Let's continue to discuss...
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
An insider with close ties to Meghan tells DailyMail.com exclusively, ’[Meghan] said she has absolutely no regrets about what was said during the interview and that speaking with Oprah was both cathartic and transformative - the best decision she ever made, other than marrying Harry.
‘Meghan said the Royal institution should be relieved that she didn’t name names or go into even more details of what went on behind closed doors. She said she stands by her truth and that ultimately everyone involved wins because it’s now all out in the open and from there the healing can begin.’
'Meghan said waiting to share her story with the entire world seemed like an eternity and that she couldn’t happier with the end result.'Meghan said in order to preserve her well-being, especially now that she’s pregnant, she will not expose herself to any toxic news stemming from the interview. She said she’s moved on, but is open to communicating with anyone from the Royal family who wants to engage in a constructive conversation.'Meghan credits her mom and Princess Diana for giving them (Meghan and Harry) the strength and courage to come forward and tell it like it is. She said it was especially nerve-wracking for Harry to show his vulnerability, and that she’s incredibly proud of him.'She added title or no title, Harry will always be her prince.'
Facts about who gets protection in the BRF and how much.
The horse has bolted in America, but the focus seems to be on reminding the British public of the truth, day by day.
Harry and Meghan should never have had full-time protection.
Isn't Janina a proven liar?
Note the threat about 'many texts and e-mails'.
Humanitarian and environmental work?
Meghan thinks she has won the war. Big mistake!
When asked by her enabler Oprah if had regrets she said that she regretted believing them when they said they will protect her!!! As if she needed protection! From what may I ask???
Any decent humble human being would have said that they regretted not having done their due diligence researching and understanding what she was signing up for. But Megalo is never wrong is she??
Good point. It reminds me of this:
Q How do you know she is lying?
A Her lips are moving.
Thanks so much for the Times article on the matter of security for M and H. It helps to further expose them as willfully ignorant, narcissistic fools.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14277841/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/
I think the BRF should do a 'Meghan' and turn around and let slip through an unnamed source that it was Harry who brought up the issue of what future children by Meghan might look like. I thought it was mentioned that Harry did not know the implications of how 'blackness' could be expressed whereby children could be 'blacker' appearing than the parent with 'black' genes.
Harry is pretty stupid/uneducated and very well wondered about what his expected child might look like once he found out the genetic truth of how skin color is inherited. It is conceivable when he discovered the genetic facts he very well wondered what their baby might look like and made a surprise utterance to a family member, likely to Charles. Then he would look like the racist or stupid or both, in keeping with his history of racist actions and comments besides being ignorant. The BRF could attribute it to his 'unconscious bias' and forgive him. They also could explain that they are relieved to see Harry married to Meghan who obviously would be the ideal partner to help him overcome his racial ignorance.
[As an aside, I remember it was probably 1 1/2 - 2 yrs ago, Nutty tried to politely liminate discussions of racial talk here as to not allow any untoward or uncivil things said in regards to Meghan. Now here we are today, and Meghan has made it all about race and we Nutties find ourselves deep in discussion of such racial talk. Who would have thunk?!]
"I wonder if we'll get those trade deals with the US now? It'll be quite telling if we don't."
Maybe. But remember Obama said voting to leave the EU would put the UK "at the back of the queue" re: trade deals with the US. Not sure the Biden-Harris adminstration would have a different view than the Obama-Biden administration.
If Meghan spends all her time defending her narrative with Oprah, then I think that’s good. The story will fade and another top news story will take over. ‘Ok, you’re the girl who escaped the palace. Like Ariel.’ Or whatever she wants the public to believe.
Have any of these rich celebs sent money to her foundation yet? You know she’s going to come calling.
Her interview was incredibly boring. She’s only interested in talking about herself, so it will be interesting to see how she turns this into paid speaking. Note: Harry’s last gig was paid speaking around the topic of his mother and his mental health. She’s just copying that, hoping for the gigs to talk about herself and her mental health. Yet another thing she’s copying!
- I think Prince Philip's hospital stay immensely changed how the interview was organized and formatted.
- The interview served as an advertisement for several of their projects: Archewell, Spotify, Netflix, and the Apple Mental Health Series. I think the Prince Philip situation caused Oprah to edit it so it wasn't as flashy as it was originally intended.
- The interview came off as soliciting acting and voice work for Rache twice. First when she compared herself to the Little Mermaid. There is a current Disney live-action in the works starring Beyonce's protege. Second was when Harry said the BRF thought Rache should continue acting for money.
- Harry seemed shaky maybe nervous and he had trouble expressing his thoughts. Rache taking over his answers a few times was not a good luck and came off very controlling.
- Oprah interviewed them sympathetically but she didn't seem like she believed them.
- Rache came off in control, cold, calculating, and like a brain-washer. Usually Oprah is in control of her interviews but it felt like Rache was in charge the whole time. Every time she said "right?" was leading. It didn't help that she kept giving vague, circuitous accounts of her experiences with the BRF. She made it impossible to make your own judgement about anything that happened to her. Perfect examples of controlling the audience's ability to judge is her accounts of the Kate crying incident and the BRF member remarking on Archie's skin. No details or context just their feelings and assessment.
I keep saying I'm going to quit reading about this Paul/Heather Mills 2.0 but apparently I'm addicted to being enraged. LOL!
I wonder if we'll get those trade deals with the US now? It'll be quite telling if we don't.
If you look at the past Obama/Biden organization (and the retreads from that organization), China and terrorist countries will be rewarded. It will have nothing to do with the actions of Dumb and Dumber.
I copied and pasted this on the last thread, but its worth a read. The different attitudes on race and class between the UK and the US.
DM reporting it was Princess Le Pew who complained to ITV against Piers Morgan. He refused to apologize and quit.
Why am I not surprised?
No wonder Michelle Obama has been so quiet. Mmmm hmmmm.
The entire argument around protection is bizarre. Protection from what? It’s not hard to hire two security guards. Just do that, if you’re so worried? About the boogie man? Incredibly stupid reasoning. I think she plays that up for Harry and his insecurities around his mothers failed bodyguard. Security doesn’t always work out?? That’s also another lesson from her crash...Meghan also thinks she is extremely important and needs security. Both of them are nuts.
"Protection" "protect" etc. are very popular buzzwords these days that make you seem cool, aware and educated. Just another serving of Meghan's world salad. As in look good, sound good, NO problem if you don't make any sense. Especially as far as her young sugars are concerned.
Blogger jessica said...
The entire argument around protection is bizarre. Protection from what? It’s not hard to hire two security guards. Just do that, if you’re so worried? About the boogie man? Incredibly stupid reasoning. I think she plays that up for Harry and his insecurities around his mothers failed bodyguard. Security doesn’t always work out?? That’s also another lesson from her crash...Meghan also thinks she is extremely important and needs security. Both of them are nuts.
Protection from the press printing truthful accounts of her actions is the most likely reason.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/queen-statement-buckingham-palace-meghan-harry-interview-b923294.html
Question:
Deleted posts show up sometimes as "deleted by the author" and/or "deleted by blog administer". Are the deletes we see by the author of the post or author of the blog?
Thanks
- Rache had little if any contact with the other members of the BRF throughout the marriage. I think that's why she really felt "lonely." This is something that Oprah at least got out of her. All the critical conversations were second-hand from Harry. She didn't hear anything important. She had to write letters to discuss Harry's security. She went to staff and it frustrated her that she couldn't have one-on-ones with HMTQ and I suspect other family members which she would hate to admit.
- Sussexes have confirmed through veiled language that Archie was the primary cause of the rift with the BRF. They point to the Australia tour when they announced the pregnancy, the skin color story, and his styles and titles. If Rache is telling the truth that the BRF wanted to prevent Archie from getting his style of Prince upon Prince Charles ascending the throne, that is huge! Rache is a pathological liar so it's hard to believe her but I actually think this may be true. The previous reports of the Sussexes wanting Archie to have a private life without titles and styles trapped them. Should they let Archie assume the style of Prince when he was minor (which is a realistic scenario) they would be hypocrites to be laughed at across the world. We all know how attached Archie's parents are to their own titles and styles so if anyone is locking anyone out of them, it is most likely the BRF. Why? For me, I believe even more that it is because Archie was born via a surrogate.
Q How do you know she is lying?
A Her lips are moving.
I'll see you that quip and raise you something my aunt likes to say about a woman she has known for decades:
"Out of every ten things she says, eleven are lies."
Cool. Thanks for spelling it out.
This comment has been removed by the author. = The poster removed their own comment.
This comment has been removed by an administrator. = A blog admin deleted the comment.
@Sandie
Q How do you know she is lying?
A Her lips are moving.
*
One of my faves I used here a few days ago. It was used a lot by a narc site back in the early 2000's. The same site that came up with Grey Rock. An oldie but a goodie.
Just wondering because it seems uncanny how when ever I post something a bit off the grid, that notice pops up and it's not me (which I do on occasion but I make it known it was an edit).
I get it. I don't sit at the popular girls table in the cafeteria so I'm going to get some clash but I think you'll agree, I've come a long way.
I'll just assume (in a nuanced sort of way) that it's nastiness, then the author decides they don't want to start trouble...
Thanks again :)
". . . speaking with Oprah was both cathartic and transformative - the best decision she ever made, other than marrying Harry."
Does anyone else get the sense that "other than marrying Harry" was a complete afterthought? That it should have come after ellipses rather than a comma?
"Meghan said the Royal institution should be relieved that she didn’t name names or go into even more details of what went on behind closed doors . . .
Is there a term for the manipulative thing she's doing here? She did something that hurt others and then tells them they should be happy it wasn't worse.
"She said she stands by her truth . . .
What's with "my truth"? It's so cringey. Why not simply say, "My side of the story"?
". . . ultimately everyone involved wins because it’s now all out in the open and from there the healing can begin."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How absolutely condescending. And duplicitous. The person who gave you a gunshot wound tells you to be grateful that she called emergency services for you.
"Meghan said in order to preserve her well-being, especially now that she’s pregnant, she will not expose herself to any toxic news stemming from the interview."
She washes her hands of the fallout from her own actions. Messes are for other people to clean. Like servants.
"She said she’s moved on, but is open to communicating with anyone from the Royal family who wants to engage in a constructive conversation."
I will remember this promise that she has "moved on" even more persistently than I harped on the "Christmas soirée" with David Foster and Katharine McPhee that never happened.
"Meghan credits her mom and Princess Diana for giving them (Meghan and Harry) the strength and courage to come forward and tell it like it is.
Of course she does.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-7122#post-69407102
But I found the following spot on and wonder why organizations have been fawning all over Meghan instead of calling her out for sending the wrong message:
"Where in her interview with Oprah did Meghan ever talk concretely about how to seek help, what helped her to cope, etc.? No where. She claims that leaving the country/BRF was enough to save her mental health. That makes no sense. Suicidal thoughts don't just go away like that.
People need to understand that mental health is no longer some abstract term. Depression and suicidal thoughts/ideation are clinically diagnosed and need to be clinically treated with therapy, medications and/or other alternatives. Suicidal thoughts don't just disappear because you move away from a stressful environment."
"Out of every ten things she says, eleven are lies."
Brilliant, and so apt for drama queen Meghan!
MM opportunistically took advantage of this climate of racial anger, IMO. I originally had a favorable impression as I knew nothing about her and thought she was a quiet, dignified woman. But no, she loves the limelight and is shameless at promoting herself as well as being a demanding diva. My opinion of changed around her wedding.
