Let's continue the discussion.
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
A ‘Mad March’ Reflection On The Sussex Saga
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9334003/ALEXANDRA-SHULMAN-know-efforts-aides-make-Meghan-welcome-didnt-want-help.html
I am finding it difficult to comprehend how to make such a narrative make sense. Please help.
As a starter ... yes, she went into full toxic narc mode. Is Harry convinced that he married someone with a mental disorder that was exacerbated when she married him? Did either of the try to get help for her? Why is this the fault of others? Why do they not feel remorse about the damage done to others? When did Harry realize that she has a mental disorder? Has it not occurred to him that it might be a personality disorder? Is this all about his mother?
6TH MAR 2021, 09:57
SECRET MEANING BEHIND MEGHAN’S ‘RESURRECTION’ DRESS
Meghan Markle chose a dress with a secret meaning for her bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, it is claimed.
The pregnant Duchess of Sussex, 39, stunned in a flowing black Giorgio Armani dress to “convey a very specific message”, in her first interview after finalising Megxit.
The Telegraph claimed that the £3,300 long triple silk georgette dress features a lotus flower design, which Meghan chose for its “symbolic meaning of revival”.
Apparently, the floral motif is supposed to be a lotus.
They wrote: “The lotus flower’s daily resurrection is considered proof of its determination and will to live.
“The Duchess understands that a lotus seed can withstand thousands of years without water, able to germinate over two centuries later.
“This ‘refusal to accept defeat’ is very much how she sees her own battle against the pressures of royal life.”
(the Sun)
I've done my share of botany and it still looks like birdshit to me.
Makes total sense to try to claim it now. The Palace did nothing when Diana had some mental issues (that we really know of) and so this would allow history to repeat itself.
However ... since that time (decades ago), the world has changed in a positive manner for seeking help.
What we are asked to swallow would be that the Palace didn't learn anything from the bad publicity of Diana and
that the interest in pushing 'seek help" by the two boys was just window dressing.
sigh, you'd think she'd run out of spaghetti at some point.
I agree - still looks like bird shit.
I saw an article somewhere that the necklace was supposed to be or represent an olive leaf/branch to signal they still want to reconcile. Pfff. Really? Calling off the interview would be a real signal but planting a story about how the jewelry had symbolic meaning because no one else would have automatically known that was supposed to be the "real" meaning sounds more like elementary school yard games.
A curious parallel - I attempted to mend fences with one of my narcs, knowing she'd had treatment for mental illness and believing it had been successful.
I was wrong. Underneath, she was still what she'd always been, a screaming narcissist.
Like psychopaths, they're not deemed to be `ill' - it's just their brains are wired differently from those of most people. To what extent they're born that way, rather than created by upbringing, is debatable. My guess is that they are born with the predisposition but their upbringing finishes the job.
If you were having a breakdown, girl, show us the evidence for seeking help once you were over the ocean.
Let's have the proof that you're now OK.
Oprah Winfrey is more flatterer than interrogator – yet Harry and Meghan will regret this interview
TV's queen of schmaltz specialises in fawning celebrity love-ins rather than hard-hitting interviews. And her couch is no place for a royal
ROBIN AITKEN
7 March 2021 • 10:00am
Are you consumed with impatience for Monday evening? Are you counting down the hours and minutes until Oprah Winfrey’s “bombshell” interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex airs on ITV because you just cannot wait to hear more about their celebrity anguish?
No, I thought not; like many of us perhaps you are bored by the whole idea of another instalment in a saga in which two of the world’s most highly privileged people tell an audience of millions about their pain and how all they want is privacy and how beastly Britain has been to them. My Scottish granny had a word which sums up exactly how this media event makes me feel – “scunnered”. That is to say, sickened.
There are so many aspects about this whole episode that invite derision. There is the financial aspect for a start; Winfrey is reportedly pocketing $7 million for the honour, with Harry and Meghan receiving nothing. Yet it is a huge promotional tool for their new lives as podcasters, Netflix producers and – inevitably – authors. The idea of Royals joining the ranks of celebrities hawking product seems cheapening.
can see the temptation – it gives them a huge audience and an opportunity to enlist the sympathy of the credulous – but it comes at a cost. The thing which Harry and Meghan stand to lose is their authenticity. How can we take them seriously when so much about their lives now seems so phony and fake?
For one thing the idea that this is any kind of normal journalistic interview is wrong. Oprah Winfrey is no even-handed inquisitor. She has built a reputation and media empire by monetising flattery - the same technique employed with huge success by Hello! magazine.
If you look at Oprah’s back catalogue (and it’s vast; she has interviewed more than 30,000 people in her long career) what stands out is the way she shamelessly massages the egos of her famous guests; but then occasionally she goes on to be unexpectedly sharp and insinuating.
It’s a technique that can pay dividends but it doesn’t entirely dispel the suspicion that she often pulls her punches. In 1993 she interviewed Michael Jackson who at one point remarked that “people wonder why I always have children around”. Indeed we did, but we had to wait until 2019 and the documentary Leaving Neverland to get a remotely satisfactory answer. Oprah stopped a long way short of probing the troubled star’s predilection for children. That’s likely to be part of her deal with the famous – some things are just “off-limits”.
Many of her big, headline-grabbing interviews – Whitney Houston on her drug problems, Ellen DeGeneres on coming out – were with her friends, and apparently conducted using pre-arranged talking points. The latter is also true of Winfrey’s 2013 inquisition of Lance Armstrong, in which he confessed to doping. She appeared tough, but the athlete was calm, composed and prepared throughout; Winfrey failed to crack him. And when the interviewee refuses to play along at all – see her spectacularly awkward 1992 encounter with Elizabeth Taylor – Winfrey hasn’t a clue how to respond.
But that interview, where she made public what had hitherto been private and which she later came to regret, proved a turning point in her life. (Interestingly, Oprah Winfrey had also been lobbying to interview Diana at the time; she went with Bashir instead.) From that moment on, like a character in some Greek tragedy, her life veered off its previous course into a giddy spiral which ended in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel.
It is, in fact, Diana’s tragic story that animates the underlying plot in the Harry and Meghan show; with her actress’s instinct for theatrics Meghan has inserted herself into the gaudy melodrama which so gripped the world in 1997. She has done so by marrying Harry, the motherless boy who moved the hearts of millions when he walked, so young and disconsolate, behind Diana’s coffin.
That image, deeply poignant and sad, was what prompted so much love and sympathy for Harry; even those of us who instinctively resist and resent schmaltzy public emotion it was a moment, and an image, which demanded an empathetic response. There are few public figures, few royal personages, who could draw on such a vast reservoir of public sympathy as Prince Harry. And look at him now; marooned in the falsity and glamour of Hollywood, the world capital of sleaze and trickery. The empathy reservoir is being drained.
It is a world away from that period of his life when Harry seemed to have found his niche. As a soldier, deployed on active service in Afghanistan he seemed to have discovered a role he was well suited for. It took bravery and courage to do his duty in Helmand Province; the pictures of him from that time show him surrounded by army mates, one of the lads, at ease in a man’s world where camaraderie, forged in shared danger, offered emotional compensation for the rigours of active service.
I had a tangential family connection with the regiment Harry served with – the Army Air Corps. My brother-in-law, now sadly deceased, was a helicopter pilot with the AAC and through him I met some of his brother officers. They fitted exactly the template of a type commonly found in the British Army; open-hearted, decent young men, fond of practical jokes, addicted to nicknames and tomfoolery but wholly professional in their approach to the job.
When a picture of Harry in a Nazi outfit surfaced it seemed to sum him up; heedless, yes, and callow. But no harm in him – just a young bloke having some fun. You can well see how life in the Army suited Harry, particularly the anonymity conferred by being just another soldier.
An interesting perspective from a woman who happens to be a real black woman and an American.
He now tells us that he has been tormented by inner demons but, looking at those old photos, you’d never have known it. The idea of that young man sitting in a sunny California garden confessing all to US TV’s queen of schmaltz seems unfathomable. None of us can help falling in love, and it so happened that Harry fell for Meghan. It’s easy to see the attraction. She is, I would guess, emotionally more mature, and more sophisticated than her husband.
It was put about that Oprah Winfrey was one of Meghan’s “friends” and that’s why she was invited to their wedding. It was later reported that they'd met just once. Yet Meghan’s mother was invited to Winfrey’s home for a yoga session prior to the ceremony, and the couple have clearly become closer to her in the years since.
In a video released on his first birthday, their son Archie was seen reading a book gifted to him by Winfrey bearing a bespoke “Archie’s Book Club” sticker; then came her Instagram plug for Meghan’s latte business. Monday night’s interview looks more and more like a long-plotted move in a carefully planned media strategy.
Does any of this matter? In one way not at all. You can be partisan for Harry and Meghan and against the rest of the Royal family or you can view the Sussexes as having let the side down in their exploitation of the family name and their grasping pursuit of riches.
This interview is unlikely to prompt anyone to switch sides; it’s a zero sum game. We are constantly being invited by the media to decide our loyalties in this way and thus the whole episode can be viewed as just another act in the charivari staged for us by the celebrity world. It all adds to the gaiety of nations.
Except beneath all the surface glitz, the hype and the false emoting there are real people involved. Harry and Meghan are human beings with real lives and complex relationships with their families who have misguidedly decided to put these private matters on display for their own advancement and for the entertainment of everyone else - not to mention the benefit of Oprah Winfrey. They are commodifying themselves whilst claiming to be living lives of “service”.
This type of self-advertisement is second nature to the tawdry denizens of Hollywood and Oprah Winfrey's usual guests. But for members of the British upper class, and particularly the other Royals, it is behaviour which is likely to stir a certain revulsion.
