Fresh post to continue the conversation.
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
I gave up online news for Lent, but then realized that the M&H saga is NOT real news, so it doesn't count.
Lurking but enjoying ;)
https://mobile.twitter.com/Jack_Royston?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1373935283062849536%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url
Here are his tweets, from latest to earliest:
_____
However, these dates may become redundant as the Mail on Sunday may be appealing the decision to order the notice. It will not be published until that process is concluded.
_____
MailOnline will also now only have to run the notice for 24 hours on the home page and another six days on the news page. Meghan originally asked for it to run for six months.
_____
It will be published on either March 28 or April 4, with the decision down to the editor based on the news agenda at the time.
_____
The MoS argued the original front page puff for the story used many fewer words so the front page notice they have been instructed to publish by the court should be a smaller type face.
_____
The judgement relates to the notice the Mail on Sunday will be publishing about Meghan's victory in the copyright case against the newspaper. The paper has won the right to use a smaller type face in the front page notice than was used in the original.
_____
This writer who has always being pro Meghan is saying the palace response has knocked out the Sussexes and compared it with the book: 'The Art of War'. It's very interesting reading.
Please nutties read this and let's discuss. Is Daniella right in describing the palace response as savvy?
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/palace-fights-back-in-pr-battle-after-harry-and-meghans-explosive-oprah-interview/news-story/ff2f802047964ab96f287f2f529ec09a
Yes, I saw the article. I don't agree with everything in it, but overall agree that the Palace and family are responding appropriately in terms of dealing with a narc.
Narcs do not play the PR game according to rules and have a very distorted view of reality. They will lie and twist everything you say, so it is hopeless to deal with them directly.
I think they want Harry back so all the talk about 'beloved family' is to keep a door open for Harry. However, I hope they realize that as long as he is under Meghan's control, he cannot be trusted and they cannot have a relationship with him.
Here is an interesting article about why narcs lie all the time:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/blog/peaceful-parenting/201906/does-narcissist-believe-his-or-her-own-lies
I am going to copy the entire article in a separate post as I think it is very useful in trying to make sense of the madness of dealing with a narc.
The answer is both yes and no.
PART 1
Narcissists live and die by their own version of the truth. Is it the truth if reality has been distorted? A narcissist believes it is. Extreme cognitive distortions and rigid unconscious defense mechanisms change a person’s perception of an experience. Paramount distortions and defenses are typically employed by a person with a narcissistic personality disorder; both alter reality in order to make it more palpable for a fragile ego.
For example, say a narcissist loses a doubles tennis match. Instead of incurring the loss responsibly, the narcissist tends to blow up the partner’s mistakes and minimize his or her own. Denying the extent of his or her mistakes and amplifying the partner’s errors allows the narcissist freedom to deflect accountability for the loss and place blame on the partner. The narcissist protects a weak ego with deflection, projection, minimization, displacement, denial, and blame. By unconsciously altering reality, the narcissist exonerates himself or herself.
In contrast to a narcissist’s extreme and unconscious distortions and defenses, a person who works hard to be aware of cognitive distortions and defenses possesses insight. One hallmark of a person with a healthy defensive structure is, in fact, insight. Self-awareness and a capacity for introspection allow a person to capture an honest and realistic gaze of herself or himself and the situation, resulting in an ability to sincerely admit fault, feel true remorse, learn from a mistake, and evolve. The person may have a unique perception of an event, but it remains closely tied to reality because it is not impacted by a rigid unconscious defensive structure or overactive distortions.
Unfortunately, this poses a problem. If narcissists lack insight and the ability to be introspective, they may be unaware of their distortions. So how are they expected to be accountable if awareness of what they are doing is non-existent? Yet, if they are not held responsible for their actions, they are free to blame and mistreat others when they are the culpable party.
The answer to this question may be complicated but enlightening. A narcissist may not be aware of his or her unconscious distortions and heightened defenses but is somewhat cognizant of his or her behavior. The problem is, in the narcissist’s mind, the distortions justify the negative behavior. A narcissist feels entitled to “teach someone a lesson” and frequently does so inappropriately.