The US has bigger problems to deal with and the focus will move from her. Most importantly this is an issue for the UK and its Commonwealth countries to address, and US public opinion is not paramount.
CBS is going to run this interview again on Friday, we'll see what the ratings numbers are.
Harry really surprised me and I believe he partook in this interview out of spite. This is reminiscent of the whole Watergate affair, when it turned out that Deep Throat was a high ranking FBI agent who lashed out at Nixon because he wasn't made the head of the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover died.
I'll be sharing a couple of Telegraph stories in a bit as I find them to be sane.
Harry is lashing out at the BRF as he is not made of equal rank as his brother.
Read the Queen's statement in full - as our Associate Editor analyses what it all means
By
Camilla Tominey
10 March 2021 • 1:43pm
There is perhaps an irony in Buckingham Palace being slow to react to criticism that the institution was passive in the face of Harry and Meghan's growing unhappiness within The Firm.
When the 61-word statement finally came at 5.26pm - nearly 40 hours after the couple's Oprah interview first aired in the US - it was notable both for its brevity and its unwillingness to take the Sussexes' shocking narrative as gospel.
The statement read:
The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan."The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.
Yet the long-awaited response did betray some clues as to the thinking behind palace gates right now.
"While some recollections may vary," more than hinted at a degree of scepticism over the Duke and the Duchess's controversial version of events while "the full extent" appears to suggest that they were not made fully aware of Harry and Meghan's discontent.
Expressing the Royal family's "sadness" and "concern", as expected, it echoed previous statements describing Harry, Meghan and Archie as "much loved family members".
Evoking the spirit of the 94-year-old monarch's message following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, this was once again Her Majesty speaking as both head of state and as a (great) grandmother. The Queen has always hated family conflict of any kind - and the words genuinely reflect the feeling of sadness among the Royal family that it has come to this.
The suggestion that the matters raised by Harry and Meghan will be addressed "privately" could be perceived as a slight on the couple rejecting the "never complain, never explain" mantra by airing their dirty linen in public.
Critics will inevitably find fault with the fact that no internal inquiry has been launched, not least when the couple not only criticised the Royals but the "institution" for failing to adequately support them.
Anyone expecting a line-by-line rebuttal were always going to be left disappointed, however. The palace will be hoping that this statement draws a line under what has undoubtedly been one of the most difficult 48 hours for the monarchy since the abdication crisis of 1936. Hence why it took so long to be finalised.
Contrary to reports that the Queen had "refused" to sign off the statement on Monday night, actually she simply wanted to sleep on it.
Having remained characteristically calm and collected in the face of the Sussexes' urgent need to break free in January last year, she seemingly felt no need to rush a response that merited her trademark careful consideration.
It is also thought that royal aides wanted to wait for the two-hour interview to be aired in the UK on Monday night before issuing a response. The timing, to catch the evening news schedule, was designed not to overshadow Prince Charles visiting an NHS vaccination centre.
Courtiers were bracing themselves for questions to be shouted at the heir to the throne but he declined to respond when asked for his reaction to the interview by one reporter.
As private secretaries and communications staff at all three households - Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace - worked on the wording of the statement on Monday, the Queen, Charles and William remained in regular phone contact.
It remains to be seen whether three paragraphs will be enough to extinguish the flames of the most incendiary royal interview ever given.
The Royals' greatest fear, of course, is that the public will be left thinking there is no smoke without fire.
This is mind blowing and confirms to me that Oprah used Meghan and Harry to attack the BRF and UK.
She was sloppy in her eagerness.
Meghan will probably turn on Oprah and blame her presentation and editing of the interview some time, sooner or later, when she does not get what she wants.
I agree Meghan is a drama queen who is incapable of doing better. For herself and her community (who and what ever that is)...
A lack of impulse control *longterm* is indicative of a narc. That's just one reason why she was not royal material. She has ZERO impulse control...
For those of us who are not narcs, it's frustrating to try to do better and to point out injustice then be accused of being a drama queen. I have experienced that...
I'm not relating this to her just from my own personal experience. I know what it feels like to be truly muzzled and to continue to forge on **instead of attempting to create scenarios where people are just flat out shut out without a say.
It is frustrating. I know how Piers Morgan feels. Thank God a man of his stature has a say..
@JennS IMHO, the interview was meant to launch the projects I mentioned: Archewell, Netflix, Spotify, and Oprah's Apple Mental Health Series. I believe the Apple series was the critical launch. That's why Rache and Harry discussed their shame in dealing with Rache's mental health struggles. I believe the level of hawking was toned down given Carole Middleton's own response to Prince Philip's hospitalization.
@Sandie I hate saying it but when I saw Rache discussing her feelings of suicide, I was unconvinced. She sounded like someone who had a very removed understanding of the experience. Her inner-monologue sounded very off. I agree that feelings of depression and suicide do not just disappear because of a change of scenery.
Apparently they need protection from the morning news helicopters that flyby the highway every morning at the same time. Remember all calls to the local police, which they casually suggested were nonsense.
She added title or no title, Harry will always be her prince.'
Interesting comment. Does this mean that she knows the titles are definitely going away? So much has happened in the last few weeks, it feels like it should be June by now but there are still 3 weeks officially til the March 31st final separation date. It's just a formality since we have been given ample clues that the Sussexes were severed from the family last January, and not just on an extended gap-year break the way they attempted to spin it. Harry's titles and the patronages were held in abeyance, possibly to allow the couple to demonstrate good/penitent behavior and as a face-saving measure, should they have apologized to the Queen and agreed to come home. But the way their terrible behavior has escalated since then leads me to believe that they knew everything had already been taken away and they found no incentive to behave. So far as we know out here in plebe-land, Harry's lost his military appointments, and the couple has lost the paltry handful of patronages they had between them. (4 apiece--what a strenuous workload) . . but nobody's touched the HRHs or the Sussex title. Particularly in view of the travesty just aired, will that be changing come April 1, when they will be demoted to the Merry Mountbatten-Windsors of Montecito? That statement from Mugsy has her classic clapback snark all over it.
Rache had little if any contact with the other members of the BRF throughout the marriage. I think that's why she really felt "lonely." This is something that Oprah at least got out of her. All the critical conversations were second-hand from Harry. She didn't hear anything important. She had to write letters to discuss Harry's security. She went to staff and it frustrated her that she couldn't have one-on-ones with HMTQ and I suspect other family members which she would hate to admit.
This is a very plausible theory! I can see everyone keeping their distance after Princess Eugenie's wedding (and the reports from the Oceania tour) . . . and Meghan getting back at them by being as insufferable as possible during public events when they did have to be around each other. And if it really happened, it must have been so humiliating that she can't even bring it up now -- even though a slightly distorted version would be great fuel for the racism narrative she has going.
I've watched Oprah interviews before. This felt different and I thought I could see it in Oprah's face. Rache was trying to control Oprah and that was bizarre to see. Every time she said "right?" it felt like a weird mind game she was playing.
I am not dismissing all the wrong Harry has done. I cannot stand him. He needs to face repercussions. I'll just say that he looks hollow and like he is getting crushed by an existential crisis. He is the one we should ask "are you okay?"
Does this mean that she knows the titles are definitely going away?
It's certainly something to layer on top of that line from the interview: "So much has been lost already."
I wonder if they were threatened with the loss of the dukedom if they went through with it, but she felt brave enough to chug full speed ahead.
@Charade,
Just wondering because it seems uncanny how when ever I post something a bit off the grid, that notice pops up and it's not me (which I do on occasion but I make it known it was an edit).
I get it. I don't sit at the popular girls table in the cafeteria so I'm going to get some clash but I think you'll agree, I've come a long way.
I'll just assume (in a nuanced sort of way) that it's nastiness, then the author decides they don't want to start trouble...
Thanks again :)
I don't think that you should necessarily assume nastiness. My tablet and I have a hate/hate relationship and spell check sometimes changes random words in what I'm posting just as I hit the post button.
I don't always take the time to say "deleted because my electronic device is possessed by demons" but, if you want, I can do that! I just assume that other people's electronic devices are possessed by demons as well.
/Muttering incantations and sprinkling holy water.
Oprah mentioned on Gayle's show that Rache texted her "How's it going?" in connection to the broadcast. It was at a weird time for Oprah based on time zones and when the interview was going to broadcast on the East Coast. Oprah said something along the lines of "She didn't know herself."
I thought that was interesting. It sounded like micro-managing and similar to her emailing/texting habits with BRF staff.
https://twitter.com/IAmMikeFeeney/status/1369420172277264389
It's 3 questions..........ysterical
It sounded like micro-managing and similar to her emailing/texting habits with BRF staff.
If so, Oprah is not going to like being treated like staff!
I wonder what the staff of Vogue experienced during her stint as guest editor . . .
The Queen, a master of saying little and in a quiet voice, received back the you should show her gratitude because she could have named names and or more troubling "stories".
My, my. Was that a threat?
@charade, great catch. It kind of burns a hole in her reason of using of this to unburden herself of her trauma if she was so hyper concerned about ratings, yeah? For her, this shows it was all about advertising(for her projects, and getting more roles & deals) and PR.
Good point! It supports @Charade's theory that Meghan didn't get to have many personal interactions with the rest of the BRF.
Or perhaps it was just a power play, as @MomMobile has suggested. It is really grating when people call you by a name you don't prefer to be called. And it's typical of a narc to want to be as irritating as possible to everyone whom she feels has failed to worship her properly.
What I found really telling, though, was that Prince Harry also said "Kate" rather than Catherine. I wonder if Meghan, in her jealousy, straight up forbid him from using the latter name.
I also found it VERY odd in the interview that Meghan referred to Sarah Ferguson as "Fergie" and not "Sarah". I thought that only the press called her "Fergie" just like the press calls Catherine "Kate" and called Diana "Di."
I think it is to persuade the ignorant people that are her followers that she was close friends with those racists. Wait...how weird is that?
btw like your screen name the weather is getting warmer here so that will be me a constant gardener for the next six months!
It will take a while, maybe even years, but we may seeing peak victimization claiming. I think, particularly after this year, people are tired of hearing whiners who want to exploit their alleged misfortunes. I actually think it would be good if Megs made the rounds of talk shows with her Oprah spiel. Believe me, the late night hosts will forget about 'jug ears,' make a meal out of the entitled, petty, thin-skinned Princesses Harry.
Will referred to her as Kate in their engagement interview.
Members of the Middleton family called her Katie in a video of her Uncle Gary's wedding.
Harry called her Cathy and Cath in a video a few years ago, I think for Heads Together.
She supposedly was called Kate by friends at St. Andrews.
So we don't really know what names are used behind the scenes.
I'm pretty sure no one in the family calls Sarah "Fergie" though!
Rache had little if any contact with the other members of the BRF throughout the marriage. I think that's why she really felt "lonely." This is something that Oprah at least got out of her. All the critical conversations were second-hand from Harry. She didn't hear anything important. She had to write letters to discuss Harry's security. She went to staff and it frustrated her that she couldn't have one-on-ones with HMTQ and I suspect other family members which she would hate to admit.
I think the family did close ranks somewhat against her because they could see even during the dating period that she was going to be a huge problem and was not trustworthy. There was the unsanctioned 'Wild about Harry!' Vanity Fair cover. The incident at KP involving attempted photographing of one of the Cambridge children. Documented evidence of her rooting around in Harry's car boot after his phone or other compromising information. They could smell a grifter a mile away . . but she was Harry's choice and so they were trying to neutralize the damage she could do. Not effectively, as it turned out, but it's gotten so much worse than they could even know at the time.
