Let's continue to discuss...
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
“The Queen’s Statement about Meghan and Harry — Early Drafts”
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-queens-statement-on-harry-and-meghan-early-drafts?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm
JennS quoted from the London Times:
A leaked email has revealed how Meghan was still pressing aides to correct allegations that she made the Duchess of Cambridge cry more than a year after the story was first published.
[...]
she was said to have written an email stating: “Well, if we’re just throwing any statement out there now, then perhaps KP can finally set the record straight about me [not making Kate cry].”
Leaking this is supposed to help Meghan's case? My first impression is what a rude way to ask someone to do something for you, it's more of a snarky remark than a request. My second was if that's her normal way of communicating with HR then I'm not surprised not much got done about anything, they probably thought she was just venting rather than wanting anything in particular.
I think the Disastrous Duo are just upset they didn't get the rise out of the family they were hoping. Nothing changed about their titles, security, funding, etc. They didn't get what they wanted, so they are upping the stakes. The RF is taking the high grounds (and should continue to do so) by not directly responding to the treacherous pair and hiring a third party investigator.
You reach a point where you can only take part in investigations if the bully is hermetically sealed away from you. All you want is to get away from them. Completely. I had arranged to never be alone with the person because she would literally spring up to me and hiss at me but it got to the point when I dreaded seeing the building she was in and then the start of the road the building was on. Then I knew it was time to go.
Fortunately an old boss heard I was leaving and recommended me for a much better job somewhere else, which I got. However I resigned not knowing that would happen. Without a safety net. Not even from our welfare state because I chose to give up my job. That's how bad it gets.
I think the Palace realises these people were pushed beyond endurance and is protecting them now. For me, Meghan is almost demonic at times. The black clothes. The eyes. She deliberately chose that image when a softer prettier one would ostensibly be more appropriate for Oprah. Ostensibly. But not when there are victims who must remain under her control. Known and unknown. Those balcony photos of her with the Windsors disturb me deeply, probably because of this experience of mine. The other women prettily floral and pastel. Meghan in her homage to Wallis Simpson, with a dress looking so dark and sharp it reminds me of dragon glass.
I totally agree with your observation that hooking up with Meg has not reprogrammed England’s loveable, roguish Hero Harry into what we see now before us...Hazzard has found the partner in crime who encourages him to be his real self. No more regal hero glossy packaging. No more staff of royal courtiers to keep him groomed and dressed and on message in service of a cause greater than himself. “Flower” Has encouraged all of the dark, dank, self-serving aspects of Harry to spring forth in full bloom...But she did not make them, or plant them. She only watered with flattery and fantastical thinking, the tendencies that were already within him.
Even now, I think there is a tendency among many to want to justify Harry’s behavior as something Not within his control, that he’s got no agency in his own words or actions, but is merely the helpless puppet and hostage of his Svengali wife. While she is the more outwardly articulate and dynamic, the fact is that she could not have gotten this far without Harry’s full participation and collusion. They are aligned in they’re selfish and malignant goals. This is the real Harry, which until he met up with the Bonnie to his Clyde, was a family secret to be managed behind palace walls. Hazza had an entire staff dedicated to managing him and fashioning an image of a cheeky yet heroic, warm mate to all that was more or less a fiction from soup to nuts. The Palace has been whitewashing his behavior and covering for him since he was at school, So if they performed a similar image rehabilitation on his wife, it’s something that came naturally through long practice. They are used to it. Harry’s family knows the real him, as do, I imagine, His ex-girlfriends who bolted for the hills, and the former staffers who resigned once it was clear that Harry was no longer manageable. Meg saw to that.
Harry’s poor choice of a fancy dress costume when he was 20 has nothing on the Spectacle of a now nearly middle aged man Using the global media to attack his elderly grandparents, one of whom happens to be the sovereign to him he pledged fealty over and above the normal love and loyalty expected from a grandson. He is abusing equally the father who gave him life and provides for all of his worldly needs, and the handsome brother who will always be those two critical years older, and have what Harry cannot. The hatred is string in this one. Any actions suggesting the contrary back when he was nominally in the fold seem now to have merely been lip service. The shocking abandonment of the royal Marines in favor of pimping his wife on a urine colored Disney carpet—And doing so with no apparent shame or regret—This is the real Harry. He never cared about duty, royal or military. The dressing up part he liked well enough, because it made him feel like a big man. He just didn’t want to actually have to do anything for the adulation, and in this he is exactly like his wife. This is not a marriage of an empath trapped in a Stockholm Syndrome scenario with his abusive and manipulative captor—These are two destructive Narcissists giving two fingers up to the Queen and the whole of Britain. They are both sick individuals sharing pathologies in common. Harry is the beta narcissist—the Loeb to Meg’s Lerner—But she couldn’t have achieved any of this without him. If he’d been conspicuous by his absence on that patio with Oprah, we might be having a different conversation about how damaging it was. Harry legitimizes her grievances in the popular mind because he’s the draw here—If Diana’s son, a royal prince, walked away from his birthright to protect Megan, things must’ve been as bad as she says.
If the former, when will someone who once believed her (‘cause we never did) call her out for saying their Oprah interview would be their final word on the matter? I predict a mind-numbing onslaught until this conniving con woman gets her way. BP needs to find a clever way to get out a piece of kraken just large enough to end the barrage.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9360521/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Montecito-home-breached-intruder-TWICE.html
It’s hard to accept the “bad seed” theory without looking for reasons to explain why someone would behave in such destructive and amoral ways. We could try to excuse Harry on the grounds of mental disease or defect—drug use, brain injury, trauma, parental absence, just too much “spoiling”—but It’s safe to say that Harry’s problems did not begin with Meg. She may be the end of him, but she was not the creation of him by any means. And that is the real tragedy—William and Charles have been propping up the legend the family created around Harry, but they have been betrayed and no longer want to play. The Queen is still reading from the old script, but I think the true Harry was mept from her til now. Diana’s legacy of discontented unstable chaos agent is made manifest in her son, But being profoundly lazy, he never had the nous to organize a rebellion before Meg came along—He could always be distracted by another party. Meg provides the vision and he says, “Sounds great, babe let’s do it.”
Just saw on Scorpiotwentythree that Heather Wong resigned from Travalyst February 28th.
Shows she is smart to bail on the Montecito nitwits. Anyways here is Heather >>> https://twitter.com/royal_suitor/status/1331131832088240130
This comment was posted at around 11am on the article about BP bringing in an external legal firm concerning the bullying probe.
Taurakim, Austin, United States, 3 hours ago
Meghan hired a couple of guys to jump barriers and trespass onto her property. She did this to try and prove that they need 24 hour 7 day a week security. The men she hired didn't even know who she or Harry were even though they lived close by. This is what is going around and people are saying. Meghan will do whatever she has to to get security because it makes her feel "important". These guys are wanting to go and give a report but Meghan has given them enough money to be quiet, for now. Unfortunately, a couple of neighbors video surveillance caught some really good photos and they are afraid of being arrested for a stupid hoax Meghan created. They have told Meghan that if they are interviewed, arrested, anything that they are going to tell the WHOLE story. Meghan was really stupid when she ignorantly chose a couple of pretty intelligent guys that figured out that they could give all this information to THE ROYAL FAMILY. A lot of people have been trying to hide this story.
Comments page 6/7 commented at around 11am UK
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9359547/Buckingham-Palace-brings-external-legal-firm-carry-bullying-probe.html#comments
At 13.16hrs this article was published with a breaking news banner
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9360521/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Montecito-home-breached-intruder-TWICE.html
Hmmm.....
I think the Palace realises these people were pushed beyond endurance and is protecting them now. For me, Meghan is almost demonic at times. The black clothes. The eyes. She deliberately chose that image when a softer prettier one would ostensibly be more appropriate for Oprah.
@Ava -- You get it with your demonic insertion! Demonic indeed! Although Megs is an aspiring and pathetic demon at best. Do you have to live near the cold Scots border to realize this? Overdone dramatic black mascara and eyeliner. The head is what most focus on. Not her black dress too. What a blackish goth broadcast she is sending out. Black as in "I will get you" if you defy me.
Cue in Paint It Black by the Rolling Stones
Or maybe she'd be a Thomas Markle 2.0? Either way, outing her deceptions would be SO delightful!
Thanks for sharing. :)
The BRF needs to set any pride aside and drop the Kraken! The majority of people would forgive their mistakes and appreciate that they finally exposed MM for what she really is. They can spin some PR to bring Harry back around, eventually.