For example, say a narcissist believes she is a fair and equitable supervisor, yet due to her distorted black-and-white thinking, she idealizes several employees and devalues others. When a disgruntled employee is tired of being treated poorly and asks for a transfer, the narcissist acts out in anger and with revenge. She contacts the employee’s potential new supervisor and sabotages the employee’s attempt to transfer. Keeping the person under her thumb, she continues to passive-aggressively punish the employee.
In this example, the narcissist is not aware of her part in the conflict. She is not conscious of her idealizing and devaluing defense mechanisms, but is well aware of her actions, and feels absolutely justified and entitled to behave the way she does.
This makes it nearly impossible to resolve a conflict with a narcissist. He or she stands by a distorted version of reality, which fuels a tendency to bully and mistreat others. When a person offers a more realistic account, the narcissist reacts as if the person is lying, which is confounding.
Moreover, there are two instances when a narcissist appears to be accountable but is actually manipulating. First, a narcissist often unconsciously incorporates a victim stance. Second, when a narcissist encounters a person with more power, he or she often gives lip service to being sorry but does not feel sincere remorse, as evidenced by the continued misbehavior.
For example, say a narcissist forgets his wife’s birthday. Confronted with the realization that there is no way to deflect accountability, he is unconsciously compelled to employ a victim stance. “You did not remind me. All I do is work to support you, so no wonder I forgot. I work so hard for you—I don’t have time to remember anything else!” or “My ex forgot my birthday every year, so it shouldn’t be a big deal that I forgot your birthday one time.”
Although it may be true that he works hard or had an ex that forgot his birthday, the remainder of the rant is him playing the victim in order to escape responsibility. By acting like he was the person who was wronged, he transfers the blame to his partner. Conveniently excusing his behavior, he pivots on a cognitive distortion and reinvents himself as the actual victim.
A second example of the narcissist appearing responsible, but not truly embodying sincere accountability, occurs when the person confronting him or her has more authority than the narcissist. The narcissist quickly cowers and grovels. It becomes clear the narcissist may not actually feel sincere remorse, however, because he or she readily engages in the negative behavior behind the person’s back. When a hurtful behavior is repeated endlessly within the context of an interpersonal relationship, it is proof the person does not feel authentic and deep remorse for selfish behavior.
So, the answer may be more perplexing than the question. Yes, a narcissist is aware of his or her behavior, but unaware of the psychological mechanisms that compel and justify the behavior. Thus, an individual suffering from narcissistic personality disorder must be highly motivated to address the issue of compromised insight and introspection. If he or she is unwilling, the mistreatment of others may continue indefinitely.
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
@ Lurking With Spoon:
`Markle and Spencer' Brilliant!
I'm torn between `Ooh, Betty!' (`Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em - Michael Crawford as dim `Frank Spencer' - this is a remarkably apt clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miG3Db-1-pI
- about PR!)
- and Ratner saying some of his trinkets cost less than an M&S prawn sandwich, and wouldn't last as long. Now we know what sort of sandwich H needs in order to complete his picnic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner
March 22, 2021 at 1:40 PM Delete
I really loved the bit in the article about adults in the throne room (nice).
It's no good launching a direct counter-attack on a narc - they always have an answer. Better to deprive them of the fuel and give them nothing to come back at you on.
I'm pleased that officials are speaking up about the `marriages', although the existence of the certificate isn't actually proof that the church wedding wasn't based on fraudulent intentions. Even so, the passage of time may have made the marriage valid, despite the possibility of it having dodgy foundations.
A second example of the narcissist appearing responsible, but not truly embodying sincere accountability, occurs when the person confronting him or her has more authority than the narcissist. The narcissist quickly cowers and grovels. It becomes clear the narcissist may not actually feel sincere remorse, however, because he or she readily engages in the negative behavior behind the person’s back.
Sometimes they don't even try to hide the return to the crappy behaviour by doing it behind your back, it's like they think they've done their "penance" and in their head you've forgiven them. When my ex realised I was serious about divorcing him, he cried and pleaded for me to change my mind for about 3 days. On the fourth day, he sat down calmly and asked me - in all seriousness! - if I'd help him find someone else. He was actually confused when I told him no and then grumbled that I never do anything for him. It was like the last few days of begging had never happened for him and he was having the conversation he'd have had if he'd truly believed I was serious in the first place.