But to a large degree, the formality of the institution keeps everyone at arms' length from the inner circle of power. If the Prince of Wales has to make an appointment for an audience with Mummy (and we don't suppose that even Charles can just drop by unannounced on the Queen on his whim, do we?), who was Meghan to think . . demand! . . .that she, newly married in to the dimmest second-tier grandson should have access to the Queen whenever she 'had a problem'? Meg has never had any sort of corporate job, but usually employees do have to make appointments to see their managers and certainly, the CEO of the whole company and/or the board of directors are not at the beck and call of junior employees with grievances. There are channels, which Meg did not respect. If she were having adjustment issues, that is precisely why she was provided with the *top* personal aide they could offer her. Samantha Cohen had been personal secretary to the *Queen* but even she was not up to the Narkle's unrealistic expectations. The notion that she went to the HR department to discuss her concerns is . . ridiculous doesn't even cover it. That'd be like Lady Mary Crawley going to Carson and expecting him to sort out her personal issues.
Absolutely. There is no other reason why Harry's son and Charles's grandson would be denied the style HRH after Charles ascends. Charles argued for a slimmed-down monarchy, but surely he did not intend to deny his own grandchildren HRHs. This decision occurred long before the Harkles moved to North America, so everything indicates that the BRF knew prior to 'the birth' that the provenance of Rache's child was in doubt. But Rache is triple-dog daring them to say anything publicly to contradict her story of Archie's birth--she's thrown down a huge dare--I'm going to accuse you of denying him through racism!!! just to see what the BRF responds. Now she's doing it again--second ostentatious, laws-of-procreation-defying 'pregnancy' is underway. She's rented another womb, this time under the California surrogacy laws and is going to be getting the Merching Princess she wanted the first time. So they say, at any rate. They have given us no cause to believe them about anything, including which direction is up vs. down. If Harry is enthusing on international TV again about a second phantom/plastic/hire-a-baby child, he has truly been brainwashed into oblivion. There's no way that Rache could snow him (again) about really being pregnant if they are still having connubial relations or if he is even allowed to see her undressing. What the actual F is going on? She told us that she suffered a miscarriage last summer and here she is, looking ready to deliver any minute now . . (again). Did she conceive while in the hospital after a D/C, like, the minute after? Surely against medical advice, sanity and probably, biological possibility. Also, should a pregnant woman be around chicken coops, even as a tourist? Methinks those were Gayle's chickens, if they weren't actually just hired in for the day.
I predicted that if Archie did not appear during the interview, a running, breathing laughing little boy visibly bonded to his parents, then they have no child living with them. And bingo. But Rache is determined to keep jabbing at that sore spot, which one would suppose is her greatest secret and area of vulnerability. But she's got herself a ready-made cast-iron excuse for when (if) the BRF calls her bluff: Yes, I made up an entire pregnancy and pretended to have a son . . .but I was so distraught!! I was having fertility problems!! We both were!! I was suicidal!! I wanted to be a mommy so very much, I pretended, because I was mentally not OK! Then it got too big and I had to keep pretending--'They' made me! They knew the whole time and refused to help!! Catherine mocked me and said I'd never have beautiful white blond babies like hers!!!
On and on. If called out about the fake miscarriage, she'll pull the same mental health card. Ditto Diana Sprog. I feel like she is actually DARING the family to stop her this time. But how can they unmask this gargantuan fraud of hers without admitting that in some way they are complicit in subverting the succession of the Crown? A lie of this magnitude *would* bring down the monarchy for once and all, I fear, because how could this breach of public trust be healed? Rache has already lobbed the grenade that Archbishop Welby was involved in some shady nuptial shenanigans. Do they have a marriage certificate from some African country that may not even be legal in the UK? Did Welby pretend to marry them before God and a global audience knowing full well he was committing fraud in church? Did he deceive the Queen? How much did the Queen know? Even if Archie were of Smeg's body, if the marriage is dodgy, he wouldn't be necessarily legitimate.
This whole sordid saga is like a rancid onion with every layer that's peeled back more rancid than the one on top of it. She is not Done now that the interview is concluded. Oh, no. Come 'summer', when she 'gives birth' again, it starts all over.
I used to be of the opinion that as irritating and self-serving and morally corrupt as the Harkles are, their tantrum-pitching, doing a runner and insulting the Queen at regular intervals did not rise to the level of a constitutional crisis on par with the Abdication--to say so flatters the Harkles who are too low in the pecking order to matter that much. And even though the Abdication was a shock to the country and upended the lives of the then-York family, Bertie had been born for just such a contingency. He rose to the needs of history, assumed the greatness that had been thrust upon him and the ship of State sailed on. The Abdication only proved that the succession worked and solidified it.
Diana was probably the undoing of the Royal family . . back when she was alive, when she died, and now. Her legacy lives on in both of her children; William got the good bits, but Harry got the parts of her that almost destroyed the system the first time. I used to think the Sussexes were a novelty act that would fade away and their damage to the Crown would be neutralized. That might still happen, but that time is Not Yet.
Sadly, I have to conclude that the Entrance of Narkle into their ranks is worse news for the Crown than the Abdication. After all, it's on account of Uncle David's self-centered choices that Elizabeth acceded to the Crown. But it may very well be on account of her grandson's self-centered actions that a mostly impeccable reign is blighted in the history books.
Re Oprah not believing them - I saw this too but only a couple of times. Oprah seemed anxious to embrace whatever negativity about the royals MM was willing to deliver. And if Oprah didn't belie
ve some of MM's tall tale then her attempts to help shape this whole attack against the UK are even more despicable. Shame on her!
I have only watched clips of this travesty but I caught Oprah's shameless mugging after Rache delivered the whopper about the Archie's skin tone conversation (as reported to her second-hand via Harry). Right then and there I wanted to write the the Academy to revoke Orca's Academy Award nomination as Best Supporting Actress for the Color Purple. That nomination was deserved at the time, but Orcah's own wealth and profile have gone to her head since then. If I hadn't seen it for myself, I wouldn't have thought Orca capable of delivering such a powerful, unaffected performance as Sophia. She had never acted before professionally and she was a revelation in that movie. Either she is a far better actress than she displayed the other night to have hid her true nature for quite a while, or the process of Becoming Orcah has fundamentally changed her from the younger self she was in 1986. I was rooting for her to win that night. She lost to Angelica Huston, but her Sophia will always be an achievement. I feel like that Oprah died and in her place is a plastic, race-baiting imposter called Orcah.
Everything Rache does smacks of fraud. They are not living in Mudslide Towers or else, why not have the interview there, in their lovely backyard complete with Wendy house? Why Gayle's? Who was the dark-haired toddler running on the beach in front of a dispirited beagle who appeared to be looking off camera at his trainer, not running joyfully on the sand next to his little boy, as dogs normally would?
I predicted that if Archie did not appear during the interview, a running, breathing laughing little boy visibly bonded to his parents, then they have no child living with them. And bingo.
Lets say they do have an Archie with them that is biologically from Haps and Megs. The reason he is never really shown off much is that he too pale and white. This kills Megs racism narrative. Megs must regret showing off Arch in the duck rabbit video. And to remind people, Megs is 30-35% African so do the math for the very pale Archie. He is at 17% African or so. He will probably grow up pale but with light colored semi-kinky hair. With green or blue eyes.
Doria is 64% African. I am sure the gals at LSA have not been letting us down on their guesses.
"Lets say they do have an Archie with them that is biologically from Haps and Megs. The reason he is never really shown off much is that he too pale and white. This kills Megs racism narrative. Megs must regret showing off Arch in the duck rabbit video."
Maybe. But in addition to the Duck Rabbit video, Archie looked very white when meeting Tutu also. So if M was hoping he'd have darker skin, that ship had already sailed. And while I don't know, I would doubt that introducing Archbishop Tutu to their baby was thought of as great "diplomacy." So it had to be their idea.
I strongly suspect, if the child is real (as it will have to be), she will make MANY copyrighted images of Little Flower available.
And wouldn't that seem weird? So many loving mommy/daughter pics with Flower yet still no Archie?
I am eager to see how this plays out.
I agree with all of your comments on your last post, but I wanted to add that their poor little dog may not have been running next to "Archie" on the beach due to pain. Remember that he had two broken legs not too long ago (and I'm not going to comment on the possible ways he could have received those injuries). The poor little pooch may have residual pain left over from his TWO broken legs.
Don't forget the little "Archie" with the pom pom hat whom Harry was holding in the photo with the water in the background. I'm very fair-skinned, and my first thought when I saw that photo, is that that little boy/girl will be living his/her life with a bottle of sunblock in his/her hands.
1) Commonwealth countries discussing openly the argument of going to a republic.
2) Piers Morgan - seriously?
3) business dealings between the European Union countries and the UK
4) the Monarchy itself.
The allegations are being refuted daily (almost hourly) and it has been shown that Oprah manipulated background material shown to inflate the visuals (doctored headline, using tabloids that were not UK / US based.
This is viciousness unparalleled.
Archie has dark brown eyes.
If Harry really believes that `Grandpa killed Mummy' - well, you have the answer.
On the other hand, he wasn't sufficiently concerned to did into his own resources.
----------------
@Lizzie:
My oblique point about trade deals was speculation about whether we are being punished for leaving the EU.
Obama's point about being our `at the end of the line' was in the context of him offering his opinion that we shouldn't leave `Europe' - he also had no business poking his nose in.
It was a veiled threat.
Globalists detest nation states - the much used phrase `regime change' chills me because increasingly it looks to me that the `progressives' want to do that to us.
By painting us all as racists, they are coming close to defining us as a pariah state. Never mind that Mrs M-W still seems to know bugger-all about the UK and how it works.
And `to dig into his own...'
I agree Obama should not have tried to affect Brexit. It wasn't the US's business to try to affect the decision. And we sure get hysterical if "foreigners" try to affect our decisions.
But if trade deals with the US go south, I'm not sure the hoopla Meghan has caused can be blamed. That was my only point.
What might be the greater vote winner? Cancellation or cordial relations?
Also, Mr President is believed to have other, older, sympathies which may not be particularly friendly towards the UK.
Royal ‘celebs’ Harry and Meghan add to toxic assault on the West
Greg Sheridan
The Australian
You can cavil at the ubiquity of television, or its intrusiveness, or superficiality. But it is powerful and relentless in bringing the underprivileged into our living rooms, our head space. Suffering Rohingya in Myanmar, slum dwellers in Kolkata, Ebola victims in Africa, even the chronically unemployed and drug-addicted in the worst inner-city blight spots of the big Western metropolises, from Detroit to Marseilles.
Rarely have the sensitive viewer’s withers been rung so much as by the heartbreaking spectacle of disadvantage, persecution and suffering revealed by the ace investigative journalist Oprah Winfrey this week. There, in the slums of Santa Barbara, is a family forced to cower in their miserable nine-bedroom house, worth only a handful of royal dust at $US15m (nearly $20m in our money), trapped in the Montecito ghetto, where more than 90 per cent of the wealthy residents are white.
And such rough neighbours — Oprah, Ellen De Generis, Kevin Costner. What a neighbourhood. The suffering young couple have been forced on to the bare bones of a rough-and-tumble existence, down to a communications team, security detachment, domestic staff of nannies and cooks and housekeepers and what have you. Harry and Meghan — just two ordinary kids doing it tough.
And, Harry told us, he has to live on the inheritance from his mum, which when he got it was some tens of millions of dollars, no doubt shrewdly invested since. And there is allegedly a similar-sized inheritance from the Queen Mother. But they are a wonderfully unaffected couple. Theirs is not the artificial life of contrived gesture and showbiz nonsense. Look at their generous if tiny pen for chickens rescued from battery farms — these lucky poultry occupy surely the most expensive real estate of their species.