One of the traditional features of our aristocracy (allowing for certain notable flamboyant exceptions) has been the premium they put on their own privacy. Prince Harry has thrown all that overboard now and one can’t help feeling that, like his mother before him, he will come one day to regret that.
I subscribe to the NY Times, depending on the coverage I can post their reporting on the interview. I don't care for the Sussexes because I find her to be a publicity hound and if it's too much in favor of them, I'll just summarize.
He should have kept his trap shut right from the very beginning. I would have a lot more respect for him if he had.
Easy to say that now... but maybe if Harry had done the decent thing and actually met his future father in law before foisting his daughter on us - this wouldn't have happened? (And I would have had a lot more respect for Harry.) Thomas was out of his depth, with no protection from the press and they should have afforded him some.
The narrative that the Sussexes are now putting out is that Meghan was having a mental breakdown and she was the victim because HER distress was ignored by the family and staff.
Sandie, can I ask where you read this?
To our darling Megsy -- Don't wig out under Oprah. Show your (lying ass) stuff. Whip it out, whip smart, in all your glory. Yes this will be the story. All your sugars in America are rooting for you. SO YOU DO YOU!!
I can't find the exact article I was reading this morning but this is what is is about:
By Mark Hookham for the Mail on Sunday
Aides at Buckingham Palace will stay up through the night to watch the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Royal insiders are determined not to enter into a war of words, but will be watching the two-hour broadcast carefully for any fresh allegations levelled against them.
While the interview will not be screened in the UK until tomorrow, it is believed Palace aides have secured an online feed to allow them to watch the interview live when it is broadcast by CBS.
It is due to start at 5pm in Los Angeles, or 1am in the UK.
The Queen will be briefed at breakfast.
It is my conclusion from what Harry has said about Megxit, what has emerged from the interview, the narrative they are putting out through the 'standing up for Megs' friends ...
More importantly, new bullying stories are coming out 🥳
More Than You Need to Know About Harry, Meghan and Oprah
The royal couple sat down for an interview. Here’s the back story.
By Caity Weaver and Elizabeth Paton
March 7, 2021
Updated 7:33 a.m. ET
Leer en español
On Sunday, CBS will broadcast a two-hour interview between the majestic ceremonial figurehead of the United States, Oprah Winfrey, and two nonworking members of the British royal family. Here’s what you don’t need to know, but might care to find out anyway.
Where can I watch the Harry, Meghan and Oprah interview?
On television, Sunday, March 7, at 8 p.m. Eastern on CBS. (It will be broadcast on ITV in Britain on Monday, March 8, at 9 p.m.)
How did Oprah get the scoop?
The same way she overcame childhood poverty in rural Mississippi to become the world’s first Black female billionaire: time, effort and a surfeit of natural charisma. In a video clip released on Friday, Oprah recalls that she first called Meghan to propose an interview in “February or March 2018.” According to The Times of London, the two met in person that March when Oprah “found herself in London,” as one does, “and was invited by Meghan to meet her at Kensington Palace,” as one is.
In April, Oprah invited Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, to her home for lunch and yoga. Approximately two months of acquaintance was enough to earn Oprah an invitation to Meghan and Harry’s wedding.
Days after the couple announced their intention to “step back” as senior royals, Oprah released a statement denying rumors she had advised them on a course of action. Meghan and Harry did eventually move so close to Oprah’s estate in Montecito, Calif., that they could be called neighbors, which in fact is how Oprah referred to Meghan in a December Instagram post enthusiastically endorsing a latte brand in which Meghan had recently become an investor.
Will it be different from Harry’s interview with James Corden last week?
While drinking tea and riding around in an open top bus, Harry described his family’s new life in California, accused the press of “destroying” his mental health, and described how he and Meghan were faced with a “really difficult environment” when they decided to quit as working royals and leave Britain. He also revealed Archie’s first word (crocodile).
A little amuse-bouche ahead of Sunday? Or partially pipping Oprah to the post ahead of her big exclusive?
Oprah’s interview takes place in what appears to be the Garden of Eden, or else the grounds of a lush Montecito estate. Another difference is that this interview will be conducted by someone whose film work has been nominated for Academy Awards.
Didn’t they leave the royal family to enjoy their privacy?
Since announcing their decision to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family,” Meghan and Harry have struggled to combat the widespread interpretation that they meant to become private citizens. Per their official statements, their intention was to create new roles for themselves “within” the institution, while continuing to perform some official duties.
In his interview with Mr. Corden, Harry emphasized, “It was never walking away. It was stepping back rather than stepping down.”
As for the recent P.R. blitz: The timing is anyone’s guess. Last month, the couple formally confirmed to the queen that they will not return as working members of the royal family. It may be the case that this was always the plan for their American debut, before the coronavirus disrupted their timeline.
There’s a lot going on with the royal family right now.
Quite. Queen Elizabeth’s 99-year-old husband, Prince Philip (Harry’s grandfather), has been hospitalized for more than two weeks after feeling unwell.
The queen’s middle son, Prince Andrew, continues to be exiled from public duties years after becoming embroiled in Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking. It’s been reported that Andrew, who thus far has declined American officials’ requests to interview him, will not be permitted to join the rest of the royal family on a Buckingham Palace balcony at the queen’s upcoming birthday parade.
And Good Housekeeping recently reported that the Duchess of Cambridge wore an “on-trend bodysuit” for a recent video call she did with Prince William.
OK, how is The Times of London involved?
Earlier this week, The Times of London published an article that said Meghan faced a bullying complaint when she was a working royal. (Poor behavior by Harry was implied in less detail.) The article also suggested Meghan had worn earrings that were a wedding gift from the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman shortly after the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Needless to say, this report was received very poorly in Montecito.
What is meant by ‘bullying’?
Most of The Times of London’s quotations are attributed to anonymous sources who describe effects of the couple’s alleged behavior without identifying specific incidents.
“I had unpleasant experiences with her. I would definitely say humiliated,” one staff member said.
“Young women were broken by their behavior,” another said.
The newspaper also reported that Meghan “denies bullying,” and that her lawyers “stated that one individual left after findings of misconduct” — a claim the newspaper was “not able to corroborate.”
The British tabloids are notoriously unreliable, right?
Although similar reports have occasionally popped up in British tabloids for years, The Times of London has a reputation as the newspaper of record in Britain — more Philadelphia Inquirer than National Enquirer.
Are there any heroes in this story?
No; only victims and villains. The ratio and identities of each depends on whose version of events you believe. One anonymous source nodded to Meghan and Harry’s discontent with the inner workings of the palace, while criticizing the alleged failings of the same: “The institution just protected Meghan constantly. All the men in gray suits who she hates have a lot to answer for, because they did absolutely nothing to protect people.”
It seems that Palace staff could see that this would be a problem, but Meghan refused all help offered. Palace staff knew that there would be a tsunami of paparazzi and press hounding people who had never experienced anything like that and who had very different cultural understanding of the press, but Meghan refused all help offered.
What was Meghan and Harry’s response?
Fury. The couple’s lawyers accused the royal family and its staff of malice and deception, telling The Times of London that the newspaper was “being used by Buckingham Palace to peddle a wholly false narrative.”
Through a spokesman, Meghan and Harry decried the stories as “distorted several-year-old accusations” packaged together as part of a “smear campaign” intended to harm their reputations ahead of their interview with Oprah.
And Buckingham Palace?
Since the allegations were published, Buckingham Palace has released a statement expressing concern and announcing plans to look into the matter:
“Accordingly, our HR team will look into the circumstances outlined in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the Household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learned.”
Not unsurprisingly, some backs are raised about the fact the queen has a son who is facing questions from the F.B.I. about his associations with a convicted pedophile but the palace is starting an investigation into Meghan’s conduct instead.
We must talk about the earrings.
Meghan was given a pair of diamond drop earrings as an official wedding present from the Saudi royal family.
According to the Times of London article, when she wore them to a formal dinner during a royal tour in Fiji in October 2018, the media were told by staff that they were “borrowed,” but were given no further information. The dinner took place three weeks after Mr. Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A source in the article said that palace staff advised Meghan not to wear the jewels after she wore them a second time.
The Duchess’s lawyers insisted that at the time of the dinner, she was unaware of speculation that the crown prince was involved in the murder of the journalist.
A source in the Times of London’s article said that palace staff recognized the jewels after they appeared in photographs from the dinner but “made a decision not to confront Meghan and Harry on it, out of fear for what their reaction would be.”
But aren’t all the crown jewels of questionable origins?
Not all, but an uncomfortable number have dark and bloody pasts. One example is the dazzling Koh-i-Noor diamond, taken from a 10-year-old boy king in India by the British East India Company in 1849 after the colonists imprisoned his mother so it could be given to Queen Victoria.
What do British people think about this “marmalade dropper”?
At the beginning of the week, national eyebrows were raised about the timing of the Sussexes trotting out back-to-back televised tell-alls when Prince Philip lay gravely ill in hospital.
But then came the brazenly pre-emptive bombshell that was the Times of London article. And the déjà vu of watching the same very white, very middle-aged, very male lineup of traditional British media types line up to “defend the royal family’s honor” by verbally attacking a pregnant woman who has repeatedly been subject to relentless racist smears over the years.
To hysterically go after Meghan, only this time about earrings and in the same breath as calling her a bully (again), just feels a bit desperate, frankly. Nor does it place “Plague Island” in a particularly good global light at a time when Britons could do with some positive press.
As the Guardian’s Marina Hyde neatly put it: “Alas, no matter how ridiculous anything Meghan and Harry ever do is — and they frequently are ridiculous — it will never, ever be even a hundredth as ridiculous as the behavior of those foaming at the mouth about it.”