I don't see why they can't, in theory; HM is the only person that can't be taken to Court.
There's a big BUT though -she hasn't actually named names - causing maximum damage with minimum risk. That's probably why she's dealt only in vague generalities, whether speaking or writing. I don't know if there's any way around that, unless it's possible to have Group Action(s), say, Royal Family and/or Staff versus Markle. The cost to the Plaintiffs could be prodigious.
Might it be possible to launch the case The British People versus Markle? I wonder how many of us would be prepared to chip in, and how much? She has slandered us in front of a global audience.
There could be three cases under the Civil Law, British People/ the Royal Staff/ the Royal family, excluding the Queen, versus Markle, in addition to criminal charges against her.
`Regina versus Markle' would be the title of any criminal proceedings against her, just the same formula as it is for other scum who have committed felonies.
Btw: Just because the Internet has been scrubbed and records removed from public view, it doesn't necessarily mean that the data has been lost. I'd hope that any security service worth its salt would copy and save elsewhere, just as we do with screenshots of things we think might vanish, the `birth' announcement, on Kensington Royal for instance.
One never knows when one might need it again.
-----------------
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/uk-front-pages-newspapers-harry-meghan-oprah-interview-081425119.html
That is some news! Any suggestion yet that the chap arrested was one of her minions?
----------------
Husband's keeping an eye on global earth movements as well as the Iceland volcanism. A lot of plates seem to be shifting at the moment. I've asked him to let me know if there's anything with Myrtle Meeks's name on it, though I hope her neighbours are OK.
101 Dalmatians | Cruella De Vil | Disney Sing-Along
5,528,794 views•Aug 6, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-YkJdYQzis
*******From the old Disney movie in the 1950s. The Megsy connection to Cruella is unmistakable.
Amended post (shorter and safer!):
Btw, my most recent(!) marriage was a Civil one in the local Register Office. It was followed the next day by a church `blessing'- it wasn't called that but a `Service of Prayer and Dedication' which sounds very penitential. It was part of the normal Sunday service, with much ritual anyway.
I didn’t do the Big Bride’s Entry, we arrived together and just quietly took our places on the special chairs at the front.
We exchanged our vows a second time; the ring was blessed , the priest wrapped his stole around our hands with his stole and proclaimed us `Man and Wife'.
There was no pretence that this was the actual marriage. The legal Register had been signed the day before at the Register Office.
This was at an Anglo Catholic (ie Cof E) church (think Barbara Pym’s frequent references to this wing of the church where there are strong views on the church remarriage of divorced people.
I wore a hat and a glamourous 2-piece (jacket and skirt) - rather 1950s -ish
Well it's some coincidence that the commentator posted on another article 2 hours before the trespassing article appeared - I had to scrawl through a ridiculous amount of comments under the first article to find it again and screenshot, hoping that it hadn't been deleted!
Who knows, the poster could have been a wind up merchant, but it did strike me as strange.
Not sure what, if any crime it would come under ( fraudulent intent perhaps or at the least, wasting police time) Either way, if it can be proven then they are in big trouble.
Perhaps history will repeat itself and Harry will bring up the children alone in the UK whilst 'Mummy is on holiday'.......
Thank you for this. I do hope something comes of it and the two guys can spill the beans. I hope the news will reach BP too. The DM says this happened on 24 and 26 December - but mentions one man - so why is story in the news now three months later? The timing is extremely suspect, especially if lots of people have been trying to hide the story. Now the witch will be crying and bleating, nay, demanding to get security or rather, money (lots of it) as she, a vulnerable pregnant woman, is feeling threatened. Harry will swallow her demands hook, line and sinker. If so, I hope the BRF won't give in.
I've been looking for that old Harry documentary I found a while ago, which I posted on here. We nutties were brought up short by the number of red flags there were in that film. I've found it again and it's worth re-watching now Harry has outdone himself. Every time I think he can't get any worse, he proves me wrong:
https://youtu.be/OmpP-74gUJE
Hypothetical situation, but if it could be proved and the FBI were involved, could the RF find themselves between a rock and a hard place if, for example, they offered to go lightly on Harry with maybe just a hefty fine and a one way ticket back to Blighty, but in return for the extradition of his uncle to the USA for questioning on Epstein and Maxwell?
Yes, I hope it reaches BP too. I think the press and BP have a healthy symbiotic relationship at the moment, with both having very good reason to be aggrieved. I have little doubt that the press are happy to say outright or infer, whatever the RF are not able to due to protocol etc, hence the party line from BP that it is a family matter. I'd be surprised if the press weren't scouring the comments on their articles for anything that may warrant a closer look and any resulting information would, I hope, be relayed to BP.
Thank you for your brilliant analysis. I wonder if a good many people are having trouble seeing Harry for who he actually is now. After all, it is much easier to cling to the image created and protected by the Palace because the real Harry is so hard to accept or even fathom. It feels like grasping who Diana really was instead of the image she created or was created for her.
In both cases, it might be more palatable to hang on to the PR created images than the ugly reality of both Diana and Harry. It is just easier to make excuses for both mother and son. I imagine some people may feel duped or betrayed by the current version of Harry.
Your analysis prompted me to think that neither MM or Harry have ever had any original ideas of their own. The OW interview seems to be another example of Harry acting out without regard for his actions, just
like the Nazi uniform incident.
How much of Diana’s life be repeated by Harry?
Thank you again for your response.
This could be interesting.
This comment was posted at around 11am on the article about BP bringing in an external legal firm concerning the bullying probe.
Taurakim, Austin, United States, 3 hours ago
Meghan hired a couple of guys to jump barriers and trespass onto her property. She did this to try and prove that they need 24 hour 7 day a week security. The men she hired didn't even know who she or Harry were even though they lived close by. This is what is going around and people are saying. Meghan will do whatever she has to to get security because it makes her feel "important".
@TheGrangle: Wow. Just wow.
Does anybody here remember the 2019 case of Jussie Smollett, a cast member of the hit FOX network show “Empire”?
IMPORTANT NOTE: Meghan and Harry want the Crown to pay for a security team. At the time, Smollett was reported to be dissatisfied with his pay as a cast member and wanted more money.
If DM comment is accurate in any way, it shows just how mentally deranged Meghan is, but she has a history of mimicking others, to cast herself as a victim to advance her personal agenda.
For those of you not familiar with Smollett’s case, here’s the basics.
“Empire” was a HUGE show in the vein of the monster hit “Dallas” in the 1980s.
This is edited info from Wikipedia with some info from me in brackets.
In late January 2019, actor Jussie Smollett claimed to the Chicago police department he was assaulted at night by two people he described as white men, wearing MAGA hats.
(Make America Great Again is the slogan of the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and a it remained popular during Trump’s 2020 campaign. Trump supporters favor hats shirts and other items with the abbreviation “MAGA” logo.)
Smollett claimed the two men came out of nowhere in the middle of the night on a deserted street and shouted racial and homophobic slurs, poured a substance, possibly bleach, onto him and tied a noose around his neck and beat him up. (Note: A very sad part of US history is mob lynchings, as recently as the late 1960s, often linked to the KKK. The overwhelming number of people lynched were black.)
Immediately after the report of the attack, public figures expressed support for Smollett. Entertainment industry figures, including Shonda Rhimes and Viola Davis expressed their outrage over the attack and support for Smollett. Democrat senators and presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Cory Booker both described the attack as an attempted modern-day lynching.
In February 2019, Chicago police raided the home of two Nigerian-American brothers who had worked with Smollett as extras on the “Empire” tv show .
Police recovered records indicating the brothers were paid $3,500 by Smollett. They had purchased the rope found around Smollett's neck at a local hardware store before the attack on Smollett.
The brothers were also seen in the security camera footage in a clothing store where they bought gloves, ski masks, and a red hat that police said was used in the attack.
On February 20, 2019, Smollett was indicted for disorderly conduct for paying the brothers to stage a fake hate crime assault on him and filing a false police report.
Smollett's defense team reached a deal with prosecutors on March 26, 2019, in which all charges were dropped in return for Smollett performing community service and forfeiting his $10,000 bond.
The city of Chicago sued Smollett for the costs of the investigation and the case has had other legal stuff going on, with it reportedly sent to the FBI for investigation.
This is the case in a nutshell. If the DM comment is at all accurate, Meghan could be at work as a copycat.
Also remember that to cast herself as a victim to get the info that she and Harry were dating, Meghan reported photographers going as far as harassing her at her Toronto home to manipulate Harry into releasing the “back off” statement that cemented them as an official couple.