That Harry and Meghan succeeded in garnering overwhelming sympathy from the US public — and warm messages of support from the Joe Biden White House and the likes of Hillary Clinton — shows how perfectly they have mastered the dynamics of celebrity culture.
There is a serious dimension to this. Celebrity dynamics now dominate Western culture, and increasingly Western politics, in new and increasingly destructive ways. Harry and Meghan deployed the two most lethal weapons of personal testimony — mental health and race. It goes without saying that if Meghan really felt suicidal she was entitled to proper medical and emotional help. She and Harry blame the palace for refusing it to her. But surely if Harry failed to summon medical assistance in a life-threatening situation for his wife, he is not quite as heroic as billed. Of course, it’s silly to invade the emotionalism of celebrity strip poker with either logic or facts.
Now they protect their privacy with tell-all television interviews. This one was watched at first cut by 60 million people. Their earning power in the US will now be stratospheric.
If, in her time as a royal, Meghan was truly exposed to racist sentiment, that too is completely, absolutely unacceptable. Racism is a profound human evil. It deserves to be called out and opposed wherever it exists. But identifying racism where it doesn’t really exist is corrosively damaging. The media criticism that seemed in their royal days to exercise Harry and Meghan the most had nothing to do with race. The couple famously preach the most oleaginous, moralistic version of opposition to global warming, yet took multiple private jets on numerous holidays. That’s a standard hypocrisy among celebrities.
Part 2/2
In the wake of Meghan and Harry's bombshell TV interview, some details are already being questioned.
Pointing it out, no matter how gracelessly, is scarcely racism. Similarly, Meghan dropped the “bombshell” that she didn’t make Kate cry over the flower girls’ dresses, but Kate made her cry. And the palace would not correct the record. Plainly, this is a shocking assault on human rights, and surely it should be referred to the International Criminal Court, but it’s not necessarily racist.
Meghan strongly implied young Archie didn’t get to be a prince at birth because he is of mixed race. This is preposterous but important because it sustains the allegation of racism. The convention is that for grandchildren of the monarch, only the direct heir’s children are princes and princesses at birth. The cousins become princes and princesses when granddad, in this case Charles, gets the throne. Nor does Scotland Yard’s police protection depend on having a title — Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie don’t have Scotland Yard police protection despite being princesses.
All this is a matter of supreme indifference to any sensible human being, important only because Harry and Meghan used it to make the charge that British society generally is racist. And that is the nub of celebrity’s increasing assault on Western societies.
Harry and Meghan also said that some senior royal questioned how dark Archie’s skin would be. This seems so grotesque as to be even beyond the normal tone-deaf nuttiness of British royals. Not only that, it’s inconsistent with everything else that happened. Meghan was lavishly welcomed by the whole royal establishment. Her wedding could not have been grander. She was the first royal divorcee given a full church wedding. She was welcomed to holidays with the royals well before her marriage.
The Queen, in her response to the interview, noted that “recollections may vary”, which seems a polite way of casting doubt on the context of this story. It might be as harmless as someone saying to Harry: I hope your baby resembles your wife and not you. Or it might be something worse.
This is all in many ways meaningless falderol. And I have no desire to defend the royal family, apart from the Queen herself, the only member who always behaves with dignity and discipline. But as one member of the British public said in a vox pop: “They (Harry and Meghan) are not having a shot at the Queen, they’re having a shot at my country.”
Britain surely has its faults. As an Australian insanely proud of my Irish heritage I can enumerate these at length. But there would hardly be a society anywhere in the world less racist than contemporary Britain. Racial inter-marriage rates are very high, the government is ethnically diverse, the mayor of London is a Muslim, and so on. Show me a notably less racist society.
But the dynamics of celebrity have now embraced the truly toxic doctrine that all Western societies, especially the US and Britain, are irredeemably racist.
So Harry and Meghan, against all expectations, have actually done something politically significant, and wholly destructive: they’ve helped turn celebrity culture against the Western project.
End
Did she inadvertently expose the fact that they’ve had an unhappy, lonely marriage from the start?
Lets say they do have an Archie with them that is biologically from Haps and Megs. The reason he is never really shown off much is that he too pale and white. This kills Megs racism narrative. Megs must regret showing off Arch in the duck rabbit video. And to remind people, Megs is 30-35% African so do the math for the very pale Archie. He is at 17% African or so. He will probably grow up pale but with light colored semi-kinky hair. With green or blue eyes.
That would flip the narrative that most of us may have been entertaining . . that 'Archie' has been kept hidden because he wasn't 'white enough' or had some other shortcoming to compete with golden-haired George and Louis. Except that all the images of Archie, both live and still we have seen depict a milky-fair child with blond/light hair. Those of us here who confessed surprise that Meg's baby, with one-third African heritage and considering the full African strength of both Meg's hair and her mom's, and the African features which are evident on Doria and used to be more evident on her daughter before MM had 4 or 5 nose jobs--did not display ANY evidence of black heritage. None. Zip. The blond little guy we saw at the alleged birthday video actually looked so much like Thomas Markle to me. Why is there no evidence of his maternal grandmother's side, though? At the time, we all assumed that Meg wanted a white child since by her own attempts to obliterate the non-Caucasian side from her own features, white features are more desirable. She's lived her entire life denying her black side like it was some sort of flaw . . .until she latched upon being a professional victim of racism at the hands of the meanie BRF. When she was with Trevor and then Cory, being a racial victim didn't seem to be part of her narrative.
Speaking of narratives, why don't any of the woke brigade take Mugsy to task for cultural appropriation in presenting herself as Italian or Hispanic to various school friends and casting directors? She very purposely had her 'Latina' look that she exploited to get work. During her acting years, she seemed willing to pretend to be any race but Black. Kinda goes along with her 'Smorgasbord of Convenience' approach to religion.
In the beach video, Rache has presented us with yet a different-looking Archie. Hard to tell when exactly that was shot, since she is not sporting a huge stomach like in the Tree of Life photo where the child in her arms has a blanket over his head. If that video is current, then Archie has just turned 22 months old. Thing is, that little running guy doesn't look a *whole* lot taller than Duck Rabbit Archie did last May. And he looks *significantly* littler than the 'Paint by Numbers' Archie of the Christmas card, who had the proportions of a 4-year-old. The most recent rendition of Archie looks like he could be 18-22 months old. But this skinny little tyke with hair that looks black is very very different from the chubby blond duck-hair Arch of his first birthday video.
Children change as they grow, that I don't deny. But usually the metamorphosis to the degree we have seen in the two videos of Archie occurs over the course of a couple of years, not 6-8 months. Beach Archie's hair looks quite straight. If he went from sparse blond fuzz to a full head of black hair in 10 months, that is an achievement. Cynical me calls this yet another in one of Megsie's Happy Family photo shoots, adherence to reality strictly optional. Black and white again, which makes it a lot easier to obscure specifics of physical features of people and landscapes. I've never been to Montecito, but I'm surprised that a beach so far south would look so much like a beach in Oregon or Sausalito. He was a happy little guy, just like all the little guys we've seen. Which indicates to me that they don't live with a raging Narc for a mother.
Probably the biggest hole in the 'We hid Archie because we were ashamed he looks too white' is the fact that she's made her outrage over (alleged) racist speculation that her baby might be born 'too dark' into the centerpiece of her grievance against the family. 'They denied my son a title because they thought he'd be too black!' My feeling is, someone asked Harry (not even Megs, this was reported secondhand by her): "So, who do you suppose the baby is going to favor? Will he be ginger like you or will he take after his mother?"---> Such is the clandestine loathing of her own black heritage really that Mugsy heard: 'Your baby is going to be a pickaninny'. Supporting the current narrative that she *wanted* her child to proudly represent 'the first biracial Royal baby', wouldn't she have welcomed a darker-complected child in that case? Why be so angry?
I was speculating why, presuming the Harkles are being truthful about being informed that Archie would not be eligible to be an HRH Prince, ever, that such an extraordinary step would have been taken. Archie should by birthright now be titled Earl Dumbarton and become an HRH Prince when his grandfather takes the throne. That is how it is set down, since 1917 for all other Royal children, right? Why not for Archie? Seeing as Harry's own grandmother-several-times removed Queen Charlotte was mixed race as were all of her 15 children, it's not because Archie was going to be mixed race, whether or not he 'looked' it. I'm going with there having been a clear violation of of the 'of the body' rule--Meghan did not give birth to him herself and/or the child is either not genetically Harry's or hers, or neither of theirs.
If a new couple in the neighborhood gave you notice that:
A)If they see you, you must not talk to them.
B)You must not ask about their new baby or offer to babysit
C)Do not approach or pet their dogs
I think that they could probably expect that their neighbors would not look too fondly on them.
If you clear out an an entire section of Wimbledon for you and your two friends, then,
A) accuse a poor man of taking photos of them when he was taking photos in the opposite direction.
B)instruct your PPO to interrogate the man about the photos
C) remove people who have legitimate Wimbledon tickets
If you cry that you're only trying to make a living, but:
A) Fly to NYC for an extremely lavish baby shower at The Mark
B)Fly home on the Clooney's private jet after preaching to others about the dangers to the environment
C) Invite complete strangers to the wedding, who just happen to be Hollywood stars
D) spend well over $1 MM on clothes and jewelry
E) hide your child like he's the spawn of Satan
F) Merch anything you can get your hands on, although royals don't do that.
G) Get married, then spend millions on a fake wedding
H) remove friends and family from your life after you've landed a prince
I)keep your husband from his family and make him believe that they are responsible for his mother's death
J) made up lies about his family and yours
K) take advantage of three different countries, GB, Canada and the US, while making disparaging remarks about those countries
L) expect for father-in-law to pay you for not working
M) hang around with Oprah and Gayle, Elton, Ellen, the Clooneys while crying poor me
N) hustle for free mansions to live in,
Then, I think you can and should expect a major backlash from the public and that people will not like you.
Meghan: I didn’t do any research about what that would mean.
Oprah: You didn’t do any research?
Meghan: No. I didn’t feel any need to, because everything I needed to know he was sharing with me. Everything we thought I needed to know, he was telling me.
This reminds me of the time I was assessing 6th form students' A-level practical projects - 20% of the marks went on the `Background Reading and Research' section.
Under `BRaR', one had written `I wanted to approach the project with an open mind, so did no background reading or research'.
Words fail at how some people throw away marks - and opportunities.
Which is exactly what her dad Thomas pointed out in his interview. ‘Sounds like Harry did a lousy job of supporting her.’ Paraphrasing. Which is exactly what any GOOD dad would say, if it were true. Harry, man up, my daughter is suicidal and wasn’t before marrying you.
Meghan did a really good job of convincing the world that Harry and her problems were not their own doing and responsibility. She convinced a world that *relatives*, as Charade accurately points out- ones with extremely limited contact- were integral to their lives. If they had as little contact as Meghan made it appear, the questions around Archie are even more appropriate. Long drawn out family conversations with good intentions are what people normally have. This bolsters my personal theory that Harry was learning how to expertly *shitstir* and went back to Meghan with the hyperbolic racism claims and joining her in bashing his family (since the ‘Kate’ incident happened prior to the wedding).
It’s clear they both suffer from paranoia. Do we have any mental health professionals in the group?
I had only watched several clips and read many articles, quotes and your valuable contributions. Today, I read the whole scripted interview. Gladly, I was busy enough to interrupt my reading. I needed the breaks!
