"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
"Lizzie, I can only say that we have had a home office for over 20 years and have never heard boo about if from the IRS."
That's good. What I've read is not so much that home offices are always disallowed as deductions or even that that a home office deduction automatically triggers an audit, but that they cause the IRS to take a "second look." And that's never what you want if it can be avoided! So if the deduction is smaller, it may not be worth it to take.
Who knows about HAMS. I think they are both full of themselves so who knows how close to the line they go or if they cross it.
Please Do Not tell me what I am feeling. I have an ex who still tries to dictate, yep a narcissist & other. I am finally where I claim my feelings as my own. I find humor every day. Even in these stressful times.
@tatty. You don't have to agree with my post, we don't know each other. I don't appreciate being told I am feeling mad. And calling me ridiculous that ex of mine used that label as well as other narc go to labels. I am not calling you a narc, just sharing information about myself.
I know of a jeweler who didn't pay his taxes for ages. The FBI raided his store. He wasn't there, so they handcuffed his poor mother-in-law to a desk and took all of his inventory.
You do not mess with the IRS.
I've been in business for 40 years, and I've never taken my home office as a deduction. My CPA and attorney advised against it, explaining that the deduction amount was not worth the possible IRS hassle.
And I will say that I know someone who tangled with the IRS, not knowingly (total screw up of the accountant). Their comment to me: Sh*t! Do you know that these are people who show up with loaded guns to "talk" to you if they think they need to make you aware they mean business at your office?
That was how they found out they had a problem with the IRS.
"Meghan’s data protection claim was not considered at the hearing in January and is still outstanding."
What's that all about?
Following on from the IRS discussion
In Aus when the GFC hit the federal government gave A$900 to anyone earning between $20k? and around $35k? as a stimulus. Our financial year ends on June 30 and this came out around August so heaps of people had already done there taxes and got it in there bank accounts automatically. Some people were complaining because there was a huge uptick in alcohol and big screen TVs sales and how it was spent on junk and costing the country a fortune.
Went to the accountant to get our personal and company tax done and she was laughing about how busy they had been because of this money back. She said the government will make more than they ever pay out from it.
Some people hadn’t done tax returns for years and now wanted the money - updated addresses for the tax office
Some people who already had done their returns and were below the threshold but they had got some wages off the books so if they were included in an amended return they would get $900 (yay) - govt got a list of people to watch in future years AND the companies they work for
Like Tatty said some people just don’t get that sometimes you are better off keeping your mouth shut rather than claim every cent you can
I guess it really doesn't help that the judge himself said he does not encourage ANL to go that route. I wonder if the fact that Warby was appointed by The Queen as Lord Justice of Appeal effective this year has any influence on the case if ANL were to appeal.
I am trying my best to stop clicking on to any articles about these two amorals - will not give them anymore air to pontificate. In fact, I stopped reading the contents of any articles on DM about them for a few months now but the comments section, that is a bit harder to ignore as they can be so much fun.
After taking my anti-puke med have been checking People's news channel. Still nothing about harkels. Not even a cricket fart on any news channels. There was only a brief blub one time.. I can't find anyone who has heard or cares about them. I also have begun to wonder if HM has decided when her time has passed so shall the monarchy. I at this point wonder if Harry figures if "good King Harry" can't be King than neither can William.
Perhaps they had a ratcheted-up call from a very cash-poor Harry, with new threats attached.
Perhaps they thought Megs or ANL would give in, but it never happened, and then they also got the call from very poor Harry.
Perhaps they thought someone would give it, then they got the call from Harry, and then the threat level of the H&M reveal was raised.
Perhaps all the above and W scoured PC about costs of supporting the dimwits.
Perhaps all the above, but a big desire among parties (PC, MM, PH) to have a ruling to dampen free speech as soon as possible.
Megs got her win, Harry feels powerful, Warby gets his promotion and knighthood, PC achieves a goal, the Greys mop their brows.
Finally: Of course the royals have things they prefer to keep under the carpet, including bigger things. Even I know of two via extremely trustworthy insider sources, and others certainly know much more. It is cozier not to think this, but unrealistic to pretend this was not possibly a factor in a family in this role, at this level, with so much movement, freedom, leverage. Sometimes even merely embarrassing or soap-opera-style scandal things can create intense protective maneuvers.
We also don’t know what MM may know about Warby, or how their interests may overlap. Again, don’t assume there is nothing there.
All this said, the RF should have fought fire with fire two years ago. As we know, they didn’t. And chose to cringe again. So here we are. Perhaps on purpose. Perhaps not. I think we won’t know why for two to five years.
An appeal seems unlikely even though Warby’s SJ is raising many knowledgable eyebrows, largely due to its horrific precedent, which inclines some to think this was a supported outcome. After a few conversations today with people who know more much than I do about law and about hidden things that impact judgment, I sense there will be no appeal, no end to the Sussex reign until they cross one of their silent partners, or and employer, or the public turns their backs devaluing them, or MM makes a large mistake.
Certainly it will limp or shriek along for probably two more years until William calls their bluff, deciding he is at last, due to circumstances, finally in a position to say he has no f—- s to give.
March will be the first step, or not. In my opinion. What we saw this week was the true depth and The length of the tentacles of the Sussex Or BRF role in an endeavor. I could of course be wrong. Your research may turn up other premises. But I feel......concerned.
I think Archie’s story may be one of three things, and that the Archie story also has ties to one of the other two points.
THAT being said, even with expert help and a *very* conservative CPA handling our tax matters, our business bank account was seized by the IRS not once, but TWICE. We were never notified that our account was seized; the only way to find out is when employee paychecks are bouncing at the bank at $35 each and here you are, a couple hundred thousand in the bank and $25,000 owed to employees for payroll, but the IRS has placed a hold on the account because reasons. Even when we follow the rules as we know them, the rules can change daily, Congress' fault.
We even had an IRS guy come to our house once but he was really jumpy because he had been to an investigation the prior week over taxes in a failing business, he was doing the threatening thing, and the man quietly got up, went out of the room, and put a pistol in his mouth and pulled the trigger blasting brain matter all over walls. He was in despair and the threats to put him in prison for tax fraud didn't help. IRS guy kept looking at us nervously and asking if we were doing okay. I would have reassured him that if I were that upset about taxes, I wouldn't shoot MYSELF (if you know what I mean, and I think that you do), but that probably wouldn't have made him feel any better.
RANT ABOUT TAXES/IRS: They are terrible. There are ambiguous regulations that overlap on the same subject. The IRS decides the meaning of the ambiguous regulations and it isn't in the small businessman's favor because he can't afford the attorneys. Small businesses are SMOTHERED by the tax burdens and the people that they have to hire to keep themselves out of trouble and, if they don't have the money for a CPA and a tax attorney, they can get in deep. It isn't right and it isn't fair. The game is rigged against them, and it is rigged by Congress.
Did I mention how the IRS regulations are changed daily? Yeah, they are. A Congressperson gets a call from a lobbyist for a person or industry that donated to their campaign and, presto, change-o, new regulations are written for a particular industry or company. Now, that change could adversely affect thousands to hundreds of thousands of people toiling along, obeying the old regulations, but being responsible for knowing the new regulations even though they aren't public or published as yet and the IRS employees themselves cannot possibly keep up with all the changes. Did I mention that most of the IRS agents are part-time employees?
The whole festering pustule is corrupt as hell beginning with, and mostly due to, Congress. A good surgical lancing is what is desperately needed.
I think that is why so many young people are declining to start businesses. Well, let me rephrase that. There are businesses out there but maybe not reporting to governmental agencies or paying taxes.
I wonder if the case may not be ‘ripe’ for appeal as long as some issues (damages, copyright) remain unadjudicated?
Also, ANL may be waiting to see the amount of damages the court awards before deciding to appeal. If the award is small fingers crossed), it may not be worth the time or expense to appeal.
