Nutty Flavor Blog

 Let's try this again...

 Did you catch Max Foster's excellent video segment about the Sussexes on CNN? As @Royal Reporter Richard Palmer of the Daily Express wrote, "It's a break with much US television reporting on the subject."  It certainly was.  It used clips from the notorious Oprah interview beside basic fact-checking on Meghan's statements that she didn't know much about the Royal Family before her marriage, comparing them with quotes from her childhood friends about how she was fascinated by Princess Diana. It paralleled Meg's complaint that she wasn't allowed to use her "voice" with video showing her speaking out about a number of issues during her time with the family.. It fact-checked her assertion that she married Prince Harry three days before their televised wedding, by showing the actual marriage certificate.  Did you see it? Max Foster  showed the actual 1917 letters patent from King George V to explain why Archie, a great-grandson of the monarch, w

 Fresh post to continue the conversation.

If you fear that anything you say privately may be revealed publicly, you cannot express yourself freely. You can't play with ideas, you can't think aloud, you cannot debate and discuss. You can only repeat concepts that have been approved by the authorities. Your mind is in prison.  When there is no distinction between public and private conversation, you can trust no one. Not even your family. Which brings us to the Sussexes.  Taking a private conversation public During Harry and Meghan's notorious broadcast last week, the couple gave contradictory statements about an unnamed family member who had - in a private conversation - expressed "concern" about the Sussex child's skin color.  Putting aside the fact that most families speculate about what an unborn child might look like, the revelation that someone had been "concerned" took what had been a private family conversation into the public sphere, where it was never intended to be. Was it (supposed

Fresh post to continue discussing the Sussexes...

 Let's continue to discuss...

 Good morning! It's a work day here and I haven't been able to delve deeply into the Sussex interview with Oprah last night, but here are a few quick thoughts: If we're allowed to have Halloween celebrations this year, lots of couples are going to go dressed as Harry and Meghan.  Beaten-down redhead in a wrinkled grey suit, crying pregnant (?) woman with heavily-applied eyeliner and a black dress - it's an easy costume that anyone can manage. Talking about how a baby will look as a balance between its parents is a pretty common thing. Speculating on the baby's skin color when you have one biracial parent is also not an unusual thing. (I'm sure there was also some discussion about whether or not the baby would be a redhead.)  Anyway, the ladies at Lipstick Alley spent a lot of time trying to figure out how "Black" the baby would be.  Apparently so did Prince Philip. It's easy to imagine him saying something stupid about it. He's 99 years old. It

Let's continue the discussion.

 Just a few weeks ago, the Sussex saga was a bit dull. Over the past week, of course, it's exploded. First there was Harry's ridiculous bus-top interview with James Corden , in which he hopelessly flubbed his scripted lines and flopped his arms about like a man who is accustomed to not being taken seriously. Of course, stopping at the exterior location home of a long-dead sitcom and then asking, on camera, to use the bathroom is an indication of a man who should not be taken seriously.  It's a good thing the protocol-loving Queen Mother isn't around to see the Corden show. She might have asked for her inheritance back.  Rushing through his dialogue Then there was a quick clip from Oprah's upcoming interview with the Sussexes . Meg is shown sitting silent, plastic-faced, in an unflattering dress, looking somewhat like a showroom dummy of herself.  Harry, meanwhile, is babbling on again like a man who is accustomed to not being listened to, as he again draws parallel