-------
@ Wild Boar Battle-maid, haha! I can just imagine Harry as Frank.
I ask this because I wonder if Harry has been seeking revenge against MM. He was shockingly fit in the Corbin video. So has he met someone while working out? Has he he been working out when he tells MM that he is “working”? Or is he still in her thralls and attempting to be attractive to her? Or does Mm bully him into working out?
I am not starting rumors. But just pointing out a narc’s target may not be a passive recipient. Any examples of Harry being bullied or exhibiting revenge against MM?
Oh boy did I wake up feeling like an arse this morning!
@Jocelyn’sBellinis .. I apologize for the comment I made yesterday. I realize now that your comment was not directed specifically at me but it didn’t feel that way at the time and I reacted badly.
While I would stop short of saying I have a self-persecution complex, I do understand that am extremely thin-skinned and it has been the bane of my existence for 7 decades. Usually I just let things slide but was unable to do so yesterday. Bottom line is that I over reacted, I have no excuse, and I am truly sorry.
To all Nutties: I so appreciate this community and the contributions from everyone and I apologize for any disruption in the proceedings.
On a side-note for those curious about the vaccine: I have had two doses of the Moderna vaccine. First dose - some injection site soreness … second dose - a lot more arm soreness (Swampwoman’s description of being hit with a bat is spot on) and about 10 hours later I felt like I had been hit by a truck. Next day I felt fine.
Back to regular programming …
If Harry and Megsy got married sooner than officially stated and under an unlawful circumstances , the passage of time wouldn’t make the marriage legally valid, we don’t live in those times. We can only assume that the St George’s wedding was the only one that was always (and legally) intended.
I’d also rather not drip feed the narcissists lies either.
Thanks so much for posting the article. Will go back and re-read but think it's the right approach- being on the offense and not the defense. No one wins in a direct confrontation with a narc. Bet there's not a piece of china left in Mudslide Manor after the WILLIAM article.
Thanks for the link, and for what it's worth I think the palace are right so far in their approach. I think it would be pretty pointless for them to get into a mudslinging match with the Harkles, although part of me would love to see it :) Just think of all the tea that could be spilled! I bet M is positively seething right now, she's thrown down her gauntlet and no one that matters has picked it up, indeed the RF haven't even picked up the phone to her. Wonder what her next plan of action will be....
The Queen has appointed Prince William to be Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland this year.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is a week-long event that dates back to the 16th Century.
Covid vaccine? How are this related to Harry and MH?
I don't see the harm in sharing experiences regarding the covid vaccines. There are a lot of scare stories going around.
My opinion, the posts are short, sweet and helpful.
Cheers
The following was on mysteriouslytransparentwitch.tumblr.com as a psychic look into whether Meghan scuppered her chances with the Obamas.
'Professionally speaking, the Oprah interview has had a negative impact on her working relationship with the Obamas. Remember when PH plugged waffles in his interview with James Corden? That was meant to plant a seed of cross promotion between MM and the Obamas for Michelle’s new Netflix program about kids’ nutrition called Waffles + Mochi. The cross promotion clause in their Netflix deal is now on hold for the foreseeable future.
The Obamas’ programming is meant to serve as a unifier. Their goal is to help heal our sociopolitical divide by championing things that everyone can get behind, while showcasing diverse voices. The Obamas genuinely want the next generation of children to grow up with stronger values and greater knowledge. So the fallout from the Oprah interview is totally off brand for their mission. The Obamas cannot work with MM at this time because she is too polarizing.'
------------------------------------
By this the whole granny bought Archie a waffle maker was just another product placement. Does anyone know of the Netflix show?
I found this article on Michelle's new show: https://www.eater.com/22338201/waffles-and-mochi-netflix-kids-food-show-michelle-obama-chef-interviews
Netflix also has some trailers.