Under `BRaR', one had written `I wanted to approach the project with an open mind, so did no background reading or research'.
LOL, reminds me of the priceless excuses William & his friends made about botched schoolwork to his teachers & parents in Just William!
I mean, there was a day that one of the members of the family, she came over, and she said, ‘Why don’t you just lay low for a little while, because you are everywhere right now’. And I said, ‘I’ve left the house twice in four months. I’m everywhere, but I am nowhere’. And from that standpoint, I continued to say to people, ‘I know there’s an obsession with how things look, but has anyone talked about how it feels? Because right now, I could not feel lonelier’.
May I ask when was that? Left the house twice in 4 months? Really ?! I love how she refers to this mysterious person “ one of the members of the family”... So not a family member? How cold and distant.
Now, I’m the whitest, most blue eyed girl you can get. I look nothing like my darker toned siblings, with brown eyes and dark hair. I always joke that I was the milk mans’ baby.
That said- there are many questions and speculation over my large 45 cousin family whenever someone has a baby. It is natural considering the results of previous generations. The looks, eyes, hair- crap shoot.
Meghan and Harry taking what should be a productive happy family conversation and turning it into racism is wrong and disrespectful to the many many mixed heritage families in the US. Their kids are a blend of cultures now- and we don’t hear of xenophobic issues do we?
I’m starting to take everything they do personally. Lol. I just want a resolution where we don’t have Meghan appointed as our woke dear leader in America. Has she surpassed AOC?
she claimed his opinion/statement was dangerous for those experiencing Mental HEalth issues.
If I were a Brit , I would call into that CEO and counter MM’s claim with, ITV waat fault for promoting MM’s dangerous ‘Mental Health’ opinions and statements. and they need to apologize to the British public and ot air the interview or sections of the interview again and not feature MM’s due to her dangerous opinions/ statements.
MM claimed that she was having suicidal thoughts in the middle of the night and wanted to go to the hospital. So she called the Palace HR department for her suicidal thoughts. That is an extremely dangerous course of action for someone to state and promote on national TV.
An HR department is not qualified to help with diagnosis or treatment of that kind. MM has a Mental Health advocate was aware of this and should be calling and promoting Suicide Hotlines and Physicians/ Mental Health workers to help with those problems, not and HR department.
Don’t you think it’s odd that MM said she’s lost so much but at no time during her interview (at least to my knowledge) does she address her alleged miscarriage? If I were in her position that’s one of the greatest losses I’d reference.
Also, I absolutely do NOT buy this BS about how Oprah and Megan were too busy reading books or whatever to be bothered with how the interview was going over. Pah-lease.
Finally, it’s very common for people who’ve had thoughts of suicide to feel a tremendous amount of shame regarding those thoughts. That’s likely a reason why many people don’t ask for help. In contrast, MM exhibits a tremendous amount of shamelessness around the subject. I’ll have to go back and read the transcript but I remember thinking something was off in the way she was describing her mental health issues.
It’s interesting because most suicidal people feel like everything is their fault, which contributes to their despair, but our dearly deceptive MM does not believe she is at fault for anything. This disconnect adds to my suspicions.
I wasn't going to go there but you opened the door so I am going to walk on through!
I was born with black hair, which changed to light brown by the time I went to school, so it is not unusual for hair to change colour. Harry was born a strawberry blonde, which changed to light and then dark ginger.
But, Archie obviously with dark ginger hair in Duck Rabbit video, Christmas card and 'oops' friend posts a photo including Archie from this last Christmas. The kid on the beach has dark brown/black hair. Were they using some kind of filter?
It may not be PC to say so, but none of the Archies seems to have an emotional bond with the parents. On the beach, Meghan pulls him towards her and hugs him, which he does not reciprocate, and then when she lets him go, he turns away from her and runs away, through Harry's legs. I just get a weird vibe, but the kid may be on the autism spectrum. In the Christmas photo, he is in a world of his own, interacting with a book and ignoring the girl who is trying to give him something.
He looks like a happy kid but ...
I came across a photo of Catherine and Louis. They were on a bridge, there was a traffic jam, so she got out to walk with Louis in her arms. The kid snuggles, reaches up for her face, looks at her. You see this with other photos of the Cambridge children and their parents. We don't see this with Archie. He reminds me of myself as a kid - in a world of my own!
Oprah: Wow! ‘I don’t want to be alive any more,’ that’s . . .
Meghan: I thought it would have solved everything for everyone, right?
Oprah: So, were you thinking of harming yourself? Were you having suicidal thoughts?
Meghan: Yes. This was very, very clear.
Oprah: Wow.
Meghan: I don’t want to put more on my husband’s shoulders. He’s carrying the weight of the world. I don’t want to bring that to him. I bring solutions. To admit that you need help, to admit how dark of a place you’re in.
Oprah: You’ve said some pretty shocking things here, revealing . . .
Meghan: I wasn’t planning to say anything shocking.
I would have thought about she would milk the miscarriage but she didn’t. Weird huh? Or maybe she did and it was cut off because she accused the BRF of causing the miscarriage and it was just too blunt given that PP is in the hospital?
The other thing that stood out for me is the lack of guilt regarding her unborn child. As a mother myself, it bothered me deeply. Carrying a child is such a responsibility. I overthought everything from the quality of the air I was breathing to my food intake! I suffer from anxiety and keeping myself healthy and my unborn child safe was my main - if not my only - focus each time I was pregnant. She never mentioned her shame or guilt regarding this growing baby inside her.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9343595/Meghan-Markles-friends-say-royals-relieved-didnt-names.html
Disgusting
Blackmailing openly and shamelessly now
From The Times.
PODCAST
Meghan and Harry v The Firm
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/podcasts/stories-of-our-times
Just watched Martha Macallum / FNC who posed an interesting thought - MM just won her judgement/ court costs on the MoS trial. Does she think that she is so important that she could/ can get Piers Morgan fired by her call to ITV"S CEO? and will she continue?
The best line was from "Mickey" (sorry did not catch the name or who he is with) - the press is on to her.
More revealing undertones to Meghan’s chat: She didn’t want to burden Harry- understands he can leave if she becomes too much trouble and in the grand scheme she is easily replaceable. She brings the Solutions to Harry- understands Harry likes to be lead around and will follow.
Yes, their public gender reveal after all of that with no mention of her fertility struggles and constant whining about security and their safety paranoia was jarring. It was so flippant. To hell with the miscarriage, to hell with safety of our children. Not normal. Another thing was Harry’s idea of a perfect family 1 boy and 1 girl. This really bothered me and I thought it was quite, ironically, sexist since they would have been so displeased with another boy. Most people don’t do gender selection, but as we’ve seen- They are all about ‘appearances’.
Even now, he is blaming Harry.
Oprah: Wow! ‘I don’t want to be alive any more,’ that’s . . .
Meghan: I thought it would have solved everything for everyone, right?
Oprah: So, were you thinking of harming yourself? Were you having suicidal thoughts?
Meghan: Yes. This was very, very clear.
Oprah: Wow.
Meghan: I don’t want to put more on my husband’s shoulders. He’s carrying the weight of the world. I don’t want to bring that to him. I bring solutions. To admit that you need help, to admit how dark of a place you’re in.
Oprah: You’ve said some pretty shocking things here, revealing . . .
Meghan: I wasn’t planning to say anything shocking.
It’s interesting that she asks this as a question, “I thought it would have solved everything for everyone, right?”
And also, she didn’t want to put anything more on Harry’s shoulders? You sure about that Meg? You’ve put him in a really bad spot that he might not find his way out of. I haven’t heard anyone ask if he’s okay.
“I wasn’t planning on saying anything shocking.” Really? You weren’t? Huh. You must think we’re f-ing idiots. If you weren’t planning on saying anything shocking, why would Oprah interview you? Asking for a friend but I can’t tell you who because I want to protect her privacy. Oh and someone I know thinks you’re a complete bitch but I can’t say who. It would destroy them and I really want to protect them. Even though I just posted it on the internet.
Hannah Bett: Part 1
Harry says he’s finally living his ‘real’ life… so why does he look so unhappy?
In the Oprah interview, the cheeky chappie we all knew and loved had been replaced by an angry man, clearly in a lot of pain
With the world still reeling from the big Harry and Meghan interview, one thing to note is how astonishing it proved to the British public, given how much we knew in advance.
Forget Meghan – rehearsed, polished, ever the actress – as tearily articulate as we imagined in her Little Mermaid meets Chicken Run Hameau de la Reine.
No, the real shocker was Harry: blotchy with anger, twitchy with rage, his fury palpable. In place of the cheeky chappy of old, the Prince seemed like some horribly wounded animal: seething, tormented, his features contorting as he made accusation after accusation about the family he once cherished.
“We’re in a lot of pain,” he declared, and that was evident. Here was a man embittered, broken, flailing about to hurt others, as he himself had been hurt.
Whatever this spectacle meant to the millennial and Gen Z viewers who identify with the Sussex cause, it felt like nothing short of a tragedy for we 40-pluses who have grown to love Harry. Because we do love him, in that fond way in which we regard the young Royals we witness grow up. The image of 12-year-old Harry walking behind his mother’s coffin was seared into the collective consciousness. It meant that – when he found love – we could not have been more ecstatic; his joy, ours.
Harry was the nation’s loveable rogue, full of mirth despite the horrors of his childhood, bursting with charisma, always ready with a joke and a hug. His teen rebellion was indulged, his military career respected. If not the brightest biscuit in the box, he was certainly the most kindly, the most affable. Children adored him, old people adored him, we all adored him.
Now, he insists that we impose a re-reading in which the Prince Hal of old was a façade: the surface show of a man caged. The Hazzer we loved was a smiling automaton, our Prince Charming simply going through the motions, smiling at people merely “part of the job”. Meanwhile, having abandoned his home, his country, his career, friends and family, he is finally living his “real” life. So why does he look so blisteringly unhappy?
The comments are very negative also.
Where Meghan was strategically vague in her accusations, Harry was spade-calling, all woke doublespeak about kindness while on the attack. The main targets were his formerly beloved father and brother.
Harry’s Palace nickname when he first fell for Meghan was allegedly The Hostage, suggestive of Stockholm syndrome and a desire to have the “old Harry” back. In the Winfrey interview, the Prince made the counter-argument that it is his father and brother who are trapped, doomed to “control by fear” on the part of the tabloid press.
Would he have escaped had he not met Meghan, Winfrey inquired? “I wouldn’t have been able to, because I myself was trapped, as well. I didn’t see a way out. You know, I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped.” He stated that he has “huge compassion” for Charles and William, his face contorting with rage.
Either way, “life is about storytelling,” as Meghan informed us, and Harry’s justifying narrative is taken straight from The Crown, created by his new employers. Meghan is mummy: “When I’m talking about history repeating itself, I’m talking about my mother,” noted our hero, and “I just wish that we would all learn from the past”.
This glamorous 30-something, however, Harry can save. Moreover, in a story “greater than any fairy story you’ve ever read,” Meghan too loves “rescuing” and has room for him in her coop. Our love birds have saved each other.
In this narrative, the Cambridges are bad, trapped Team Charles; the Sussexes good, freedom-seeking Team Diana. New Harry did indeed sound cultish, delusional, not least in his conviction that he’s still deeply loyal to the Queen, while #Abolishthemonarchy was trending on Twitter.
Ava mentioned that the Morton book was rather immediate non-lethal poison to the Firm but slow and lethal to Diana. Interesting.
