and would actually be honored to be the patron).
I'm thinking that the patronages can ask that the Royal be removed. It seems to me that Andrew lost all his patronages--by their choice. Not sure. But if true, shame on the National Theatre for keeping someone as anti-monarchy, anti-British, its all about me as Grip.
THE LATEST WHINE-FEST From Montecito, channeled by toadie Tom Bradby
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9152821/Harrys-heartbreak-Megxit-Duke-distraught-royal-rift-ITV-friend-Tom-Bradby-says.html
Over 10,000 comments. My favorite refers to Meghan as “Old spindly legs”.
Cue Victor Meldrew : `I DO NOT BE - LIEVE IT !!!
ie It beggars belief that anybody would say anything as daft, unfounded and downright ludicrous as that!
It mystifies me why the National Theatre would still want to be affiliated with Meglodon. When her appointment was announced, subscribers were canceling in droves. Madam only visited there, what, twice in the 18 months that she was Royal patron? I’m not counting the time after the Megxit announcement when she marched over there to merch an overcoat, ostensibly to have a meeting with the directors and was turned away at the door. I thought they were giving her the shove off then. Apart from turning up in the blush pink number with the wildly inflating and deflating fetus at the end of January 2019, the only other time she set foot in the place was her sneaky “private“ tour so she could release photos The same day as Camilla’s important speech. She never even attended a play there during the time she lived in London, Much less volunteer to mentor a youth theater program or anything of the sort. If she is still on their literature and being promoted as patron, it’s a wonder they have any subscribers left, seeing as they can’t mount plays right now anyway.
I understand that the Queen Leaves it up to the individual organizations to continue, or not, their relationship with their patron. Essentially if she gives permission to an organization to affiliate itself with one of her family members, but if that relationship is no longer mutually desirable, she doesn’t “take away“ a patronage. If the National approached her about a new Royal patron, say, Edward—To whom it should’ve been given in the first place—That might be granted. Up till then, it’s the organization’s call as to whether a patronage is or is not working out. Anything relating to the Armed Forces would be different, because those commanders report directly to her Majesty as their head. Regardless of what H chooses to believe, he has already lost his military titles. He seemed to have more clarity about that after the events of last March than he does now, going by printed reports.
The National may have Markled itself. It will be answerable to its own subscribers for that.
I can’t for the life of me understand why the SHAMS retain titles with the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust. They may be only made up, figurehead positions, but still, the optics look bad to have their names attached to yet another charitable foundation when there is no way they can be an active part of that charities’ goals.
My spring semester just started, and I'm taking a child development class. This week, one of the assignments is "Does Baby Archie Have a Disability?" At first, I thought it was just a random name my professor chose. When I opened the assignment, there was a pic of the Harkles figures at Madame Tussaud's and a link to a YouTube video my professor recorded. I was floored.
The video is a discussion about things that can increase the risk of disabilities in children. This video could have been made with no mention of any particular child. I'm not criticizing my professor, and I find it interesting that he used this example. I'm also not suggesting Archie has any disability.
I guess we Nutties are not alone. LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2PmIflSsow&t=194s
I was thinking of this scenario a few days ago. Thinking how delicious & hilarious it would be if an announcement were made that only Diana's sons may attend statue unveiling, however, at the last minute Kate appears. Megs is home in Cali, her rage so violent that her wig begins to spin. More & more it spins until an undercurrent of air propels her upward, upward! Hopefully, she is outdoors so that her whole being is shot into space. Poor Harry must go on somehow; does he go home & will the people want him back?
What a boffo idea!
The Grey Men don't get paid much, so they need their laughs.
The way Megs has been leaking since forever, as a ways to coerce the Queen and BRF into doing X,Y or Z for her. Playing dirty pool this way, Megsy is due for a righteous screwing over, the way you describe.
After this goes down Wills approaches Harry and invites him to a quiet pub where they can have a few drinks in private. After the second round who glides past their Royal Protection Guards but a lovely blond (semi-Aristo) English lass of 30 or so. She starts chatting up Harry. A few weeks later Harry tears up his return ticket to Los Angeles, never to return.