A number of sources have already been posted, but this was the first thing I saw in my Yahoo feed this morning. I wanted to re-read Mugsy's version of events. She says, verbatim "We got married in our backyard three days before--nobody knows that" and says that 'their vows' are framed on the wall in their room. (Presumably the bedroom in the undisclosed location which a number of Nutties, including myself are dubious that they actually share. Personally I think any physical stuff was over with them once she was engaged and he couldn't back out, and if they have ever spent an extended time cohabiting at the same address, it was in separate rooms. She seems to have spent some time at NottCott, but I doubt highly that it was ever the cozy connubial nesting scene she's always been pushing. They were not sharing a bedroom during the Aussie tour and though separate rooms is an aristocratic tradition, and has some practicality for separate dressing quarters and so forth . . isn't it super odd that these newlyweds, married only 5 months and SOOOOO in LURRRRRVE! based on the photo op body language, having just announced they were expecting to the whole world never spent any private time together except when they were screaming the house down and flinging things at each other?
Okay, that's a longer diversion than I intended, but I was dissecting the phrase 'our room'. When Markle makes a pronouncement, either oral or written, we must treat every word with suspicion, including 'a, an and the'.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/marriage-certificate-proves-harry-meghan-114436487.html
What I propose happened is thus: The couple were whining at Welby that they wanted to 'personalize' their service and read their own vows they wrote themselves, insisting on 'doin' it their way', as per usual. He said, no, not possible, the CoE service absolutely does not allow for this and we have to read the order of the marriage service by the book.
I'm sure neither of them took his first several 'Noes' for an answer, so in compromise, he allowed them to read their DIY vows to each other in the garden as a private gesture of commitment . . NOT a marriage ceremony . . and if there's anything in a frame hanging on some wall, this is what they have framed . . not 'proof' that they were married three days ahead of time. If it really happened this way is anybody's guess. The Archbishop of Canterbury is an incredibly busy and important man; he's got his own palace of residence and everything. Does anyone else find it sort of implausible that three days before a Royal wedding, a hugely important occasion that doesn't come 'round that often, especially not a globally televised one--that the Archbishop of Canterbury had the time to drop by Nottingham Cottage and have a private chat/vow reading in the garden? Wouldn't the prospective bridal couple have gone to HIM in other circumstances, for any pre-wedding meetings?
I really think this is Mugsy once again inflating how very *important* she was--so important that the Archbishop of Canterbury would literally drop everything he was doing, no matter what, no matter how far away--to rush to Meg's side for important ecclesiastical business--secret weddings and equally clandestine christenings of her baby. He may have spoken to them three days before the wedding. He may have even agreed to allow them to read some hand-crafted vows to each other in private. The rest of it remains deeply suspect.
The Telegraph has an article on the diversity tsar saying the Queen 'is considering' appointing one. The diversity would also include ' ethnic minorities, disabled people as well as the gay and trans communities'.
Queen may hire diversity tsar to boost Palace image (a few paragraphs shown here)
A royal source said: “This is an issue which has been taken very seriously across the royal households. We have the policies, the procedures and programmes in place but we haven’t seen the progress we would like and accept more needs to be done, we can always improve.
“Therefore we are not afraid to look at new ways of approaching it. The work to do this has been underway for some time now and comes with the full support of the family.”
So this is at the thinking stage at the moment. 'We have the policies, but haven’t seen the progress’ which means they want to improve. I can see, like AvaC and Portcitylass, that hiring a diversity tsar makes the Queen weak and like giving in to them, but I think she's trying to preempt any future complaints. That way, the harpy can't say the BRF is racist.
Meanwhile, this week Gayle King, a US TV anchor and friend of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, revealed that the couple had been left frustrated that their allegations of racism had dominated coverage of the Oprah interview.
She said: “I think it’s frustrating for them to see that it’s a racial conversation about the Royal family when all they wanted all along was for the royals to intervene and tell the Press to stop with the unfair, inaccurate, false stories that definitely have a racial slant.”
I don't understand, maybe other Nutties will: so it's now "frustrating for them to see that it’s a racial conversation about the Royal family". I thought the whole point of the interview, or most of it, was to cry racism on the part of the BRF. I hope with the appointment of a diversity tsar - and not just to tackle racism - will shut those two up.
I'm pleased that officials are speaking up about the `marriages', although the existence of the certificate isn't actually proof that the church wedding wasn't based on fraudulent intentions. Even so, the passage of time may have made the marriage valid, despite the possibility of it having dodgy foundations.
Welby's junior minions are debunking the 'secret marriage' story, but I find it rather disturbing that no such formal denial/explanation has been issued by the Archbishop himself, nor are these other officials stating that their remarks are expressly on behalf of the Archbishop. What is written is 'The Archbishop has refused to comment.'