Unfortunately the article has a weak ending. I've read the DM for years and with the exception of the Straight out of Compton headline, I don't feel the coverage has been racist, sexist maybe because the tabloids usually go after the women who marry into the royal family. Meghan's coverage has been similar to other marry-ins worshipful before being taken down a few pegs.
t is my conclusion from what Harry has said about Megxit, what has emerged from the interview, the narrative they are putting out through the 'standing up for Megs' friends ...
Ah! I thought maybe it was being claimed somewhere or other....! Thanks :)
https://sassyfrassboss.tumblr.com/post/644956768310607872/so-tomorrow-i-will-be-watching-the-oprah-interview
https://talkingtarot.tumblr.com/
I saw the claim that she was having a nervous breakdown - not sure where but overlooked the ref., as I was sure other Nutties would have picked it up.
Try the Sun, Mail and Telegraph.
I also mentioned how I wrongly interpreted narc meltdowns with mental illness at - my narc did exactly the same as Megs - used it as a `get-out-of jail-free' card and claimed illness..
Meanwhile, allegations of H having a breakdown appear on Gossip Cop where they are dismissed as false, for all that I can well imagine it's true!
https://www.gossipcop.com/prince-harry-secret-mental-breakdown/113/
Just wanted to chime in with two observations:
1. My feeling is that the black getup is an intentional trigger to remind all in the UK of the Duchess of Windsor (remember that Meg is just a basic copycat—unoriginal and unremarkable except for her ruthlessness—also, Diana wore black for her BBC interview).
2. Was it not this group that proposed Meg would use a mental health excuse for her faked pregnancy? I have a strong sense of Here We Go. She is setting it up. Way to be predictable, Meg. Yawn.
Cannot decide if I will watch. I still have that tiny shred of hope that Oprah, who I am certain has Meghan’s number, will hang the Harkles out to dry without their even realizing it. (I guess a third observation: It should not be lost on anyone that woke NYTimes is willing to call the Harkles out for nonsense-making).
"Much to my surprise the NY Times has printed a sarcastic story about the interview...."
The NYTimes does not like Meghan despite earlier articles supporting her and her narratives.
She paid them to publish her miscarriage story, but then last month they published op-eds and had a book club discussion saying she was the modern equivalent of Undine Spragg, the protagonist of Edith Wharton's book , Custom of a country.
Undine Spragg is an incredibly unlikeable, clearly malignant narcissistic literary character. She makes Becky Sharpe from Vanity Fair saintly in comparison.
It's uncanny how much Undine Spragg parallels Meghan or is it the other way round. Everything from her self-regard, self-importance and the fake self presentation, the strategic, transactional relationships that are dropped as soon as she has used them to advance herself. Her relentless, single minded pursuit of social status, money and titles. Her anchor baby that she ignores and doesn't care for. The ghosted friends and acquaintances. Even the besotted, bankrupted parents who will do everything she asks no matter what it costs them.
The story begins in nowheresville, USA and follows her glittering climb to high society in NYC and Paris.
A wiki summary of the novel:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Custom_of_the_Country
NYtimes op-ed comparing Meghan to Undine Spragg.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/t-magazine/edith-wharton-custom-of-the-country.html
It's a long read, but this is the damning passage:
".....But perhaps the present-day celebrity who most readily recalls Undine Spragg is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, or Rachel Meghan Markle of Woodland Hills, Calif., as she once was. The daughter of a yoga teacher and a veteran lighting director and DP on daytime soaps and sitcoms (he won awards for his work on “General Hospital”), Meghan was seemingly always ambitious, both as an actress (her first role was on a TV show where her father worked) and in her romantic life. She married her longtime beau, a film producer named Trevor Engelson, in 2011, only to divorce him within three years (“Trevor went from cherishing Meghan to, as one friend observed, ‘feeling like he was a piece of something stuck to the bottom of her shoe,’” according to the controversial royal biographer Andrew Morton’s 2018 book “Meghan: A Hollywood Princess”). Then, having moved to Toronto for an acting role, she reportedly had a relationship with a celebrity chef, Cory Vitiello, originally of Brantford, Ontario. But the young man voted “Best New Chef in Toronto” in 2009 by Air Canada’s in-flight magazine enRoute could never have been a match for the then fifth-in-line to the royal throne of the United Kingdom, and in the summer of 2016, she abruptly parted company with Cory and took up with Harry, Duke of Sussex, whom, as we all know, she married and with whom she currently has one son, Archie.
Along the way, Meghan became estranged from her father and from her half-siblings. Undine, on the other hand, manages to retain ties to — and to remain to some degree financially supported by — her endlessly faithful and indulgent parents until the novel’s end. It’s impossible to know what really happens within the confines of a couple or a family, including (or perhaps especially) the British royal family, but one might recognize Meghan’s unhappy experience in Wharton’s explanation of Undine’s disenchantment with Ralph Marvell: “During the three years since her marriage she had learned to make distinctions unknown to her girlish categories. She had found out that she had given herself to the exclusive and the dowdy when the future belonged to the showy and the promiscuous; that she was in the case of those who have cast in their lot with a fallen cause, or — to use an analogy more within her range — who have hired an opera box on the wrong night.”
The Duchess understands that a lotus seed can withstand thousands of years without water, able to germinate over two centuries later.
Two centuries? She couldn't even last two years!
Don't ask just the BRF. Ask Trevor and Corey, too. And the US embassy in Argentina, while you're at it.
Saying " spilled" instead of thrown really doesn't make a difference..example...
Meghan intentionally "spilled" hot tea on an aide in a fit of anger after being asked to wait.
If it was malicious and intentional it won't make a difference. Lol
The Mr was a keynote speaker in a conference organised by the NSPCC. I was reminded of that when the anti-bullying charity was tweeting support for the alleged bully Markle. How many of these Charities seem to do the opposite of their stated aim.
Wasn't the fictional Harry Flashman a director of the Orphanage for wayward girls (but I suppose no one reading here has ever read any of the exploits of Sir Harry Flashman V.C. Ladies turn your eyes away now).
I had to laugh. Having "thrown" changed to "spilled" pretty much confirms the whole story anyway.
I respectfully disagree that the NY Times dislikes MM. Instead I think they find her useful. The US media and some politicians are race obsessed and tying themselves in knots over how Black Americans are always victims. In the US. There has been several high profile incidents of African American males attacking Asians and in at least on case committing murder. Some pundits are blaming White racism for these crimes!!!
With the racial climate as crazy in the US, the opportunist MM is taking advantage of this as are some opinion makers.
The article comparing MM to Undine Spragg was open to comments , most which criticize the writer for being mean to MM.
We're living in a time when bad behavior can be excused or glossed over due to racism. There will be a backlash at some point. Who knows what it will look like.
I have to say that in my dealing with Black Americans, everything has been cordial which makes me wonder about the world these opinionists live in.
Racist smears 🙄
What a sad world we live in! The dictatorship of woke has ruined what was left of decent investigative journalism. Brushing aside the blood diamonds as if nothing has happened simply because she’s a POC is quite frankly sickening. Defending allegations of bullying by bringing up Andrew’s scandalous behavior to prove the unconscious bias? Exhausting...
Despite her best efforts to maintain her carefully-constructed facade of being Diana2.0, the mask she hid behind to ensnare Harry started to crumble and fall away before the ink had dried on the wedding invitations.
Right now, Harry is in too deep with her, and a combination of not being particularly intelligent and pride prevent him from gracefully extracting himself from this marriage. He’s stuck for now. I initially thought their marriage would last 5 to 7 years, but he may be so heavily under her influence, control, and manipulation that this poor excuse of a marriage could limp along for decades if not a lifetime simply due to the sad fact that many people who become caught up in a marriage to a narcissist aren’t able to cut through the fog for a long time, if ever.
Harry should consider himself lucky if he and Meghan part in the next few years in a thermo-nuclear divorce that makes the McCartney-Mills parting look like a Sunday church picnic. He will emerge a bludgeoned, bloody mess, but at least he will be free from Meghan’s steely grasp.
A nasty divorce would be a blessing in disguise for Harry because it could end much worse.
As one DM commenter wrote last week: I fear Harry will eventually return to the UK either in a straight jacket or a box.
Sadly, they might be right.
@Snarkyatherbest said,
Mental health issues and they didn’t help? What has the Cambridges and pre-Meghan Harry support? Lots of mental health organizations. Can’t blame them when resources were everywhere in plain sight. This then becomes Harry’s issue. ***Why didn’t you seek out help for your wife. And in the past year have they sought any.
*
Snarky, (I just LOVE your handle BTW-we must be kindred spirits ;),
This says so much. It was right there all along and we didn't see it. I salute you for the question I asterisked above***Why didn’t you seek out help for your wife.
*
I had my breakfast with Lady Colin Campbell's latest and it's a hum dinger. Even more tea than the one before. So funny to hear how William scarfed La Markle yet again! He's going to be a great King...it's worth a watch.
Re: the length, it helps if I save her vids for mealtimes; it's like having quality time with a really cool friend with the best gossip. I would love to see her as a regular with Piers Morgan. Also she verifies her stellar sources with esteemed news sources.
On Candace Owens, I find her refreshingly vocal. I'm not particularly political. I'm a centrist so I can see both sides though if something is way over the top, I will tune out. She is highly polarizing here in the US. I think her voice is a good one to get a balanced view of things, particularly in this issue of Meghan and her race baiting problem.
As we know leftist Cali celebrity libs are the most annoying of all. Isn't it just like the jinx Megsy Baby to pick that bunch to align herself with? They have no staying power after time, the rhetoric becomes very stale when the plebs see how they live.