It’s clear to many, and hopefully the judge as well, that Smug accepted the risk that her privacy would be breached when she poked the bear (Tom Sr) by discussing her personal correspondence with 5 friends, People magazine and/or Omid Scooby.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/12/duchess-sussexs-privacy-victory-vindication-megxit/
"Buckingham Palace said it would have been “unfair” to have dragged the Palace Four into court and put them through the “stresses and strains” of giving evidence.
"I don't think anyone who was just doing their job wants to be piggy in the middle in what would have been a very bitter case,” said a Palace source. "There was the risk that their future career, legacy, work would have been defined by that."
The rest of the Royal Family will consider the ruling and may be emboldened by the Duchess’s success without the indignity of having to appear in the witness box.
A senior aide said: "We're not afraid of a decent [legal] dust up over privacy. Only recently the Palace was arguing that no one had the right to speculate about whether the Queen had been vaccinated."
The Palace is relieved the case has not gone ahead.
“No one was looking forward to it,” said the source, but courtiers remain unsure until Associated Newspapers decides whether to appeal, and then whether Lord Justice Warby allows it to go ahead. Otherwise the publishers will have to seek permission directly from the Court of Appeal."
Anyway the attorney she wanted to use, but was too expensive ...his advice? “I tell all my clients to keep all their cash at their house, not in the bank, they will cease you for no reason and you’ll have to bend over backwards to get your cash back.” My mother said he couldn’t be serious. To which he replied, “I don’t have a bank account. What does that tell you?”
He had seen to many horrible things happen to his clients biz. So, swampwoman I completely empathize with your situation.
My father took the IRS to court, case took 4 years.
So Meghan taking the IRS to court? Meh, not really a big deal and from what I can tell pretty common.
Her tax situation is old.
Interestingly, I just read in a startup thread that even if you file an LLC in Delaware or wherever, if you live and get paid in California you have to register with the state as well, and their tax board is horrendous. So we will probably see another Meghan tax case soon. She hasn’t lived in Cali, made substantial money, and claimed residence there in 10 years, so it’s not like she’s privy to the laws of the state in regards to attempted loopholes.
Anyone who doubts that the Queen didn't step in should read this piece in telegraph. Below is an excerpt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/12/duchess-sussexs-privacy-victory-vindication-megxit/
"Buckingham Palace said it would have been “unfair” to have dragged the Palace Four into court and put them through the “stresses and strains” of giving evidence.
This looks truthful and legitimate to me but only half the reason. The other half is that the Royals now have Wobbly's European section 8 privacy precedent to use for themselves. As needed in the future. The Queen and other Royals got to Wobbly and requested this ruling, so one would think. It is in their Royal interest, how can a mere Wobbly Warby refuse such a Royal request? He might get sent to The Tower, where back in the good old days the King's headsman would await, to seal Warby's fate.
It’s clear to many, and hopefully the judge as well, that Smug accepted the risk that her privacy would be breached when she poked the bear (Tom Sr) by discussing her personal correspondence with 5 friends, People magazine and/or Omid Scooby.
Megs was/is too chaotic to think that far ahead. Just look how chaotic her PR is.
I used to read the comments section in the DM and fooled myself that it is an accurate guage for people's opinions. I have come to realize that it is a place where people go to vent rage and malice and spite, anonymously, no matter who or what is the subject matter of the article. The comments are also very repetitive.
I now ignore the comments section, scan the article and the enjoy the photographs!
---------------
Somehow, I don't think HM or the Palace would have directed/instructed/commanded anybody - more likely to have expressed a preference/dropped a big hint - and expected it to be acted upon. Subtle differene.
--------------
I agree that a 4th Cambridge child is surely speculation, much as I would like it to happen for the sake of shoving the Harkles further away from the throne. I wouldn't wish it on Duchess though - she's done her `bit' already.
-------------
I wonder if it'd be possible the UK to sue the the Frightful Duchess for defamation? My fantasy is that as individuals our contribution would need to be little more than loose change. I'd gladly chip in a fiver!
-------------
Seriously, what, if anything, have we, and all the other critics of the Sussexes, achieved with so much of our time and efforts?
I sincerely hope that she has been put into a position where she is robbed of publicity by the Press going Grey Rock on her, even No Contact, and that she is increasingly ghosted by any and all of those from whom she expected to extract money.
Are narcissists ever left without a source of supply? If so, do they implode?
In my case, I'd sworn, long before Narcle came on the scene, to expose narcissists for the horrible Jekyll & Hyde personalities that they are, whenever I could. So perhaps I've been true to that.
"So Meghan taking the IRS to court? Meh, not really a big deal and from what I can tell pretty common."
I would agree avoiding run-ins with the IRS can be difficult especially with business income or when working as an "independent contractor."
I've been lucky (knock on wood!) to never have had a run-in. But I've got a great accountant and my tax situation has always been pretty straightforward (mostly salaried, ordinary sources of income, cap gains, no home office deduction)
But if I was unlucky enough to be challenged, as much I'd want to stand on principle while paying the legal minimum in taxes, I'll be darned if I'd pay an attorney to go to court over a $900 tax bill even if the attorney's fee WAS later tax-deductible. That's what amazes me, not so much that a part-time actress in California running side businesses had a run-in with the IRS.
As Tatty pointed out above, people with legal deductions are not taking them in many cases and are therefore paying more taxes than what they legally owe because of fear of (a) cost of prolonged litigation and (b) government entities seizing their assets without a trial because they can.
It is quite the conundrum: Keep cash at hand at the house in case the IRS shuts down the bank account arbitrarily vs. making yourself a target for home invasion so that employees will be able to be paid if the IRS seizes/freezes your account.
The rationale for scrutinizing cash has been the war on drugs/laundering drug money/other illegal activities NOI (not otherwise specified). Drugs are all but legalized now, but the war on small business is ongoing. If you are a retailer that takes in large amounts of cash over $10,000 and deposits it daily, you are scrutinized as a potential drug dealer. If you are a small retailer that makes daily deposits of under $10,000, you are scrutinized as a potential drug dealer trying to sneaky get under the limits of reporting for cash transactions which means that the bank is reporting you regardless. There are countless cases of small retailers that have been driven out of business by the IRS seizing their assets/freezing their accounts for *suspected* illegal activities based on cash flow. Are some of the people caught guilty of criminal activities? Probably. Maybe even the majority. Are all of them? Nope. They are just unfortunate fishes caught in the net and are victimized by the government entities that are supposed to be protecting them.
I particularly hate the very idea of civil forfeiture. If you have to keep cash on hand, it can be seized via civil forfeiture aka theft by police. Cash is assumed to be evidence that a person with said cash is engaged in wrongdoing whether proven or not. There are countless cases of people traveling with cash on hand for various reasons (buying a used car, cash received from selling a horse, cash to buy a few beef cattle, immigrants that have no faith in banks) that get stopped by police for a traffic violation and have their cash seized.
Again, a person does not have to be even charged with a crime to have their cash seized by police. Most of the time innocent people have to relinquish their cash because it would cost too much in terms of time (we're talking years, not days) and legal representation to force its return. And guess where the civil forfeiture money goes? To law enforcement. Having the seized money go to law enforcement as an incentive to engage in questionable stop and search activities/theft (theft in this case defined as seizing people's assets when there is no proven crime) is just wrong. I don't care that the theft is occurring under color of law by government employees, it is still theft.
For those that do not believe that such things can happen, there is a Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
Now, as to the question about whether Meghan and Harry are going to run afoul of the various governmental tax agencies across different states, who knows? A person's political affiliation often seems to be involved in whether a prominent person runs afoul of tax laws. I should also note that it is completely illegal to target somebody because of their political affiliation and donations. Really.
I still don't have a winter jacket, though.
I do not believe the DoC "4th baby" story at all. This is likely from their camp to antagonize W&K. There have been a bumper crop of stories like this since she married in. They are meant, in my opinion, to be intrusive, which she knows would bother W&K. They also often feature the Cambridges complaining and having friends reveal details, which has never happened in the past.