I will say that she has had some what she is claiming as great successes recently: her lawsuit and apparently that Piers is no longer there (ie shutting down critics). But I think that might be claiming as a win too early (perhaps). He showed no prior indication of backing down so why would he now? especially now? He might have had some tethering holding back in GMB but that's gone now. So I think he'll be a player. And maybe, just maybe, people will slip him information. That would be the cat in with the pigeons. Factual things which undermine the victim saga are coming out (haven't made it to the USA but it is starting).
Someone mentioned that it was odd that they weren't really pitching anything other than we had to do this and we(rather her, he's around just to hold her hand while she suffering at the indignities) are the real victims here.
That's rather interesting as not just what are they doing next for the Nfx/Spy deal or that they weren't casually drinking those oat lattes and yet they are talking about how this was all about how they were cut off from the Bank of Dad. Wouldn't allowing them to talk about the upcoming features allow them a better chance to succeed (versus the implied we weren't even wished good luck)? There's something just off about the lack of monetizing in this prime interview (which was increased thanks to the demand). (except for the dress and that's not going to earn them the big money like the "other big deals")
Puds - loved the Margaret Atwood quote. Here are ones I like too.
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. William Shakespeare
and (I can't remember where I got this but it could have been from another person here)
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Ralph Waldo Emerson
I think there is a tremendous disconnect with her words and affect because her whole story is made-up. It's a lie and she is acting a part of a victim wronged by the big, bad Firm. I think Oprah's over the top responses to MM were acting, too. They both have an agenda and are using each other and the media to promote it. Not sure if it is just them or there are larger, more sinister factors at work.
MM is playing out her fairytale "Princess" fantasy in her mind. And when she did not have the power she wanted, the acquiescence to her desires, and the free reign to do as she wanted she bolted and ran. It's her MO. I cannot imagine a sa 40 year old woman comparing my life to the Little Mermaid. How juvenile!
She knew about Harry, she knew about the BRF, and she wants to be adored like Princess Diana but she does not know how to get there. She is incapable of love for anyone except herself. As a narc, she has no empathy. She is a poser all the time. She is a not genuine and people can sense that. Hence she will never be the "Queen of Hearts."
Last night on Hulu I watched a documentary, "Charles and Diana 1983" primarily about the Australian tour and a little about the state of their marriage. You could see the crowds and the strain that they were under. You could see how grueling their schedule was on tour. The way that the press took photos and the whole Diana mania was discussed. How overwhelming it must be. I am sure MM was aware of how it would be.
A gilded cage. Lots of responsibilities. She wants the wealth and privilege, the labels, the luxury goods and home which she has seen all her life in Hollywood for herself--without the hard work that is needed and the drawbacks which come with the privileges of being a member of the RF.
H is just her tool. A means to an end.
https://babylonbee.com/news/american-patriots-dump-harry-and-meghan-into-boston-harbor
* Meghan did go to the head of HR early in 2019.
* Reporters knew that she was very stressed at the time.
The timing is interesting as I think this was subsequent to the bullying and other complaints. Those complaints were squashed, as we now know.
I can believe she was stressed but the lack of self awareness from her and Harry is astounding. They never thought to look at their own behaviour. The approach to HR is also very strange, as we have all discussed. Quite ok with arranging own private health professionals for pregnancy and birth, advocates of mental health, but ...
their poor little dog may not have been running next to "Archie" on the beach due to pain. Remember that he had two broken legs not too long ago (and I'm not going to comment on the possible ways he could have received those injuries). The poor little pooch may have residual pain left over from his TWO broken legs.
The sad saga of the Sussex pooches is almost as convoluted and depressing as that of Fauxrchie. Even though the alleged injury to Guy was three? years ago now . . wasn't it meant to have occurred during the engagement?--I imagine running on sand would be quite painful for a small dog with reconstructed femurs.
If this is not 'the' Guy, there are two options:
1. the real Guy died of his injuries, from some form of sketchy accident back in 2017-18.
2. Or, the real Guy is living happily with a foster family, uninjured, because Meg did not bring him to the UK, and the dog we have seen since is a Rent-a-Beagle. It'd be impossible to disprove that it was 'Guy' seeing as one purebred beagle looks like another.
No evidence of the equally sad black lab. Christmas card cartoon Guy was prancing happily but perhaps his legs didn't hurt that day. Based on the demeanor of the dog, I sense that there were other person(s) on the beach just out of frame. The dog appeared to be looking at someone or something out of shot and trotted off, with zero interest in what the principals in this video were doing. In any case, M&H both completely ignored the dog, so I think he was just inserted into the shot for set dressing.
I was born with black hair, which changed to light brown by the time I went to school, so it is not unusual for hair to change colour. Harry was born a strawberry blonde, which changed to light and then dark ginger.
I agree that children's hair colors/textures are commonly changeable. But the process you describe with your hair took place over a period of about 4-5 years, correct? My sister had honey-blond hair as a toddler and very young child--the only blonde in a family of brownets--it had darkened to mousy brown like the rest of ours eventually--but she was 7 or 8 by the time that happened. What I am marveling at is that Rachel's son could go from a chubby, endomorphic 12-month old in the Duck Rabbit video (though in my professional opinion, that child was about 16 months based on his level of mobility and the fact he was talking in complete short sentences. A friend's little girl will be one in July and she just in the last few weeks has started to babble, a precursor of speech. Three-word sentences such as we heard in Duck Rabbit typically emerge around 16 - 18 months. It must be because birthday boy Archie was so 'advanced' for his age that here we are, 10 months later, and the little guy we just saw doesn't look quite big enough to be nearly a year older. Kids thin out as they start walking and running, but now Rache's boy is an ectomorphic looking, rather petite toddler with very dark hair. It's not unheard of for a strawberry blond baby's hair to come in darker later, but I wonder if it's common for it to happen over a few months' time rather than a longer period. No more 'tufts of red hair' of any shade now--though Christmas Card Archie had a pretty blazing head of painted on gingerish hair. Is Rache now saying that her ginger haired toddler the size of a four year old in December has regressed in size back to an under-two and all his red hair fell out and grew in black within 8 weeks? So it would seem.
Between you and me, what Rachel knows about childhood development could fit on a postage stamp with room left over for some calligraphy.
Maybe, since she has switched her narrative all of a sudden from 'Archie looks just like Harry' to 'Archie is my little mixed-race Prince, and title or not he will always be a Prince to me!' The video footage of the child is conveniently very grainy and not close enough to really get a good look at his face as he darts between Harry's sweatpants-clad legs. From Harry's perspective, all we get is the top of his little head and some eyebrows. No way of comparing it with the child we saw in the last video they gifted us with. I'm going with 'Rent-a-Toddler' for an afternoon photo shoot at the beach. Whether agency or she finagled some friend to lend her kid for a couple hours is anybody's guess.
It may not be PC to say so, but none of the Archies seems to have an emotional bond with the parents. On the beach, Meghan pulls him towards her and hugs him, which he does not reciprocate, and then when she lets him go, he turns away from her and runs away, through Harry's legs. I just get a weird vibe, but the kid may be on the autism spectrum.
It's not un-politically correct to be observant, but in the current climate, it can be construed as un-PC if what you observe with your own eyes contradicts the narrative somebody else is pushing for her own reasons, irrespective of its resemblance to reality as you have experienced it. There is a lot of stimulation at the beach, and this little guy is under two years old. All toddlers are highly distractible, particularly in unfamiliar situations. If this child rarely if ever gets to the beach and/or the people he's interacting with aren't his parents and therefore strangers, that could account for his lack of reciprocation as easily as autism. More easily, from my POV. Since I think she's faked Archie from his conception til now. Remember how Rach would accost random children on Royal engagement and try to force them to hug her? Or Harry, pathetic little cheerleader he is, would command children to hug his wife . . .all so that they could obtain video images of how maternal and child-loving Narkle is? The forced embrace with Archie was kind of like that. Though toddlers will be oppositional just because they can, even when with their real moms, if they don't feel like being hugged at that minute.
Rach gets a free pass for her non-existent maternalism if the non-bond between her and child can be attributed to 'autism'. We have not been permitted to see enough of him to tell. Have you seen the photo of her under the Tree of Life in her boho sack with a 9-month belly and holding a child with a blanket over his entire person except one little bare foot dangling out? Who besides Michael Jackson would DO this, particularly since at the same time she shows the beach running video? Maybe . . . .because she wanted a 'family portrait' with Child but couldn't get the same child? All we see is a foot, literally. Harkening back to her very first 'Mother's Day' photo.
And she's gearing up to do it again. We gotta buckle in. The BRF is going to be dealing with this for years. Years.
The Queen's 4 line response was a master class in dismissal. Meghan's just made Piers more popular. I predict he gets his own show out of this. And he might want to send "thank you" flowers to Meghan when that happens.
The beautiful thing about mud slinging is it always comes back in the wind to land on the person who does the slinging. In time, Mr Markle's gonna regret this but who cares? He's not relevant outside the family and he has no skills outside the family either. It's gonna be a rude awakening when he realizes, he'll never make Meghan happy, he has no real life in Hollyweird, and he's burned his whole family in the process. There's slim chance their marriage will survive what they've done.
So stay calm, drink good tea, and carry on! This too shall pass.
Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me.
Only if you paid your dues, kid. Remember- boasting about being a scab? `I'm such a fraud!!!' you said with glee.
(scab: DEROGATORY
a person who refuses to strike or join a trade union or who takes the place of a striking worker. Or, I'd adds , fraudulently claims union benefits without paying her sub)
@Neutral Observer - yes , on the same lines as `The dog ate my homework'. Blaming Harry for not doing anything about it!
Yep. That is what is so strange Archie went from ginger to dark brown/black in a matter of months and before he is two. It is odd.
No Ducky, you may have been told to belt up about politics because Royals don't spout off about politics. They don't share what they think with the world - it's just not done. Geddit?
No, I didn't think so.
Re The Australian article
'Now they protect their privacy with tell-all television interviews. This one was watched at first cut by 60 million people. Their earning power in the US will now be stratospheric.'
---------
The interview may have been watched by 60M people but personally, I'm not convinced this will translate into such a fantastic earning power. Why would anyone want to work with a litigious, whinging couple, so touchy they're always ready to accuse everyone of racism?
Well, the Sun has been doing their homework!
Three-word sentences such as we heard in Duck Rabbit typically emerge around 16 - 18 months.
-----------------
Some have dismissed that as babble, but I don't think so. It was fairly clearly enunciated. And you also have to gauge by the expectant look on his face. He clearly expected the person he was speaking to, to come pick up the book for him.
If it was just babble he wouldn't have looked expectantly at the person off camera, expecting them to help.
Oprah is diabolical. Would not even be surprised to learn she supplied baby,but she didn't because she is not that stupid. This was always going to be found out, it is treason!
These poor women waiting out there like that. The whole country. Note at the end when Oprah shares she has "weekly mental health " chats with Harry. She is lying. I bet she had twice a week chats
Sick people to pull all this on Queen who devoted entire life to service as her 99 year old husband lies in hospital. Gotta get in on that news cycle
tick tock
https://youtu.be/EJnB_xeOq_Y
Thanks for the DM article link.
I only skimmed it but it appears Janina G I'd claiming there are texts/emails between M (&maybe H) and her. Not necessarily between M and HR or M and UK racists or M and Meanie Kate.
The article states (bold added)
"But on the other side, I am well aware that the family and the staff were well aware of the extent of it, and though their recollections may vary, ours don't, because we lived through it with them. There are many emails and texts to support that.'