Here's the wiki link for the Black Madonna if anyone is interested. Meg's latest poster girl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna
Cheers y'all. To all those watching tonight, thanks a bunch and don't forget to have fun during the commercials to ease the pain!!
If you read these pages consistently, you will know that many of us have had various sad events in our childhoods. I doubt any of them were ameliorated by fantastic [albeit hidden] wealth and opportunities (like free, on-call reputation washing and someone to do your school assignments for you.)
I, for one, lost my mother young. We were 8, 15, and 18 when she died. Can you imagine that some of the results of that were as traumatic and long-lasting as that freakin' walk? (A well-established tradition, I believe, that I've seen in productions from "Oliver" to "Call the Midwife" -- it seems that that's just how it's done.) We all have some scars 50 years later but it's not brought up every day as an explanation for immaturity.
This has been discussed to death (oops, sorry.)
Oh, yes, I read the Sir Harry Flashman adventures years ago, hilarious! Thanks for the reminder. I need to read them again.
There are differences and similarities between the two. A personality disorder is far more difficult to treat; a personality disorder (e.g. BPD) makes a person more vulnerable to experiencing mental illiness (e.g. acute depression).
A very useful article that outlines the differences and similarities if anyone wants to take a deep dive into the topic. Note that the article focuses on implications for the criminal justice system.
From the article:
"Personality disorders are described in the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) as ‘deeply ingrained and enduring behaviour patterns, manifesting themselves as inflexible responses to a broad range of personal and social situations’; they represent ‘either extreme or significant deviations from the way the average individual in a given culture perceives, thinks, feels, and particularly relates to others’ and are ‘developmental conditions, which appear in childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood’ (World Health Organization, 1992a). They are distinguished from mental illness by their enduring, potentially lifelong nature and by the assumption that they represent extremes of normal variation rather than a morbid process of some kind."
I agree. He was nicknamed the hostage after all by their staff... He will never leave her. He is stuck. Convinced - for now - that this is what he wants. But, inevitably, the old saying Be careful what you wish for comes to mind.
She might leave if she lands some idiot with more power and more money. Otherwise, maybe his family will pay his ransom and then she will let him go? The children will remain hostages I am afraid. I feel so sorry for them.
The choice of a flowy dress indicates to me she is faking another pregnancy and has to hide the evidence. Hair is up to avoid criticism over wig-wearing. Hands in lap in favor of the OTT bump-hugging we saw in the UK for the same reason.
If she was truly pregnant, she would want her blossoming bump on display to enhance her victimization/vulnerability "truth".
We know O asked ITV for the interview from SA. O has her leadership school in SA and knows better than anyone how these girls struggle in life. If she doesn't challenge M on her "no one asked if I am ok" speech in SA, I hope women of all colors call her out because there is no way to spin that incident into anything but horribly tone-deaf and self-serving.
The replies are a mix of 'exactly' and 'no no no racism!'
Can the video of Meghan throwing hot tea come out already. Let's get together and call it racism at that point.
I'm so over the racism card, this is anything but that. She has only ever dated white guys and had white friends. Even Serena can't stand her, she's not out there crying ,'racism for Meghan!' and her own husband quit reddit due to 'racism'. Where they at now?
Over thirty years ago, embroiled in the legalities of trying to escape a husband who wanted to hang on, I tried to research why he was as he was. Even with access to a university library, I didn't get very far. I thought he may have been a psychopath - he was completely conscience-free. That was when I discovered the concept of `personality disorder' - it didn't tell me what he was, no mention of narcissism.
It took another 29 years for me to find out about narcs, and another couple to realise that my own mother had these tendencies, that I'd accepted them as being almost normal - and believed it was all my fault when things went wrong.
Thank goodness for the internet!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9335573/Bethenny-Frankel-slams-Meghan-Markle-ahead-broadcast-tonight.html
Oh... and apparently the Oprah interview was filmed at Gayle King'smansion!!
Here's the preview so you can skip the shitting thing:
Meghan: Me (cradles "bump") me me me me holistic me me me forced me me fled me service me me love me me me me so-called royal me me me me me me me me outdmoded me me me me me me me cruel me me me me me me me me us me me me me me me me miscarriage me me me me holistic me me me me me me me me service me me me me me me me so-called royal me me (cradles bump noticeable increasing in size) me me me me me me outdmoded me me me me me me me cruel me me me me ("fights back" tears) me me me me us me me me purpose me me me baby me me me me me me wisdom me me me me common people me me me me me me media me me (cradles enormous bump) me me me me me me palace me me me me me me career me me love backs turned me me me me me campaign me me media me me me power me me me me baby me me me pain me loss me pain (tears) me loss me pain me me me me triumph me me me 21st century me me me me future me me me me educate the family me me me me me me me me me proud black woman me me me me me me me me me people's princess me me me me me me me (cradles bump while doing in-labor breathing) me me me me me me me me me me inspiration me strength me me me me me me me me triumph give love peace power (big brave smile) me me (cradles bump back to original size) me me me me me me....
Harry: Duh (nod nod nod nod nod nod) my family (nod nod nod nod) duh (shart) (nod nod nod nod nod nod nod) history repeating (nod nod nod nod nod nod nod nod nod) duh....
O: Me proud me black me woman me me me me (interrupts) me me me me (fart) me me me me bias me me (interrupts) me me family me me me (fart) me me me racism me (interrupts) me bigotry me me Hermès me me me me (interrupts) me me (fart) me me me me triumph give love peace power me me (fart) me (ad infinitum)....
CBS: KA-CHING!
UK: TO THE TOWER!
USA: Purr, purr Francine.
I think Megs team reads this blog. They seem to take ques from what they read here.
Also may I just take this opportunity to say that I am heartily sick of the walking-behind-the-cortege story.
-------------
Yep. As you say, we *all* have trauma one way or another in our lives, but we don't moan on about it for the rest of our lives. Or use it to excuse bad behavior.
The only time anything matters to either of them is if it happened to them. Otherwise they're not interested.
Much like their voice and their truth. They can speak 'their truth', but no one else can speak theirs.
What about those staffers they bullied? When do they get to have their voice? When do they get to speak their truth? Never?
Hahaha Thanks for the laugh. 😅
The law can only deal with criminal aspects of their behaviour - murder, assault and fraud, for instance. If found guilty, they can go to gaol, though I do wonder where it merges with being `criminally insane', with the possibility of being held in a `special hospital', eg Broadmoor, for good.
Or, as Wikipedia puts it, `a defendant claiming the defense is pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) or "guilty but insane or mentally ill" in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period.
I've not heard of any of these laid back guys breaking things off with Grip. They always bounce back though.
It's going to take Meghan snagging Bezos or the like for Harry to get a clue.
The great thing about Harry is he wont be able to shut up when it happens. All of the sudden, the press will be his best friend.
With the sensational screening of the Harry and Meghan Oprah Winfrey interview imminent, it is increasingly clear that the royal family is now working directly with Netflix to
furnish plotlines for future seasons of The Crown.
Deploying the accuracy that has characterised that series, the FT can reveal that scriptwriters and equerries have been meeting in secret to collaborate on ideas
amid growing concern at Netflix that the royal emphasis on dutiful stability was a ratings killer. “Since about 2000, the royals seemed to be on some weird new no-drama kick, which may be fine for a constitutional monarchy but simply does not work for event TV,” said one insider.
It was this secret committee that came up with the plan to parachute a bona fide TV actress
into the ranks of the royals to improvise new dramatic plotlines. The need for direct collaboration had become obvious during the happiness years. Although show runners were initially excited about Prince William’s courtship of and marriage to Kate Middleton,
they fear audiences will tire of an outwardly stable relationship.
Viewers are eagerly anticipating the bit in season five when the Queen takes a cameo role as Dame Helen Mirren but these are rare moments of stardust.
Producers were worried they would be unable to top the drama of the Diana story. “There was
just no new Queen of Hearts to work with,” said one insider. “It’s crushing a winning franchise.”
It was amid this deepening sense of crisis that the radical “second son” strategy evolved. The spareheir storyline had already been trialled with Princess Margaret. This twin-track approach allows the primary royals to go on being dutiful while permitting dramatic
storylines for less constitutionally significant figures and the occasional confrontation in which an enraged Windsor purses their lips and says “I see.”
Not all has gone smoothly.
Prince Andrew was furious when he discovered the storyline turning him into a global sleazeball but was soothed by the promise of a major scene in which his wrongdoing is exposed live in a Newsnight interview with Meghan Markle.
from this weekend's Financial Times magazine. I will continue posting the rest of this article later. I need to format it in order to post it here.
I don't know of any young people reading these epic adventures.They are being forced to read adventures of whichever politically correct cause celebre is in style with the educators. For the majority of the kids, these are not relevant. Forcing children to read politically correct books so that they'll be forcibly acculturated to a culture that they are not in is just causing resentment (as well as illiteracy and loss of knowledge of western culture).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9335135/CBS-buys-extensive-footage-Thomas-Markle-ITV-bombshell-Oprah-interview.html
Thanks so much for the excerpt from the NYT piece comparing MM to Undine Spragg.. They are twins.
Just to say that this reference is very valuable - it's helped to bring me up to date. I was scratching around for info in 1989!
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/distinction-between-personality-disorder-and-mental-illness
If she was having a mental breakdown and was that mentally ill, why is she pumping out kids while thus? Is that such a good idea? Is she under the ongoing care of a mental health professional like she should be if things have been that serious? Is going on Oprah and having it broadcast around the world a good idea for one's mental health? I mean ffs. Pick one reason and stick with it instead of playing whack-a-mole and switching it up every time you get called out on a different one.