In the past week we were really bombarded with their PR (Just H on a bus and their Zoom-bombing the poetry class). I think all of this was to keep them in the public eye before the SJ was announced, since she knew it would be in her favor. I still think organic interest in them is low. The comments on Twitter were largely from her superfans/bots.
Yes, it does seem strange. And why should she? She is 39 years old, an age where pregnancy problems for both mother and fetus are higher.
It does sound like a Sussex story. But even before M came along there were lots of stories about potential pregnancies for Kate. Twins! A girl named Diana! Different hairstyle = Kate's pregnant!
When i get home, i'll pop back on here and see if there is anything new.
although TQ may not have made a phone call to Warby, I do think that having the P4 and 2 Sr Royals brought up may have had an influence in the decision. Otherwise it would've been shut down a long time ago (the case).
Nelo's post above basically confirms it for me
And hopefully the IRS topic will go away while I am out & about. That is such old news & a non-story
It is interesting in many respects.
First up, Warby did drink the koolaid about Meghan to some extent, and I will quote from the judgment to back my claim. But there are some intriguing things that perhaps I am reading too much from.
The very first sentences:
_______
The claimant is well known as the actor, Meghan Markle, who played a leading role in the television series 'Suits'. But she is also well known as the Duchess of Sussex, and wife of HRH Prince Henry of Wales, the Duke of Sussex ("Prince Harry").
_______
Note the difference in how he uses their titles and gives their full proper names.
Meghan was not well known until she outed her relationship with Harry.
She played a supporting role, not a leading role in Suits.
He also calls Meghan an expert in calligraphy (para. 81)!!
Secondly, Thomas Markle does not come out of this looking good at all. Messy Megsie is a chip off the old block!
However, Warby concedes that the People article was misleading (otherwise he tends to accept Meghan's word as the truth):
________
51. It is an agreed fact, and I also agree, that the account of the Letter and the claimant’s
purpose in sending it is inaccurate: contrary to the words I have emphasised in
paragraph [C], the claimant did not write “I have one father”; she did not state that her
father had “victimised” her; and the Letter did not seek to repair the father-daughter
relationship - it was not an “olive branch”; its main purposes were to reprimand Mr
Markle or take him to task for his previous conduct, and to try to dissuade him from
talking to the press in future. The defendant and Mr Markle have other criticisms of
the People Article, including criticisms of the words I have emphasised in paragraph
[D], about Mr Markle’s letter in reply.
_______________
He does concede that Thomas had a right to defend himself, but there were other remedies available to him:
He could have gone to People magazine. In America, Meghan would not have copyright ownership and Thomas could publish the entire letter there.
And, as I have always maintained, MOS could have given Thomas a platform to defend himself without breaching copyright (and Warby describes different strategies they could have used). They reproduced almost half of her letter.
The link is to a pdf document, if it doesn't work just Google justice Warby ruling.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Duchess-of-Sussex-v-Associated-2021-EWCH-273-Ch.pdf
Question - was this lawsuit against MoL the one that the Shamus filed in South Africa, or the one JustH filed? I remember in his racist letter against the British people and press - and yes, it is racist and lying by the weasel to call innocent people racist - the weasel Just H wrote he sues day and night. Or was that another rant? So many complaints, so few days to file court lawsuits incessantly.
After the Shamus wedding engagement interview, which I compare to the one where Diana was slinking down in a chair, with Charles upright and chirpy, except Meghan was the Charles, and Harry the background, I came across on YouTube the most valuable interview of all - a woman who reads body language, and she was so spot-on, almost seer-like in how she very carefully described what was really behind the words of the duo, and what their body language meant for their future. One great example - every time Meghan wade a pro Royal, or fitting in with the royals, Just H’s demeanor would stiffen, and his eyelids would blink very fast. When M would talk about Diana, he relaxed, and when M talked about change, Weasly Just H would spark. However, as the expert kept saying, it was M who was in charge, though of course, both were the usual “so in love” bs couple. The expert opined that JustH was looking for somebody who would take charge, even if he complained that M was constantly interrupting him. The body expert said both were sparked by doing their own thing, and making money.
Is this going to go to trial or is Warby going to produce another SJ?
He does not elaborate.
Also, he has given a SJ on breach of copyright but has set a trial date to determine if Meghan has sole copyright ownership, as she claims, or if the Crown actually has copyright ownership, or if Jason Knauf can claim joint copyright ownership as a co-author.
This is not a complete victory or a win on all counts for Meghan. The show is not over until the fat lady sings!
Gosh, she puts put a lot of garbage and people just drink the koolaid! The SJ is about breach of copyright and unauthorized use of private information. It has nothing to do with truth and factual reporting as Meghan claims. As she said on camera, she is 'such a fraud'.
US (as in both of us) magazine only prints junk, as in every actress is pregnant, the Duchess of Cambridge is expecting triplets, or Brad Pitt has secretly married Jennifer Aniston. The only celebrity magazine that contains any truth, as long as it is positive and great PR, is People magazine. It is an American magazine, and really has no care about non-Americans, unless it will sell in America. Diana was their favorite cover, and always sold out these issues, along with JFK, Jr., the latest Kennedy scandal, and M.. If the Windsor scandal, in which a king abdicated, not a sixth in line minor, unattractive and thick prince who would be nothing without his mother’s death, People magazine would have been publishing twice a week and Souvenier issues on then forever. Especially articles about Wallis’s clothes, comparing them to the Queen.
I believe this.
She’s playing her part in the NWO...the POW is also playing his part. The Windsors, along with the Rothschilds, Rockefeller’s, Vatican...they’re top tier.
The media coverage is misleading and the conclusions are false.
There will be a 'mini' trial to determine copyright ownership, and the 'Palace Four' have been called to make statements and testify. Warby does acknowledge privacy issues and NDAs (one now works for the Queen, one still works for the Cambridges; the other two have left), but a court ruling overrides that. The statement from their legal representative, which has been made public, indicates that they do have information to contribute.
_____________________
“None of our clients welcomes his or her potential involvement in this litigation, which has arisen purely as a result of the performance of his or her duties in their respective jobs at the material time. This is particularly the case, given the sensitivity of, and therefore discretion required in, their particular roles in the Royal Household. As you will appreciate, all our clients are bound by obligations of confidentiality to their former and/or
current employers.
Nor does any of our clients wish to take sides in the dispute between your respective clients. Our clients are all strictly neutral. They have no interest in assisting either party to the Proceedings. Their only interest is in ensuring a level playing field, insofar as any evidence they may be able to give is concerned.
We are, nonetheless, asked by our clients to make it clear to both parties and to the Court that they are willing to provide to the Court such assistance as they can. That would, if appropriate, include giving oral evidence at trial and/or providing to the parties any relevant documentary evidence.
On the basis of our analysis of the statements of case, our preliminary view is that one or more of our clients would be in a position to shed some light on the following issues:
* the creation of the Letter and the Electronic Draft;
• whether or not the claimant anticipated that the Letter might come into in the public domain;
• whether or not the claimant directly or indirectly provided private information (generally and in relation to the Letter
specifically) to the authors of Finding Freedom.”
_______________
Warby calls the MOS's claims that Meghan is not the sole copyright owner as she claims fanciful, unrealistic, and lacking reliable and substantial evidence. Nonetheless, he does allow a trial to proceed to determine the issue of copyright as I have stated above.
Meghan has won in that she has a succeeded in avoiding her '5 friends' being named and testifying, avoiding Scobie testifying, avoiding handing over her messages (no reprimand for her there for refusing to comply with a court order and then beng untruthful), avoiding more dirty laundry being aired, avoiding having to face her father.
That is her victory, not the nonsense she gave Scobie to make public (the delusion is strong with those two).
Now, how is she going to stop testimony from the 'Palace Four' and be granted full and sole copyright? She has to get out of this, but how?