Oh, the hits just keep coming. Massive pouts emanating from Montecito, despite the sugary stream of articles we’ve had it out exchanging guess with the Cambridges and Archie calling Charles ‘Pa’...Tell me there’s still a review happening when we read something like this:
Not only did the royal family ever ask Meg if she was OK, they never appreciated her gift of oratory. All the brilliant speeches with which she was so very inspirational are now lost to the “dull” royals forever. They just blew it so bad by not appreciating her properly.
We are witnessing what happens when deluded psychopathy has millions of dollars to spend on PR. It is an amazing spectacle to behold, since her PR campaign is completely and demonstrably divorced from reality. She is certifiable. The papers will really and truly print anything if they get their money.
Quite true. Plus the suck-up author also praises M's "viral" full-body hug of the teenage boy in March 2020. That was after after social distancing/no contact had been advised so the hug could have been viral in more ways than one.
Complaining loudly that you haven't thanked them profusely enough;
Or: accusing you of not thanking them at all.
I've even had it on the grounds that I haven't thanked them for a gift that was addressed to, and received by, another member of the family, almost 40 years ago... No apology when I explained why I hadn't thanked her.
Making it public is a whole other level of deluded self-importance. She is crazy.
These people are so terrible. They have now dragged their son into competition with the Cambridge kids
@JennS
😂😂😂😂 you just made my morning- thank you!!
..............
LOL! My pleasure!
I'm sure he will make additional trips to the salon whenever the Harkles particularly annoy me. There are many types of ponytails!
In the interview Diana praises her own ability to do a good job that reflects well on the family, but no one in the family ever thanks her or tells her she does a good job.
Earlier in the early 90s when her squidgygate phonecall was leaked, she makes same complaint. She says something like,'.....after all i've done for this f***ing family.'
Meghan's attempts to cast herself as Diana2.0 and to punish them for her failure are straight out of Diana's playbook. As usual she straightup copies Diana's actions and words regardless of context or how it turned out for Diana.
The odd thing is that she keeps copying the worst moments of Diana rather than the best.
Do you remember the call between Harry and Faux Greta Thunberg?
At one point Harry says the removal of titles is only a misunderstanding.
and
The odd thing is that she keeps copying the worst moments of Diana rather than the best.
Acquitaine- interesting observations and good catches.
It's easy to see how this came the Sussex camp because it's quite chatty about the court case framed as an issue for the palace. Since when has the palace ever had a publicly anxious article. And give such detail about things they are worried about.
It's framed as big trouble for the Palace as if the Palace encouraged the lawsuit without understanding the implications.
Usually when the Palace is dealing with negative events involving the royals, they might put out curt, mealy-mouthed closed statements that are quite frustrating in the lack of information, and yet this one is extremely chatty about the potential fallout of palace workings?!
The summary judgement is about the two core pieces of law namely copyright and privacy of the letter. These 2 things don't have anything to do with the palace beyond confirming or not copyright and privacy.
In my opinion She's invoking the ghost of the Paul Burrell court case threat to the Palace in the hope they'll rescue her and shut it down like they did for him.
I’m salivating over her comeuppance in court! Obviously hope there’s no summary judgement.
In the meanwhile, I’ll convey, once again, that I’m sure Harry was targeted by Meghan specifically for the purposes of the great reset, NWO etc etc. And prince Charles is on board. We’ve heard him.
So, given this, I really wonder about the court case and just how much the courts are influenced by the current political climate which is exhaustingly overwhelming in all aspects.
Everyone knows on which side their bread is buttered; especially Smegs.
Really wonder if this will make it to publication.
I know of someone going through an investment round right now, and they have several decent options for partners. They are going with the dumbest one of the bunch because that person makes them feel comfortable and doesn’t make them feel ‘inferior’ in their knowledge space. It’s a terrible decision and turns the business in a meandering direction versus the greatness it could have become with a different more intelligent partner. and I keep thinking about their thought process and Meghan, in her reality, stepping back from her grandiose dreams in Royalty and what that global platform could have really done for her.
Instead, in both cases Ego and Insecurity made them throw away their big dreams.
There is going to need to be further clarification of Harry and Meghan’s continued antics and role in the BRF since they are in the news every single day. They also are still HRH, even if not allowed to shout it from the rooftops, and Harry is still quite close to the thrown in succession.
The never complain, never explain is OK as far as *scandal* and PR, but this is in terms of Operations and leadership.
I think because their family members are so incredibly wayward and deceptive, communication from The Firm is needed.