Timing and the scary need for security (now).
What the heck? This 2 break-ins are not making sense in the narrative that "we absolutely need the security and how dare they put us at risk".
Why would that have not been added to the interview? That's where it really would have added punch to the uneducated about how much security they really were given and when.
Does not make sense. Unless they weren't really there but even then, why not bring it up because we were lucky before but we might not be the next time.
Hikari - really nice as always.
WBBM - I liked your wedding. It sounded like fun at church. Maybe not this but sill the reception sounded fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV5_xj_yuhs
I've been steeped in medieval and early modern English history my whole adult life. I often think Harry's attitudes are indistinguishable from his egotistical namesake who even shared the same colour hair. Also a second son and a Mummy's boy. The future Henry VIII. Thank goodness Prince William is a more robust character than Prince Arthur was and that he has had time to put a further three people between Harry and the throne.
It may be my skills but it doesn't seem possible to track the disposition of Nickolas Brooks' case online. It's possible to do a Santa Barbara county court docket search but it only goes forward. (You can enter a date as long ago as 1/1/21 but it appears it still searches from today forward. I tried it with names that are more common than "Brooks" and only got appearances going forward.)
Any legal eagles in CA know hoe to do it?
Thanks for that, I wasn't familiar with the Smollet case and yes, it's yet another example of Maggot re-living other well known events. I find that aspect of her to be extremely sinister and a strong indication that she does have very real psychological problems. It's almost as if she is casting herself in the leading roles in her own dramatic reconstruction of events and personalities that have had an impact on her.
As I remember it, the Toronto police found absolutely nothing at all that would have substantiated her claims and her complaint was shelved.This time, if the poster is credible, she appears to have tried to avoid the same outcome.
@499 part II
It’s hard to accept the “bad seed” theory without looking for reasons to explain why someone would behave in such destructive and amoral ways. We could try to excuse Harry on the grounds of mental disease or defect—drug use, brain injury, trauma, parental absence, just too much “spoiling”—but It’s safe to say that Harry’s problems did not begin with Meg. She may be the end of him, but she was not the creation of him by any means. And that is the real tragedy—William and Charles have been propping up the legend the family created around Harry, but they have been betrayed and no longer want to play. The Queen is still reading from the old script, but I think the true Harry was mept from her til now. Diana’s legacy of discontented unstable chaos agent is made manifest in her son, But being profoundly lazy, he never had the nous to organize a rebellion before Meg came along—He could always be distracted by another party. Meg provides the vision and he says, “Sounds great, babe let’s do it.”
I agree, this appears to be a case of two people with huge personality disorders/mental illnesses that complement each other getting together. Look at the bright side; at least they aren't victimizing a partner that is being convinced that the fault lies with them.
We have to watch and read our media as though they are Pravda (which they are). They are covering non-stories that *nobody* cares about, such as the horrible travails of a couple of very unpleasant 40ish millionaires that are whining about their allowance being cut off by Grammy and Daddy because they are allegedly racist. Oh, the horror!
While THOSE poor, poor helpless whiny baby stories are running, other stories are not, all of which are absolutely brutal in exposing the incompetence or deliberate malfeasance of the Wokerati in charge in a number of states.
For overseas news, how's that latest Ebola outbreak in Africa going? How is it possible that the latest Ebola outbreak was triggered by a survivor from the outbreak of 2014 per genetic sequencing? Would this mean that 'survivors' are subject to being killed by villagers to eliminate possible continuing contagion? Will African countries have to set up guarded "Ebola colonies" much like the old leper colonies in order to keep this under control?
I'm wondering what isn't being covered in the UK and EU while news organizations happily lap up the distraction of the Meghan and Harry show. If there is anything published overseas that is *contrary* to current administration views, uncritical readers that rely on the MSM will not see it.
Good mothers day response from the BRF a lot has been lost this year and rarely do we publicly acknowledge Mums that have lost on Mothers Day, and a good reminder that Prince William also lost a mom. Love the Camila one with her mom. Would have been nice for PC having one with one with Philip's mom.
Thank you for the info re J Smollett, I don't know if the case was well known outside the US. I hadn't heard of it. I wouldn't put it past Megalo to have instigated the same in order to ask for security. As long as Charles doesn't pay, that's fine.
As well as that, far from being harassed by reporters in Toronto, Megalo was ringing them to be snapped e.g. carrying her yoga mat. I seem to recall she claimed her house had been broken into but the police found nothing to substantiate the claim.
And yes, Meg feeling suicidal while pregnant certainly reminded me of Diana too. Great minds think alike :)
So what does it matter that they had a (paid or not) ‘intruder’?
Why is this at all relevant? Does she want the world to think she is in demand? I don’t get it.
Maneki Neko said...
@HappyDays
Thank you for the info re J Smollett, I don't know if the case was well known outside the US. I hadn't heard of it. I wouldn't put it past Megalo to have instigated the same in order to ask for security. As long as Charles doesn't pay, that's fine.
I do believe that *every* accusation of racism has been proved to be false last year.
Have you seen this article in the Sunday Times? I've been looking over your posts and don't see it. Sorry if I've missed it.
I really appreciate the articles you post. Thanks for taking the time too keep us better informed.
thetimes.co.uk/article/no-one-knows-if-what-was-said-about-archie-was-racist-bgw99tm9n
I am very sorry you went through such bullying and fear on your workplace, and I agree with everything you wrote about how there comes a point in the investigation process that the victim(s) must be protected and separated from the bully. In the several cases when I had to force investigation of a bully that was attacking my team, a frightened colleague’s team, or staff I interacted with to retrain as a contract project to director, the bully always insisted on being part of the investigation (provably control issues and certainly fear of being exposed by staff who suddenly felt momentarily safe. It was a no-go situation for the victims of course, so I had to step in strongly to ensure their privacy and comfort. The bullies still tried to threaten and intimidate them; in one case in London, I had four women sobbing in a restroom at differed times in a two-day period telling me about the post-interview intimidation of their furious bullies. I had to catch the tactics in action by working late in a dark side room, in order to report on the situation to get the bullying manager removed.
Two similar case profiles occurred in the US.
I have seen professionals lie, attack, abuse with ease. So I have no doubt it could have happened even in the palace.
In fact, in two of the places I dealt with, the general culture was so famously “nice” and elevated, and the bullies had such charm to dispense to their higher ups, it was almost beyond the ability of the comfortable management to believe it could happen. But snakes do slither in.
Anyway, I am so glad you survived it and got out. It can be so hugely debilitating. I’ve had a few friends who were so shaken and destroyed by bullying, they quit, no job, and had to take a year off to recover their balance.
Sadly this workplace bullying is one of the most overlooked issues, Pooh Poohed, victims told to just quit. It usually takes time, when management has spent a fortune on turnover and endured ramping productivity failure, before something is done. My team is hired when brands wanted to rebalance, or expand, or reach new aggressive goals. My first question is always “why don’t you think your own internal team can get there?” The answers usually take a few days of discussion, then two of us may embed for three days.
7 times out of 10, we find an issue of harassment, bullying, or team disparagement is the cause of anemic or stagnant sales. So we address that along with our revamp strategies and creative work. Only when the bullying sorts of issues are addressed do we allow them to begin the business process with us. If we can’t tally actual steps taken for ourselves, we refuse to work with the company.
7 out of 10, though. It really makes me angry, especially when I see the happy company family BS posted on some company P.R. lines in press, LinkedI etc. Or the many books written by CEOs or former HR people blathering sugar and telling people to do yoga to handle it. It is one is one of the true secret underground world crimes, in my opinion. Watching Megs and her mean girl pals posture and demean and use veiled threats is, to me, like deja vu. I hope the investigation team hired isn’t just a fancy fake.
You are not alone in what you endured. You are among many much wiser survivors and workplace warriors.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I’ve been saying it for a while - though not as eloquently nor as extensively - Hapless is as bad as she is. The main difference between the two being that one is a hungry hustler and the other one a lazy rich idiot. The BRF has an exceptionally clever team of advisers and they had done a brilliant job creating a fictitious version of H to suit their interests. The whole brotherly love narrative between William and H the nameless was an act too good to be true. Then, Megalo came along and the H myth collapsed immediately and completely. William and Catherine had been surrounding him, literally and figuratively. They’ve helped keep him under control. It worked for a while but his resentfulness and bitterness are far worse than they had imagined. He is a peevish coward hiding behind his new mommy. She is doing a big part of the dirty work for him. For now, they need each other but she has way more experience than him. He will be lost without her. Sooner or later, she will walk away. She has - and always will have - the upper hand.