The media is already spreading misinformation ...
Yes, she can claim to be famous here from the top of a mountain until the cows come home but it is untrue as is most of her PR. The only place that she could be considered famous (or perhaps infamous is the better word) would be the UK.
Meghan won the privacy and copyright claim. The only thing left is for Warby to determine if she's the sole owner or if Jason shares it with her. But Warby agrees that a copyright was breached. It is now left to him to award her alone the damages or whether Jason will claim damages with her as a co author. So I don't get what is misleading about it. It's a straight forward judgement. The next case will be to determine if she's the sole owner or not and not to determine if any copyright was breached. Warby already ruled on that.
Exactly. It says in paragraph one that E &J went home with a baby. New paragraph: the Harkles let them use Frogmore Cottage. The two statements are only connected by wisps of fantasy. That is why they used careful masking language structure to imply versus state. Who would pay for such a silly article? Hm.
@Martha,
Yes. But the oops in their new world is that the Lincoln Project is currently facing an ugly alleged scandal allegedly related to one of its cofounders’ alleged proclivities and some accuser(s). If she did tape something for them, they too have been Markled.
The Letter Case: Trial Denied ~ Is That Biased Justice?
At HarryMarkle blog-
Artemis has captured the Wigged-Out Wobbly Judge in charcoal or graphite. Perhaps Artemis can draw one of the Queen telephoning the Wobbly one.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/02/13/the-letter-case-trial-denied-is-that-biased-justice/
While I can't say with 100% certainty that the Lincoln Project ad is NOT Meghan, I listened to it when it first came out and thought it was more likely to be Alyssa Milano. She is a well-known actress to American audiences, vocally anti-Trump and has been very instrumental in the #MeToo movement. Because the ad was about how often Trump denigrated women in his comments and the effect that was having on young girls, it seemed something right up Alyssa's alley. Meghan's "empower women" activities pale in comparison to what Alyssa has done. In addition, I doubt M would have stayed silent if she had voiced the commercial. She would have found a way to leak that info by now!
Thanks — will go look. The LSA fonts offer such good information about MM, and this sounds fascinating. Will circle back.
Parliament! Well, this judgment has raised a lot of ire and distaste. Just finished reading the new Harry Markle..
1. Just noticed your new SpongeMeg the Legal Pitbull avatar,and burst out laughing. Bravo 👏
2. Read through the LSA posts by Cets Sens....her points are so well expressed, and make such good sense. Hearing her, a physician, say all this feels like a more solid confirmation that we are entitled to many of our doubts.
Not one mother I know personally who has observed the MM pregnancy progress thinks she carried a baby. First it was the jiggling shifting belly, then it was the impossible dog shelter squat. Clearly, we are not the only ones who see this (speaking to those here who also feel there was a surrogate, or no child).
Thank you for sharing her posts.
Now, is Eugenie going to sue ANL for invasion of privacy on personal matters? One would think a baby, his whereabouts and his schedule were far more private that a dopey contrived letter of nonsense! ;)
I’ve seen doctors opening mocking Meghan on Twitter. They all know she didn’t carry a baby.
That is a fascinating comment. My initial gut reaction is that I believe her, and that her statement helps me understand the vehemence of her Intensive blogging project.
Furthermore, the way she refers to her private knowledge, alluding to what she knows about the “motives of the key players” and “what some would gain or lose“ makes my imagination skitter in an odd direction. She does describe it as a kitchen sink drama, so the motivations she knows of may be cheap, tawdry, innocuous. But as I say, after reading her words, an odd thought popped into my head. My supposition is layered somewhere between what Martha said above (13 Feb at 7:49 pm) and a new wondering about how easily Charles accepted her, financed them, and covers for them, and who he privately reveres or answers too. In short, are we watching more than family drama about an idiot son who married who married a crass yachter.
Is it in fact a family split between those who would carry on a monarchy as is (say William, Edward, Queen and staff) and those prepared to sell it away for more riches and power roles, due to an insulated, inbred, low IQ belief (Charles, Harry) in the promises made to them by a higher worldly power?
The escapes, celeb circles, absurd deals to talentless grifters, mansions, jets and home, legal escapes, political arrogance, and the bold lies and expensive never-ending fountain of hate press from the Harkles...the mystery of Soho and Markus, Misha....all that cash and push and love just for a dim ginger second son? I think it is crazily possible the backers are dreadful, and their trade goals are enormous.
Hence the use of the distraction of the Harkles with the full support of soppy stupid Charles, whose dangerous fascinations and dreamy beliefs may have brought us here. Expose one, they all fall. So, calls are made in legal halls.
Meghan is seeking £5mm in damages? Lol, I said this earlier but she is going to be surprised that even her articles in the DM don’t make the sort of money she thinks she is worth on the market. Good riddance.
Wasn’t £5mm the funding Charles provided them for 2020?
I’m seeing a pattern here........
When we look at this case and the result and her history, this is the only thing that has remotely worked in her favor after throwing mud at every single possible wall in the pursuit of greed.
Papers barely covered her win. Meghan winning anything doesn’t sell. (She did that to herself by the way).
So, where are we left with Meghan Money (the new MM) tactics? What’s on the horizon?
Meghan in politics in the USA? The woman can’t back up anything she says and would be ripped to shreds. She’s not Melinda Gates. She doesn’t have Gates money or influence. I’m sure she wants political FuNdInG, but how can she stand on an anti-media platform (all she rants about) and expect to be taken seriously when everyone knows she’s a hypocrite. She can’t fight battles in the UK and expect to win political clout or awards in the US.
Sometimes I think she severely regrets marrying Harry. Sure is a lot of work she’s having to do to try to monetize him, and they Royal connection.
Who do we think she’d had rather married? Another Brit of course but who? Beckham? She tried Ashley Cole, which is pretty funny, and that golfer (which I find shocking- how desperate are these guys?)....
But yes I’m of the opinion she really regrets marrying Harry and has no clear way out of her situation.
It got me thinking though - and speculating. Whose downfall would yield the biggest prize for her? Who is most vulnerable? Whom does HM most need to protect?
Rache may not have had access to embarrassing RF `data', or witnessed anything they might not want in the public domain, but could she have compromised Charles in such a way that, should it come out, it would jeopardise his chance of Accession when the time comes?
Whether or not the allegations were true, half-true, or completely false? Has she ever been left alone with him?
As a fully-paid up member of Narcissists Not-So-Anonymous, she can be expected to harbour a grudge for the times that Charles has slighted her - chucking her out of KP and his Garden Party, for instance. Insults to a narc have to be avenged.
We've long suspected blackmail and have said we wouldn't put anything past her. There appears to be no level to which she'd not sink.
Making Charles unacceptable to the People wouldn't get rid of William though. He is also in her firing line, for his rank, for ignoring her and for being married to Catherine. Ae we justified in assuming Rache is that vindictive and ruthless? We do believe that she manufactured the rumours about William and Rose after all.
What else might she have engineered? I'm not making allegations, just speculating and following another line of thought, down yet another sinister rabbit hole. Sometimes one has to think the unthinkable.
Are you saying Meghan may have slept with Charles? And she’s holding this over him forever?
Why does that sound likely. He seemed to be super into her; and he’s not one to turn down affairs...
I'm not implying anything specific, just narcs in general can twist the most innocent interaction, even a casual remark, into something nasty, with added lies, to make someone else look bad.
I've just done a `risk-assessment' and stated what we know about narcs in general and her in particular. I offer it as food for thought - any specific notions are best left unsaid.
Diana planted the seed of Charles not being up to the top job in That Interview and I've read it was the main reason Charles was told to divorce her. Di did quite a hatchet job, in public, on Charles - at the time I was appalled at the thought of the effect on W & H.
/Not that I have anything against our alien Reptilian overlords.