I assume they had one year of full funding from Charles (read that a while back) and the Markles claimed a year review which is questionable from the BRF standpoint, but I do think we should and will see another statement regarding Harry and Meghan. If not, the Monarchy is going to continue to look weak, pathetic, disorganized, and relenting.
So, what gives about Harry?
Could Harry stay married to Meghan and rejoin the BRF as a working Royal? And yet Meghan live and work in the USA? Who could stop THAT arraignment? That would be thoroughly modern and ticks all of Meghan’s desires. Yet, she’d lose The Grip. Maybe this was brought up at their exit last year and they were told no. It seems to me they shouldn’t have bothered getting married, but they had such a strange dating history I guess that wasn’t feasible. Another normal relationship and it would have been. Start sharing everything and living lives but theirs could have been flashy and fun and really on her terms.
I think your speculation about Meghan and her lack of ease with top corporate types in the Palace is brilliant.
They would see right through her gaps of skill and knowledge, wouldn’t they, and any attempt to help her and Harry, and she would probably have been enraged or freaked out. It would have been beyond “this is how we do things” — it would have been trying to guide her in proper writing, the modern approach to public relations and project management. Every comment would stab her inflated sense of teen genius.
I wonder how her twelve purported staffers are handling it (if they exist functionally, or are even being paid). Maybe she hired that many to threaten them with each other. I imagine they are silly sycophants, fear SS, just needed the money, or plan to write books.
I wonder how her twelve purported staffers are handling it (if they exist functionally, or are even being paid). Maybe she hired that many to threaten them with each other. I imagine they are silly sycophants, fear SS, just needed the money, or plan to write books.
Yes, I can see the H&M show rating an entire chapter in a book about how to do PR for the odd, the witless, and the batsh*t crazy.
She is popping up all over the place, claims to be a royal expert, and is making wild claims. She is getting a lot of coverage. Sone of her claims:
If Charles does not make Camilla Queen, Catherine will never be queen. Do history buffs and monarchy buffs here have proof from the past and present that this is a load of nonsense? Sounds to me like the sort of narrative that Meghan would want promoted.
And then she pops up in the Express defending Meghan's right to vote and be political:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1382971/Meghan-Markle-news-latest-update-politics-Duchess-Sussex-US-vn
My understanding is that if you are a working royal and thus represent the Queen, who is head of state and has constitutional obligations that require her to remain neutral, you are expected to not make political statements and to not vote. The only official response from BP was the usual 'they are private citizens', and all else was Sussexes' PR trying to make them look like victims. Koenig seems a bit confused. There is nothing stopping the Sussexes from voting or getting involved in politics because they no longer represent the Queen. People got annoyed because in their manifesto they pledged themselves to uphold the values of the Queen and serve her and they were yet again being shown up as disrespectful hypocrites.
Sean Smith is also bleating to the press about how brilliant Meghan is and reprimands the Queen and royal family for not showing more gratitude to her (they should have all publically thanked her effusively for her brilliance). I think he is deranged.
Then an un-named friend is waxing lyrical about Archie's fashionable wardrobe and how much better it is than what the Cambridge kids wear!
Harry has indeed married a completely crazy woman!
Meanwhile, Thomas is making a documentary. I doubt it will answer the questions I have:
Why did she move in with her mother before she started college, and stop talking to her father?
Where was Doria for those about 7 missing years?
Why did Meghan ghost her whole family? She was in contact with Samantha as her sister right up until she captured Harry (supposedly the last time they spoke was just after she met Harry and had told her father she was involved with him). What about her mother's family?
Lol! You are probably right. The dear Poor Harkles are a whole new level of client type.
@Sandie, the above is the blog for Marlene Koenig (her last name is the German for “king” so perhaps her interest began there). She appears to be an academic librarian living in West Virginia who has written numerous articles about the royals, which one can purchase for USD $5 each from her site, and she also wrote something more extensive on the romance of Charles and Camilla, so perhaps she is a Camilla fan. A press has published a few of her other books of royals too.
Her other blog appears to be RBN Royal News, a site that critiques books written about royals.
She describes herself as an expert on British and European royalty in her bio.
The blog suggests she has published articles or opinions widely across media and has been used as a royal expert for media groups from CNN to Majesty and Town & Country.