I particularly liked:
"For all too many of these people, social issues are like fashion trends – to be worn in front of a camera lens, to garner heaps of attention and praise. As to the social issues they espouse, sometimes they prove surprisingly ill-informed. But who cares about that when the real goal is publicity?"
Says it all
Jenn, Ill try to keep you company tonight if I can stand it
`Red blankets'?
So they didn't show the blood stains? Did she want the colour of oxygenated blood or deoxygenated?
Rombauer Chardonnay
Crisp dry white. Delish.
I'll be watching off and on tonight, and will be logged into this forum to read the ongoing commentary. This forum is far more entertaining than Meghan ever will be, and for that I'm grateful to you all.
One thought, maybe we are getting near the end of some of the everything is racist language even here in the states. People are getting tired and we know Megs is always late to a trend. Someone posted I think that she is stuck in the 90s. She doesn’t have a lot of avenues left to make money. Sure she’s prob laundering some through foundations to pay for things but her acting career is over (I bet dancing with the stars gets canceled before she is eligible to partake) her royal career is over. Instagram influencer yeah people are tired of those now and she’s too old for tik tok. She is gonna have a hard time landing the next big fish. All she has is the barely photographed archie and whatever it is she is
Spawning and if she doesn’t have archie or neither kid has Harry’s DNA she really has nothing. If there are children involved I sincerely hope someone will swoop in and make sure they are not raised by these bozos. I’m guessing the BRF tried to pay her off on numerous occasions and she kept going for bigger amounts (because going away quietly is not her thing) at this point they are saying no cash and good luck with divorce in a community property state. 😉
Geez not gonna watch but will have a nice bottle of red (have to decide which one to pick) in honor of all of you watching.
@JennS, the Archie photo sleuthing was brilliant (What an attractive bunch the real family was!) You seem inexhaustible. (Exactly how fast is your wi-fi & internet speed anyway? I thought mine was good, but. . . I know, you're a much faster typist than I am, & being younger, have much better computer skills. I answered my own question!) Thanking you one more time for all of your posts, & for watching the thing tonight! I wish it were in my power to give you a meeting with Hot Rob. Sorry!
Below is a link to a DM article by Alexandra Shulman, for editor-in-chief of British Vogue. If her description of Jason Knauf is reliable, Charles should know that lots of big organizations would give their eye-teeth for someone like him. A well run organization should run like a Rolls Royce, you never hear the gears grinding, but if a spanner like Megs is thrown into the works, you need drastic remedies ASAP. Charles just put his head in the sand per usual. I know I pick on him, & think he's probably a decent man, & I share many of his fuddy-duddy opinions, but he's an example of why primogeniture & royal & aristocratic rules can create problems. In a real 'Firm' Charles would have been given a job better suited to his abilities & the CEO job given to another.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9334003/ALEXANDRA-SHULMAN-know-efforts-aides-make-Meghan-welcome-didnt-want-help.html
I think a lot of the RRs are working on books about the Harkle mess. LOL.
As you've noticed, the NYTimes is a cesspit at this point and they've gone beyond the usual race baiting standard to applaud race attacks and bad behaviour by Black Americans purely because of their race.
It's the ultimate racism where they've managed to turn black Americans into pets without agency or satient intelligence. It's a type of liberalism warned by Malcolm X and James Baldwin.
In Meghan's case, several examples come to mind.
The first was an article published immediately after Megxit in which they declared that UK was incorrigibly racist and it was entirely unsurprising that Meghan left as a result.
Perhaps it was the howls of outrage from the UK or Piers Morgan interviewing the journalist and excoriating her on UK TV that gave them pause, because since then their articles on Meghan and her race card are not so strident or such blanket accusations.
Given their stance on matters of race especially Black Americans, the Undine Spragg comparison is surprising. Surprising that they would dare say it in print.
There have also been a few other articles that lay out the argument of Meghan's dubious character before pulling back and deciding in might be race afterall, including the one that you posted.
They even allow comments about her negative character instead of wall to wall UK / palace is racist.
@Sandie quoted,
"Personality disorders are described in the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) as ‘deeply ingrained and enduring behaviour patterns, manifesting themselves as inflexible responses to a broad range of personal and social situations’; they represent ‘either extreme or significant deviations from the way the average individual in a given culture perceives, thinks, feels, and particularly relates to others’ and are ‘developmental conditions, which appear in childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood’ (World Health Organization, 1992a). They are distinguished from mental illness by their enduring, potentially lifelong nature and by the assumption that they represent extremes of normal variation rather than a morbid process of some kind."
*
Let me add the key word in this paragraph is "developmental" as also found in intellectually disabled individuals, example autism etc. in which the individual is considered atypical and is not to be misunderstood as mentally ill or an individual with a PD.
the quote continues,
"and are ‘developmental conditions, which appear in childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood’ (World Health Organization, 1992a). ***"They are distinguished from mental illness by their enduring, potentially lifelong nature and by the assumption that they represent extremes of normal variation rather than a morbid process of some kind."
This can be also attributed to the spectrum for autism, which we know is very wide from very high functioning to savant syndrome. Normal is a word that is better replaced with typical or atypical.
"Retardation" is used only by MDs in diagnosing, and it's repulsive derivative is now on the wane. Which is about time IMO.
My point is it's best if we differentiate the outlier from the mentally ill; without having knowledge of their medical diagnosis. That kooky, quiet neighbor may be very low on the autism spectrum and yet still be brilliant. Hell, most scientists, physicists, computer geniuses, etc. etc. are on the autism spectrum.
I have worked with ID communities and it's very upsetting to the client when they are called the R word, or mentally ill or PD. Their ID is very different.
Thanks for your post Sandie :)
I received the message: You are a TomBoy. I have no idea what youngsters read at school these days. We had to read Lark Rise which I see now as an attempt at shaming us for our privileged life when our lives were actually far closer to the somewhat sanitised movies If, or Lord of the Flies - we twice attempted murder on different classmates. How we failed I am not sure.
I digress... My view is this: you only have one opportunity to make a first impression and you only get one Oprah Interview. After that everything is rehashed but if you don't mention it on Oprah the suspicion will be that you are making it up. I still predict a big nothing-burger. Everyone wants the Kraken but the Kraken never arrives.
That photo: Markle looks as though she is in mourning - chanelling the funeral of the sixth George.
I first noticed an association between personality and calling when I considered my university contemporaries - social backgrounds, no. siblings and birth order and so on - including who ones stuck to their original subjects and which ones changed. Most were mathematicians or scientists, although there were strange individuals reading other subjects as well.
It became obvious that many of the mathematicians who stuck to their calculations were distinctly odd. The ones that weren't atypical tended to change subjects.
Btw, I tried the Baron -Cohen self-assessment on myself & came out slightly higher than the average for autism - but still well short of what would be needed for an autism diagnosis.
https://psychology-tools.com/test/autism-spectrum-quotient
NB I didn't do any statistical analysis and I suppose my sample was small but it still made me wonder.
Autism is not classified as a personality disorder or a mental illness. It is classified as a developmental disorder.
Personally, I have problems with autism being classified as any kind of disorder. Autism is also associated with some exceptional skills. People labelled as 'normal' are not classified as having a disorder because they do not have these strengths!
I know my thinking is a bit fuzzy on this, but autism and personality disorders are very different and using the same term (disorder) is confusing to me.
Malcolm X would have had some things to say to Ms. Jinksy Markle even *after he left the NOI. I would love to be a fly on that wall...
Yes, I just edited to clarify my statement. I was making a comparative look at the two diagnoses.
I am personally thankful there is a diagnosis as many in the ID community would not get the services they need without one.
I agree they have great strengths/insights, though much different than typical individuals are quite refreshing!
Just my thoughts on this quote.
Heh. I think some of them are pegged over really hard on the autism scale. Every time I look at Zuckerberg, I think "Data" from Star Trek: The Next Generation, but without the human feelings. I think Bill Gates looks at human tragedies from his vaccine experiments as useful data, not tragedies, much like Albert Einstein looked at experiments with incandescent lighting "That one doesn't work, next!" Then there is Steve Jobs, brilliant yet *extremely* difficult.
I don't think that autism is a disability, per se, just differently abled. To them, I'd be the disabled one.
That film didn't make my life teaching at a boys' grammar school any easier!
We had left-wing revolutionaries of every hue among the lads but I never had any cause to fear - it was just usual classroom disruption with an edge, even though there was a graffito on the wall of the woodwork room which read `F*ck the system before it f*cks you!'
I quite missed those boys when I moved to sleepy Hampshire, as it was then.
The Dumbartons belong on a new reality TV show. The Real Royalty of SoCal.
Theres enough of European royalty/peerage living in SoCal for a Bravo tv show.
Too many folks with autism are confused with narcs because of the detachment and disassociation-and other traits. Some MAY be narcs but the majority are not and it's especially frustrating to them to be considered narcs when they are not. It goes case by case in determining.
I did fail to mention mathematics! I would not be surprised the heroes who developed the decoding systems in WWII were on the spectrum (this would not include the Navajo codes talkers whom are heroes as well).
I too just missed the autism spectrum on the test. Big surprise, eh? :D
Queen 1, Meghan 0
To them, I'd be the disabled one.
*
Lol. That's exactly how atypicals view the typicals. LOL...
She's the type of Hollywood actress that is a bottomless pit of need and insecurity. Exhausting to be around because you have to be fawning 24/7 and it's still not enough.
As for Harry, i became certain that he'd married his mother when i read an anecdote in FF in which M thought was Kate was unsupportive because she sent flowers on an occasion, but didn't visit in person to fawn on M. She rejected the flowers. The timeline shows that Kate was either pregnant or had just had Baby Louis plus participating in family therapy to help her brother.
