"Portrait of a broken man," writes Twitter hunk Alexander Cortes above an image of Prince Harry. "Look how dead his eyes are."
Almost a hundred of Cortes' 94,000 followers responded.
"Bet the only time he feels alive is when he Googles how to get a divorce without losing the family fortune," one says.
Writes another: "Take her out for a drink, they said. Meet new people, they said. What could go wrong, they said. EVERYTHING COULD GO F****** sideways, thanks b*******....ps please send help."
"This guy gave up everything - family, friends, etc. because he chose probably one of the worst women on the planet," says a third commenter. "Everyone from Queen to commoner was begging him not to do it - but he decided being woke was worth it....now look at him...damn shame."
"When his marriage collapses I'm sure he's gonna turn further right than Napoleon," was the top comment.
Actual image vs PR image
So...this is Prince Harry's actual image. This what people think about him, real people outside the media bubble.
Inside that bubble, he and Meghan and their PR people continue to work hard on what they think is his image, or their image, although no one seems to think much about Meghan at all these days.
Harry offers us a video to celebrate 150 years of the English rugby team, and and the supposedly leaked information spotted on the top of a bus with James Corden, who like all late night hosts is suffering from a ratings depression after the departure of Donald Trump. (I'm guessing that the person who "spotted them" works for one of their publicists.) Is it a skit for Cordon's show? Something for Harry's Netflix special? Does anyone care?
Then the Sussexes continue their woke pose at a Zoom poetry class for Black History month, even though the army of the woke hasn't shown any particular interest in Harry.
(He and Meghan did have a meeting with California governor Gavin Newsom, no doubt to pitch Meghan as a possible replacement for Kamala Harris in the Senate. She wasn't chosen - if he were to have chosen a Black woman, San Francisco mayor London Breed would have been first in line - and Newsom is very close to being recalled at the moment, so he no doubt has other things on his mind.)
And there's the evergreen Royal conflict story, in which it is disclosed that Harry will be returning to the UK this summer without Meghan for the Trooping of the Color. Is it because the entire Royal family and much of the UK dislikes her? No, it's just to "keep Archie safe" from COVID. Sure.
I'm still not entirely convinced that Archie exists and, if he does, that he is living with the Sussexes.
Comments
https://www.royal.uk/charities-and-patronages?name=&mrf=2918&field_themes_target_id=&field_world_region_value=
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge also don't seem to have an official connection with Coach Core.
I think Coach Core was started by The Royal Foundation while Harry was still part of it and he was very active in supporting them, even after they set themselves up as an independent charitable organization.
If they'd just shut up with their woke-speak on broad topics, if they'd buckle down at more typical jobs such as the York sisters do, I think the public would have more patience for them speaking about causes near and dear to their hearts. Instead, they flit from one cause du jour to the next, appearing to leave all their passion for what they flogged on about just three months ago in the dust.
I'd be fine if these two succeeded as the York sisters are succeeding. It's the assumption by the Sussexes that the world at large is interested in their broad-stroke woke pronouncements I find insulting. I'm not social media savvy by a long shot, but aren't "influencers" typically in their 20's? If so, they've missed the boat by two decades.
They urgently need to GO AWAY, SHUT UP for awhile, focus on one or two areas of interest, actually stick to those areas of interest, and be "normal".
They stepped away from the Royal family, and as such they stepped away from the magic Royal fairy dust with which they used to be imbued. Once removed, it cannot be returned. And once removed, there's nothing to make them interesting. Neither has that magic something, that sparkle, that a rare few have to make them interesting and special no matter who they are. More fools they, the Sussexes.
Just goes to show how lying doesn't pay dividends. If they'd immediately said "for reasons we won't discuss, we need to go the surrogacy route to have a child" people would have embraced them and their "bravery". But their entire marriage, or even earlier I suppose, from initial meeting and courtship to their marriage up to now, has been based on lies, lies, and more lies.
No-one is up for it any more. Just GO AWAY!
I wonder if Meghan Muckle will pull another stunt to overshadow Their baby news ?
I guess she couldn’t get what she wanted. That’s life sometimes.
How funny is it their PR today is missing the mark. One article about Meghan looking like Rachel Zane from ‘suits’ (remember she was a STAR! Lol) and Harry and his faux princely congratulations to yet another charity human. No one cares about any of this. They are so desperate to remind us of who they once were years ago. It’s really really weird.
"It is pretty crazy that Meghan is still angry over being a showbiz reject. Who cares. You married a prince. Lol.
I guess she couldn’t get what she wanted. That’s life sometimes."
I agree its pretty crazy. But
1. We don't know much about her theater experience at Northwestern. I happen to think (as Northwestern has claimed) she did graduate and further that her primary major was Theater in the School of Communication although her specific concentration is unclear. But chances are she wasn't a "star" on the Northwestern stage or we would have seen evidence of that. For that matter, we don't really know exactly how successful she was in her high school acting ventures. So it sounds like when she married Harry she had spent at least half her life chasing a showbiz dream.
2. Harry may be a prince but Trevor was supposedly also her greatest love too. But she used him to chase her dream. So why not Harry?
Sometimes we admire people who don't give up, especially artists. Monet, for example, wasn't respected for years for his supposedly "formless" Impressionistic paintings. But we've seen Meghan's acting and it stinks.
i'm so done with the sorry prince and his poor choice of a mate. They are blah. At this point they are beyond even being jokes. Honestly, unless it's news of a divorce I'm not interested.
Heartfelt congratulations to Eugenie, Jack and the newest little Royal. I was kind of hoping that Eugenie would have a little girl, just to make Smeagol really lose her s#&t . . .but I imagine that Daddy and Grandpa Andy will be delighted to have a little bloke to kick around the football with.
The contrast to the last 'Royal baby' occasion couldn't be more marked . . Within hours of the little guy's birth, his beaming parents release a statement and precious photo on Instagram. A definitive statement that Eugenie was safely delivered of a son this morning at the Portland Hospital was issued by the Palace. I'm sure in due course, a day or two from now, there will be more photos. So far, so normal, for a Royal birth.
"It is understood by People" that "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex offered their congratulations 'privately'. Of course they did. Isn't that just too special?
All the best to the new family!
Those that have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Lent is still a week away, so go ahead and indulge for now!!
Just curious. Would l9ve to see that with signatures of physicians on it, because, ahem.
Will/did Jack and Eugenie have an. easel with the baby's birth announcement on it?
Just curious. Would l9ve to see that with signatures of physicians on it, because, ahem.
I had wondered this question myself. Maybe one of our protocol experts can ring in? Eugenie is Royal, but this baby is Royal through his mother's line, not his father's. Does that make a difference? I am assuming that Anne's children had easels, because she was the Queen's daughter. Does a great-grandchild from a female Royal with a non-Royal father get that treatment? If Zara had announcements with hers, then there's no reason to think that Eugenie's baby won't have one, too.
I was thinking along the lines of when the Princesses were born, there were easels. Didn't consider male versus female lineage. But if things wee changed so that had George been female he would still assend to the throne, then maybe Eugenie's children get an easel?
I just want a public display of how it ShOULD be done (pay attention Grip and Drip)
I do intend to scale back the number of my visits to maybe once a day and will endeavor to post positive comments only about anything good the other Royals are doing. Euge's baby photos will be coming out and I don't want to miss those. Maybe if all of us concentrated real hard on positivity, we could clap the Harkles out of existence, like the evil fairies they are. In their case, positivity directed towards others is poison.
March 31st falls within Lent this year as Easter is April 4th. A lot could happen. I will be checking in periodically. Stay well, everybody!
With the easels, it wasn't a matter of whether the baby was a girl or a boy, but how far down the succession those might go. William's children are great-grands, but he is the direct heir. Andrew is a male child of the monarch so of course his daughters would get one at their births. All the children of the Queen rated an announcement for the grandchildren; but does it extend to all the grandchildren's children? Harry is in the Wales line, so they went through the motions of an easel. But say, when Lady Louise Wessex weds, would her child rate a BP easel announcement? She would be in the same position as Eugenie as a granddaughter marrying a commoner, albeit several slots lower on the ladder. There has to be a cut-off at some point, I imagine.
I think you may have misinterpreted my comment re the Portland. I never meant the Portland would be 'unhappy to be publicly associated with a royal birth.' What I meant was that if we are told Eugenie had her baby at the Portland, then we can trust this information (unlike when another baby was supposedly born there two years ago).