His version of "Never complain and never explain?" But I really think that refusing any explanation is not the way to go here--in the best interests of not only the Church as a whole, but his own reputation as suitable to lead it. Surely we are beyond demurring to allow the Duchess of Sussex to save face over a benign misunderstanding because she's 'American'? Her nationality should have no bearing at all on her understanding what is and what is not a real marriage, particularly since she had allegedly been through instruction in church doctrines prior to this day? Mugsy has had at least three different religions and three different weddings . . possibly more if we think she and Haz had a secret African wedding too . . so I can see why she might be confused, but it has nothing to do with being American.
What Mugsy has done is to brand *ALL* 'Americans' and particularly American women as liars, since I believe American is being used synonymously with 'liar' to avoid another of her frivolous defamation lawsuits. Kind of like when Judge Warby called her a hyperbolic asserter--LIAR, with more syllables.
Archbishop Welby needs to say, calmly and plainly, that he met with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex prior to their wedding day for some pastoral counseling ahead of the ceremony and at that time, they shared a private commitment to one another through some vows they had written themselves, and that he prayed with them, but definitively did NOT preside over any marriage at that time.
And if nothing of the sort transpired except in the bride-to-be's imagination, he needs to say that too. As in, "I met with Harry and Meghan a number of times as a couple prior to their wedding on May 19, 2018, for premarital counseling and for matters pertaining to the marriage ceremony itself. All of these meetings are noted in my diary, including where they took place, and these records are not subject to recollection. It is not a practice of the CoE to perform private weddings, in gardens or elsewhere."
IMHO, it does not look so good for the nation's top churchman to refuse to comment on a matter that casts some doubt upon the events of May 19, 2018 at St. George's Chapel, in front of the sovereign, and just out of consideration for his own ministers, who are being deluged with requests for private garden weddings all over the land, which they must refuse, he could at least back them up with an official word.
Unless he's not saying anything because he knows he's guilty. Either way, it's really dodgy.
Canada has sort of a common law marriage but you have to live together continually for a year without breaks. It is unclear if you have to be Canadian to claim this.
Botswana has a Marriage Registration where you file that you will have a service after the Banns (21 days) or for a special marriage license. All marriages must be registered except if it is under for religious reasons (specifically Muslim and Hindu are mentioned. And, even so, the application for a special license requires a personal visit to civil authorities to make certain that nothing would impede the proposed marriage. Assorted supporting documents required.
Basically it would be noted somewhere somehow.
California does recognize common law marriage under one rule: you have to have come from a state where common law was recognized and that you were common law there.
A bit late catching up but I just want to say thank you for the link to the volcano webcam. I loved volcanoes when we studied them at school (still do). It's now snowing so there is very little molten lava.
As a matter of curiosity, I think you did mention Iceland in a few posts way back but what is your connection to the country (sorry, I can't remember)? Is it a family connection? Thanks!
@JennS and others
Thank you for all the articles and the detective work.
Query: if one married twice the same person is one ones own bigamist?
Botswana has a Marriage Registration where you file that you will have a service after the Banns (21 days) or for a special marriage license. All marriages must be registered except if it is under for religious reasons (specifically Muslim and Hindu are mentioned. And, even so, the application for a special license requires a personal visit to civil authorities to make certain that nothing would impede the proposed marriage. Assorted supporting documents required.
Thank you for this. The idea that Meghan pushed through a secret Botswana wedding during a holiday in 2017 is just conjecture, but it never held water to me that an actual legitimate marriage ceremony could have been held there for H & M in the time frame. According to you, the couple must wait for 21 days to either read the banns and hold the service or to get the license. There is no way that Meg and Harry's holiday lasted three weeks . . though it's possible, I suppose . . but wouldn't questions have been raised about the length of time Harry was absent from London on this jolly, accompanied by this girlfriend hardly anyone knew about? This was supposedly a year before the wedding in Windsor. Harry would not have been entirely alone on this trip but would have been accompanied by his RPO detail to whom he is so attached. The RPOs work for the Queen, not for their protectees. They are assigned to their protectees, at the Queen's pleasure. Would it not have been a duty for the RPOs to inform the sovereign that Prince Harry was proposing to undertake marriage to Miss Markle, without permission? Surely if they had to wait around for three weeks for the license, there would have been time to put a stop to it.