MM is a 'successful' actress and her whole aduLt life has pursued fame and fortune. As a result there is the chance with her internet lifestyle blog and thirsty faming she will attract unwanted visitors. Luckliy she can buy 24 hr security. The general public who choose to live private lives and end up with stalkers and abusive partners or family members cant afford security. Her gratitude for her priveledged situation is heartwarming.
I keep reading press about MM running for president in 2024 and seeking out wealthy democratic donors for her journey.
Is this this true or just a smoke screen to start her own superPAC that will enable her to get mega donatations and spend 95 percent on herself like so mant other PACs and charities?
Look at Bidens Cancer charity that spent all of its money on salaries and administration fees. Or so amny republican and Democratic Superpacs that spend most of the money on the administrators and almost nothing on the causes.
I really dont see her giving up the title unless the win is guarnteed. She has such a thin skin and doesnt have the temperment, skills, knowledge, or ability... fhis has to be a joke right? Although the same could be said for all of our recent presidents.
Isnt this just another Harkle money making scheme?.
This particular story is a red flag that they are moving or have already moved.
When they moved out of their Oxford home, a story appeared in the media that it wasn't safe due to pap drones.
When they were moved out of their canada home, a story appeared in the media about intrusive paps.
When they moved out of Tyler Perry's house, a story appeared in the media about intrusive public using trails close to the house + pap drones.
And now we have a story about an intruder in Montecito.
Montecito story has a complimentary story about the house going up in value to $30M.
The real estate story is actually a sales ad. Price to buy it $30M. Which is close to the original value($25M) of the house when the Russian wanted to sell it, but the great negotiators / bargain hunters Sussex got it at the bargain price of $14M
Each of these moves is preceded by internet rumour that no one has seen the Harkles at or near the property or the house looks empty.
The difference in price between original price $25M and the asking price $30M is the $5M that the Harkles used to buy the property.
The security angle is a figleaf to hide the reality, but the pattern is there. It's a very sympathetic reason for the move to their next home. If it gets them security that's a bonus, but it is not the real reason for this story.
Husband's keeping an eye on global earth movements as well as the Iceland volcanism. A lot of plates seem to be shifting at the moment. I've asked him to let me know if there's anything with Myrtle Meeks's name on it, though I hope her neighbours are OK.
Well, considering that Hot Rob is apparently one of her neighbors, fingers crossed. Oprah, well, probably back in Hawaii awaiting the next volcanic event there.
Tell your husband that I try to update myself on global earth movements, too! Once you can see the earthquake progression across tectonic faults (and can look at the map and "see" the general area where the next quake will strike for yourself), it is hard to believe anymore that they are random events.
Here is an interesting USGS map (for those that are interested in such things) that shows Montecito (to the right of Santa Barbara) laid out in the context of fault lines that run through the area. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3001/downloads/pdf/SIM3001map.pdf
Most of the soil that the city is located on does not appear to be on the most stable of foundations, but we already knew that from the previous mudslides. I'm sure it's lovely but the insurance payments must be exorbitant which, again, makes me wonder how they could afford to buy a house there. If they have a mortgage on it, they have to have insurance on it.
that a few regular posters on either Plant or Yankee reposted photos from a Skippy regular who decided to post gatehouse photos from the Montecito mansion? They were on short weekend trip In that area and decided to route thumped two and from journeys thru Montecito.
They posted photos from the road, went up the private road that leads to a number of hidden mansions, at risk of being arrested for trespassing by car on a private road (ie a road that is open off a main road, but privately constructed and maintained by the home owners for their special access. A sign was posted saying private road, but it was a midday so the Skippy poster risked a quick up and down the road for a couple of minutes and left.
The poster saw no signs of life, no one in the abandoned shuttered guard house, overgrown vegetation. And no security.i should add that a friends’ parents lived in Montecito about ten years before moving back East a couple of years ago, and always had sort of backpacking hippie type trespassers cutting across lawns to reach ocean views, or trying to camp under trees overnight, sometimes they called police or simply heard that their gardener would tell the trespassers to go. Usually aimless 20 somethings who thought it was a park or were just high and happy with life and wanted a view.
The Harkles may have an a serious intruder of course, and I don’t mean to diminish that if they did.
But I find It so obvious that it happened three months ago, and they are only mentioning it now as they are crying for money now and decided to mention it to buck up the Poor Harkles tale of pampered woe. They want to be in the press every day, and be world famous, and so now an intruder story. Okay.
Per the comment about someone saying they knew Megs hired two guys to invade her property, I wouldn’t doubt it at all. That can happen separately from a random hippie green space trespasser misdemeanor, too. I have friends out East with oceanfront property, family homes with lawns down to the water, and they get this kind of trespassing backpacking hippie/photography student stuff too in the summer.
Fundraising page set up to pay Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's £11million mortgage on their California mansion closes after raising just £78.64 - and the organiser promises it was NOT a joke
• Anastasia Hanson, 56, from Ventura, California, set up fundraiser for Sussexes
• Ms Hanson aimed to raise £11m to pay for Duke and Duchess of Sussex's mansion
• Prince Harry revealed to Oprah last weekend that he had been 'cut off' by Royals
•Page was removed from GoFundMe after raising just £78.64 for the cause
The GoFundMe page was set up by Anastasia Hanson, 56, from California, two days after the couple's bombshell Oprah interview and titled 'Harry and Meghan $5 Donation to Buy Home (£3.61)'.
Organiser Ms Hanson wrote on the page that the 'jobless' Duke and Duchess of Sussex had been going through a 'very rough time' after having funding for their security and lifestyle pulled by the Royal family, The Sun reports.
-------------
Some people are seriously delusional.
Megalo is the queen of Montecito isn’t she??
1). I can't wrap my head around a 36 year old bragging about £100.000.000+ Netflix deal, £30.000.000 Spotify deal whining that he needs his father to GIVE him money for security
2). I often wonder what Harry's friends think or are they even friends any more? Skippy et all used to pal around with Haz and pick up the tab for drinks. Well he was a Senior Royal with direct access to the palace. Now he's just Harry. He invites you to his wedding but not the evening reception which he invited celebrities he didn't eve know to attend.
Slap in face
I wouldn't keep in touch with him, wonder if the lads do?
Does anyone remember that months ago, probably late summer 2020,
that a few regular posters on either Plant or Yankee reposted photos from a Skippy regular who decided to post gatehouse photos from the Montecito mansion? They were on short weekend trip In that area and decided to route thumped two and from journeys thru Montecito.
......................
@AnT
I remember seeing this. I read about it on LSA and I saved the photo!🤣
@Mom Mobile
Glad you liked the Times article and my pointed emojis!!!🤣
@Margery
No problem, I'll take a look for that article in a few minutes - I haven't checked the site yet today so there may be some other good stuff too.😁
Any time anyone sees something from the Times they think might be interesting just let me know. I check every day but I don't copy and paste everything not knowing what may be of specific interest beyond the most obvious.
And Oprah doesn’t ask her: “But where was Harry? Why couldn’t HE drive you to a doctor? Did they take away his license and keys too?!”
So many glaring holes in their story!!! Where WAS Harry when she was being tortured by his family?? The way Meghan tells the story, it’s like she was all alone in a haunted mansion, miles away from civilization, with only the cobwebs to keep her company. Crying while feeding poor Archie and waiting for her hardworking husband to come home from his day in the coal mines.
I just watched a new video on H&M by one of my fav youtubers, and she has completely bought their story. Completely. I’m so upset. She usually has such balanced views on things, which is why I followed her, but this one was 100% in adherence to the woke brigade (“Meghan the absolute saint suffered only because she is black”).
I’m tired.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9361157/Prince-Harry-arranged-flowers-placed-Princess-Dianas-grave-Mothers-Day-tribute.html
Thank you for that - great fun.
Those must have been paper petals on the floor - I went to a Corpus Christi service once at a big London church, with real rose petals, and the floor became like a skating rink with the mush!
The most comedic part was when the priest stood in front of us to take us through the vows the vows and said, out of the corner of his mouth , `What do you think of the show so far?'
That's pure Morecombe and Wise & the `correct' response is `Rubbish!' It was so unexpected that Husband had great difficulty in keeping a straight face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ot1HjCRdg
#1 - That story about the fundraiser to pay for the Harkle's mortgage started in The Sun and I posted about it saying the lady might be a kook and that the link had disappeared.