Princess Eugenie won't accept a royal title for her baby if offered by the Queen because it is a 'curse' and she wants her child to have an 'ordinary life', a family friend told Vanity Fair in September.
A family friend of the couple revealed several months ago that titles 'don't matter' to the couple, who will raise the child at their home of Kensington Palace, and said they just want 'a happy healthy child.'
Congratulations! It would be more refreshing if Eugenie and Jack said, "Dammit, of course we'll accept a title for our newborn boy. You think we are idiots? Please have the Queen let us know when and where"
Interesting theory about how she's still trying to get the attention from those who didn't give it to her way back when.
It reminds me of the American radio guy whose cohost commented (paraphrase) once about how he's still trying to be accepted by the kids in high school who disliked him them and still do).
Hikari, glad you had time to change it. (reminds me of the time I gave up sugar - at the end of it, my mother told me that I was never to do that her again as it totally screwed up her desserts the whole time).
Goodbye and hello! I understand that the Harkle story can be so draining, and I certainly understand that you need a break. I think many of us feel the same way. Hopefully, after today, you can get a good break from the Dastardly Duo. They are just exhausting, aren't they, like an itch that can't be scratched. You've been a very prolific poster here, so I hope that you will come back at the time that's best for you.
******************
Dear Harkles,
I would like to point out how Eugenie and Jack have handled their son's birth announcement. That is the way true royals do it, and everybody is overjoyed at the news of their new baby. Listen and learn, Harkles.
******************
I'm concerned that Lady C has said in her latest video that lots of things have gone on behind the scenes at BP about The Harkles since almost Day One, but she also says that HMTQ may just sit back and hope that the Harkle story will just disappear as more people get tired of them.
It took a newspaper headline saying, "Your subjects are suffering," to get HMTQ to take action when she wouldn't come back to BP after Diana's death. This may be the same for The Harkles. I've read several books lately that say that HMTQ avoids making decisions that are out of her comfort zone, and hides when times get tough. Well, times are very tough, but I don't see HMTQ leading her people through the Harkle crisis.
Lady C goes on to say that the British people deserve to know that "Archie" is of the body, as it directly affects how royal funds are spent. HMTQ is The Queen, but she also has to understand that what she ignores can negatively impact her people, financially or otherwise. Nobody wants to be made a fool of by two middle-aged people who act like children, but are, in my opinion, dangerous people with no conscience who want to bring down the monarchy.
So, Your Majesty, "your people are suffering" at the hands of The Harkles. What are you going to do about it? Do you want GB to remain a monarchy, or are you happy that at the end of your spectacular reign, that cries for a republic are accelerating because of your inaction on this very important matter? It's your choice, Your Majesty. The ball's in your court.
Congratulations to Jack and Eugenie! What a healthy weight!
I'm amending my Lenten resolution, because in all honesty, I am not going to be able to stay entirely away for 6 whole weeks, and I know it. This board is like, my #1 hobby. I would miss everybody too much and would suffer from a terrible case of FOMO.
I do intend to scale back the number of my visits to maybe once a day and will endeavor to post positive comments only about anything good the other Royals are doing. Euge's baby photos will be coming out and I don't want to miss those. Maybe if all of us concentrated real hard on positivity, we could clap the Harkles out of existence, like the evil fairies they are. In their case, positivity directed towards others is poison.
Okay, then. I shall attempt to think positive about the Dirty Duo, er, the Fallen Royals, and send positive energy their way, maybe via FedEx. I shall concentrate on sending some mental testosterone energy to Harry so that he remembers that he's a man.
Meghan, look at Lady C and you'll find a woman who is truly "whip smart."
-----------------
And stop trying to be millionaires off donations to your charity.
Try earning your own $, stop using your your royal titles to open doors for you.
You bailed on the Queen, bad mouth her at every turn; you deserve to have *nothing* just handed to you. You could have exited your job in the BRF with class and dignity but chose not to do that. Your loss.
*******
It would be more refreshing if Eugenie and Jack said, "Dammit, of course we'll accept a title for our newborn boy. You think we are idiots? Please have the Queen let us know when and where"
--------------------------------
Yes!
I understand your need for a break, but.....can't you give something else up for Lent?
:-)
secrecy, no shenagins. I have wondered if A was born of surrogate (no issues about that, just another missed opportunity for public empathy) and she is as reported "pregnant" again, maybe naturally, what implications it has for her "first born"
"@Acquitaine 9.26pm
I think you may have misinterpreted my comment re the Portland. I never meant the Portland would be 'unhappy to be publicly associated with a royal birth.' What I meant was that if we are told Eugenie had her baby at the Portland, then we can trust this information (unlike when another baby was supposedly born there two years ago)."
Apologies @Maneki Neko. I used you as a stand in, but my comment wasn't rebuting you specifically. Nor was i correcting you at all.You are very correct about the trust we can have in this information vs anything Meghan puts out. I'm sorry if it looked like i was coming for you specifically.
I used your comment to illustrate that The Portland isn't above being publicly associated with royalty which was something disputed weeks ago.
I'm petty like that!!! Lol
"Princess Eugenie's baby WON'T have a royal title
Princess Eugenie won't accept a royal title for her baby if offered by the Queen because it is a 'curse' and she wants her child to have an 'ordinary life', a family friend told Vanity Fair in September.
A family friend of the couple revealed several months ago that titles 'don't matter' to the couple, who will raise the child at their home of Kensington Palace, and said they just want 'a happy healthy child.'"
Is this family friend also known as Katie Nichols?
Jack going without a title at the marriage was a very clear sign that the little one won't have one nor does Eugenie care for one.
Next they'll be telling us that water is wet.
Do you think they get paid by the letter?
Margaret's son is Lord Linley because his father (AA-J) was ennobled as Lord Snowdon.
Am I right, Aquitaine?
------
I agree with @Jocelyn's Bellinis view that `two middle-aged people who act like children... are... dangerous people with no conscience who want to bring down the monarchy'. They've certainly given me sleepless nights and I'm sure my mental wellbeing has suffered since Rache came onto the scene.
Totally off topic but hilarious.
If you want a good laugh check out
DM article/video of a lawyer, who has a kitten
filter, in zoom call to a judge!!!
“I’m live, I’m not a cat”
Haz should try it, as a chicken, or penguin..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex (so far, so good)
A References tell you a lot.
There are at least 5 screens-worth of references to glowing press reports about her, as far as I can see. Not a word of criticism.
The best bit though that there's a banner across the top:
"A request that this article title be changed to Meghan Markle is under discussion. Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed."
Having entered the above, I wanted to check back at the Wiki page. Don't know what I clicked but I did a fresh search and a panel with a superficial resemblance to the Wiki one popped up at the right - well, well, well.
This was the Sussex Royal page from last spring that hadn't been taken down:
https://sussexroyal.com/
Blow me! I tried it a 3rd time - version 2 popped up again but under royal.uk/duchess-sussex
Anyone fancy following the trail of digital breadcrumbs? What's been going on?
tatty-I’m still laughing, made my day!!
"My understanding is that when a royal mother (`Princess of the Blood') ia married to a man who is not Royal (ie Commoner), their children are not royal, as in case of Princess Anne's children?
Margaret's son is Lord Linley because his father (AA-J) was ennobled as Lord Snowdon.
Am I right, Aquitaine?"
Yes you are.
The rule to follow is that the children take on their father's title so if he comes without one then the kids can't hage one. If he does, then they get one that flows from his.
The only complication in that rule is the case of a female monarch.
In her case, on the eve of her wedding to Philip, her father made a special order to make sure that the children of the marriage would received HRH / Prince titles.
Consequently in the brief window of time between wedding and ascension, her 2 kids were HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh.
Harry looks a right hot mess, and I wish they'd both be forced into permanent retirement. I do think Archie is real, although I am open as to how he arrived, and I also wish someone would take the child away from these two whackadoos; hopefully someone has, or better yet, they were never allowed full custody anyway. I fear for his own mental health, given his immediate gene pool, and these two should not be let to raise any child.
The sussexroyal web site site was designed for branding. It looks like to me that is has been updated during the past year. They still have HRH all over that site. All of the rest of the royal family makes do (chuckle) with the official royal web site. The Cambridges and Prince Charles, for example, do not have additional personal web sites. Neither does The Queen.