As someone pointed out (sorry, not sure who) M claimed to the Court she deleted texts/email after 30 days. (Oops) But I assume JG could be talking about her own texts/emails. Regardless, if she and other friends "living through it" knew about M's "suffering" in real time even if M's suicidal ideation wasn't known, why didn't THEY suggest seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist? For all the great friends M supposedly had supporting her, their only solution was to talk to PEOPLE mag? (And no, I don't think they did that on their own.)
------
@Mel-- Agree about the child's speech in the Duck Rabbit video. Definitely not babbling. "Can't get it" is speech more typical of 18 months+ I think. Not just because it's essentially a sentence. But it's a negative action-- "can't do something" is more advanced speech than "do something."
What was the real problem about asked to commit their plans to writing? I take it he can write?
Obviously has never learnt that it help one to clear one's thoughts and to covey tricky ideas to another person.
Was it just too much effort or didn't he want to commit himself? Once it's in writing, he can't deny that he said it.
Wotserface isn't much better.
It the transcript were a school essay I was marking, it's be covered in red ink (tough luck even that's regarded as intimidating these days).
There'd be a lot of ?????s, Really???s and `Do you understand what you've just said?' To say nothing of `Please rewrite this sentence so I can grasp what you are on about?'
I couldn't of course strike out the lot but it would have a very firm `See me!' at the bottom.
(With real students, I'd be more polite though!)
She even has a series on YouTube called "Storytime with Fergie and Friends"
This child's looks will give Markle the black cred she needs to enter politics via the racial disparity issue currently being used to divide Americans.
But before she enters U.S. politics she needs the Queen to strip her of her titles. She wants this to happen. The outrage this interview created among the British was by design. Right on cue there were calls for the couple's titles to be stripped.
She and her backers know exactly what they are doing. The BRF are just collateral damage. The real goal is to get Markle into U.S. politics to continue the divisive racial agenda that is destroying the county.
Fertilization late July/early August.
Holidaying in Canada late August.
Drinking cocktails at Soho House Amsterdam late September.
Parading non-existent baby bump at Eugenie's wedding early October.
Gosh, this couple are so confusing and messy!
Americans & other foreigners have no business in saying what Brits should decide regarding their monarchy. It's horrible that Megs' mob are saying to abolish the monarchy.
If unable to watch now , highly recommend you bookmark for later. You really can't fast forward. Undecided how many of them know but end to end cringe. Poor guy too when he realizes he saw "Archie" before The Queen. When he describes the lighting and scene for picture? Megs hands all over it I am sure
This is not normal. But it does seeem they are laying a seed. Mental Health Meg and reporters who turned a blind eye
I forever believed Meg wasn't pregnant although I drew the line at a doll..i take it back. This is a photoshoot for doll! (maybe polo appearance too)
Also too I bet all those pictures were photoshopped.. Queen meeting Archie and christening too just as most of you suspected! Somehow too AoC name dropped at the 11th hour. Who was that threat for?
Imagine pulling scam of this epic proportion and torching the place on your way out. They both need severe mental help
https://youtu.be/M5UMDKjGiRM
@Midge
The WSJ article is behind a paywall. Would you be willing to copy and paste? Thanks.
-------------
Absolutely!!! She's been daring the Queen to do it for quite some time.
When the Queen doesn't after each stunt, Mm ups the ante and does something even more outrageous.
Mm is salivating at the thought of titles being taken. Written all over her face.
I think the Oprah thing was supposed to do it, but then they had tone it down a little due to PP being ill.
I'm firmly convinced they'd taped something really outrageous and didn't have the balls to go thru with it.
H being completely oblivious to the plan, as he sat dejectedly in the chicken coop throwing food at a chicken.
Orcah and Gayle's naked desire to cancel the monarchy was even more clear on the morning show the next day.
The DM reported that the day after her interview with M and H aired on TV, Gayle King visited Oprah at her Montecito hovel and found her reading a book outside. When King told her good friend (cough) that the broadcast had created quite the global media firestorm, Oprah expressed surprise (yeah, right).
The photo that accompanied the piece in the DM showed Oprah sitting in an armchair outdoors, reading a prominently displayed Oprah Book Club selection titled Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents. The blurb inside the book’s dust jacket reads partly as follows: “ Linking the caste systems of America, India, and Nazi Germany, Wilkerson explores eight pillars that underlie caste systems across civilizations, including divine will, bloodlines, stigma, and more. . . Using riveting stories about people . . .she shows the ways that the insidious undertow of caste is experienced every day.”
Looks to me like another not-so-subtle and deliberate dig at the RF.
The Queen will be reaching out to Harry over the next several days to offer an olive branch.
:O
Is this more of the same? No consequences for Harry or Meghan? Are they offering a pay-off in exchange for an NDA? Yikes.
You don’t negotiate with Meghan.
If you caught it in the interview, Meghan also said they were never invited for a photocall with Archie.
Re:photoshop portraits.
Completely agree about Meghan using a surrogate to get a desired baby ‘look’ this go around. She exploits others for her gain to the Max possible extent.
HMTQ is attempting to learn both sides of the publicized greivances, by opening talks with Harry. But also note in the DM- the "Palace" has responded that MM was never left alone - Samantha Coehn was assigned to her, and that "many members of the staff had tea with her (Ladys-in-waiting" were cited). The summation statement at the end of the article states "they did not want the help. Harry was already distrustful of the staff, and MM was not hearing what she wanted to hear." (Not direct quote - read the DM). IMHO - is the Firm/ HMTQ taking each accusation and matching tit for tat, and then the confrontation will occur? Also mention - SC "may" be one of hte staff in the bullying investigation.T-minus 3 weeks and counting to Megxit.
This Tumblr site has a lot of unverified tea, tarot readings, links to articles and videos. There is some interesting stuff if anyone wants a distraction!
Racist remark from BRF member? A post explains it as a conversation between the person and Harry: Harry speculating that a future baby would have curly hair and hopefully darker skin rather than his pasty colour ... An excited and in love Harry talking happily to someone in the family. When he went home and shared with Megsie, she turned around the conversation and weaponized it... Feasible.
Horrible as it implies something sinister. The articles I read listed no cause but I did read the veterinarian scored an invitation to the wedding 😭
I wonder if he got invited to the evening reception
Speaking of Janina Gavinkar....My very first thought upon seeing the clip of “Archie” running on the beach was, “Now wen did Archie become a little Indian boy?” His coloring and body type are completely different than the beefy fair WASPy toddler of Duck Rabbit. The hair, looking very black and straight suggests Asian to me. The baby we saw in the Christmas card of 2019 might plausibly look like this 16 months later. And it was JG who purportedly took that picture. I don’t know where Janina is based, and I don’t believe she has any children of her own, but could video baby and Christmas card picture baby be a nephew or little cousin? Since the rest of the super cheesy GIF tastic Christmas effort consists of random images of Harry and Meg pasted in, maybe JG Contributed a snap of a baby from her family to this arts and crafts project. Because he certainly did not resemble the infant that was christened in Windsor several months earlier. At the time I thought that baby to have it distinctly Asian appearance.
The dog's behavior pattern is completely different than any dog on the beach that I've seen.
I live right at the edge of the beach and watch dogs and their owners on the beach every day. Most dogs take off like a shot as soon as they're let off of the leash. They're so excited by the sea air, that wonderful sand and a stretch of beach where they can run to their heart's content. They tend to immediately run away from their owners and then circle back to check in with their owners again. They'll do this many times before they will settle down to a stroll. Larger dogs will run until don't have an ounce of energy left.
**********************************
When I was a little kid, my family and I were at our beach house, and our dog, a Chesapeake Bay Retriever, caught sight of a state ferry way, way out in the distance. He, as a retriever, thought that it was his job to catch that big, odd thing that was moving way out in the water. So, poor Caesar started swimming out to "retrieve" the ferry. We were screaming at him from the shoreline to come back, but he was on a mission, and was about 3/4 mile out to sea. My father had to row out to catch up to him, haul this massive dog into the boat and bring him back to shore. Poor Caesar could barely walk the next few days. Dad was probably a little sore, too.
It was a long, crazy workday for me. I apologize for being away for so long.
Please stick to discussions about the Sussexes. I will be removing certain OT posts.
Thank you.
Oh my lands, So much crap is gone down in the last couple of days, I completely forgot about Silver Tree Archie!
In my opinion, beach child is not the same kid. See my comment above for who he might be.
I’m sure it was mentioned by others, but Silver Tree was one of the Suits directing stable...10 episodes starting in 2014. Ergo, she has known Meg longer than Harry has. That photo has all the era marks of being taken several years ago during Rachel’s tenure on the show. Christmas 2016 maybe, When Markle was on a break from Harry. How can that picture I’ve been taken recently with Corona on? Meg does not look like that any more. For that little dude to be Archie, that picture would’ve had to been taken in the last month. I don’t think so.
Autism is a trendy diagnosis these days, and speculation about it is rife with Archie because he has been so hidden from the public eye his whole life. But I don’t think we can definitively say he is displaying autistic traits Based on one photograph and one short video clip. How long would he have been interacting with the older children before that picture was snapped? He was interested in a book or whatever he was looking at on the table, and not the fake carrot the older girl was shoving into his face, but this little group could’ve been together for an hour or more before the picture was taken; we don’t know. For that matter Maggie is doing one of her big feet laugh smiles in that photo and not paying attention to Archie either. He’s doing his own little thing at the table, but that’s what under 2s do Even when they aren’t autistic. Toddlers engage in side-by-side play where they play with some thing and another child sits nearby playing with something else and they are not necessarily engaging with each other, but it is the first step towards social play. Cooperative play with children actually share toys and interact with each other comes later closer to three. I’m calling all of these iterations of this child Archie for ease of use, Not because I believe we’ve ever actually seen “the real Archie.” I think Archie is a construct of Meg’s, Who happens to look like any friends child or rent a baby or dolly she can get her hands on at the moment she wants to post something on the Internet.
Little running beach boy does pull away from her attempt to squeeze him, but we have all seen Markle repel children With her overwhelming intentions. She was hugging on him not because it was organic, but because Harry was filming them. I would certainly expect a child to pull away from a smothering embrace from a lady he doesn’t know. Based on a limited but still more extensive sample then we have either of these, the young man in the Duck Rabbit video was not autistic. He seemed like a very engaging young man who was simply bored by a book that was too sophisticated for his age level and also being physically restrained by a lady he didn’t know. However putting about the story that Arch needs special therapies Will encourage speculation that he must be special needs, which will further excuse her never showing him fully. After baby princess Diana arrives, we may be told that arch is receiving the very best care in a residential school for special kids. That way she will get out of showing him in public at all. He will be like the invisible Collin Gosselin Who has been abandoned by his Narco mother.
I noted above that there was mention of The Queen offering Drip an olive branch. If she does that and it is made public then she might as well say Goodbye and God Bless to The Monarchy. The people of the UK will be incensed. I lay this massive turd that the malevolent two have laid at The Traitors` disgusting feet. If it was not for him this vile woman would not be in the position she is now in.
These two need to check in to the Hotel California. I am old enough to remember that song. I only hope that somehow, someway, that the both of them are taken off at the knees. In the olden days they would be standing in QC being accused of treason.
I think Meghan wants the world to believe she engaged her favorite hobby- silencing a critic- but from what I’ve gathered Piers was asked to apologize publicly for insensitivities and he refused and resigned. Meghan’s just taking credit for a guy that has integrity? Color me shocked.