Now the MOS has an article about the same story (@Maneki posted it above) and they are claiming it was not a joke. Something about the way they phrased the headlines sounds as if they read my take (and perhaps others) on the tale as sounding like a joke...
#2 - Yesterday I wrote about how the palace didn't stop Markle from doxing bloggers in the Daily Mail who were critical of her. Now all of a sudden there is an article in the MOS about this. They are using the story as a way to say they tried to support her. I note though that they are NOT bringing up the bloggers but rather the people who were sending harassing messages on the palace Instagram accounts which was part of the same story at the time. I think some of those bloggers sued the DM over that incident.
Racist? How the Mail on Sunday fell head over heels for Meghan the megastar... and exposed the REAL bigots and trolls who spread their vicious hatred for her
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9359195/How-Mail-Sunday-fell-head-heels-Meghan-megastar-exposed-REAL-bigots.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9360997/Trump-privately-said-Meghan-Markle-no-good-bombshell-Oprah-interview.html
I don't understand this article - did Trump want his opinion on this to come out or not? Did his advisor screw him or is he secretly doing his bidding?
@WBBM
Re; Issue of whether Meghan can be sued for libel. What ones says that is actionable is called 'slander' and when it is written it is 'libel'. Then the correct jurisdiction would have to be chosen for a suit, and generally this is where the offense occurred (in this case the interview was in California.).
Then the jurisdiction's defamation laws would be the controlling factor on what is considered 'slander' or 'libel' and there is some leeway (a bigger hurdle to cross) where 'public figures' are concerned. That is why we see many printed 'hit pieces' and 'false media reports' go nowhere because the public figure is not afforded quite the protection as a private person.
"A public figure, however, must prove affirmatively that a statement was false. He or she must also prove “actual malice.” This means that the defendant made the defamatory statement either with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth."
Damages do not have to be proved "in certain 'per se' defamation cases". However the exception usually involves untruthful statements that on their face, are so injurious so that no explanation is needed.
Now here is my opinion based on reading this attorney's article.
1. The false statement has to be proven.
2. That a senior royal commenting about the Harkles future children's skin color is not so damagaing on its face it does not need further explanation.
3. A senior royal would be considered a 'public figure'.
In any event, here are some common defenses (and there are many) to defamation;
- The defendant’s statement was true;
- The statement wasn’t published;
- The statement was privileged;
- The statement was an opinion or fair comment on a matter of public interest;
- The statement wasn’t made negligently or with malice; and/or,
- The defendant never said anything negative about the plaintiff.
If such a thing was said, the senior royal could use the defense that the statement was 'privileged' (a private remark between themselves and say, Harry).
I can totally buy into your “they’re about to move theory” — with the caveat that I don’t think they live there, but instead accepted oligarch money to pretend they do, to hype up the profile and value. Maybe you think that as well.
Where next? LA, Bev Hills? More real estate grifter behavior to be closer to studio life, or be nearer to some district for which she hopes to run for office? Plus a need to escape Montecito before the Fosters buy a place? Or to escape other scrutiny, and rumors, and the knowing ocean-deep blues eyes of chatty, canny Hot Rob?
Closer to the West Hollywood Soho House?
Washington DC? NYC, to replace Cuomo? 🤪
Thank you for that - great fun.
Those must have been paper petals on the floor - I went to a Corpus Christi service once at a big London church, with real rose petals, and the floor became like a skating rink with the mush!
The most comedic part was when the priest stood in front of us to take us through the vows the vows and said, out of the corner of his mouth , `What do you think of the show so far?'
That's pure Morecombe and Wise & the `correct' response is `Rubbish!' It was so unexpected that Husband had great difficulty in keeping a straight face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ot1HjCRdg
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputation/defamation/
She also didn't explain that the Diana friend she spoke to is a leading Mental Health expert with her own Mental Health charity.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9337857/Is-psychotherapist-Julia-Samuels-friend-Dianas-Meghan-Markle-turned-to.html
I doubt this psychotherapist would have left her to flounder unattended as she implied in the interview.
Wierd that Harry also didn't make that public and instead aloowed Meghan to paint him as a useless bystander and witness to her distress. Ge literally said he was ashamed to tell his family and friends meanwhile his wife is actively talking to a leading expert in mental health on the regular!!!
Ha, I knew you would remember that story and the photos! That you have them saved means you deserve Champagne tonight.
And, I suppose wouldn’t be surprised that someone might read here for info and leads, especially with your findings, thoughts and files and Hikari’s and others’ style of deeper analysis.
Thanks JennS for keeping this love tractor fueled, I know this is an ordeal and running. Nutties will always be a gunning for this faker. She is no Freddy Laker who let me fly 99 dollars from East to West coast in 1986. And back.... Is this sick? One can never predict.
You say you want to live as an ordinary man here in the US. This is what ordinary men live with. They also have to pay the bills, do their own shopping and cleaning, get child care for their children because they have to work, and they barely make ends meet. Their lives have changed dramatically due to Coronavirus, too.
So, Harry you got exactly what you wanted- a life as an American, and now you're seeing the repercussions of that. Yes, being an adult, with adult trials and tribulations, is a part of everyday life. This is exactly what you asked for, and now that you've got it, it isn't enough for you.
Whose fault is it that you fell for your wife's California fairy tale, and it came up short? Nobody but you and your overly zealous wife, and you expect your father to continue to bail you out financially- a nearly forty year old man with a wife, child and another on the way?
Harry, you disgust me. So does your wife. The only person who appears to be truly suffering is your son, Archie, who is not allowed to be seen by ordinary people. How mentally healthy is that?
So, Harry quit your little boy complaining and begging for money, and be a man for once in your pathetic, overly-protected, overly-privileged life.
There’s no hard evidence of royal racism
The backlash over Meghan’s revelations has been too much about feelings and not enough about details and context
Part 1
David Aaronovitch
Wednesday March 10 2021, 5.00pm GMT
I am not a great one for duchesses. As Robbie Burns wrote of deference to lords, “His riband, star, an’ a’ that, / The man o’ independent mind, / He looks and laughs at a’ that.” And when that man wants genuine, real-life family drama, he listens to The Archers. Nor am I persuaded that this latest démarche is some great existential crisis for the royal family, reckoning that if you can survive Prince Andrew, you can survive anything.
No, never mind them — it’s us I’m worried about. Unfortunately to illustrate this concern I have to dip back into the Oprah Winfrey transcript. Here you find Oprah asking Meghan if Archie may not have been made a prince because of his race. Towards the end of her answer Meghan refers to “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born”. Oprah does her now famous double take. Meghan adds that she didn’t hear this herself but there were “several conversations with Harry” involving the “family”.
Oprah: “About how dark your baby is going to be?” Meghan: “Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.”
Meghan won’t reveal who the conversation was with. It is Oprah who asks Meghan to speculate that the subject was raised because “they” (unspecified) “were concerned that if he were too brown that that would be a problem”. The reply was “I wasn’t able to follow up with why, but I think that feels like a pretty safe [assumption] . . .”
And that’s it. That’s all any of us have to go on. We don’t know exactly what was said, we don’t know how it was said, we don’t know who said it. The only context that we can give to this story is one, frankly, conjured up out of our own fantasies and prejudices. But Lord, we haven’t let that stop us.
We might easily imagine that this anonymous royal is an ideological relic, still rooted in the assumptions of the not-so-distant past. There is an old-fashioned, middle-class English form of mocking concern about race-mixing summed up in that odious phrase that someone bears “a touch of the tarbrush”.
My maternal grandfather, an army officer whom I only met once, had a derogatory word for just about every nationality and colour other than his own, all of which he deployed with an imperial sense of national and racial superiority. This included describing my father as a “hairy, Jewish gorilla”.
That was some time ago now. But maybe some of that survives at rarefied heights? Or perhaps instead we could speculate that the original comment came from someone actually hoping for a child who was noticeably darker, on the basis of it demonstrating in the princely flesh the royal family’s investment in diversity.
My own mother, as militant an antiracist as you can imagine, might easily have said something like that. And, after all, what on earth would be the point of expressing concern about the colour of a baby who will be born in any case?
But just as one side makes the assumption that this accusation is “dynamite”, suggesting an institution in desperate need of re-education, the other asserts that it’s all a lie concocted to wound our hard-working, dutiful royals. It needs restressing: the only fact here is that we don’t know. Yet so many people act and write as if they do. And at this point I want to link the royal race imbroglio to another “scandal”, this time on the other side of the Atlantic.