The ukroyal page you found is part of the OFFICIAL web site for the royal family. MM’s bio page has been reduced in size, I believe. It is short and funny.
It seemed to imply that he was in the UK and didn't appear to come from any Meghan-related source.
Does anyone else remember it? Let's hope it is true.
I know a fairy successful non-fiction author who has a Wiki page. He's not my friend, although I do know him. He changes his Wiki all of the time, adding in things about himself or his works that aren't true. Wiki has put a flag on his accounts many times, and Wiki has removed what he's written that isn't true.
Maybe that's what Wiki is up to in terms of The Harkles? Removing unsubstantiated parts of The Harkle's Wiki page?
***********************************
@Jenn,
You should watch Lady C's latest video. She is very careful with her words, as she doesn't want the litigious (Funny! TIG is right in the middle of the word litigious) Harkles to sue her, too. But her remarks are easy to understand when you learn LADY C-speak. She pointedly talked about a surrogate and a child being born to another mother at the Portland Hospital and MM. She does say that MM excuse for changing the BC is "utter rubbish."
I loved when Lady C said, "If that's the kind of pap they are trying to purvey, they might as well go to the nearest lavatory and flush it!" I just love Lady C! All of this Harkle mess would be over in a split second if Lady C were HMTQ!
For Meghan, it is not a good development to have a baby boy who actually lives in the UK who can frequently visit the Queen, Philip, and Charles in the flesh, and not by some stupid Zoom call.
With the shiny new baby who can visit in person, Meghan's strategy to weaponize Archie by withholding in-person visits with the Queen, Philip, and Charles may backfire on her. Archie could end up being relegated to the role of a second-class great grandchild due to what will probably the easy and frequent accessibility of visits with Jack and Eugenie's new son.
I wonder if Meghan will suddenly decide that it’s OK for Archie to travel to see great granny and great grandpa and grandpa in the UK.
A friend's new daughter looked for all the world like a Cabbage Patch Doll but she grew into a lovely girl.
This is probably the stupidest thing I've ever looked up online. I was checking out why babies feet and black and white photos are so popular in birth announcements now.
There are pages and pages of free baby feet photos, so that's the "in" thing for the younger set. As for black and white photography, young parents seem to think that black and white is more natural-looking and timeless.
I have to disagree with it being more natural-looking, as I've never seen a black and white baby. As for it being timeless, for awhile, everything was in color due to cell phone cameras. Colorizing movies first led to colorizing black and white photos.
Looking back into black and white historical photos, doesn't a color photo tell you more about the person? The color of their eyes, the color of their clothes, etc.? Doesn't a color photo of HMTQ's coronation bring you right into the photo, as if you're a part of the celebration? Isn't a colorized version of the Wizard of Oz more exciting than if it was in B&W?
I used to be a photographer as part of being a reporter until I got to the level of newspapers which had union photographers. I developed my own black and white film, and loved the process, but I think that color photos are more life-like. I'm also a fan of B&W movies, so I'm not denigrating B&W films or photos.
Anyway, that's what the younger set thinks is cool now. It will change back to color at some point.
This long post is just saying that Eugenie probably chose a B&W baby feet photo because it's the in thing now. I don't think there's anything wrong with her baby.
When I was born, the nurse remarked to my mother `You've got a determined one there - just look at that chin!'
On the other hand, Mum said that the woman in the next bed held her swaddled baby up for all to see and exclaimed -`See! He looks just like a maggot!'
Poor child.
I do like B&W photography though as it emphasizes form over cluttered colors.
- The H$M problem being solved?
- my being able to go and see dear friends who live up-country?
- my dying of old age?
I agree that the photos are contrived and corney, but evidently the kids like that style.
I think they'll regret this when they get older.
If you love b and w photos, look up Edward Curtis. His photos of Native Americans in the old west are phenomenal!
I'm just about at the time place as you in the book. Doria was a little sexpot, wasn't she? I get the feeling that she trapped Thomas the same way as MM trapped Harry.She certainly knew how to spend Thomas' money, too.
I'm taking a break from Sam's book as the writing, and her overuse of quotes, drives me crazy.
I'll come back to it in a few days.
********
@ WBBM,
I know how you feel. Being stuck in the house brings up all sorts of weird thoughts, doesn't it?
@Not Meghan Markle
Would be funny if Eugenie named him Henry,
or Thomas!!
WildBoar - my mum always says
I was born looking like a skinned rabbit,
with a coconut head!!
By six months I was ‘well covered’
a bonny bairn.
My sisters were all born ‘well covered’
Jocelyn - B & W photo for the Markles
first Christmas card was taste of things to come.
Backs turned to the plebs, looking at the
bright, shiny lights ahead...
They’d been married seven months!
Thank you. It seems I misinterpreted your original comment to me!
And I wonder if Eugenie was discharged/discharged herself from hospital 4 hours after the birth...
@WBBM
`Archie is safe and with the family that loves him'
It vaguely rings a bell but reading this sentence now, I find it sounds strange. It sounds as if Archie came from somewhere (unspecified) and has now been placed with the Harkles. A weird way of putting it.
Revelations/Deliverance
Megs and Haz up Schitt’s Creek
Their desperation is beginning to reek
Those in the know
Are loving this schitt show
Won’t be long now before they all leak..
WildBoar - If you pop off
before the Harkles problem is resolved
I will hold them responsible for your
untimely demise 😉
Might even sue them for undue stress!!
Jokes aside, are you ok? X
https://royalfoundation.com/
However, they use the royal family website for their official royal work (bios, court circular listing all royal appearances/meetings, list of patronages and charities they support). So, technically, Buckingham Palace is the 'head office' for working royals, even for those who have their own 'branches' set up.
There was essentially nothing untoward for the Sussexes to have a website for their foundation, but:
Their foundation does not exist and never actually got past being registered and taking some donations. (They have created so many changes to their various companies and foundations that it is all a confusing mess.)
They have agreed not to use the word royal.
The Sussexes are very messy in the way they operate. Surely, sooner or later, that is going to get them into a huge amount of trouble beyond confusing reports in the media.
Hikari - No!!
Your intent
To give up for lent
Hazza. and Meggy who?
You’ll be much missed
Quite likely pi..ed
If you miss when they relegate these two
Technically, there should not have been for Archie. He is a great-grandson and not in the direct line of succession. (I assume the latter was the reason that the easel with an announcement with all relevant signatures was placed for the Cambridge children.)
I think Eugenie and Jack are still in close contact with Harry and remain a firm supporter. I assume that is out of ignorance and they have not got to know Meghan well, or the feel sorry for their cousin being stuck with such an awful wife. Both York sisters lived in America for a while (or was it just Beatrice?), and have been criticised and mocked in the media for years, as have their parents, so they probably feel a lot of sympathy for Harry.
That b&w photo was definitely inspired by the Sussexes, both in art form and motivation, in my opinion.
Sandie - Eugenie must be very forgiving.
She might forgive, but not forget, that Megs
tried to upstage her wedding by announcing
her pregnancy.
I think Eugenie is well aware of Megs capabilities.
Her loyalty to Harry may have waned due
to his callous treatment towards his Grandmother.
Their Grandmother!
Sandie - as others have said before,
the Harkles, like Al Capone,
could be brought down by tax evasion/fraud.
No need for the RF to dirty their fingers?
Sandie - Eugenie must be very forgiving.
She might forgive, but not forget, that Megs
tried to upstage her wedding by announcing
her pregnancy.
I think Eugenie is well aware of Megs capabilities.
Her loyalty to Harry may have waned due
to his callous treatment towards his Grandmother.
AND callous treatment toward his grandfather, brother, sister-in-law, niece and nephews, father, stepmother...well, all the rest of the family. Didn't he drop all of his friends, as well? I don't believe that Eugenie's parents have warm and fuzzy feelings for them, either. That whole Frogmore Cottage reveal about Eugenie and Jack was beyond bizarre as well, IMO.
They have a newborn to care for; would they want those two anywhere near their precious infant? I would say no. Maybe that is the real reason they moved into Andrew's estate.