Meghan’s favorite pastime is silencing others. I’ve been perusing this line of thought today. We can’t let this crazed fake woke woman represent women of America in any way. I have some plans behind this now, but it’s best to not post them on this blog. Let’s just say, her budget is going to have to increase big time. Hi, Megz. :D. She might be ok at PR, but in the digital age that’s not the best route to control a message. If she wants to play ball with the big leagues, she will have to put her money where her mouth is. If I understand how this can work- then she better be careful because deeper, public interest pockets can blow her out of the water. This is what she is possibly miscalculating. Unless Oprah wants to bankroll her, or she has hedgie backers ...this media war is going to get very costly very fast. Point being, she’s just going to get outspent in the US. Let’s see if Hillary and their donors are lining up to back her. The issue here is that Meghan doesn’t like working for people....look what’s happened to Spotify and Netflix.
I imagine they did the Oprah interview due to cash flow issues.
OPINION FREE EXPRESSION
Meghan and Harry: Aristocratic Victims for Our Times
Our elites parade their grievances before us, demanding sympathy and remorse from the masses.
By Gerard Baker
March 8, 2021 1:15 pm ET
When some future historian, or perhaps some honest parodist of our modern mores, seeks an event that captures the inversion at the core of our continuing cultural revolution, he should examine closely the television spectacle that aired on CBS Sunday evening.
There they were, assembled dreamily in the verdant grounds of a California mansion, poster victims of our irredeemably unjust system: the sixth in line to the throne of the United Kingdom, his wife, a so-so actress who nonetheless enjoyed considerable fortune before she married into the highest levels of the English aristocracy, alongside one of the most successful television celebrities on the planet, bemoaning the injustices that have befallen them in a systemically cruel society.
You’d struggle to find a better metaphor for one of the dominant narratives of our age: our elites parading their grievances and preoccupations for the masses, demanding sympathy, issuing a call for the ordinary people to do better to acknowledge their own sinfulness.
Economic inequality is greater than it has been in decades, and widening still further after a great recession and a global pandemic. The poorest neighborhoods in this country, many of them dominated by ethnic minorities, are beset by levels of violent crime and disorder not seen in a generation. Educational opportunities for those most blighted are drowning in a sea of neglect, ideological rectitude and acquiescence to the demands of teachers unions. All the while, we are forced to listen as chief executives, tenured academics, Hollywood celebrities and now a prince and his wife lecture us about what are supposed to be the real systemic flaws in our society: the terrible legacy of American history; sexism, racism and “transphobia”; the endless stream of microaggressions caused by an errant word, a contentious writer or the illustrations in the Dr. Seuss books.
None of this is to deny that our three figures, up there on their little Californian Calvary on Sunday, have, like all of us, had to bear their crosses.
Oprah Winfrey was there as the facilitator. She is a woman of exceptional talent and character who overcame crushing hardship in early life to achieve deserved success. When she speaks—or in this case facilitates a discussion—about hardship, we are well-advised to listen.
The duke of Sussex—the name provides a clue—had no such misfortune of birth, though he did suffer the unspeakable grief of losing his mother at a young age in violent and public circumstances, an event that surely left the deepest of psychic scars.
Even the duchess, the squeakiest of the wheels, commands some sympathy. The costs of marrying a royal are sometimes overlooked. Whatever their virtues, the Windsors will never be known for an openness of manner or spirit. They seem to have combined in their personalities in fact the relaxed informality of their German heritage and the sunny warmth of their adopted English homeland, so, we can assume Meghan’s distinctly New World style probably went over like supermarket kibble in the corgis’ breakfast bowl. And while claims about a yearning for privacy can be taken with a pinch of salt coming from an actress with a penchant for self-publicity that was notable even by the standards of her profession, it’s also true that the British press can be aggressively intrusive in ways anyone would find painful.
But the personal struggles, real as they are, aren’t the subject matter of the lesson we are enjoined to learn from them. The ex-royal couple have enough wit to understand that their own hardships don’t occasion many tears outside their lachrymose celebrity friends.
Instead they frame themselves as victims of much larger societal evils.
Harry and Meghan have seized the moment to sign on fully to the woke creed, ascribing their trials to that original sin of racism, not just from the royal family itself, but from the British press, feeding the ugly prejudices of the masses. They conveniently forget that the arrival of Meghan was greeted by the same press—and the same masses—with joyous acclaim, that she was portrayed as somewhere between Grace Kelly and Diana Ross.
But that’s the beauty of the new dispensation: You can always blame systemic injustice. Meghan may be pointing the finger at unnamed royals for her victim status, but we know that’s just a proxy for the wider evil that, improbable as it seems, makes her the victim. Even as you sit there in your alabaster palaces, your Silicon Valley boardrooms or your elegantly appointed dressing rooms, you can point to the real cause of society’s inequity: the Trump- and Brexit-voting hordes with their unenlightened views on immigration, crime, the climate, Western history.
And it’s one of the ironies of our leading social-justice revolutionaries, fighting to overturn the social order. When you have on your side the people who control most of the nation’s corporations, newsrooms, universities, celebrities, the federal government—along with a duke and a duchess—can you really be that oppressed?
It doesn't bother me that you are asking this--we here KNOW you don't mean us! And THOT is NOT representative of Americans.
Personally (since you didn't ask, ha!) I think the idea of monarchy is silly, but I would never disrespect an accomplished lady of advanced years. And I do hope more Kraken (if you know what I mean) is released somehow. It might be the only thing that shuts some of these people up.
I am so sorry!
I would be grateful if you dropped certain subjects so all Nutties can get to move on. Thanks in advance.
The Queen kept the HRHs as is (not really allowed to use) but took JH and all kids out of hte line?
Then M would not be able to move forward in politics unless she made the decision to give up the HRH.
and
It would take out the whole conversation about where and how the babies came from.
To me, that would be solution.
I seem to remember they had same movement or mannerism. Whoever he is, he is cute
One thing that came of all this is we got to see in real time how easy it is to flip the script and instantly have an army of support backing it up. 17 million viewed here Sunday. Only 2.5 million under age 49. The rest is older crowd of 60 Minutes that fell asleep?
Next day was pretty hot andhow many were the Sunday viewers?
Bothered me that no one was calling out how bias it was. I liked the one article that called it Meghan's "appointment" . I suppose it would be bad form to call out fellow journalist but that was slaughter left unchallenged by comrades because that is how it is or because it was Oprah?
Nice to see the counter articles flowing now. Thank you again for posting and sharing
That would be an elegant solution, but without a major constitutional overhaul, I don’t think it can be that simple. It is my understanding that an individual in the succession may remove him or herself by free will, But cannot “be removed“ summarily by the sovereign, At least not without parliamentary debate and approval. Otherwise, what would prevent someone usurping the throne ala Henry Tudor And after having for claimed himself king, removing all of the previously legitimate areas to succession of his rival?
This has never really been tested in more modern times. Only two people have ever voluntarily remove themselves from succession to my knowledge: King Edward VIII, And the aforementioned Patricia of Connaught, Who renounce to place in the succession in order to marry you commoner, And did so happily. The same option was offered to Princess Margaret in order that she might have her divorced paramour To husband, captain Peter Townsend. In the end, Margo chose the tiaras and the deference over True Love And Townsend went on to marry a 19-year-old Belgian teenager. Margaret was by this time 27 and too long in the tooth for him, even though he was in his 40s.
There’s an old eastern saying that goes “take what you want and pay for it, says God.”
The Harkles want to take what they want without paying for it. They want to be paid as well in the classic having our cake and eating it.
Perhaps some of our British constitutionalists could comment on whether her Majesty might have some wiggle room with a moral turpitude clause, or a removal based on probable insanity? But they would have to be doctors and examinations and public records testifying to both, and who is going to do that? The palace has already erred, possibly fatally By deploying the security services to scrub Markle’s past. If the royal family purposely dammed up all the tea about possible prostitution, pornographic videos, drug use, arrest records for the Marco family, embezzlement, possible acts of violence against others, Tax evasion, various levels of fraud, —If they buried all that to make Markle Appear more palatable as a royal bride, how would the BRF now claim her unfit based on moral turpitude? And how can they get her on insanity, now that she has fired her grenades about asking for mental health support from them for years and not getting it, and also their potential collusion in defrauding the line of succession over a nonexistent baby? They should have moved against her when she was only Harry’s girlfriend, and any charges of racism would have been blunted After Harry’s long distance American girlfriend had been outed As a delusional fraud who lied about her past and was essentially for sale?
Markle has trapped her self by promoting oppositional goals: on the one hand she wants to make billions of dollars merching Baby princess Diana and being subsidized by the “racist bullying“ Crown family of a foreign power. But at the same time she wants to run for American politics, which means the titles have to go. She cannot have it both ways. Harry would have to voluntarily give up his place...Could she brainwash him to that degree that he would do it? But if he did so, and then died, she wouldn’t get to play the role of glamorous Windsor widow and be subsidized or life. Can you imagine how she would milk being cast out as Harry’s widow? Rachel has kind of painted herself into a corner here. But she’s done the same for the family, because Archie has been acknowledged as an heir to the succession, by none other than the queen. Is the same coming for baby princess Diana? This is going to get way messier for the Royals before it gets any better.
https://imgur.com/IMYkxjT
So Janina Gavankar describes Meghan as “kind, generous and low maintenance” to the Daily Mail,
Just so you know.
Low maintenance.
😑
I just looked for her line of Megalow Maintenance Cleaning products and plain beige nylon house dresses at Target,com, but don’t see them.
Really? I never got the idea that any of the people who left, did so under a cloud but rather it was more like a revolving door which people were concerned about.
But, even if someone left for other reasons, that does not mean that they could not have been bullied.
Next to last paragraph
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9348393/Palace-says-Meghan-given-Queens-senior-staff-pal-says-emails-proving-claims.html
I think Flower, in many ways, communicates often about who she is, what she wants and what she will do. I am thinking tonight of her stage interview as a working actress years ago when she proudly proclaims, laughing the entire time, "I am such a fraud." Others really were not laughing at the comment. They looked somewhat dismayed. And, clearly, she told us much about herself parading around Fiji? in her MBS gifted Chopard diamond earrings even though she knew exactly what MBS had just been accused of doing. That tell: I, Flower, love money, luxury, lots of stuff for free, and I do not give a S about anything or anyone else. I deserve all of this nice stuff, because I am me.
We all know that the basic problem in this whole CF is Flower did not get to marry William and as LCC said at roughly the end of 2018 she finally realized that nothing she did was going to get Harry and she supplanted above W&K. She really did not want to go back to working in Hollywood. She wanted to be at the center of the BRF. She is a like a toddler. Her envy turned to revenge and here we are.
She is currently euphoric, though I suspect Harry's recalcitrant depression (MDD?) has already begun to take hold, once again. Flower's euphoria will not really last that long, though. With each passing day she will begin to regret what they have done, though she will never admit it. I don't see a long happy marriage in Montecito.
Flower's past is very vulgar and exposing her past and what she and Harry did during their time together in the UK will help to dismantle her lies. The people of the UK deserve to know what she did. The staff working for the BRF need to be protected and publicly vindicated. The family has been too quiet, too patient and too slow to act regarding this pox on their house. It is time to let loose and let the chips fall where they may. Dig up the snake in the grass and cut off the head. Take Richard III, I mean Harry, out to pasture and, well, I will not finish that sentience as an old rancher would.
Lastly, I am not sure about all of the NWO plant theories, because if I were planning something like this I would have found an individual with much more self control than Flower and someone for whom the BRF did not have to spend six months cleaning up the internet. Why have that weak spot out there when there are others who would have been more stealth?