Diana often rejected help and advice if it didn't come exactly as she wanted it. She would then tell everyone that she was unsupported, but phrase it in a way that implied no help had been offered. Later it would be revealed that help / advice had been given, but rejected because it didn't fit exactly as Diana wanted it.
Similar approach to life and friends.
We need a place to do some of our discussions in private.
If she was that determined, she would simply join up as a new member and how would any one know?
Two places on Tumblr where you can find live updates on the interview:
https://sassyfrassboss.tumblr.com/post/644956768310607872/so-tomorrow-i-will-be-watching-the-oprah-interview
https://talkingtarot.tumblr.com/
I didn't know Meg didn't like the engagement interview. For someone knee deep in the entertainment world it's truly shocking she wouldn't understand real journalism. It's probably why she ghosted Piers after their first meeting!
As tragic as it was... due to Diana's poor judgement look how she ended up. Meghan is more intelligent and older than Diana, so who knows how she will end up. I hope the Rota finishes her, so we can move on to more Hot Rob talk.
Yes that leapt out at me too. I guess it's because she thought of herself as an A-lister where I gather it's the norm to have questions vetted and you're then ushered in for some time with the deity, for which you must be thoroughly grateful and show it.
She must have blanked out so much information in the run-up to her wedding as she really had no idea. I guess she thought it was 'negativity' so refused to engage with it. If any little facts crept through, she would assume they had no application to her. What's a 1,000 year-old monarchy compared to Meghan Markle?
Page 6 is reporting that The Times of London has a story where palace staff are discussing removing the Sussex titles, are you able to find and copy that?
The Allstar Game is doing counter programming with Michael B Jordan who starred in Black Panther and is a heartthrob especially with black women, interviewing Kamala Harris. The gloves are off! Michael B Jordan with Kamala Harris vs Harry and Meghan.
If you'd like a bit of light relief amid all these unedifying shenanigans, look at the Star's front page.
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/daily-star-sunday-front-page-2021-03-07/
I also read somewhere today that BP had pushed back on the idea titles could be removed, but I can't remember where. There's so much going on.
Yes, I did that one already last night so it's on the last thread - last page. It was a short article and is contained in one post.
Nothing else of import there right now.
Does anyone know what happened to the Queen's event today? I thought she had something scheduled and I didn't see anything mentioned in the Times.
'monyauniverse asked:
Regarding that tea throwing incident: if it happened (and it seems to be confirmed) then it is potentially a criminal offence. No wonder papers are walking carefully with the description. I also recall that the royal rep in Australia officially reported the incident and other behaviour. So there are official records in existence and they are being brought up now. I read that Wills' lawyers take an active part in the investigation. Have faith, scandal's too big to fade after the Times article'
Reply:
BI have faith it just as you stated needs to be addressed carefully. I am sure “our Meg’s” version will only benefit her and she was so stressed out she knocked over a drink and it was an accident it spilled all over her incompetent assistant.'
_______
Wouldn't it be delicious if the bit in bold (my emphasis) was true? Has anyone heard anything about Will's lawyers?
"The Allstar Game is doing counter programming with Michael B Jordan who starred in Black Panther and is a heartthrob especially with black women, interviewing Kamala Harris. The gloves are off! Michael B Jordan with Kamala Harris vs Harry and Meghan."
It's extra delicious because Meghan met Michael B. Jordan at a celebrity football game in 2014 and was all over him as if they were besties. All for the photos of course.
Same game that she met Serena even though she pretends she met Serena in 2010.
https://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/DirecTV+Celebrity+Beach+Bowl+Game+ILL7AIIi4yKx.jpg
https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F20%2F2019%2F02%2Fmeghan-markle-7-1-1-2000.jpg
https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?q=85&c=sc&poi=face&w=1875&h=1875&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F20%2F2019%2F04%2Fmeghan-markle-serena-williams-1-2000.jpg
https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?q=85&c=sc&poi=face&w=2000&h=1333&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F20%2F2019%2F02%2Fmeghan-markle-5-3-1-2000.jpg
sandiedog
The Foolishness Of Meghan Markle, Why She Deserves To Be Called “BULLY” 2 days ago jeangasho.com
I am a black woman, and over the past days I’ve been cringing seeing black people all over my social media feed getting all upset about what’s currently happening to Meghan Markle, as they believe it’s some sort of racist agenda towards her, which is sad really, because black people have way bigger problems they should be fighting against than fighting for a very privileged mixed race woman who has made her bed.
In all my arguments against Meghan, I refuse to use her half black side because she doesn’t even use it herself, (claiming her black side when things go wrong is rather hypocritical to say the least) she got where she is today because of the genes of her Father, a white man.
Come on, the woman even straightens her hair to get rid of any kinks and curls from her black mother, she strictly marries white men, she relates more to her white side than black side, so I can’t see why that should change today, oh suddenly she is now a black woman who is a victim of racism, nah not in my book.
There are real victims of racism out there, black women, who can’t even get a promotion at work because they are black, so I won’t insult black heritage by putting Meghan Markle’s plight in the same bracket with black women.
Secondly, the same black people crying about the so called racism towards Meghan Markle are the same black people who always put Meghan and Princess Diana in the same league. “They did the same to Princess Diana”, they cry out against the English royal family.
Well Princess Diana was a blue eyed blonde white woman from a very upper class aristocrat English family. So make your mind up, if it wasn’t racism with Diana, why is it suddenly racism with Meghan?
They even have reasons to hate Meghan, she’s a divorcee, an actress, and American. Diana was a pure virgin and white, yet in all fairness, Diana had it far worse than Meghan, to add to her suffering Diana had no husband to hold her hand, the woman was completely on her own. Diana was only a teenager when she got married, Meghan was way over 35 years old, so please, black people, just stop. Diana was an actual victim, not of racism obviously, but of the royal family and paid with her own life. And one thing I admire about Diana, whilst on her own, without a husband to hold her hand, she was BOLD enough to call a spade a spade. At least she was true to herself and told her story without mincing any words, which brings me to the reason why I have no ounce of sympathy for Meghan Markle.
I believe Meghan Markle actually deserves the bullying allegations against her.
YES, let them paint her as a bully, and worse. I don’t know why they took so long, I wish the allegations had come even sooner. And no, I don’t blame Kensington Palace for bringing out these allegations, why shouldn’t they?
For years now, there has been reports in the British media about Meghan causing so much problems within the palace. We all heard how she made her sister-in-law Kate cry during her wedding rehearsals, which was over 3 years ago by the way, before Meghan was even married to Harry.
You can read the rest at
https://jeangasho.com/2021/03/05/the-foolishness-of-meghan-markle-why-she-deserves-to-be-called-bully/
The one piece of solid evidence of the bullying is an email exchange initiated by Jason Knauf. He was Communications Secretary for the Cambridges and Sussexes at the time. He is now the CEO of the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Fret not!
I believe the message Anita Rani (of Indian origin) was conveying was `how to wear bright green and look great in it!'
Camilla gave the same message in a Black Watch Tartan skirt (referencing the Edinburgh visit) and Baroness Scotland did gave a double whammy in a formal ivory coat and dress (Investiture outfit) with a `chain motif'...
Any suggestions for Sophie? `How to look good in simple black, especially if you're blonde.'?
I'm not sure if the big dangly `diamante' earrings of the Gospel Choir were a deliberate reference or not - depends when it was recorded and if hints had been dropped.
The Coronation Chair featured - `Eat your heart out - neither of you two are going to get your scurvy arses on this seat' -
- the framed Colour, with its Battle Honours, suggested a dig at Harry (`You'll never get a Military Funeral') I don't know whose Colours they are. (When new Colours are presented, the old are laid to rest, so to speak, in an appropriate church - it's the equivalent of burial - they are allowed to decay in situ.
I thought everything was beautifully done - the Commonwealth Flag bearer was stunning - did any recognise where she was from?
Remember earlier about how MM is now starting to pull or comment stuff from her? Own your own story stuff?
Overheard in a coffee shop: I love Brené Brown. I love how she says you should own your own story ... and that she says how you need to make sure that the people you tell are worthy of this.
All could think about was how this lead up to the show is not about worthiness, integrity, trust or honor.
(had forgotten about Flashy. I may have to reread them.)
@abbyh mentioned earlier that the BRF never helped Diana with her various mental health issues (that we know of)?
In the very good biography of Charles by Sally Bedell Smith (a fairly balanced writing and worth reading/listening to) the author does state that the family indeed sought and arranged counseling for Diana multiple times, particularly to try to manage her bulimia. Apparently, she would start up with someone and then become PARANOID about a great BRF conspiracy involving the mental health professional. The biography also mentioned (Chapter 25 Media Makeover) Penny Junor's "Charles at 50" book, which I have not read. Apparently this book describes Diana's late night calls to Camilla (prior to and after the divorce) where Diana basically says to Camilla "I have sent someone over to your house to kill you and they are in your garden now." Camilla had mentioned these calls to a few close friends at that time and referred to the events as "Diana's stalking." Though both Charles and Camilla issued statements to indicate they had never spoken to Junor for her book, no actual denial was ever made regarding the stalking.
Lastly, prior to her death, Diana attempted to start some sort of counseling again on her own, according to Smith. I have always wondered if Dr. Kahn's reason for not wanting to marry Diana had little to do with her fame and more to do with mental illness.
And now, we see that Haz clearly is paranoid as well as Flower. Plus, I can truly believe that Flower stalks others in her own way.
Let them keep the dukedom. The HRH should be revoked and Hapless and his children removed from the line of succession. This is a far urgent and highly sensitive matter. How can he or his offsprings remain in line to the throne when they have fled the UK and here no allegiance to the monarchy?
perhaps to the uninformed, but Prince/Princess are not titles, these are styles. Duke/Duchess is a title, and of the highest order. In the UK the only Prince/Princess title, is The Prince or Princess of Wales, which is one notch below The Monarch. The HRH means Haz is a royal duke as opposed to a non royal duke.