As for Lady C ... at the time of Archie's birth, there was only one Duchess of Sussex. There will not be another one until Harry remarries and then after his death (assuming that Archie does inherit the title and does marry). Meghan's names were not required on the birth certificate as a unique identifier. Same for Diana's and Sarah's children. The change of name was about branding and a narc gaslighting her hapless husband (see, you got it wrong, now I must fix it). It is not proof of surrogacy, and can have nothing to do with surrogacy. Is Lady C saying that there was another Duchess of Sussex who gave birth to Archie? If Archie was born of a surrogate, Harry registered him as if Meghan gave birth and she is clearly registered as the mother who gave birth, originally and after the change. Nothing in the birth certificate proves surrogacy, but if Archie was born of a surrogate, it is proof of fraud, orignally and in its changed form. It would have been easy for Harry to commit such fraud. He did not have to produce any kind of documentation from the hospital. The hospital has never confirmed or denied that Archie was born there, and the birth team was guessed by the media but never confirmed by anyone. Even when they left for the hospital and what route they took there and back was guessed by the media and never confirmed by anyone.
The Sussex's trajectory post-Megxit is similar to Sarah post-divorce, but there are huge differences. Sarah is genuinely kind and loving, loyal to a fault, and does not hold grudges, from what I can see. Meghan does not have these qualities.
Sarah also seems to have been a bad judge of character. Meghan simply uses people, but I suspect she is also a bad judge of character, albeit for different reasons.
Meghan ghosts people. I doubt that Sarah and her daughters do.
Like Harry, the York sisters socialized a lot with celebrities, so I think they would be far more familiar with the Sussexes' values than someone like Catherine would be.
I do think that the York sisters are genuinely nice people, but that does not preclude them from having a close relationship with Harry, and, like their father, they may get sucked into dodgy business (Frogmore Cottage) and be duly influenced by a most unsuitable friend.
Swampie - I reckon they are despised
by the whole RF, and hers.
----------
I'm OK, Magatha, I got a few years yet, more if I'm lucky according to the actuaries. I also have very strong beliefs about stayin' alive. It's just rather depressing in the wee small hours.
--------------
I rather took the bit about A being well etc as a hint he wasn't with the Harkles - after all, there's little sign that they they love him.
----------
Perhaps the Byrds got the right idea:
"If your memory serves you well, you'll remember that you're the one
That called on them to call on me to get you your favors done
And after every plan had failed and there was nothing more to tell
And you know that we shall meet again if your memory serves you well
Wheel's on fire
Rolling down the road
Just notify my next of kin
This wheel shall explode."
Sandie - Sussex values, hahaha!!
I like Fergie, big heart, fun.
Made a lot of mistakes, but never bad mouthed
the RF. Was never a gold digger.
Complete opposite of Meg.
The York girls aren’t daft,
they know what’s what.
WildBoar Keep buggering on!
“Wheel’s on Fire” Ab Fab 😉
As I have pointed out, it is quite clear who are registered as Archie's parents. Harry's status as an HRH Prince Duke of Sussex is not derived from Archie's birth certificate and Archie does not need to use his birth certificate to prove what titles and styling his parents had when he was born.
The changes were all about status and branding for Meghan and Harry, who were not even bothered about the errors that do affect Archie. He will spend the rest of his life explaining that he was not resident at Windsor Castle itself or in its grounds (Windsor Castle is in the Greater Windsor Estate rather than the Greater Windsor Estate being the grounds of Windsor Castle) in the first few months of his life, and that he was presented to the public in Windsor Castle and was christened in Windsor Castle is always going to cause misunderstanding. Meghan wanted to live in and work from Windsor Castle, and I don't think she ever gave up that fantasy. It must infuriate her no end that the Cambridges are based in Sandringham House for this lockdown!
As for the incorrect address for Portland ... contempt for the government and how it uses accurate data to plan allocation of resources. As representatives of the monarchy and the UK, that is surprising for everyone concerned.
Megsie seems to strategize by throwing a lot of mud at the wall, and then lying when called out on an irrational decision or behaviour, but it is always self-serving and she was building her brand and planning to bolt at the time she was at home with a newborn (plus gaslighting her husband). No wonder people think that Archie is not with them!
Passive aggressive attacks we have seen, usually via proxy, and I doubt that there is anything rational about who she classifies as the enemy. How far will she go? Will there be an open attack in an interview with Oprah?
Is there anyway one else willing Jessica to take out those saved text messages between her and Megsie and do a reveal all? Am I nasty to really want that to happen?
We've discussed Rache as Edina Monsoon before now, haven't we? See:
https://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2012/01/gallery-how-to-dress-like-edina-from-absolutely-fabulous
It's extraordinary how much of this applies to her.
"It must infuriate her no end that the Cambridges are based in Sandringham House for this lockdown!"
Why are the Cambridges at Sandringham House? Why wouldn't they be at their own house? I know Anmer Hall is "close" to the Queen's residence but isn't close a few miles away? Or a bit more than the distance between Frogmore Cottage and Windsor Castle?
I don't doubt M is infuriated about something though. She likely usually is!
---------
New Harry Markle up.
The Cambridges have set up their offices at Sandringham House. It is close to their home Amner Hall, and they can separate work from home that way.
Thanks. I'd not read that. All their Zooms seem to be done in the same room & I assumed that was their house.
"Just in from a PR firm: "Due to the recent news surrounding the arrival of the Royal Baby from HRH Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, we wanted to drop you a note to ask that you use his official title: European Brand Director of Casamigos Tequila"."
Supposedly Rebecca English got the same message.
Rather odd to me!
"https://mobile.twitter.com/CamillaTominey/status/1359190115457896449
"Just in from a PR firm: "Due to the recent news surrounding the arrival of the Royal Baby from HRH Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, we wanted to drop you a note to ask that you use his official title: European Brand Director of Casamigos Tequila"."
Supposedly Rebecca English got the same message.
Rather odd to me!"
Only odd if you don't know that Casamigos Tequila is owned by George Clooney ( and his BFF Randy Gerber who is married to Cindy Crawford).
George is a SS client.
For a few hours or days, Jack's name will be in alot of media. Adding his title as they ate dictating is millions' worth of free PR for the company.
And yes, Hollywood is that crass - look at Meghan.
I hope I am wrong on all counts, and this is my opinion ...
He will rule in favour of Meghan on all three counts (hypcritical of Judge Warby as he fought against Prince Charles, who had a much stronger and more straightforward case, being granted a summary judgment). There will be criticism of her in the judgment, but, like Harry, she will publicise this as a huge win, a major victory.
She will get confidentiality with regard to the names of the 5 friends and the 4 statements from former Sussex staff. It will create speculation, that will be regarded as a win for Meghan as she gets to hide the dirty truth and gets lots of column space ... stays visible in the media.
Harry will dip into his trust fund or they will use any advances they have been given to pay costs, so Meghan will see it as her right to have 'wasted' all that money because 'she won'.
Whatever reason she gave for delaying the trial is now moot, so she is doing public appearances again. If she lied, the court case is over, so she won't be prosecuted and she will respond to speculation in the same way that she did with the birth certificate change speculation.
If anyone can counter my view with something more palatable, I would be grateful for that perspective! I so much want to be wrong!
It also looks like Anmer Hall to me, but they are using Sandringham House as offices for this lockdown, supposedly.
However, in the context of a great-grandchild for the Queen, that communication from PR was crass. Younger royals who do not have a way to earn heaps of money will stray into problematic areas - exclusives for Hello magazine, endorsements for anything, milk advertisements for some Far East market, selling tequila always pushing whatever commercial interests they can - and depend on family for a place to live.
A child is expensive, especially if you are expected to keep up with royalty, the upper classes and rich celebrity pals.
I think Jack and Eugenie do have close ties to Harry and are likely to emphathize with him about what he has to do to provide for the very expensive tastes of his missus and a child.
https://www.casamigos.com/en-us
@Sandie said…
"https://mobile.twitter.com/CamillaTominey/status/1359190115457896449
"Just in from a PR firm: "Due to the recent news surrounding the arrival of the Royal Baby from HRH Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, we wanted to drop you a note to ask that you use his official title: European Brand Director of Casamigos Tequila".".....
Only odd if you don't know that Casamigos Tequila was owned by George Clooney ( and his BFF Randy Gerber who is married to Cindy Crawford).
George is a SS client.
For a few hours or days, Jack's name will be in alot of media. Adding his title as they ate dictating is millions' worth of free PR for the company.
Dear lord, that spam is some special kind of tacky!
Dictating? I doubt that but SS will likely claim it was "just a joke." And any free publicity such as the story will get--worth millions.
Thank you for the info abt Justice Warby's judgement.
Nothing against you but I really want you to be wrong! I think we'd all be gutted if Megalo got what she wanted. Like you, and I mentioned it before, I think whatever happens she'll make it sound like a win, even if it's not.