When I was 14, I was assaulted by a 50+yr old man, a trusted associate of my father. My parents had just gone out of the room to get their coats (they were going out with this chap and his wife). It only took seconds for him to grab me & kiss me savagely on the mouth. He then walked out without saying anything.
I had the rest of the evening to decide what to do about this very unpleasant attack. Who would my parents believe? The perpetrator could say I was making it up and it would be my word against his.
I resolved to say nothing but decided to keep my distance in future. I’m still sure it was the best decision.
Rache is capable of making anything up. We know who we’d believe but would others agree?
She said that she knew the man, personally (I think her exact words were I know the character or something like that) and he would find the role too personally restrictive.
There is a huge difference between what she actually said and what gets repeated on many forums as what people claim she said.
Meghan uses others to plant the rumours for her, and then plays innocence.
As you said, she probably had a part to play in starting the Rose/William rumour during that weekend in Soho House in Amsterdam.
A 'friend' contacted Lady C when she was writing her book and implied that Thomas had abused Meghan.
Meghan, with much outrage, desparaged FF and denied any involvement at all from her and Harry, then admitted that she had fed Scobie information via a 'friend', MOS found out that the Sussexes got Latham to fact check FF, and she uses Scobie as her mouthpiece (but no name or letterhead on the 'press release' she gave him about her court case).
I doubt that she has any kind of dirt on Charles in any form at all and she would have spent very little time with Harry's family, in public or privately, but I can believe she would use a 'friend' to start and spread an ugly rumour.
As they used to say on LSA, and as SwampWoman has discussed, that woman is batsh*t crazy!
He doesn’t do any work. He exploits a popular influencer for his own gain (and his families gain). He never commits to anything. He hires everyone to demo any work. He then manipulates constantly. He makes sure to speak out both sides of his mouth, so if something goes wrong he can’t take the heat for it (zero accountability). Has no desire to learn. Has limited capacity. But is great at exploiting everyone around him.
The amount of times I have compared his actions to Meghan Markle is astounding. When you come across these characters in the wild two things come to mind -) how short sighted they are even when they seem strategic b) their massive delusional sense of entitlement
It’s hard for them to find really smart critical thinkers that will stick around.
If you read the judgment from Warby, he simply applied the law in a fair and thorough way. MOS did breach copyright n a huge way, despite them and Thomas having other options. Privacy is your right - others do not have the right to breach your privacy, and the case for a public interest defence was not a strong one, as it was not in the case with Charles.
I can understand that the notion that the Queen stepped in is an attractive and popular one, but it is just not true.
The trial has not been stopped, for the ownership of copyright part, and the 'Palace Four' probably have kept correspondence from Meghan, so they have evidence that Meghan will want to remain hidden. If you read their statement, they do have some valuable and interesting information. Meghan will be desparate to stop this, so all the rumours and reports (the Palace wants to stop the trial, the Four don't want to testify ...) are from Meghan.
The data protection aspect has not been dealt with and we do not know yet if Warby will let a trial go ahead for that aspect.
This belief that the Queen stopped the trial has no basis in reality, and is not supported by the facts, but it is a fun fiction to play with.
Then why was Warby promoted at the last minute?
Besides that, I’ve read the palace 4 have nothing to do with Copyright- it’s just Jason proving and claiming ownership to the proceeds/damages. There won’t be a trial for that. I’d highly doubt so at least.
If there was a trial, and everyone is involved, won’t there be things exposed that prove she breached her own privacy?
This case would have never moved forward in the US, where the daily mail also publishes Meghan articles.
If it is decided that Meghan is not sole copyright owner, the potential damages she can claim are greatly reduced. The whole point of copyright law is that no one else has the right to profit from your creative work without your consent/in agreement with you. As much as Meghan could try to get a huge payout for this part of the case, if Jason is recognized as a co-author, it very much dilutes any claims she may make.
If she drops the data protection aspect, she cannot claim damages on that count. I would love to know what the hold up is about that.
How do you quantify her privacy? By the nature of their role, working royals do come under a lot of scrutiny because they represent the UK and are financially greatly privileged because of the position. I think Meghan will put up a big fight for a huge pay put because of pain and suffering and if I was the MOS, I would put up a strong case that it was mostly self inflicted (and sneak in that she used the letter as a PR exercise, as she did FF!) and she had a lot of support because of her role (staff, security, wealth ...) and that must be taken into consideration.
When the Cambridges sued for invasion of privacy, and settled, pain and suffering was not the issue. The law had been broken, clearly, and the damages paid were high but within the guidelines (and saved the cost of a trial) and they were paid to a beneficiary, not the Cambridges. She may not get a big payout without going through testimony and evidence?
As for what Diana said, consider the subtle but very real difference between statements:
He is not suitable for the job./He is not the right fit for the job.
The job is not suitable for him./The job is not the right fit for him.
Perhaps people do not realize that by changing the subject of the statement, you change the emphasis and thus the meaning and the impression it has.
"I found that remark very strange. A woman KNOWS her due date, you are always counting down to it. No one would be casual about a baby being born 5 weeks early, that would be a NICU baby. I understand if she didn't want to reveal her exact due date, but it was a weird comment to me."
I agree. I also thought her comment on the Sandringham Christmas walk in response to a well-wisher's question about her due date was very odd. She said something like "we're almost there!" In December. When we were later told her due date was in late April. Almost there in December?
And then in early Feb Harry said something like "there's a big baby in there." A baby that was only slightly over 7 lbs when born 3 months later. I suppose it's possible Harry was clueless about fetal growth. Or the baby's growth magically slowed down just as he had magically grown overnight while on the Australia tour.
Thank you for posting the Camilla Long op-ed. Well-written as always, and I agree with her.
@jessica,
Agreed!
@jessica, WBBM, JennS,
Okay. The “secrets” I know of came from first hand accounts from someone who was present via gov post when PP went on a couple of diplomatic or ceremonial trips to Jamaica and another trip to the Med. I am not sure how shocking they would be today to informed people, but, the BRF grey men would certainly keep and have kept this information buried. A second first hand account some years later from another party confirmed the validity of the first stories to me. If H knew, and I think he might, it might be some leverage for silence money.
However, I don’t think that is the crux of the matter. London is the enormous banking center of the world. UK has finite valuable land mass in addition to treasures. The sort of heart-spun moral (using this term as OR vs fact) gatekeepers in front of all that wealth, in front of crass pillagers has been the tea time corgi romping tweedy royal family with roses and rosy cheeks Image of the BRF. Remove them, remove the last vestiges of “our England”, and you will see a vicious pm ruthless battleground for land and wealth and control the likes of which you have never seen. I posted once months ago about the conversations of a few very rich foreign hedge funders I met through a friend. You have no idea how many are standing outside the harbors and looking at the UK as the last elk to hunt. You have no idea.
Destroy the RF via scandal, legal cases, humiliation and you achieve a Republican. The hunters can then move in. Charles, softheaded, May think the hunters are being truthful when they say they merely want to start an elk habitat.
OR = other reality
pm= post mortem
Plus, an iPad word blip: Republican = Republic
"He is not suitable for the job./He is not the right fit for the job."
and
"The job is not suitable for him./The job is not the right fit for him."
Sorry Sandie, I beg to differ.
I'm pretty sure that if either were written in a job reference, the candidate's chances would be trashed. The subtle difference is that the first is straightforward and, if true, damningly honest. The second is just as damning but dressed up as loving concern for the candidate, written in hope of avoiding legal action.
Both are saying `Don't employ this person' and are likely to be written if it's a previous boss who is providing the reference. A current one wishing to be shot of an inadequate employee will express effusive praise.
I agree with you.
Transcript: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html
Quote:
BASHIR: But you would know him better than most people. Do you think he would wish to be King?
DIANA: There was always conflict on that subject with him when we discussed it, and I understood that conflict, because it's a very demanding role, being Prince of Wales, but it's an equally more demanding role being King.