Apologies, it autocorrected above. Should be:
Royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com
Eventually she started her own blog because she wanted to discuss royal history more than royal gossip.
The news media started quoting her around the time Harry and Meghan were outed as a couple in 2017-ish. Don't know if that was organic or she touted for business. I presume she touted for business.
She tends to be correct when she's discussing factual royal history, but she often gets it wrong when it comes to royal gossip, past or present.
She also falls in that group of historians like Professor Kate Williams who are very good with the factual past, but can't see recurring patterns in the past or present, don't see nuance, don't see the bigger picture and context of their factual knowledge, and take all royal media at face value even when it's blatant PR.
In that sense she's a horrible historian.
Technically nothing stopping the Sussexes from voting. Harry could also have voted. However, by convention as per The Queen's values they do not. And if they do they should be so lowkey about it that it doesn't become public.
Plus their foray into US politics was very much under the banner of their royal titles which they have due to their very public connection to The Queen which implied royal representation and by extension royal meddling. Therefore they should not have gone there. Period.
This is a nuance Marlene frequently never understands. She's very robotic that way.
Sean Smith is a more deranged, misinformed version of Omid Scobie. Can't see that he has any direct connection to Meghan, but his bio lists him as a celebrity journalist even though the only work in this area is his deranged extreme fan fiction love letter book about Meghan.
Marlene Koenig’s Twitter (@royalmusing) is mostly composed of American left political posts or retweets and anti-MAGA posts and posts calling fo arrests etc. She also has warm posts about Camilla, several brief link posts about other European royals, and posts buying lottery tickets or gift card giveaways.
In other news, banking billionaire Baron Benjamin de Rothschild just died of a heart attack at age 57, so that is one less fourth-husband hunting opportunity for Megs. Albeit he seemed happily married, and probably had more scarves than William.
Thomas Markle, 76, hopes the film will provide a more ‘complete’ picture of his life with the Duchess of Sussex, according to reports.
It will apparently reveal moments from Meghan’s childhood including her school days, early career and her dad’s favourite photo of his ‘baby girl’.
The dad-of-three will use previously unseen home movie footage of Meghan, 39, The Sun claims.
Thomas, a retired television lighting director, reportedly said: ‘It begins with my life, my family, my love of theatre and television and how I got there.
‘Then my life with Meghan, growing up, her school days until she went off to college and when her career began.
‘We had a good life together, up through her first marriage and her move to Canada. Then a new story begins. It’s kind of like “what happened to my baby girl”.’
Thomas is said to be working with a cinematographer on the new movie and is hoping it will be finished later this year.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/17/meghan-markles-dad-filming-documentary-about-their-family-life-13916836/
If this gets off the ground, I don't think we'll find earth-shattering revelations but Megsy will probably sue for breach of privacy.
Thank you for the link to the Express opinion poll, I've just submitted my answers. I then spotted an article on the same page about Samantha saying her book has received one star reviews, although it's not out yet, but that Barnes & Noble is removing them from its website.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html
LOL, @Sandie, @AnT,@Acquitaine, re: Koenig, not understanding nuance is a failing of many people, & is one of the reasons the world is in such a mess. Lucky for readers of this blog that so many of you ladies appreciate both fact & nuance.
I'm reading today's posts and just noticed you said 'Meanwhile, Thomas is making a documentary.' Sorry, I posted earlier about it and had a quick look at the posts first to see if there were any mentions of it but didn't see yours.
I was hoping someone else would post about Thomas's documentary with more details as I am sure everyone has some good opinions about it!
Jus when you think the Markles have gone off quietly to live in private or actually do some hard work, a whole lot of stuff hits the media!
@AnT and @Acquitane
Thanks so much for the information on Koenig. Nuance is the perfect word to describes how royalty operates in the UK. Another word that comes to mind is depth - history, tradition, experience, characters, world events all contribute to that.
Meghan talks about depth, kindness, compassion and so on but has none herself. A Jungian psychologist would find her a great subject for examples of the shadow at work.
Ironically, both William and Charles skate on thin ice in terms of interference with government, something the Queen has supposedly never done. With Charles it is the handwritten letters to people in government; with William it is supposedly typed missives.
It is the hypocrisy from the Sussexes that annoys people. They are empty tin drums that make a lot of noise and never deliver the tunes listed on the programme that they publish with smug arrogance.