The sale was structured in such a way that some cash was handed over immediately and a big chunk was held back to be realised depending performance of Casamigo in the market place over several years rumoured to be a decade.
Consequently George and Randy are still shilling the company if they are to fully realise their billion dollar cheque.
They shilled it for Harry and Eugenie's weddings, and they are still shilling it.
QueenTT has posted more about the channeling she did for Meghan and it is intriguing ...
https://talkingtarot.tumblr.com/post/642682084687773696/only-got-a-couple-minutes-in-because-i-had-to-run
QuennTT is often wrong, but also often right and she is far more in tune with intuition than I am. I don't read with reversed cards. Interpretation depends on subject matter, position in spread and surrounding cards in my system. Based on the cards she has given, I would ascribe meaning as follows for the cards:
_______________________
QoW: This is Meghan.
Temperance: the way of escape, success after elaborate manoeuvres, finding balance through some kind of alchemical process
4oS: rest, peace, refuge, recovery
She has found some kind of balance through steppng back for a while, but could also have recovered from an illness. She has escaped the threats of the lawsuit and can have peace of mind.
___________________________
3oS: melancholy, unhappiness, tears, disruption, sowing of discord and strife, delay, absence, separation, deceit (means betrayal in many tarot decks)
9oC: complete success, pleasure and happiness, physical well-being, happiness almost perfect but temporary (means wishes coming true in many tarot decks)
10oS: reason divorced from reality, failure, disaster but not without hope, disruption, idle chatter (clever, eloquent and insolent person; spiritually - the end of delusion)
I would say she is in a space where she thinks she has got everything she wanted and has the 'perfect life', but the reality is the opposite (there could even be a separation in her marriage).
I so very much want to be completely wrong!
Why did Harry and Ed Sheeran have to use Beatrice's cottage for their horrible video if Frog Cottage was still owned by the Harkles? Surely they could find a blank wall to film at Frog Cott.
I also think that Eugenie and Harry are closer than we think. They spent a lot of their vacations and boozy evenings in London together.
I'll be back later to answer some Nutties who have asked questions of me.
Still waiting for someone to offer alternate predictions for Judge Warby's decision tomorrow ... what if?
I'll bite but I'm not an attorney.
I don't think Warby has been even-handed and that's bad. And from what I understand of UK law, she may get SJ on the copyright issue. But except for legal costs, it's hard to see what her damages would be. Typically in copyright cases I've heard of in the US, the one who has taken copyrighted material has directly directly profited (by selling the lifted book material, song, etc) and the one who was "robbed" can show he/she was financially damaged. That's not the case here. Sure the MoS profits from clicks but that's not quite like selling a stolen book plot. And how was M damaged?
I don't understand how Warby could grant SJ on the other 2 charges though. It's my understanding finding SJ on the data charge would be a new use of that law. Do judges want to do that in SJ? And the privacy charge is murky for lots of reasons IMO.
I know the MoS and ANL have deep pockets but I can't believe the judge would find SJ AND force them to pay ALL the wildly inflated legal bills M has generated.
I guess my question as a non-lawyer would be, IF he feels can't grant SJ on all charges, then why grant it on any? Of course, you may be right and he'll go 3 for 3.
As for Queen TT, I don't take her seriously because her predictions are just speculations.
Why did Harry and Ed Sheeran have to use Beatrice's (Eugenie's, I'm sure you mean) cottage for their horrible video if Frog Cottage was still owned by the Harkles? Surely they could find a blank wall to film at Frog Cott.
Indeed. This bolsters the theory that the Harkles were in fact NOT resident at FrogCott nor that the cottage was viewer-ready for even a short, tight Zoom video. Even if they didn't spend much time there, they allegedly had spent all that money to refurbish it. So why are Haz and Ed squeezed into the far more bijou Ivy Cottage, home of his cousin? What of the now-vacant NottCott, Harry's former home, a stone's throw away? Was he banned from there? Was Eugenie the only family member still speaking to him who offered her home as a favor to 'Homeless Hazza'?
The most benign explanation is that Ed Sheeran was not willing or available to make the trek out to Windsor, to 'Harry's Home' which would have added time to his stay which maybe he didn't have. Ed is undoubtedly friendly with Eugenie also, and it might have been a thrill to host a rock celebrity in her home; Beatrice was involved in the infamous 'Ed Cut His Face' incident when she allegedly cut his face while 'knighting' him with an ornamental sword, and all parties were inebriated, and I think Eugenie was also at that party. That is the story put about by Ed on the chat shows anyway. Or we could choose to believe fellow party guest James Blunt who witnessed the whole thing and said that actually a blotto Sheeran fell into a glass coffee table with his face. It's definitely a better story to say that he received a knighting injury from HRH Princess Beatrice--which means that Blunt's version is likely the real truth.
Methinks that Ed S. and Harry have a whole lot in common about bad boy behavior, heavy partying and an elastic relationship to truth where self-promotion is concerned. Both are married now and allegedly fathers of young babies. Ed at least has been confirmed as the recent father of one . . and has hopefully settled down into family life. Harry remains as juvenile and lost as ever. Worse.
Well, I would believe that they *were* very close--before Harry's marriage. Their vacations and boozy evenings on the club scene in London predated both of their marriages. After the stunt at Eugenie's wedding, I'd say the closeness is not what it was. Markle is openly hostile toward the York family for reasons known only to herself, and Harry has stood by and allowed his wife to publicly embarrass his cousin and interfere with her wedding day. I do not for a single moment believe the press that Eugenie attempted to rent FrogCott off Harry or give him money toward it. I think those are all manufactured lies by Meghan, attempting to sow discord between the Queen and the York granddaughter to whom she has always been close. Even if Euge were still close to Harry I cannot believe in a million years that she'd have made some kind of backdoor deal with the disgraced pair behind the back of her Grandmother. If everything was on the up and up, she would have obtained permission. Within weeks we had "Eugenie's left FrogCott already, after only 6 weeks!' More Smugsy tripe, attempting to cycle back on her previously published lies, and make Eugenie come off like a flake into the bargain. Yet another hole poked in the former 'closeness', I'd say.
If she allowed her cousin access to her home to shoot this video, it points to her being at least willing to have cordial relations with H if not his wife. But there's no proof that she was on the premises at the time, or that they interacted. Eugenie and Jack may have been away at the time and told Harry he could use the cottage. Presumably Ed Sheeran would have been welcome at KP #1, but Harry was not and they needed a place to shoot this thing in London, with privacy. This was over a year ago now and a lot has changed since then; I don't think this favor means that Eugenie is *still* close to Harry or is giving him money or telling him anything personal that could be relayed to his wife.
My interpretation of the cards, based on the tarot system I use, the different meanings of the cards and how they are placed in a spread and in relation to each other, and the subject matter. I did not tap into intuition consciously at all.
I would not use the word 'speculation', but accept that there are many who are ignorant about tarot and many who are dismissive of it. There is deep and wide-ranging esoteric and spiritual wisdom underlying tarot systems, but how people use it and interpret it is affected by who is doing the reading. I have no reason to believe that QueenTT is not sincere.
Playing catch-up with the Cambridges and Mike Tindall or finding the right path, sans Meghan?
What happened to the multi-million deal with Spotify? Or are these podcasts going to be on the Spotify platform, for subscribers only?
Thanks for your comments on Warby and the SJ. What you said makes a lot of sense, and my reasoning says that is how he should rule:
Copyright infringement, but no financial damages to Meghan ... just an apology, removal of articles, and donation to some copyright or similar organization.
The other two issues are more contentious and the chances of a good defence have been presented. Your info about the data infringement aspect is most interesting and not something I have read anywhere else that I can recall.
Holding thumbs!
https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-backs-invictus-games-new-project-with-healthcare-workers-after-events-postponement/
Royal reporter twitter feeds (Richard Palmer, Chris Ship ...).
I mention TT because more than half of her predictions never come to pass. I just read her for entertainment purposes but I remember vividly that most of her predictions didn't happen and when her followers ask her why, she always comes up with one excuse or the other. It amuses me.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/14004180/meghan-markle-prince-harry-princess-diana-psychic-2021/
psychic predictions !!!
Thanks for your post on the cousins. Eugenie has known Harry her whole life. She would not abandon him or ghost him. As you point out, there is no evidence of any kind of rapport with Meghan.