Personally, it would be wonderful if they could remove everything from him and change his name to Dumb F... or S... Head.
I had to decide whether the rages I saw were autistic meltdowns or narc rages - but concluded they were the latter, in that they were directed (at me) and about power. They did not seem to arise endogenously.
On the other hand, and unlike my mother, both were obsessed in collecting facts, could not read other people's emotions and struck strangers as being `odd', right from the start.
your point is best. The most important urgent thing is to remove him and all of his issue, real or imagined, from the line of succession. He can NEVER become a counselor of state or a Regent. Personally, if I were William, he would never again be in the presence of Catherine or any of my children, certainly not without security and myself present. He is mentally unfit, delusional and spiteful.
Thank you for correcting me.
It is good to know that they did try (and that I think that was important especially as seeking help was not then what it is now).
thanks
@Maneki Neko on William's lawyers - Lady C's latest video suggested William is active here as she commended him for stepping up and dealing with all this.
------
Thank you. I apologise if I posted something that was already known, I find it hard to catch up with everything and different sources of info at the moment! I'm glad William's involvement has been confirmed.
Some are wondering about the point of this interview 'there's a pandemic...when you're feeling helpless help someone...' Listening to the ultra rich cry about their petty problems is a waste of time.'
Many are calling out the hypocrisy: 'couldn't care less about this self-publishing couple.' She is an entitled spoiled woman who had everything and didn't last 2 years...'
So it doesn't look like Oprah has widespread support which means the fallout will have some repercussions for her too.
I have no plans to watch tonight but will read all the comments!
Exactly! This is why I said earlier that Will is fiercely protective of his wife and kids. He was relieved to see them leave; sometimes I wonder if he didn’t even push them out for his own peace of mind!
In Lady CC's latest video she codifies her belief/speculation of Flower's most likely "diagnosis."
According to LCC she thinks (along with some professional LCC speaks to) that Flower is (and I paraphrase a bit) a Malignant Narcissist with Sociopathic tendencies and a Sadistic streak which manifest in her cruelty to others and total lack of empathy for others. The belief continues that she is Paranoid and is a pathological fantasist.
Honestly, I would just bump her up to full on Sociopath.
"Apologies if this has been discussed before,
In Lady CC's latest video she codifies her belief/speculation of Flower's most likely "diagnosis."
According to LCC she thinks (along with some professional LCC speaks to) that Flower is (and I paraphrase a bit) a Malignant Narcissist with Sociopathic tendencies and a Sadistic streak which manifest in her cruelty to others and total lack of empathy for others. The belief continues that she is Paranoid and is a pathological fantasist."
In summary she's a dark triad personality. This personality is combination of 3 other traits = psychopath + Narcissist + Machiavellian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=juhqwEf8kSY
He'd mutter but still let me watch it if I asked, but recently he's swung from being ambivalent about them to yelling at the tv whenever BBC brings up the trailers yet again so it'd take more effort than "shall we watch this?" to get him to agree to watch it and 2h of Meghan isn't worth any more effort than that.
I absolutely believe the two bullies were FIRED and told to get the h... out. Not only should PW be protective of his family, so should HMTQ and PC. I think they may be getting to the point that they just have to let H go. In a way, between their relocation to the US and CoVid-19, the family has had some natural cushion. But I would make it very clear to Harry that the full force of the family/security services/government will in no way tolerate anything more. All eventualities are on the table.
In summary she's a dark triad personality. This personality is combination of 3 other traits = psychopath + Narcissist + Machiavellian.
Precisely! AKA: EVIL INCARNATE
Actually, I would bump her down from Psychopath to Sociopath. I am not sure she has the charm and control of a true biological Psychopath, like, say, most corporate CEOs. She is more disordered, hence the dirty muddy shoes, the unironed clothes, etc.
Someone should alert her to the precedent set by HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught ( Victoria's granddaughter) who was demoted to plain Lady Patricia.
Granted her styles / titles demotion happened for different, benign reasons AND she requested the demotion, but the precedent to demote via Letters patent exists.
Throw in Harry's very public attack on The Queen, the monarchy, UK country and citizens and a case can be made for parliament to adapt the titles deprivation act 1917 to fit his circumstances to strp the ducal titles.
He'd be demoted to Lord Henry Mountbatten-Windsor. She'd be Lady Mountbatten-Windsor which would be no good at all as far as she's concerned.
I would still vote for M/M F... Head, but I will take Lord/Lady over the rest.
"I absolutely believe the two bullies were FIRED..."
Somewhere in the war of words that erupted between the Harkles and the palace since last week, the Harkles team admitted that they were fired.
I'll go look for the appropriate article that contains the admission.
RE: The tea throwing incident and her general entitled, bad behavior at the Australian host's home---I remember reading (at the time) that Andrew was sent down to Oz to smooth things over with the hosts after the Harkle's tour.
On another note, last night I googled the beach boy photo Mom's name, which I believe Jenn S posted (I cannot remember or find it now), and found out she is a CNN (US Cable News Network) correspondent. Strange that the photo belonging to a news correspondent would be floated as MM and Archie.
I agree with others about the succession. That matters more than anything. We can't possibly have the risk of Harry and his heirs succeeding. It would be ludicrous now. That also takes us back to the secrecy around Archie's birth which was totally unacceptable as he is relatively high on the list until William's children have children of their own. I hope and pray William will make sure his family doesn't travel all together from now on.
This problem is only going to get worse. The Sussexes are in a downward spiral and beyond reason. Something HAS to be done. The BRF can't stick their heads in the sand about this problem. (That reminds me of the Queen Mother. The mind boggles at what she would say about all this, but I don't think she would have been surprised.)
Funny you should say that. I read all I could find about her a while back and I recognised the ironies compared to Meghan, who wanted to keep her titles but not do the work. Lady Patricia, as you said, requested her demotion but she carried on doing charity work all her life. She seems to have been an admirable and interesting character. I have a beautiful, original little photo of her in middle-age. She looks serene, elegant and composed. I was also intrigued that she didn't marry until years after her contemporaries. Then she seems to have fallen in love and had a very happy marriage, as far as one can tell. She lived a good life. Oh the difference!
"On another note, last night I googled the beach boy photo Mom's name, which I believe Jenn S posted (I cannot remember or find it now), and found out she is a CNN (US Cable News Network) correspondent. Strange that the photo belonging to a news correspondent would be floated as MM and Archie."
That has all of my Spidey senses tingling.
********************
Looking forward to tonight. I cut the cable a few years ago, so I won't be able to watch it. I don't think I could take two hours of it, anyway, but will be following along with Jenn and AnT. Thanks for being our eyes and ears tonight!
Their survival depends on how they handle hapless and his offsprings. They have to cut him loose. There’s no way back for him and let’s be honest they won’t be kicking him out in the cold! He won’t be homeless and end up under some bridge! He has proved himself unfit and he has no allegiance to the monarchy. For now, the BRF have the public opinion on their side and no one would blame them. Despite all her bullying and shouting, her in-laws have the upper hand.
I don’t think they need to remove the Sussex titles, especially if it means MM can use the ‘Princess’ title.
Americans are used to commoditized dukes/ duchesses/ barons/ etc running around trying to make a quick buck off their fancy titles.
some people are desperate enough to buy their titles marry to gain them.
Duchess of York, left poor after the divorce, had little choice but to merch herself and title to make a living.
The HRH thing means alot to the UK, and commonwealth but other than the free security, it doesn’t mean much to an american.
I actually think it’s much more important to remove PH and descendants from the line of Succession. He made a choice to give up family, country, and doesn’t have a sense of responsiblity to either, and he and his wife have acknowledged mental health issues. That does not make for a good Monarch option. Perhaps the legislature will see another change to the rules of Succession is in order.
I may watch, too, or at least record it. I am not sure I can stand 2 hours of the BS.
Very outdated thinking re Aspergers, reminds me of the US press each time there is a shooting atrocity and somewhere in the reportage it is suggested that the perpetrator 'suffered from' ASD and was on the spectrum. Dangerous thinking which only adds to the sense of isolation for those who are not 'neuro typical' and marginalises them as 'potentially dangerous'
https://www.aane.org/emotions-and-empathy/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/you-think-autistic-people-have-no-empathy-my-little-boy-is-so-empathetic-it-hurts
https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-radical-new-autism-theory
I speak as a woman with high functioning Aspergers and a not too shabby IQ.My son is the same. I am also hypersensitive ( in every sense - sounds,images, vibes, startle response, etc etc) What people may perceive as a lack of empathy is often a coping mechanism for blocking the intensity of feeling.A lack of guise combined with a desire to 'fit in' also makes us more likely to be victims of narcs and again I speak from experience, some of it very recent and very painful.
Aspies and autists are not narcs. Narcs seek attention, validation and 'glory' Aspies don't.
Good luck! I don't know how you'll be able to stand 2 hours of Megalo's smug/sad/suffering/brave/upset face, constantly on the verge of tears, tugging at the heartstrings. I'll be safely tucked up in bed!
You deserve a medal🏅.
That has all of my Spidey senses tingling.
------------
Me, too. I ran into that also when researching her. Something fishy there.
She'd written a piece about how mm's article helped her cope with her own miscarriage. Since she's kind of a big shot reporter, I wonder if mm made contact with her after her article praised mm.
All this stuff about miscarriage shaming is weird. It’s just a private thing, no one is/was ashamed.