And being Prince of Wales produces more freedom now, and being King would be a little bit more suffocating. And because I know the character I would think that the top job, as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him, and I don't know whether he could adapt to that.
Btw, I assume you've read Robert Harris's `The Ghost'?
Do you think Archie used his eco-friendly junior loom to weave Mummy a pink cashmere throw for her office chair?
Did the grateful citizens of Montecito strew rose petals in the road in front of the royal gatehouse?
Will they feast on Harry’s roast chicken? With a bottle of wine made from the magic vineyard they planted and harvested in four months?
Will Markus and Doria finally announce they “found each other” in nanny lockdown and are now the romantic new It Couple? Awww!
Stay tuned! Though I am a but weepy that there was no romantic Harkles Get Hotter Valentine podcast for us to sigh over today. (Surprising miss for the Hallmark Daters Handbook Queen!)
Someone asks about her due date I believe, and she waves her hands around, saying she has a friend whose baby came 5 weeks early, you never know, whenever the baby comes they'll be happy, etc...
I found that remark very strange. A woman KNOWS her due date, you are always counting down to it.
__________________
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but I was never given a due date and have no idea what it was supposed to be. This, despite knowing the exact date I conceived (as it happened in the doctor's office). All I know is that my son was born on August 22 by emergency C-section and that he was "about three weeks early."
Oh my yes! Roman à clef gold.
I need to reread it! I always remember there was some reviewer who, when it came out, pooh-poohed it as silly or impossible then added something like “but it would explain everything.” Do you remember that? Like a little clue, almost. Poor Cherie!
My theory in life is basically, if you can think of it, it can happen, because I have seen and heard and experienced too much at this point.
Excellent point.
And, perhaps another reason thatvallowances in Coutts Cheques might be paid to some for silence?
I can understand that the notion that the Queen stepped in is an attractive and popular one, but it is just not true.
*
Do tell...
How do you know "it is just not true?" Or are you stating your opinion?
I'm curious.
Does it cover what Thomas does with the letter? Is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect him not to show it somebody else?
Happy Valentines day to our foremost Nutty blog content generators:
Harry-Meghan --- May they stay in love and rancor forever. Rancor with our amazing British Royals, be they organic Global Resetters (Charles) or not. Best of Valentines Days to the younger set, the non-cynical Royals.
Princess Beatrice with the dashing Edoardo
Princess Eugenie with Jack Brooksbank
As always, God save the Queen and many more years for Prince Philip, the iron man!
Valentines Day has interesting pagan origins you can find out on the WWW/
How very true. I should have that done in pokerwork and hang it above my desk. Sometimes I terrify myself with where the line drawn between a few points can lead.
In fact, I'd already `read' the plot of `Ghost' into the motivation of that previous administration - as I said to meself when cudgelling my brains about the `Open Door' policy `It's almost as if...'
Could the present predicament be a response to the change in UK's relationship with the EU?
These rules for navigating the vicissitudes of life would capture her wealth of experience and knowledge of just about every social and humanitarian issue that exists; a knowledge that could only her garnered and honed by her desperate struggle for survival to overcome a middle class upbringing in America, private schools, funded university education, foreign holidays, bit parts in television shows and trying on shoes and dresses for her blog (some of which may have been too tight or too loose – think of the agonies).
Who among us would not want to pay to be lectured, judged, and be praised as ‘inspirational’ by this paragon of virtue and font of wisdom?
Only now that sainthood has been confirmed can we fully appreciate how the African ‘problems’ pale into insignificance when compared to her own (deeply private and personal) torments.
I now know we were wrong not to ask: ‘Are you OK?’
Mea Culpa. I have much to learn
When will she start organising barefoot pilgrimages to Soho House? Followed by a peregrination of Frog Cott on our knees?
When will we, grovelling sinners that we are, be allowed to stop flagellating ourselves?
How much???, to light a candle before her shrine? For her to grant us a dispensation for the mortal error of not believing her? When will she redeem us from the flames of the Hell she has created for us?
Guesses - 1. Prince Phillip has illegitimate children from years ago. Yawn, he is 99, it would be a story for a day. Albert of Monaco has at least three. 2. The Queen had affairs. Again, she is 95. Most people would spend two days talking about it -straight-laced Lilibet had an affair? You go, girl! 3. Charles - what else can be said of him? That he is a hypocritical environmentalist? Shut up! 4. William and Kate - that one of them had an affair? Not them! That the Duchess of Cambridge was not a virgin when she married? Or had a boyfriend before William? Boring. 4. Andrew really did have sex with a seventeen-year old? And tho yucky, not a crime? Most women were teenagers when they first married, like both my grandmothers, to men older than they were. 5. Money embezzlement - the Crown can recite in their respective sleep that how dare anybody question them - the Queen, if this trash is true, was misled by nefarious financial aides, whose names remain secret, as not to ruin their family’s good names. 6. Harry is not really a son of Charles - no, that is a proven lie, he looks like a homely version of his Grandfather Philip. And finally 7. Archie is the big cover-up. And this is true. Everything about him does not make sense.
Could this have been the idea all along?
Poor kid.
Due date September
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a34587184/meghan-markle-prince-harry-expecting-second-child/
In my opinion, yes, if you scoop a few more countries into the bowl.
Someone, check and a see if Princess Diana Baby Togs has been registered in Delaware yet? Diana Diapers? Awww.
I saw the photo and (the snarky) thought: well keeps the bump from swaying from left to right when walking.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Of course they are...
She waited until she won her case and to upstage Eugenie and Jack.
What a ____. You fill in the blank.
Having a mother with narcissistic personality disorder is just horrible for the child, they often end up as adults with PTSD from the emotional abuse they endured during childhood and continue to be subject to as adults unless they cut all ties with narc mother (or narc father, but I think a narc for a mother is worse than a narc father).
I hope it’s another boy. If it’s a girl, Archie won’t exist to Meghan. All her attention will go to the girl because a girl is easier to merch and easier for Meghan to mold into a “mini-me” for Meghan to project herself onto.
Though announcing on Valentines day is very calculated of her--I mean everything she does is. Also copying the shot from Notting Hill, a movie about one of the most famous actresses in the world falling in love with a Brit. Come on!
Doesn't she look further than 2 months pregnant in the picture?
After a recent miscarriage isn't it a little early to announce a
pregnancy @ only 2 months?
I thought it was after 12 weeks the safest time to announce?
Valentine's Day and Eugenies pregnancy may have been the trigger?
Strange that there was no announcement of a pregnancy prior to the miscarriage last year?
Here's the Hugh Grant Julia Roberts pregnancy pose in the Notting Hill film. Identical.
Mu9https://images.app.goo.gl/5gbg8XKhFhWWUF
Meghan apparently likes to use coats to announce her pregnancies.
Yes, this will be a long ass year--agreed! I wonder if this pregnancy will last longer than the last one?
Will we be bombarded with every little detail about the pregnancy (whereas, we heard relatively little about the last one, amazingly)...oh, yes!
My only hope that Bea or Catherine announce a pregnancy.
(or narc father, but I think a narc for a mother is worse than a narc father)
*
Eee God and she's a Leo to boot. No offense to anyone here who is a Leo, but *narc Leo women make the worst mothers...!
Poor kids.
I actually think they were meant to be a giant pain-in-the-bum distraction, yes.
And so someone “hired” (buzzing in ear, here’s some cash, pal) a low-IQ shiftless prince for the fame factor needed, plus an uncontrollable narcissistic lunatic for the creation of endless hellscape fireworks. All they have to do is keep doing any awful brainless Insensitive thing that pops into their pointy heads, supported by fake entertainment contracts and connected backers.
@Sylvia--September due date? She's got to be wearing padding in the photo or is pregnant with multiples. And wouldn't a Sept date mean it's early to announce?
@ lizzie and Sylvia: I that’s a real bump, that baby isn’t due in September. I’d say she is about five months along and the baby will come in May-ish. Possibly June.