Thanks for correcting me on Eugenie's name. I got them mixed up.
I don't think that Eugenie would have anything to do with MM, either, but I do think it's possible that Eug could still be close to Harry. I have no evidence to base this on, so it's just a guess. I hope I'm wrong.
*******************
@Puds,
I agree. Harry still wants all of the accolades from the NHS and the military- which is hard to do when you've fled the country, fleeced three countries of money to benefit himself and his wife, and has no connection to the NHS. Same for the Invictus Games. How many times is the military going to get kicked in the teeth by Harry before they fight back?
I don't see think podcast has a chance of being a success.
Please will someone make it clear to Harry he is not representing the Queen, the people of the UK, or any aspect, political, social
or cultural of the UK that he hates while he is in the USA. Stop feeding off the UK Harry. Live your private life.
Harry needs to live his best possible HollyWoke life along with his best possible wife. In retirement oriented Montecito? What a farce. In UK with their monarchy they take these two birds seriously. Here in the US they get lost in the crowds of aspiring Hollywood up an' comers. Add in Cov19 which makes it very difficult to socialize, to embed themselves. To insinuate themselves.
They should have found their rent-to-own Manse in Malibu. Going to Nobu a few times a week they would bump into everyone. Where are their Spotify podcasts? Their teeny bopper sugars need some continuity or they will lose interest in the Dastards.
With regards that extract, Harry left the army having earned his captain rank. Everything else beyond that is honorary and is being removed. The only one that might stay is his rank as Major which was gifted AFTER he left the military. I'm not sure if he gets a demotion seeing as he didn't earn that rank, but i'm not sure if it is as clear-cut as his other honorary titles which he took over after Philip retired.
His honorary titles gave him a link to the 3 branches of the military, and those are going, if they haven't gone yet.
I had a look at the Sun article about psychic predictions for the Harkles for 2021.
No names of psychics given or methods used stated, so it could be something made up by a junior reporter!
It seems to echo the hype Megsie puts out (fabulously successful and wealthy) and nothing in the predictions surprises me:
Meghan has been targeting youth for a while now. She seems to think that is the best demographic for her.
Meghan has claimed to be an activist feminist since childhood and will no doubt continue to look for platforms to use there.
Columnist? Plenty of media outlets looking for content, and she does pride herself on being a brilliant speaker and writer!
Children's books? Meghan has neither the connection with children nor the expertise or experience to write children's books but that rumour has been circulating for a while. Her name will attract attention and any publisher would be able to recover costs and make some profit before the books go into the bargain bin. But would Megsie do all the tedious promotional work?
Megsie and Harry seem to be going their separate ways in terms of projects, with some joint appearances. He will eventually look to Africa, and I just hope he comes up with something really worthwhile instead of just using the people and places for self promotion. But maybe he will be looking for an excuse to be away from home often - far away!
Sandie - yes the so called psychic predictions were a "joke" and nothing to really talk about. A whole lot of nothing as my grandmother used to say.
The question many will ask is why are so many Americans (and companies or brands) getting sucked in? I have asked this before, and it appears some Americans appear to be impressed by the titles they hold, regardless of people saying it’s not true. Then why are media outlets in the US reporting on them, bigging them up, or giving them airtime? A friend has named them ‘the oxygen thieves’, and Americans seem to be the only ones who are giving them oxygen to thrive on. Americans and companies are enabling them, and while we can point the finger of blame at BP for allowing the farce to continue, what we can see are Americans who are enabling this, by promoting them, and buying into their spiel. Perhaps they are using the Sussexes too for publicity, but you have to be a bit dim not to realize that they aren’t marketable, but maybe they are willing to take that chance?
What the hell? Like the British press hasn't wrote article after article after article on them? And all the other world press? They are a novelty, a distraction, someone to laugh at and gossip over - just as we do here. If the writer thinks Americans are enthralled with H&M, she/he needs to take a step back.
After all - isnt that author writing a book and hoping to make a bunch of money off of H&M?
I agree that QueenTT can get a lot wrong and dismisses or ignores that rather than learn from it. She does get a lot right though, and often it is something surprising that one would not guess would happen. I would advise anyone who does follow her/read her stuff to keep an open mind but make sure you don't switch off critical thinking! (There was one reading she did that turned out to be wrong about almost everything!)
For anyone interested, some of the things she has predicted that cannot be judged as accurate or not yet:
* Meghan will not have another child with Harry but probably will have a daughter with another man.
* The Harkles will separate and divorce (and they are already living quite separate lives), and Archie will end up living with Harry in the UK. (The Queen will give Harry financial assistance for the big payout Meghan will want.)
* Meghan will have to publically apologize for something she did. She will also do a big tell-all interview, probably with Oprah.
I like it that QueenTT gives the cads for the readings as I can learn from her hits and misses.
Back to regular programming ...
I am not a disbeliever, but i know different people have different interpretations of the same cards and I am always fascinated to hear them.
I think the Invictus Games Foundation made the decision to offer assistance to NHS workers and Harry is jumping in trying to lay claim to the idea.
So I wonder how they received Rache? Could the pregnancy reveal have been by way of vengeance, especially as there may have been an element of tiaras-at-dawn about it?
Perhaps it was more than a narc bid for attention?
While she hankers after wealth, of course, she needs, really needs adoration. She must be the best, most sought after, most important in every way. She will continue to stay with Harry because she has no one else. She needs Harry. Without him even in hollywoood, she is nothing. Why ever in the world would anyone hire her? As an actress, I mean. She cannot act. It is cringeworthy. Why would anyone. Hire her for anything...anything at all????She’s not a worker...an eager worker a keen worker. She had the perfect job at the RFand blew it! Couldn’t take direction, wasn’t a team player...all thing vital to a well run business. No, it had to be alll at her.
And tomorrow...we reach the climax of the last few months, with baited breath. We really do.
If she receives SJ, I will feel like splitting my throat but have a stiff drink instead. Will feel very embittered. How legal courts of justice could be so swayed away from a credible, intellligent , thoughtful presentation from the defence to the polar opposite ....or the claimant....muddy waters throughout, off topic rants, delays, whining, more whining. This I a court of law. I DO honour, truth prevail tomorrow.
When I read that `chestfeeding' article, I was dumbfounded - no words seem adequate to summarise what I thought of it.
The point made earlier about the patriarchy reasserting itself seems so apt.
* it goes to trial. The waters are clogged with rubbish (FF, OS video, staff of four, faux calligraphy, People) that needs sorting, so no SJ to wash it away. Particularly as this suit grazes the tender subjects of freedom of the press and intentional international fraud. This isn’t the secret rainy day diary of PC.
* costs and time wasted? They see these two will keep suing every week; may as well let the big swatter swing at the buzzing fly.
* expediency for a judge? Not with a weary, worn-down public that in 2021 is increasingly vocal about the special treatment of celebs.
* simultaneous to this, I believe the Queen has given her nod. She (W, C) will strip the duo of every last thing shortly, so, let come what may.
The question many will ask is why are so many Americans (and companies or brands) getting sucked in? I have asked this before, and it appears some Americans appear to be impressed by the titles they hold, regardless of people saying it’s not true. Then why are media outlets in the US reporting on them, bigging them up, or giving them airtime? A friend has named them ‘the oxygen thieves’, and Americans seem to be the only ones who are giving them oxygen to thrive on. Americans and companies are enabling them,
Who is enabling them?
-Charles is probably still sending them Duchy money. But a reduced amount
-Zero British companies but we have the American Netflix and the Swedish owned Spotify paying them. Anyone worldwide can buy Netflix stock but this stock is mostly owned by Americans. Netflix HQ are in California while they stream in many countries, including UK.
The amusing contraction here is that the American operated Netflix gives them lots of oxygen/money but they have little recognition in the US. Maybe 5% of the recognition they get in the UK with your ages old Monarchy in their drafty old piles. My proof is that the NY Times rarely covers them while DM runs them daily to meet the pleb's demand. If the Duo ever gain their Hollywood success there will be additional American companies that will be paying them.
British have a valid point when they blame "the Americans" for keeping them afloat. I have to think there is more money and more potential money in their American hatched Netflix deal than with Spotify. Video pays more than podcasts.
A court judgment, given at an early stage, finding for a party without a full trial of the issues and hearing of evidence on the basis that the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the matter should be disposed of at trial. Summary judgment may dispose of the case as a whole or be confined to a particular issue. The procedure for summary judgment is set out in CPR 24.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part24#24.1
Interesting thoughts on tomorrow's BIG decision!