Early in the pandemic I started to listen to podcasts and read articles by the veteran New York Times science reporter, Donald McNeil. One of those craggy old journalists who quite enjoys their own cragginess, McNeil turned out to be a brilliant guide to the uncertainties of the corona world. With excellent contacts and superb judgment he called it right, from his early pessimism about viral spread to his early optimism about vaccine development. He seemed nailed on for a Pulitzer.
Then, last month, out of the blue, came the story that he had, in effect, been fired. The full story, including his own lengthy version, has now been published and it begins in 2019 when he was one of the journalists accompanying paying teenagers on a New York Times jaunt to Peru. Some of them had complained about him, that complaint had leaked to a rival news outfit, who wrote up the story and the sky fell on McNeil’s grizzled head.
McNeil himself has detailed the complaints, all of which seem to allege some form of racial insensitivity and which range from the use of the “n” word to dissing the medicinal capabilities of a Peruvian shaman. No one disputes that he had used the “n” word in a discussion about racism, because a friend of one of the participants had got into terrible trouble for using it herself.
When it was demanded of him by his management that he apologise, he did so, writing that “originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended. I now realise that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful.”
Not enough. The balloon went up among some of his colleagues, over 150 of whom dismissed the management’s defence that McNeil had had no racist intention. “Intention,” they wrote, “is irrelevant.” They were “outraged and in pain”, they said, because “we have given a prominent platform — a critical beat covering a pandemic disproportionately affecting people of colour — to someone who chose to use language that is offensive and unacceptable by any newsroom’s standards.”
“A platform”? To one of the best science journalists in the Anglophone world to write brilliantly about the biggest public health crisis of a century? On receipt of the letter and despite the fact that it hadn’t called for McNeil’s dismissal, his bosses told him he had “lost the newsroom” and should sling his hook.
Is McNeil a racist? Almost certainly not. What helps us to understand this is knowing the context and thus his intention. But if you decide that these are irrelevant, and that your “pain” is what matters, and you can get enough signatures on your complaint then, as the craven New York Times management has shown, emotion can defeat mere facts every time.
One irony, of course, is that this is also the great lesson of Trumpism. Over here it feeds into what you might call the piersmorganification of public culture. Where the important thing is not whether you’ve got it right, but how much noise you make.
We need to push back hard against this. Intention matters, context matters, facts matter. If “feelings” are all that count, then eventually we are, every one of us, potentially lost to someone else’s emotional intensity. And that, not duchesses, is what matters here.
I don’t think they live their either. Surely Harry would have been up in arms to see his home splashed across world news? Also, the Chick-Inn is on a hill right next to the left roofline of the home. The pictures of the home claimed to be theirs has no elevated area/ hills whatsoever.
There’s been no commentary from Elton, The Fosters, nor the Clooney’s. Amal would be a great person to back her up, obviously.
"@Acquitaine,
I can totally buy into your “they’re about to move theory” — with the caveat that I don’t think they live there, but instead accepted oligarch money to pretend they do, to hype up the profile and value. Maybe you think that as well."
100% i do.
Evidence: The Russian who 'sold' them this house is also connected to the Russian who lent them the Canada house.
The house was originally on tue market at $25M. They allegedly put down a deposit of $5M to get it at the gargain price of $14M.
This weekend the house is very publicly valued at $30M in an obvious sales ad disguised as Yarkles gossip.
If they realise that price, Russian gets his original asking price and they get their deposit back.
Russian gets his money nicely laundered.
I like I believe what acquitaine said - this always proceeds a "we had to move because of the paps" when people start to talk that no one lives there. Where will they show up next. Its kinda like where's waldo
You’re right. It doesn’t make sense. I just looked at Google Maps, and Princess Margaret Hospital is a 1 mile walk, or 20 minutes, through Windsor gardens. It’s almost in the line of sight from Frogmore Cottage. It’s one street over. Edward Hospital is a stones throw from there.
So the fact is there were two hospitals she could have walked or jogged too, if she were desperate. The reason she didn’t go to anyone with Suicidal tendencies is because there is a procedure in place for that. She would have had to get help regardless of if she wanted it or not. So the whole thing is hogwash.
No one knows what to do with this woman now. She’s volatile, suicidal, miscarries, goes from country to country, acts paranoid and displeased. What’s the end game here.
I don't think Ellen has spoken out on their behalf either and she is a neighbor.
Who else has been quiet?
Anyone from her mother's side of the family?
Priyanka Chopra?
'She's no good. I said that and now everybody's seeing it': What Trump said privately about Meghan after her Oprah interview - but refused to go public for fear of 'being canceled like Piers Morgan'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9360997/Trump-privately-said-Meghan-Markle-no-good-bombshell-Oprah-interview.html
I don't understand this article - did Trump want his opinion on this to come out or not? Did his advisor screw him or is he secretly doing his bidding?
Snort. Since when has Trump *ever* had a fear of being canceled?
I'm wondering whether he knows a lot about Meghan because Meghan interviewed Ivanka when she was a designer/businesswoman. If she had said "Dad, this woman interviewed me that seemed very unstable and I'm a bit worried about her!" then dad would have had her investigated thoroughly to make sure that she wasn't a threat to his daughter, son in law, or grandchildren. He may have investigated unknown people wanting an interview with any of the family regardless because the entire family would be kidnap targets.
Conversely, Jared and Ivanka, being worth about a billion dollars, could have had her investigated themselves.
Kamala, Governor Newsom, The Beckham’s
Give us our Archie title and keep our Sussex titles or we will embarrass you and do not take away our Sussex titles or we will spill XX. Interview was one long extortion demand. `Aimed at Prince Charles.
I think Charles know this and that he must hire back Lord Geidt.
Love your theory about the house.
Their "intruder" story seems rather suspect. Either it is true (he came back twice?) or to me, it kind of confirms they do not live there as why involve an actual person in the plot rather than phoning it in as she did with the drone or her Toronto story.
If this happened in December, why not tell Oprah? 🙄
Maybe it got a bump in money from dad at the time and now they just don't care. But in all honesty I heard Harry is cheap too. Would he really spend his own money on massive house like that (especially knowing in UK live for free)
It is just so OTT. Sixteen rooms and 10 bathrooms and it is not even a great looking house. I agree with someone above who said it signified move. Now she is going to pop up somewhere else through a "leak" and curse the media and Harry too for not protecting her
Shitshow rerun drew in another 3million viewers. I guess that is decent, on par for what CBS normally draws that time. I also read the original broadcast beat ratings for whole year in 'live' broadcast. They compared it to awards show. Read impressive. Oprah still has star power and movement they have going on behind scenes definitely has power behind it. If Meg could take any sort of direction she could be molded into quite the talking head (matters nothing she is poseur, look at all the support still flowing knowing she is liar. That R card..) and twitter bots and agendas
She will only succeed if she is part of the machine. Do TPTB want her? I think so. She attracts young unintelligent, impressionable beings. The mind you can mold to believe anything.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8437497/Meghan-Markle-believes-shes-destined-help-fight-systemic-racism-US.html
'Prince Harry arranged for flowers to be placed on Princess Diana's grave as a poignant tribute on Mother's Day.
Earlier today Prince William and Kate Middleton shared home-made cards from Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, addressed to their 'Granny Diana'.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9361157/Prince-Harry-arranged-flowers-placed-Princess-Dianas-grave-Mothers-Day-tribute.html
Prompted by wifey after she saw the Cambridge children had written cards? Arranges for flowers to be placed on his mother’s grave but trashes his family.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/26fa3ac56f92692ca3dfeba8448003c6/57a6e2407e82906b-de/s640x960/01d2eae37d4fd4173bdf789427d8609b90e1ad3d.jpg
Ladygreyhound is back. She hasn't been around for a long time. I appreciated her snark. It is where I got this picture
Thanks. It's good to see people starting the fact that the damaging racist accusations are based on innuendo and ambiguous inferences.
She was also "pregnant" at the time! She could have told her doctor during scheduled appointments
I am going to read the freshly posted news. Thanks Jenn!
Happy Belated Mother's Day to those who celebrated today! I am going to have to look why today. So cold in March . Think of that because here Mother's Day is when everyone begins to plant. The ground is no longer froze with safe overnight temperatures
@SwampWoman, and Steve Mnuchin was his Treasury Sec. Mnuchin was rumoured to have been one of MM's clients. Maybe there was talk.
Possibly! (I had forgotten about the Mnuchin/Markel rumored connection.)