Nobody in their right mind announces a pregnancy when they are pushing 40 years old right after an alleged miscarriage only months before.
Oh wait. I wrote. “in their right mind.” We all know she is bat guano crazy. Please disregard that phrase.
would that push Harry, and Archie Doll and Diana Gel Bump further down the list?
Asking for a friend.
Yes, my 1st guess based on the photo would have been about 5 months. But that's nowhere near a Sept. date. Where did you see that due date? And yes, it would be odd to announce so early even if she'd not made a big deal of having a miscarriage. If Sept is correct, that means she wasn't pregnant when she got the court extension. Maybe said she was getting hormone treatment for IVF?
Or is it?
I have to hand it to her. This is a great time to be fake pregnant. No one will expect her to be out and about, so there will be no compromising photos for us to study this time around. But she can still claim that she is being stalked by paparazzi, that Archie is terrified, that H now has PTSD . . . The possibilities are endless!
Someone on Royalblr has pointed out that Meghan chose to announce on this day because Prince Charles and Diana announced that she was pregnant with Prince Harry on St. Valentine's Day 1984. Perhaps it's going to be a girl this time.
I have read rumors that the Cambridges are trying for a fourth baby. Perhaps William and Kate can return the favor by announcing they are expecting a fourth child on the day Meghan has this child in the swimming pool in Montecito, if indeed she is actually pregnant.
I Saw the due date on Skippy Tumblr?
Tried to verify just now ..
I now can't find due date elsewhere?
May have been a guess?
She is maybe due earlier ?
I'm so sorry to read of your assault by an older man. I'm also sorry that you were afraid that you wouldn't be believed by your parents. What a horrible feeling.
When I was very young and selling Girl Scout cookies door-to-door, as was done in those days, I remember being at the dinner table with my parents and telling them about a strange man who kept trying to get me to come into his house while he got the cash for the cookies he had just ordered. I told him that I would wait outside. He kept insisting that I come into his house, and I kept saying no.
I told my parents that I got a strange feeling from him, in child parlance, of course. My father asked me what house this man was in, and I told him. Dad, cool as a cucumber, got right up from the dinner table, walked out the front door and we could see him walking toward the man's house. Dad had a "talk" with the man about goading children into his house, and that was that. There was never any question that my parents wouldn't believe me, and from then on, I knew I could go to them, and that they would believe me.
**************************************
I'm still reeling from Warby's ruling and following along with everybody's take on it. I believe that the BRF was behind it, too. They fear that too much private information would come out in a trial. It doesn't have to be nefarious deeds done by the BRF, but merely a question of privacy. Again, I'm going offer to my father's wisdom, both as a father and as an attorney. His two major pieces of advice:
1. Do everything possible to keep your name out of the papers. It rarely ends well.
2. Never put down on paper that which you don't want the world to see. This is why I've never kept a diary or journal.
I had a look at the Express, they're sycophants and their headline says:
"Royal fans ERUPT in delight at Meghan Markle pregnancy news – ‘So happy!’"
Pur-lease! The news is vomit inducing as it is, as is the b&w photo. The question is, who is carrying the child this time?
There is no hope of escape for Harry now, he's doomed.
Sorry for sounding so negative.
Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
BREAKING: Harry & Meghan have announced they’re pregnant and released this cheesy photo of themselves to ensure the media gives the story about their private life more prominence - in their latest courageous effort to stop the same media focusing on their private life
Just wanted to say that Markle does not take the limelight away from anyone in the BRF. Markle is not interesting, she doesn't really do anything, she's not a style icon, not a great actress, etc. She's mostly known for pulling Harry away from his Royal life, and away from his family. People simply don't understand it. Markle is paying her PR people to place items in publications, such as People.
It is a puzzle why Markle is having another child. She's not maternal; she appears to not have any relationship with "Archie."
Just having "Archie" is enough to guarantee her a payout for the next 16 years. Ah. Maybe this new kid will extend her child support payments to the next 20 years. That would put Markle at 60 years old.
Personally I find Eugenie and her husband Jack attractive, and genuine. They really seem happy, and without guile.
Omid Scobie
@scobie
·
39m
A touching tribute announcing for the Sussexes to announce their exciting news on #ValentinesDay
It was exactly 37 years ago that Princess Diana shared with the world that she was pregnant with
Prince Harry
I believe they are once again stretching the truth with regards to this "pregnancy"
What utter bulls**t
As a royal photo, however . . . What is Harry's bare foot doing front and center that way?
No need to produce a body.
No more cover-up.
And now she starts over with a new golden goose.
HIKARI where are you?
We need you!!!!
“....she was pregnant with Prince Harry, her only child.”
*****
@JennS,
Super cheese ball photography. As someone pointed out, it is meant to resemble the Julia Roberts final scene in Notting Hill. You know, though, since Megs is a top Hollywood star at Julia’s level of fame, also trying hard to escape all her Oscars and megawatt stardom, to live a simple life. And Harry is just like the nervous British nerd schlub who freed her from the red carpet and huge leading lady roles.
Honestly, if I was in the royal family today, I would be laughing my head off at what an absolute drip Harry is to marry such a tacky lunatic.
Megs thinks she is having the best week ever. She fooled a judge and “won” her case, and got to step on Eugenie’s baby homecoming while trying to stick a finger in the eye of the RF: “look, I am going to have Diana 2 and merch the piss out of her!”
But seeing this, the public says, “So if you are a pregnant rich woman, a weak social climbing UK judge will go gaga-eyed and kiss your bump and award you a victory and refuse to hear the evidence of the other side? Can I expect a million pound victory if I get pregnant? And by the way, where is Archie? Why doesn’t he know you? And, let’s watch this fake bump carefully because last time it’s the jiggly shifty changing sizes and no bump in NYC, it was hilarious. And since this is a 6 month bump, you got pregnant immediately after a miscarriage? Just asking. And, why are you having more kids when you are still living off parents and taxpayers and producing nothing for Netflix?”
Sugars are squealing in their caravans.
People with critical thinking skills see the giggling barefoot prince as one more limousine hippie.
Come on, palace, get that DNA. You can do it.
Will the Warby decision make the tabs hesitant to do due diligence on this situation? I was ok with the decision because privacy is privacy, but after reading some of the pushback from journalists, it does seem as though Warby preferred protecting the privacy of the 'great & good' over freedom of the press & free speech. I felt Warby would need a strong point of law for whatever he decided, & the MOS didn't provide one re: freedom of the press. Perhaps there wasn't one in British jurisprudence for a case like this. I was surprised that he seemed to tolerate so much back tracking & u-turning in arguments, & things like 'deleting' emails, although Hillary Clinton did the same thing in one of her investigations.
If the BRF was relieved by the Warby decision, it looks like they've been blindsided once again by the Harkles. BP hasn't said a thing yet about a pregnancy. They must feel as though they're playing Whack-a-Mole.
Funny comment from the DM article about the pregnancy announcement...with a zinger element of truth.
Easterly, Chicago, Illinois
I find it hugely ironic that Meghan is lying on her back. Good title for her life story.
Or, they need a live baby to show to David Foster and McPhee ASAP because it is he found it weird he never saw Archie in all this time, and as of November he distanced himself from his “son” Harry and Harry’s dreadful bride. They need something moving for those post lockdown Hollywood play dates! Yes, Archie will be swept out to sea soon during his baby surfing lesson, so sad.
What will a little girl who looks like Markus and Messica look like? I understand Messica and Mr Mulroney could use a cash infusion?
To echo you:
***WHERE IS HIKARI? Lent doesn’t begun until later this week! Put down the chocolate and the steak kabobs and get back here!***
.
Ha! That comment from Chicago is fabulous! 🤣
1.
By the way, what the fresh hell is going on with her hair in that photo?
2.
From my friend in San Fran, yoga instructor, mother of three: “She has a 6 month belly and preteen boobs.”
“Archie is going to be a big brother! But we didn’t include him in the photo because he is with his mom Tina in Essex.”