I'm off to bed but just want to say
we may need to get Prince Charlie's Angels on the case!!!!
😇👼😇👼
"I can just picture MerchAgain 30 years post-divorce clinging on like Patsy Stone while little Zitka takes on the Saffy role."
Yep. I laughed.
Justice Warby should move to trial so he has nothing to do with the judgement and doesn’t tarnish his standing with the Queen. That would be smart.
I have an off topic question. Does the HRH mega and Harry still have mean the Rota cannot report on them freely?
@Jenns said
Other people may have worked on the letter meaning she isn't entitled to sole copyright.
Quite, but this is impossible to quantify, unless witnesses can produce drafts and notes they can prove they wrote themselves by hand. Other people's contribution can mean suggesting removing something, not mentioning A or B, suggesting something etc. All very vague. And at the end of the day, it's Megalo's name/signature at the bottom of the letter so is not the content her responsibility?
°°°°°°°
@Puds
I didn't know about Megalo using the Human Rights act in her privacy claim. I think she tried too much with various ancillary claims instead of concentrating on her primary claim, i.e. copyright. This may be her undoing (we hope).
°°°°°°°
@WBBM
Re 'chestfeeding', this happened in Brighton so you shouldn't be too surprised ;)
@jessica said…
".......Someone else said her Human Rights Trump all in this case."
Her lawyers invoked section 8 of the Human Rights code in their arguments for SJ.
This Human Rights code is part of EU laws that have been imposed on it's member states in the past 20yrs and is often used to argue the rights of perpetrators to get them out of their mis-deeds. A case of good laws benefiting bad people even in clear case of abhorrent behaviour.
Sadly the Human Rights code trumps all other laws and any lawyer who uses it as part of their arguments wins.
The only way the Judge can set aside the Human Rights code in his SJ depends on how he interprets section 8. Section 8 has never been used in a UK court of law. This is the first case to invoke section 8 since the Human Rights code was incorporated into our laws. Section 8 leaves room for subjective application. Meghan's lawyers want an absolute reading of it. If the judge agrees with her lawyers and reads it in their preferred manner then she wins because it renders all defence arguments null and void even if they have a strong case and evidence to back it up.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life#:~:text=Article%208%3A%20Right%20to%20privacy,his%20home%20and%20his%20correspondence.
"I did once read that the York sisters weren't very pleasant to Catherine, apparently stemming from C's middle-class background compared with their status/rank as Princesses of the Blood - ie they didn't consider her good enough to join the Firm. I hope that what I read was all speculation but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a grain of truth in it."
Not true at all.
Or rather, there was friction early on between the York sisters and the Middleton sisters, but it seemed to be the Middleton sisters being aggressive towards the teenage York sisters at social events eg Pippa demanding to take the York teens' better seats at a fashion show despite the sisters being already seated in them, and Kate being rude to Beatrice at a charity event reducing her to tears.
It all worked itself out, though Eugenie was publicly rude to Kate at her first Sandrigham Church walkabout.
By Kate's second year as a royal any friction was long gone and they've all been friends ever since.
Alot of the public has formed an opinion of the York sisters based upon utter fabrication and a media narrative that has deliberately cast them in a negative light since they started reporting on them as teens. Any made up rumours are immediately believed and no one ever bothers to look at the details.
This is why they surprise the public when they are shown without any media framing.
"@WBBM
Re 'chestfeeding', this happened in Brighton so you shouldn't be too surprised ;)"
The same council / town that tried to teach children that it was biological fact that men can menstruate.
"...there was friction early on between the York sisters and the Middleton sisters, but it seemed to be the Middleton sisters being aggressive towards the teenage York sisters..."
I'm glad you provided that information @Acquitaine. I could not remember enough details to post but I recalled the direction of the hostility as coming from the Middleton sisters, not the York sisters. And while the age difference between the Yorks (32, 30) and the Middletons (39, 37) doesn't seem huge now, it was definitely a big gap when Kate was dating Will. I mean, the difference between a 25-year old woman and a 16 or 18 year old girl is immense.
I agree all seems publicly forgiven now but it seems to me that Will isn't nearly as close to the Yorks as Harry has been although they all did grow up together. So far as I know, there hasn't been a public congrats from the Cambridges on the baby's birth although at least they didn't feel the need to say publicly that they congratulated E&J privately!
I also agree the York sisters have been subjected to some of the most unfair press stories. From constant body-shaming to untrue claims about how they spent their time it's really been amazing they kept their heads up.
-------------------
I think I'm right in saying that the European Court of Human Rights predates the EU in all its manifestations and was set up in response to the atrocities of the 2nd War.
Rache may be trying to argue that that Press `intrusion' deprives her of her `right to family life'; and the argument that just because she is a publicity hound doesn't mean it's open season on things she choose to keep `secret', like walking in the woods. I suppose her lawyers might argue it's a parallel with r*pe of a pr*stitute, or somebody stealing a pint of milk off a milk float, even if one leaves payment in the latter case - just because something's for sale doesn't mean one can help oneself.
The Human Rights legislation can be very elastic at times. Some years ago, a rich person built himself a large house in the New Forest, without the necessary permissions. The District Council refused to grant retrospective planning permission and ordered demolition (`Quite right too!', thought Joe Public).
Homeowner refused, went to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, IIRC. He won on the grounds that demolition would `deprive' him of `his rights to family life'. Hardly the same as the deprivation of being sent to Auschwitz.
` - just because... help oneself' would have been better expressed as
` - just because something's available doesn't mean one can help oneself.'
Chestfeeding/ men menstruating. My god. I read an excerpt from that book on the rise of teen girls in the UK requesting hormonal sex changes- 4,000% increase in the last TEN years. They’ve found it’s due to ONLINE targeting of products to these girls. NHS cannot deny a young girls request, even though it’s also been found that 80% of girls change their mind on their orientation given a few more years. Gobsmacking to say the least!!!
Besides that, back to the case. If that is so about human rights, then doesn’t that open a can of worms. Can I just go an manipulate something like Meghan, sue for massive damages, and invoke human rights to automatically win? Sounds lucrative to me. Who’s on board? :)
Only a few hours to go. It’s got me thinking I am waaaay to invested in this topic ha! That said, has Meghan been extra quiet due to knowing the outcome? Wonder what PR blast she has prepared. Probably a speech at Capitol Hill, if she wins!!!! If she loses?? Why is she so quiet I HAVE to know!!! I feel like if she knew she won she would have been all over zoom again recent weeks. Just leading up to her ‘big win’. Meghan being quiet sitting on this information has me confused. Maybe she lost and is in hiding. Speculation of course!
I’m thinking that you’re right in that assessment. Judges try to avoid any possibility of a successful appeal. Both sides can appeal and SJ today up and down and sideways. I think for this reason it will move to trial. An appeal will lengthen the case timeline.
It might scupper your chance of an invitation to a Garden Party though!
What do you think, Aquitaine?
So this could be a continuation of the SJ. He also has to provide a detailed explanation for everything, which will be helpful for us here. If he can decide the case based on the facts presented, it will go to trial.
I realize ANL wanted their day in court initially, but this case has dragged on longer than anyone could have predicted due to the pandemic, appeals, changes, for something that is so inconsequential.
Could Warby give a heads up to both sides that he was going to split the decision, then encouraged the sides to settle the aspects going to court. So maybe they split costs in some way, then written/verbal statements containing admissions/apologies, just to end this thing.
Both sides could claim "victory", but in the end, who really cares?
"@ Aquitaine, What is your prediction for the outcome of the SJ application?"
This case hasn't gone Meghan's way since it went to court.
Therefore i hope it continues not to go her way.
My fear is that she's going to win on a technicality ie the Judge will go with an absolute reading of section 8.
"@jessica - I believe it's considered bad form to reveal what HM says to one in private, but I suspect the gaffe might be ignored.
It might scupper your chance of an invitation to a Garden Party though!
What do you think, Aquitaine?"
You are correct. Not just scupper garden party invites, you get censured for it.
2 Prime Ministers revealed what they alleged where her comments on Brexit and the Scottish referendum and were reprimanded for it.