That's nice. Did he give flowers to his wife in the name of his son (teaching him about the British way too)?
As a side note, loved the bunny slippers on Eugenie's new baby boy.
You are welcome. There was one other new one from Camilla Long that I will bring over a little later. It's in defense of Piers...
@AnT
I'm certain the tabs must have at least their lower-level employees search sites like this for ideas on stories. The DM will write a story about anything really! I can see them regularly scrolling all the MM-critic spots for ideas for a story on her.
"Oh yes, remember when we doxxed all those people and championed the Duchess of Doom about the toxic comments she was receiving on the KP insta? Let's write a story about that and point out how we tried to help her!"
Also, that Instagram bullying story was another example of the palace trying to help her and yet more proof of her interview lies.
The palace spoke out about the abusive comments both duchesses were receiving on the KP insta. They issued a statement and actually rewrote the rules for posting on the account. And they hired staff to monitor the account to erase any negative posts.
Maybe it wasn't good enough for MM because they spoke out for BOTH duchesses!
I always wondered who was behind the doxing of the bloggers and others who were named in that 2019 DM article. I'm certain Markle was of course but who helped her? Would the palace have been behind that? If so I lose respect for them because it was a rotten thing to do exposing those women's identity.
I seem to remember at the time that Serena W had been involved in helping Markle with the huge wave of public dislike she was encountering. I think she had her own PR person or attorney help Markle. And the DM/MOS was involved I guess...I wonder who did the actually uncovering of the names?
Here is the original article that came out on Feb 3 2019. It mentions the Instagram issues/palace involvement as well as the doxxing of the bloggers...
Unmasked: The cruel trolls who spew bile against the Duchess of Sussex on social media, branding her a 'hooker' and 'trash'... and call for #Megxit
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6661499/Cruel-trolls-spew-bile-against-Duchess-Sussex.html
What do others think about this?
I'm sure he is not afraid which is why I couldn't figure out whether he passed the comment on to let it out or not. But why wouldn't he say it himself? I'm sure he does indeed know some background info on her and we know he likes and respects the Queen. I'm surprised he hasn't made a statement in Her Maj's defense.
Now there is another article about Markle planning to run for president in 2024. She is absolutely delusional to believe she has a chance. With our current society ruled by identity politics and cancel culture and based on what we just saw where millions of people believed her lies without giving them one iota of thought, I fear she has a chance...unless of course the Kraken comes through!
Below is a comment on that article. It really is a strange story and with all the gaslighting from Markle's camp I'm sometimes not sure how to interpret what I'm reading!
If I were in Trumps shoes, Id have a serious discussion with the aide who offered up this story. Id also have airtight NDAs with every single person who worked for me. No loyalty. I find it reprehensible. Who will ever trust Jason Miller with sensitive information going forward? I wouldnt hire him on a bet.
I too did read that Steve Mnunchin was one of M's clients and posted it on this log a few times. I can't remember where I read it, though.
It's the 4th Sunday in Lent, the date of which depends on when Easter falls. That in turn depends on the phases of the moon after the Vernal (ie Spring) Equinox. MS is very old festival, and can be early or later.
Once, servants had the day off and could go back home to see their mothers. Nowadays, children may be given posies of spring flowers to take home to their mothers.
All the talk of security leaves me feeling morbid after while. She is totally living as Diana. Who knows what she is capable of. In my life when dealing with mental illness I always felt sympathy and compassion for those afflicted but this narcissism is borderline evil, and then if diagnosed malevolent it really is!
She has no shame and needs to be thoroughly discredited.
What is she going to do about Archie? Hide and home school him until adulthood? For those of you who believe she used a surrogate do you feel she ever got posession of the baby? I think she had an earlier one and for whatever reason it fell through (maybe she got to know Markle and refused to hand him over. I wonder how a narc would treat a surrogate)
Does Archie live in their care with nannies or is there no Archie at all and borrowing babies? I do feel he looks like them (Thomas Markle) which is really sad as they do not seem to make Archie priority. They talk it but they sure don't act it.
ITV forced to edit Oprah Winfrey's interview with Prince Harry and Meghan after including 'misleading and distorted' headlines
ByDominic Nicholls, DEFENCE AND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT14 March 2021 • 6:15pm
ITV has been forced to edit part of Oprah Winfrey's interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after it was revealed that it included misleading and distorted headlines which portrayed British press coverage of the couple as racist.
Headlines that were flashed on the screen during the controversial interview with the US chat show host were cynically manipulated to back up the couple's assertion that they were the victims of bigoted coverage.
Associated Newspapers, the publisher of The Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail and MailOnline, complained to Viacom CBS – the US TV giant which aired last week's two-hour programme – about “the deliberate distortion and doctoring of newspaper headlines”.
It also demanded that ITV remove the “misleading and inaccurate headlines” from the programme, which remains available on its ITV Hub catch-up service, according to MailOnline.
The interview was watched by 11.1 million viewers in the UK and 17.1 million in the US.
In a complaint to CBS, Liz Hartley, editorial legal director at Associated Newspapers, said: “Many of the headlines have been either taken out of context or deliberately edited and displayed as supporting evidence for the programme's claim that the Duchess of Sussex was subjected to racist coverage by the British press.”
She added: "This editing was not made apparent to viewers and, as a result, this section of the programme is both seriously inaccurate and misleading".
The programme showed a headline from The Daily Telegraph that read: 'The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn't speak our language.'
However, the second line of the headline, which was not shown, made clear the article was not mocking the Duchess’s ethnicity, but her habit of using “hippie corporate management speak”.
Another example, from January 2018, involved a story in The Mail on Sunday which revealed how the girlfriend of the then Ukip leader Henry Bolton had made racist remarks about Meghan.
Producers chose not to show the newspaper's headline about the 'Vile Racist Attack' but instead used a small part of a MailOnline headline which quoted one of the woman's vile messages – but omitted the rest of the headline.
An ITV spokesman said it would remove three manipulated Daily Mail, MailOnline and Mail on Sunday headlines, plus a headline wrongly attributed to the Guardian.
However, the out-of-context Daily Telegraph headline will remain.
Conservative MP Giles Watling, a member of the Commons Media Select Committee, said: “Any future broadcasts of this interview should come with a health warning for viewers.
“People need to know that what they are watching is not necessarily the truth and, in the use of newspaper headlines, a complete distortion of the facts.”
Ms Winfrey's company, Harpo Productions, said: “We stand by the broadcast in its entirety”.
CBS did not respond to MailOnline’s request for comment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/14/itv-forced-edit-oprah-winfreys-interview-prince-harry-meghan/#
"The more I hear of the "Kate made me cry" the more asinine it becomes. Petty unless you know some history and then it is rather chilling she has stewed over it so long and intently. No mention of Kate going to see her afterward, hmm."
It's also going unsaid that this fitting happened when Kate was post-partum having given birth to Louis just 2-3wks earlier.
And yet we had an entire SA documentary from Meghan about no one asking her of she was ok post-partum with Archie.
Meghan said to Oprah that she had no idea why Kate was upset leading upto whatever incident caused the tears and Oprah didn't bring up the obvious post
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/meghan-actress-bones-performance-lifetime/
1. They simply don't believe a senior royal would have deliberately said a racist comment to Harry.
2. That they do have sympathy for the BRF and they think if such a remark was said, it should have been kept quiet for the good of family relations.
3. They believe Meghan is a grandstander and she has gone to far this time in her complaining.
4. They don't want to be caught up in the PR nightmares Meghan and Harry seem to make at every turn.
5. Maybe they themselves wondered what the Harkles baby might look like.
6. It would not be good move to say something against the esteemed BRF who have proven to have more gravitas than messy Meghan and angry Harry.
Seriously, how can someone like that be taken seriously as a Presidential or political candidate ?
See Oprah is a creep. Those headlines are outright lies and she stands behind them. This just shows she wishes to stir frenzy and keep us divided. Not only that she is powerful Oprah. Let's see if she completely gets away with it. Eventually she may edit but damage is done. Beyond shady
The doxing is terrible. Was that necessary to post their name/pictures? I guess I view it as if sussexsquad was called out and I would think good! So I am not impartial. I can't see article as I type. Was it twitter? I thought they didn't police the accounts, if twitter lets them roll who is Daily Mail to out them? (Is that what happened?) I will reread as I can't open another window.