Mm is just using it as a setup for her upcoming mental illness defense. Look what the BRF caused thing. I hate that people are jumping on that bandwagon.
There is also a Sussex County in Virginia, south of Richmond. I do not think it particularly affluent.
@Opus, did you & your school friends actually try to murder a classmate? I have to laugh because I grew up with brothers, & know how insane teenage boys can be. No, no one will ever sympathize with any claims of suffering on your part, because you're an educated white male, but I've always tried to explain to my kids that viciousness inside the 'inner circle' is usually worse than that directed to 'outsiders.' 'Outsiders' are just snubbed, but 'insiders' get their knives out for one another, that's where the real drama lies, but 'insiders' close the circle when 'outsiders' cry foul, & try to get in. Sometimes 'outside' is safer. Always good to have as many friends as you can, 'inside' & 'outside.'
@Sandie, that mental health plea on the part of Megs is interesting; although Megs will likely never suffer any restraints on her behavior because of 'mental illness.' She's tough as nails, & there are no reports of her ever self-harming, as there were of poor Diana. I recall little snippets of 'does Princess Diana have a personality disorder?' appearing in the MSM back in the 90s. If Megs had any sense, she would know that 'mental health' rumors, & all of the gossip about Diana's affairs, which was released even before her death, were taking a lot of the luster off of Diana's image. Diana was completely authentic, manipulative & flawed as she was. Megs is completely phony. I'm just astounded that Megs seems to think she can monetize this mirage of Diana cosplay. Will Megs pretend to slit her wrists so that some woman director, black/white/or Asian, can do a cheesy film on the 'tragedy' of her life? Will she go that far? That would be both disgusting & hilarious.
Whining and crying privileged people do not elicit sympathy.
Agree H and Archie should be removed from line of succession. Not loyal, not Royal in behavior, and certainly not fit.
The ratings will be interesting from both the UK and the US. The London Times has a couple of articles up claiming it will be bigger than a super bowl Sunday and that millions will watch worldwide. I hope they do not get huge numbers - it will only swell her head even further.
Several threads ago I mentioned that both Super Bowl & Golden Globe ratings suffered a deep drop this year, & I'm fairly sure that was in worldwide ratings. I doubt US ratings will be very high, although CBS has been trying to fan the flames. I think in the US it will mostly attract people who love celebrity gossip. Most people would probably prefer watching sports or something about people more relatable than royalty & Hollywood starlets. Harry & Meghan's wedding got much lower ratings in the UK than Kate & Wills' shindig, but it did get huge international ratings. Maybe the international sales of this video will fill Oprah's & CBS coffers, but if CBS doesn't get big numbers, advertisers won't be happy.
Just proofs how low class and scum-like Meghan and Harry are, now.
Interesting. The woman at the left is Hannah Davis who married Derek Jeter and famous former NY Yankees ball player who dated Mariah Carey and Jessica Biel.
Michael B. Jordan, at this time is a bigger catch than Prince Harry , as he has at least one super hero movie which will have sequels. He will be a very rich and respected actor unless he really screws up. That is really the life MM wants.
And I assume it'll be just the US crowd that will be "attending"?
Someone upthread, Design Doctor I think, reminded us that after the OZ tour, they had to send Andrew (!) down to soothe diplomatic relations. So let me ask: would he have done that for a "spill"?
and the comments of "The View" panel that HMTQ should apologize to MM/ PH. Seriously, I was dumbfounded to read that these supposedly educated women cannot see what the rest of the world is seeing play out. There is a standard in the RF - you are either in (a life of service, as directed by the Crown), or you are out. There is no inbetween. It is beyond me what PH / MM expect to happen in a postive light / reaction from the royal family and the Commonwealth as a whole.
I await the show.
With regard to Flashman - a little bit of confusion coming in there. The character of Flashman of course originates in Tom Brown's Schooldays but the Flashman novels are all MacDonald Fraser. I am shocked you ladies enjoy all such misogynous fiction.
I can hardly wait for tomorrow when the world's most famous feminist rails against the forces of the patriarchy by attacking the world's most powerful woman as well as her brother-in-law's wife. Hahahahaha.
The 'fired' comment is repeated in this new article about the bullying investigation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/07/meghan-markle-bullying-investigation-will-not-see-royals-asked/
In response to the bullying allegations, a source close to the couple (cough Meghan cough) said this:
"This is a tit for tat scenerio. If this was a private company, we've already quit or been fired depending on your point of view."
If all of their titles were removed, they would still be named in the press as the former Duke and Duchess of Sussex, so I don't think that removing their titles will do much more than making the BRF and the aristocracy happy.
Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor would still have a lot of cache for many people who don't follow the BRF as we do. I'd like to see them referred to as Harry and Meghan Wales, as Harry was named in the in school and in the military. At this point, I don't think that PP would mind if his name wasn't attached to Harry and Megs, although he fought for the Mountbatten name to be added to the BRF's progeny. Actually, I think PP would completely approve of the Wales name being used.
The Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge will reunite once more as they unveil the commissioned statue of their mother at Kensington Palace on July 1 on what would have been her 60th birthday.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9336261/Princes-Harry-William-unveil-statue-Princess-Diana.html
This might depend on what transpires in the interview.
It's just that both people I'm talking about give the impression to those who don't know them well that they appear to fit the profile of academics who may have Asperger syndrome - odd but harmless.
It's only when you know them well, and if they have targeted you, that their behaviour reveals the narcissism. I'm not generalising, just describing 2 people I knew rather too well.
CASTLE HASSLE Meghan Markle was left gutted when the Queen rejected her plea to live at Windsor Castle
"MEGHAN was left gutted when the Queen rejected her plea to live in a wing at Windsor Castle, it has emerged.
The Duchess of Sussex asked Harry if he could persuade Her Majesty to let them have private rooms in the 950-year-old building.
The Queen instead gave the couple nearby Frogmore Cottage.
A royal source said: “Meghan wanted a wing at Windsor Castle.
“She asked Harry to have a word. But the Queen politely turned down the request.
“The castle will eventually be given to Prince Charles.
“Harry and Meghan were initially delighted with Frogmore Cottage but in the end it was wrong for them and they were isolated from everyone.”
The couple spent £2.5million on renovations to the five-bed home, which is overlooked by Windsor Castle.
The Queen spends weekends at the 1,000-room castle.
And she has remained at Windsor for much of the pandemic, including every day since the beginning of lockdown in December.
It comes as it emerged Meghan may never return to the UK after her bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview angered the Royal Family.
Insiders fear she and Prince Harry could have burnt their bridges by failing to tell family members what was in the two-hour chat before it was shown in the US.
Sources say royals including the Queen were not planning to watch the interview, to be shown here on ITV at 9pm on Monday.
Windsor Castle and Palace staff have dubbed the chat “Moperah” after seeing whingey teasers."
In the DM 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex last night insisted their interview with Oprah Winfrey would be the 'last word' on their rift with the Royal Family.
The couple said they felt they 'needed to have their say' but now considered the matter closed and wanted to 'move on'.'
Talk about being dismissive of others, only their word matters.
This is an evil, evil pair.
Clip: "California senator Lena Gonzalez said: 'A historically racist institution that has allowed cultural appropriation and sex abuse claims to fly under the radar then decides to bully their first Black princess? Not today Queen. She's now our California princess and I'm on her team - #TeamMeghan.'"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14264637/meghan-markle-another-oprah-interview-bullying/
Clip: ""MEGHAN may do another Oprah interview to combat bullying allegations against her, it has been claimed.
Sources say the duchess is keen to go on the offensive after last night’s interview."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56313099
It's grotesque that Rache should complain so bitterly about how she, herself, been treated - I bet she's ignored any reports about Mrs Zaghari Ratcliffe, probably doesn't know who she is.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/07/world/meghan-harry-oprah-interview?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
More like they have opened Pandora's box and we all get to look inside. We now get to hear from a whole bunch of people who actually were silenced. Haz and Flower will certainly live regret this interview.
They’re scared!
Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe's sentence has included eight months of solitary confinement, blindfolded interrogations and hunger strikes to press for medical treatment.
Prior to her arrest, she lived in London with her husband and child.
In November, she was taken to court on fresh charges of spreading propaganda against the Iranian regime.
Her family and the UK government have always maintained her innocence and she has been given diplomatic protection by the Foreign Office - meaning the case is treated as a formal, legal dispute between Britain and Iran.
Mr Ratcliffe believes his wife and other dual nationals are being held hostage because Iran wants the UK to pay a decades-old debt over an arms deal that was never fulfilled,
She was given a 5 year gaol sentence which she has now completed, partly in prison, partly under house arrest. She has the briefest of respites until she goes to court again on other charges.
I really don't think the Sharkle has anything to complain about compared with what has happened to this lady, especially as she has a 6 year old daughter who is in London with her father and who has been deprived of her mother for 5 years already and is likely to find the separation continuing.
Mrs ZR is 42, so presumably not a `young' mother with extra privileges in Rache's book.
It's so cruel.
As @Jhanoi said, pull Harry and his descendants from order of succession. Then let them go on with their psychotic drama - because they wont stop.
Sorry if all these points have been made ahead, the insightful contributors have opened my eyes to so much.
So the "interview with Oprah Winfrey would be the 'last word' on their rift with the Royal Family" but she "may do another Oprah interview" and "is keen to go on the offensive"?
If this is true she's not right in the head. I thought she was 'moving on'. She never will, she'll have to keep harping on about her terrible treatment at the hands of the evil BRF. The bully turned bullied. Megalo, spare us the claptrap.
Germaine Greer too, saw her as a `a bolter'.
There would follow a mighty custody battle and immense pay-outs.
We may have been thinking `Don't do it, Harry!' but we weren't quite right over the details.