@ AnT said...
One more hoot from my SF friend:
“Archie is going to be a big brother! But we didn’t include him in the photo because he is with his mom Tina in Essex 🤣
Love your posts ..
Interesting timeline ..
October 28, 2020 she requests to delay trial until fall of 2021
Her miscarriage essay was published on Nov 25th - 4 months after the July miscarriage and 2 months 20 days before today’s pregnancy announcement.
I know all women carry pregnancies differently but with my 5th child I did not have a noticeable baby bump until the 4th month (5'4" & 127 lbs the day I found out I was pregnant so the bump was not hidden by body fat)
MM’s baby bump definitely looks at minimum 4 months - definitely more than 3 months since the essay was published but sized just right for finding out she was pregnant in October.
If the delay for her court case was requested because of pregnancy then the miscarriage essay was published when she knew she was pregnant…
to do SS bidding and suck up fast
have posted a statement
saying “Both Prince Charles and Princess Diana are delighted by the news.....”
😳😂🤣
Ithink the September due date that I posted (seen in tumblr bog) was a guess?
In Meghan’s mind:
“Second baby, oh gee, Harry YOU are a second baby! Let’s be just like your dead Mummy, Harry. The announcement she was pregnant with you was made on Valentine’s Day, so let’s announce our second baby on Valentine’s Day. Isn’t that clever? Creepy, but clever!”
And who cares if the spotlight should be on Eugenie, Jack, and their kid. Nobody, that’s who. We are HRH Duke and HRH Duchess and we are far more important! Their wedding was made much better by my coat flicking.”
“You were born in September, so let’s say this baby is also due in September, even though in the photo that we’re going to release that copies the Julia Roberts - Hugh Grant photo from the Notting Hill movie, I look like I am at least five months preggers. Won’t that be so much like your Mummy, who, by the way, is STILL dead?”
No, you are wrong. Remember, Meghan is a holy star seed exalted Madonna from the planet next to Tom Cruise’s.
Her pregnancies take twelve months as the alien being within her restlessly rolls, deflated and expands powerfully as its genius-size brain fights to suck energy from the universe, then speeds through quantum levels of existence. The child will be born immobile and stiff with natural politeness, then grow to the size of a stocky nine-year-old from Kansas by the time is it six months old.
All we can do is bow our heads and burn sage,
Where does that cheesy photo with the ginormous belly leave her privacy? Are any bookies taking bets on whether it's genuine or not?
She set the whole thing up. First was the miscarriage announcement, and then POOF, Warby rules in her favor. Then she announces a pregnancy (which Warby already knew about). Little Flower, MM, is just too fragile to travel. Warby was played, and he fell for it.
Pregnancy is not an illness, and plenty of women, including women judges, work up to the last week of pregnancy, sometimes to the date of birth. A court case takes no physical activity, but MM had planted the seed of miscarriage. Warby didn't want to be responsible for a possible miscarriage in court.
That, on top of possible interference by the BRF, created the perfect excuse stop the proceedings.
None of this is verified. Her miscarriage, her inability to attend court proceedings, the new pregnancy. None of these have been verified. Did Warby just take MM's word for all of this? He knows that she has lied to the court, refused to turn over her phone (defying a court order), and still, he accepts her word as truth?
"Perverting the course of justice is a charge dealt with in a Crown Court and commonly results in a prison sentence. Lying under oath in a court of law, or making a false statement after taking the oath – perjury – is an offence under the Perjury Act 1911.
Perjury | Duncan Lewis | Duncan Lewis - Duncan Lewis Solicitorshttps://www.duncanlewis.co.uk › Perjury"
What happens if you don't comply with a court order UK?
A court order is legally binding. Failure to comply with the court order amounts to contempt of court and a person can, as a last resort, be committed to prison for contempt. Apr 30, 2020
Contact - Child Law Advicehttps://childlawadvice.org.uk
And Warby just ignored these two crimes by MM?
So, Mr AnT says:
“That’s a burrito lunch with four beers, then she passed out on Oprah’s lawn. And put your damn shoes on, pal, and get a job.”
An Act needs to be passed PDQ obliging each and any birth to a wife of a descendant of the monarch to have the birth witnessed properly. It should also take place on British soil, even if an American labour ward has to be temporarily British territory, as happened for the Dutch Crown Princess in Canada during the war.
That, as my old Dad would have said, would stop her smoking in church.
-Harry's big bare hippie feet front and center. Means - "We are so happy, we don't have a care in the world despite the BRF meanies"
-B&W photo - How hip and happening is this!
-The cornrows to check the race box
-Photo taken outdoors to display their garden. "We are rolling in the dough outside our 12 million dollar mansion." "Go hate us. We know how jealous you are"
-Huge bump or whatever. To make sure you know that Megs is an insta-major-pregs fertility goddess.
-Harry has an insta- full head of hair
I actually think it is a fake bump, to provide some photo evidence to the gullible drooling Warby that she was indeed dangerously pregnant and deserved to win, even though she is shown rolling on sone grass laughing with a giggling Harry of Hobbyland, County of Blow.
This way, Warbelly-Warb-Warb will go easy on her and give her lots and lots of cash damages for Baby. She promises to thank him in person in his office one day.
This way, Charles raises their allowance for extra care from Doria, who was once a top international doctor in 1990.
This way, the Queen lets the Young Parents keep their titles.
This way, she can also bomb-wreck our Valentine’s Day, piss once more on Eugenie, and get press for something since she doesn’t work or produce anything of interest. Plus lots of minor celebs are announcing pregnancies and births, so she needs that starlet oxygen.
But alas, there will be another baby loss, resulting in a book of loss poems, a documentary with Oprah, and a new $28 “grief latte” too.
Of course, we know she’d do things like this, but let’s be honest it really is shocking and utterly distasteful.
How is Megs going to fulfill her contracts???
😃👏👏👏👏👏
My father would have tackled any bloke accosting me in public – when I was 12, out walking the dog in the field at the back of our house, an unsavoury-looking character blocked my path. I escaped over a fallen tree that bridged a stream in a deep gully. He yelled at me to come back but didn't risk the `bridge' - dog & I kept running.
When I told my parents, Dad set off, still in his rubber boots carrying the garden fork. Goodness knows what he’d have done had he caught his quarry.
I suspected that my parents imagined that only strangers would interfere with a child, not that a friend & colleague would do it in our sitting room in a 30-second opportunity.
Dad would have had to have chosen between believing me, resulting in untold repercussions at work, and taking the easier course and assuming I was lying. Things were different in many ways 60-odd years ago.
Um, fulfill what why? This is Megs. She does the minimum and moves on.
If Netflix screams, she will swing her bump and sue them for misogyny,
Otherwise, Harry is writing this movie about a pretty woman who is down on her luck and moves in with a rich guy for money then the rich guy falls for her. It takes place in a hotel.
Yes, Archie will be swept out to sea soon during his baby surfing lesson, so sad.
.............
ROTFLOL!!
🏄♂️🏄♂️🏄♂️
And Hot💋Rob Lowe is the only one to witness it!
Three days later Archificial is spotted many miles out at sea as his vinyl body calmly floats on the swells with a seagull perched on his head.
Non - Verbal Diaria
She’s determined to stick with her
red hairy lump
Producing once more
an inconceivable bump
A mix of Diana and Doria
A long flicking year
Of cupping I fear
Will end with a daughter, knowns as Diaria
I am laughing so hard at your comment I now have hiccups!!! “....as his vinyl body calmly floats....”. Aggghhhhhahhhhahaha! 🤣 oh my god.
You guys are too funny. Sorry, I mean girls. Don’t sue me.
Congratulations to all the predictors of Meghan being ‘preggo’. Is she going to merch mini MM. I’m positive it’s a girl.
I already laughed myself sick and now you are killing me again! Her red hairy lump! Diaria. Oh god help me. 😂