See Oprah is a creep. Those headlines are outright lies and she stands behind them. This just shows she wishes to stir frenzy and keep us divided. Not only that she is powerful Oprah. Let's see if she completely gets away with it. Eventually she may edit but damage is done. Beyond shady
The doxing is terrible. Article says Mail on Sunday found out who they were. DM reprinted them? If twitter doesn't police accounts, who are they? Although I am not impartial as if it was Sussexsquad kids outed I would say good. Extremely unfortunate though. Only anti-Meg outed?
I like how they mostly doubled down on their postings. Good for them, it is not like they are wrong. What is wrong is to shame them in a newspaper. If everyone pro or con was doxxed fair enough but to single out 4 out of thousands upon thousands is malicious and solved nothing.
Boohoo Kate made me cry! Boohoo the press was mean to me! Boohoo I'm a victim of mean press, mean family, and mean people. Boohoo my husband has to shelter and protect vulnerable me from the mean mean world. The world is mean so I don't read the newspapers/news so i'm ignornant of current events.
Seriously, how can someone like that be taken seriously as a Presidential or political candidate ?
Well, I expect she'll have a completely different and heroic story at that time.
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/14/markle-claims-during-oprah-interview-debunked-by-2014-blog-post/
This rang a bell with me, and I checked Snopes and a variety of other sources. This charity was never intended to raise finds to donate to cancer research or patients. In fact it's very purpose was administrative, so by spending money on administration, it was fulfilling its purpose. I won't quote what I found here, as that's not why we're here, but there IS a tenuous connection to charity fraud, with the two principals we're definitely concerned with here, so I just wanted to share what I remembered and found out.
In fact I'm sure that as weeks go by there will be more and more connections to misdirected charity funds that are directly relevant to you-know-who, and I for one am here for it.
the cards released by Cambridges are adorable.
Going to be interesting with the house. The local law enforcement handled the calls. First time warmed the guy and 2nd time arrested/cited him. Said he drove out from Ohio. ??? Probably released on citation with notice to appear. If he "no shows", they'll issue a warrant for arrest.
I wonder where he was? I mean, on the actual property or on the private road? I thought the property was fenced but the neighboring property is currently for sale. Maybe he got on to their property via the neighbors?
How did TMZ just find out about this? Were H&M home? Was he caught on security camera's? a lot of questions. Waiting for a reporter to use the Freedom of Information Act & get access to the police report or court disposition files.
and yes, why wasn't it mentioned on Oprah's show? they are trying so hard for more money. Saying they need it for security. Yeah, right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e_GoHngOIE&t=41s
Her certainly remained calm
What I really don't understand is that they mostly appear to be from black women based on their profile pics and some of the content in their tweets. They talk about defending another black woman despite Markle having spent her life identifying with her white side.
Doesn't Twitter have a method for reporting harassment? 😡😡😡
"And it was true that Meghan had never actually met the prince. But today Gina reveals that Meghan had taken the opportunity to Google him beforehand"
'I repeated my previous warning to her, asking if she knew what she was letting herself in for.
'I said: 'This is serious. This is the end of your normal life, the end of your privacy – everything.'
'But she just held up her hand and said: 'Stop. I don't want to hear any negativity. This is a happy time for us.'
A few months later...
'There was a big change in her then,' says Gina, choosing her words carefully. 'She did give me a bit of a difficult time.'
Their last communication: 'When Gina emailed Meghan, asking permission to use a photograph of her from the youth summit, her lawyers responded.
Part 1
A duchess gets a journalist sacked for impertinence — what year is this again?
Camilla Long
Sunday March 14 2021, 12.01am GMT
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-duchess-gets-a-journalist-sacked-for-impertinence-what-year-is-this-again-2vdvr3gwj
There was a moment at about 7am on Tuesday when I thought: well, we are finally having it, aren’t we? We’re finally having that frightening and “uncomfortable” conversation Prince Harry’s been angrily demanding about race. A passionate, truthful, high-stakes, handbags-at-dawn monster session, and it’s every bit as challenging as we hoped.
I don’t mean the interview with Oprah: a manipulative, divisive, dishonest little fashiony exchange designed simply to launch Oprah’s new political project — Meghan. I’m thinking about the conversation on the next day’s Good Morning Britain that exploded with raw and spectacular emotion. It just felt so true — a true reflection of the true feelings of a conflicted nation, far truer than the fake “truthfulness” of Oprah and its dippy questions: “Were you even inside your body at that time?”
You could tell that the host, Piers Morgan, wanted to strangle someone: face white, mouth chewed to a furious pinhole, quivering like Trump in his “alpha flounce at the Pentagon” moment. Opposite him sat the show’s mixed-race weatherman, Alex Beresford: Morgan claimed he’d been the one to invite him on, but his clenched body suggested he hadn’t. Again and again, Beresford laid into him. Morgan’s motives were sexual — Meghan had rejected him. Morgan was “diabolical”, a man who refused to believe Meghan’s “lived experience”. At one point Morgan stormed off, only to be hosed down and returned to his seat by the producers, dewlap shuddering and aflame.
“I am not saying you are a racist,” Beresford breezed on.
“Well, what are you saying?” seethed Morgan. It was dynamite.
Now. What do you think happened next? Did the people at ITV celebrate a groundbreaking discussion, congratulating themselves on getting to a place of clarity that 1,000 episodes of Question Time never achieved? Did they get Beresford on for another session in which both men reflected on their disagreements? If it were me, I’d have booked him to the end of next month.
Or did the channel decide that something awful had happened — something too out of control, too ugly and, well, “uncomfortable”? It did. Having laid the ideal groundwork for the uncomfortable conversation, ITV decided it wasn’t the right type of uncomfortable conversation and shut it down. On Tuesday afternoon Morgan left the show. Just: why?
Well, 41,000 people had complained when he said that he “didn’t believe” Meghan, including the duchess herself. The channel wanted him to apologise to her on air “and there was a stand-off”. But he wouldn’t apologise, so he went. Duchess gets journalist sacked for impertinence: as a friend said, “What is this, 1857?” But it tells you everything you need to know about our current conversation on race.
Isn’t it ITV’s civic duty to support someone like Morgan and enable such conversations to continue to happen? You felt you had learnt more in 45 minutes of Beresford and Morgan thrashing it out than in the whole four years of Harry moaning.
If you were a reporter, Morgan’s departure hardly came as a surprise: to be a journalist writing about Meghan has always been horrible and exhausting, an experience akin, and I don’t use this example lightly, to being constantly stopped and searched by the police. The assumption is always one of guilt and bad intention: the time, for example, I was angrily attacked for saying Meghan had put her “polished suede trotter on our soil” — was that because I think she is a pig? Everywhere it is the same: you’re a racist; no, you’re a racist. Unlike “paedo” or “rapist”, the term “racist” only gets more powerful the more it is used. Even words that aren’t racist become racist. One paper has been criticised for using the word “niggling” in a headline about Meghan simply because it sounds like another word. You just think: how stupid can people be?
And yet here we are: journalists sacked, celebs shamed, people whipped into such a state of McCarthyite fear and bullied panic they’re losing it before anything has happened. If you want to know how bad things have got, look no further than Sharon Osbourne, who angrily defended Morgan on Wednesday. Two days later she freaked out and apologised for airing her opinions, saying she had allowed her “fear and horror of being accused of being racist to take over”. How do we even get to the situation that mere “fear of being accused of being racist” is ruling people’s behaviour?
Not for the first time do you wonder whether Harry and Meghan thought their bombshells through. So much of it can be disproved: the petty secret wedding that wasn’t a wedding, the insinuation that Archie’s not a prince because he is black. It is almost as if they don’t care.
You begin to feel you’re going backwards — facts melt into alternative facts before turning into “lived experiences”. But if Meghan lied — or, more likely, exaggerated out of vanity — that does a terrible disservice to people such as Beresford, whose colleagues would ask him “what shade of cocoa my son was going to come out”. You could see he believed Meghan, but only in the sense that he believed it could happen: “It’s not any of our places to pick apart claims of racism,” he said. But it is.
As it happens, I don’t always agree with Morgan on Meghan: on Monday his shrieking attack felt too angry, too soon. But if he didn’t challenge her, who would? Not anyone on the internet, nor his cowardly bosses. And for providing this valuable service, he was shut down.
Camilla Long said:
"I was angrily attacked for saying Meghan had put her “polished suede trotter on our soil” — was that because I think she is a pig?"
🐷🐷🐷
Someone has got to shut those psycho sugars down!!!!!!!
I too remember the articles on Gina's interviews and they definitely help prove Markle's lies!🤣