I think the operative word here is "claimed". If you look at her life, what has she done as an activist feminist? What doors has she opened for women? (Those bedroom doors have always been wide open, Megs.) What has she done for women in advancing job opportunities? Nothing. Has she been a role model for women in nontraditional female roles such as welders? Nope. Women plumbers? Ewww, ick, double nope. How about female HVAC technicians (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning)? (OMG, sweating would be involved.) Their lifetime earnings are more stable and have more longevity than Markle's "acting" career. Mike Rowe, of Dirty Jobs, is a far bigger feminist than she has ever been. The only roles she has ever done have to do with her sexuality and I include her Duchess role in that. That ain't feminism, sweetie, so run along.
As for Brighton Chest Feeding, husband was reading about that this morning and nearly snorted his coffee out of his nose. "CHEST feeding? WHAT THE HELL? Does this mean that they put them in a chest of drawers and feed them there? Why is this even being presented as serious news when we should be pointing and laughing at the mental deficits being exhibited?" (That was the gist, edited for things like his speculating on the collective IQ in the entire area as being less than than that of a sheep. Not your average sheep, mind you, but one that had been deprived of oxygen by a long labor.) I thought that was a little harsh and defamatory towards brain-damaged sheep.
He's right. I am no longer going to be complicit with condoning the public lunacy by looking away politely. I shall instead endeavor to sell them various bridges because if they actually believe the fiction that men can chestfeed, they should be in the market for a nice bridge. What an investment opportunity! It would be a sheltered environment for anchoring houseboats underneath. They could earn money by charging for the spaces underneath the bridge, particularly if it is a well-known and scenic bridge, as well as charging tolls to the shippers that move freight up and down the waterway. Opportunities abound! (By taking their money, I would be doing them a favor so they wouldn't have to worry about it any longer.)
Meanwhile, husband is muttering "We REALLY need to put in minefields!" and is starting to do some research. Me: "Damnit, NOT in the pastures! I do NOT care about proof of concept! No, I don't take this as proof that there is a brain-eating virus turning people into vegetables and that it is contagious. People like that have ALWAYS been vegetables; warning labels just allowed them to reach adulthood!" *sigh*
I hope that's a good sign.
"If I get a letter from the Queen and go to the press, is she going to sue me for copyright infringement?"
Technically she can.
In the UK, the author retains copyright at all times. The recipient never has copyright.
All those royal fans publishing or selling letters written to them by various royals especially Diana are breaking the law.
Last year, I hoped to go on a trip to the Post Office Museum in London, to find out more but, of course, that didn't happen. Perhaps now I'll never realise my childhood dream of travelling by MailRail - the private underground railway formerly used for moving parcels between main London Post Offices. The BBC used to feature it on Children's Hour before Christmas, when Brian Johnston, IIRC, pretended to be a parcel and recorded a report.
"Besides that, back to the case. If that is so about human rights, then doesn’t that open a can of worms. Can I just go an manipulate something like Meghan, sue for massive damages, and invoke human rights to automatically win? Sounds lucrative to me. Who’s on board? :)"
The Human Rights code has made alot of lawyers very wealthy. It's one of the bug bears of Brexit supporters because criminals were using it to successfully argue their cases and winning.
If you follow the Brexit re-alignment, you'll notice a big to do about the Human Rights code and Britain looking to withdraw or change aspects of it because it has been devalued to the point that it hurts innocents rather than perpetrators.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/sep/13/uk-government-plans-to-remove-key-human-rights-protections
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2019/january-2019/human-rights-act-is-not-safe-after-brexit/
The ECHR kept creating laws that superseded the laws of EU member states which meant that if you wanted to get the right result as that gentleman did, you simply used their laws or applied to them to hear your case.
The immigration question was the loudest heard in all the arguments used for/ against Brexit, but bubbling along in quiet fashion was the hatred of the ECHR and especially the human rights code.
I blame the lawyers and judges who frequently pushed it and allowed its misuse.
Most annoyed that no one is reporting on Judge Warby's ruling. Nothing anywhere!
Different time zone! I am ahead of all of you in time, unless there are folk here from Australia and so on!
Is Joshua Rozenburg our `go-to-' Twitterer? https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg
He's posted this, from 1st Feb
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/meghan-and-the-mail/5107199.article
The Judge said: "The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the Letter would remain private. The Mail Articles interfered with that reasonable expectation."
High Court ruling says copyright issue of Meghan's letter to Thomas Markle is not clear (Meghan showed a draft to her Palace Communications Secretary).
Judge: "The Court is persuaded, however, that there should be a trial limited to issues relating to the ownership of copyright"
ANOTHER hearing in Meghan versus mail on Sunday is fixed for March 2nd "to decide matters consequential on this judgment, and directions for the next steps"
This doesn't sound like a unilateral win for her to me. At best, she's only 'won' half--the privacy claim. (So rich, considering that she prepared this letter for publication and made sure it was seen by as many people as possible.
Question now being, can she now decline to pursue a trial on the copyright claim--the one she is most likely to lose? Will her Narc vindiveness allow her to drop it? Or must she press forward because the MoS wants to go forward?
But Thomas's portion is concluded and he will not have to continue with the stress of this whole thing, or face his conniving brat in court, so good for him.
At this point, I would say just let her 'win' the other half too if that means she will fekkin GO AWAY. I am sick to death of this legal crap.
I'm a massive tea drinker,(drink gallons of the stuff) but I needed something much stronger after this news!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-9250475/Meghan-wins-privacy-claim-against-Mail-On-Sunday-letter-father.html
It doesn't look like an absolute win anyway - the copyright issue needs thrashing out. When I worked for a local authority, it was made clear that my employer held the copyright of any document I produced in the course of my duties. I suppose the question now is, who was the employer of those who helped her?
Mail on Sunday statement: We are very surprised by today’s summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial."
The newspaper says it is now considering an appeal: Spokesperson for Mail on Sunday said: "We are carefully considering the judgment’s contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal."
Everything you need to see is on LSA the Meghan Unappreciation thread. Links of court docs etc.
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1359905202531401728/photo/1
'Dumb question, but will this just antagonise the MoS/DM people?'
--------
I sincerely hope so. I said as much this morning: 'I'm sure they (MoS/ANL) have ways to destroy Meg's image in the press should they wish to.' We need to read the details of the case and see what happen. I do hope she gets her comeuppance but in the meantime she'll see the verdict as a victory. As long as she doesn't gloat now...
I just can't anymore. She'll never be held accountable for her nonsense.
Thanks for the link to Chris Ship's Twitter. I read Megalo's statement🤮 about the MoS 'illegal and dehumanising practices'. Hyperbole? And ' we all deserve justice and truth, and we all deserve better'. I'm sure the BRF would agree with that.
Magatha, if you feel inspired, do indulge in your poetry making.
Megs’ long wordy (pre-written) post-verdict statement is posted on Skippy’s tumbler.
She thanks her husband, her mom, too. For the rest....take a drink before reading, actually.
Just been on @BBCnews talking about Meghan's part victory. Meghan's comment is : 'we all deserve justice and truth.' The judge agreed. Perhaps her father feels he deserves to be heard. MoS may appeal. Trial needed to establish copyright.
Based on her “victory” statement/dec of war alone, I expect the news media gloves to come off, and files to be opened.
.
Rent to own in Montecito, sue to win to pay the bills.
This is a good decision for Nutties because it extends the M/H drama and laughs.
I sincerely hope so. I said as much this morning: 'I'm sure they (MoS/ANL) have ways to destroy Meg's image in the press should they wish to.' We need to read the details of the case and see what happen. I do hope she gets her comeuppance but in the meantime she'll see the verdict as a victory. As long as she doesn't gloat now...
*
Either they will eviscerate her in the press and release the Kraken or they will stand back. After all we are in the Era of Cancel Culture; it doesn't take a Mensa membership to see the foolhardiness of coming for a woman who claims her heritage as Black and is a member of the BRF...
The cards were stacked against the MoS. Even I could see this and I'm partially blind...
With that said, I do think they will be after her from here to eternity. It will bite her in many ways.
Thomas needs justice too - so I hope he now spills!
I need to stay away from Twitter because the SS and the rest of her sycophants are literally making me feel queasy!
Cheers! 😐
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-meghan-markle-scores-legal-23484481
For Nutty's convenience --
Here is what a Twitter search gives up for- Meghan Markle Court -
https://twitter.com/search?q=meghan%20markle%20court&src=typeahead_click
***** Lol I like the phrase "impassioned statement" What a farce!