If there was 'a secret Botswana ceremony', I think what really happened was that Meg paid someone at their resort to pose as a minister, and as 'witnesses', got Harry inebriated and then said, "Let's get married right now!" That may have sounded like an excellent way to stick it to his family to an already impulsive man who was drunk or high . . then in the cold light of sobriety, he was told that the marriage was real and there was nothing he could do about it--they'd have to go to Granny and give her the news.
If Meg had had a legitimate secret wedding that took place earlier than the official event, she'd have a document as proof. Has she shown any such proof? No. It's all coy hearsay about secret weddings in the Kensington gardens.
Yes, I think that William being more prominent, and projecting a powerful image, is the way to go.
Agreed. I loved the cover story on William in the Sunday Times magazine for that reason.
Yes, I think that William being more prominent, and projecting a powerful image, is the way to go.
Agreed. I loved the cover story on William in the Sunday Times magazine for that reason.
The timing on that cover story really couldn't have been better, could it? That is a very handsome picture of William, too . .looking very regal in his uniform, in the manner of his paternal great-grandfather, George VI. I love the more casual, down-to-Earth Dad photos of William and his family as well, but from now on, we need to have those balanced out with pieces on how kingly William is these days, how resolute he is about preparing for his future role. References to 'the future King William V' should be shoehorned in whenever possible. That really should lead to maximum teeth grinding and liver-chewing in Montecito.
"Personally I think any physical stuff was over with them once she was engaged and he couldn't back out, and if they have ever spent an extended time cohabiting at the same address, it was in separate rooms."
If this is true, then why did Harry torch his own family? Him betraying his family strongly suggests to me he's pussy whipped by her. I do think she's a beautiful snake charmer but she's also diabolical. But beauty divorced from goodness of heart is a curse to all who are deceived by appearances. Harry is more attractive than William. Thank God he's not next in line. Maybe, tho, his ego would be slated if he were and this wouldn't have happened. But Diana knew the characters and worth of her 2 boys. William is King material and Harry is a fool.
I don't dispute that he's p*ssy whipped. But that is a mental state of control that doesn't have anything to do with actual access to the p*ssy, does it? I think that's how she snared him in the beginning--with her incredible open-mindedness about what she was willing to do in bed/with whom. That's how the claw was first inserted. But Harry's in the devaluation phase now, and has been ever since the wedding ceremony was finished. Having sex with him like a regular couple isn't strictly necessary any more as she's got the title, and the money. She used sex to ensnare him but he's caught good now.
This isn't 'love' or even sexual attraction in terms that anyone normal could understand. this is a mutually co-dependent business merger. Harry is as invested as Meg in torching his family. He's wanted to do it for 20 years, and hooking up with this woman has given him permission. He's doubling down on his toxic merger because he's got literally nothing else. He's equally likely to be having sex with Markus, if you ask me.
Welby's junior minions are debunking the 'secret marriage' story, but I find it rather disturbing that no such formal denial/explanation has been issued by the Archbishop himself
that refusing any explanation is not the way to go here--in the best interests of not only the Church as a whole, but his own reputation as suitable to lead it
Unless he's not saying anything because he knows he's guilty. Either way, it's really dodgy.
That's what caught my eye...he has not personally confirmed OR denied. We've heard nothing directly from him.
He needs to speak out himself. Otherwise he can be assumed to be hiding something about this scenario.
I find myself side-eyeing the guy pretty strongly right now.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by `I’d also rather not drip feed the narcissists lies either'.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - may I have another go? I realise I may have a bee in my bonnet about this, but still...
English Civil Law recognises 2 types of marriage that I'd call `dodgy'. B0th involve deception.
One is the Sham Marriage, where both parties aim to defraud a third party (including the State authorities eg NHS, Dept of Work and Pensions)but not intending to have any sort of relationship between themselves that can be construed as a `proper' marriage. There have been cases where foreign nationals who would never get a visa to work in the UK are willing to bribe a willing officiant to lead a service that ticks all the boxes for a legal marriage, also, usually, a woman to act as `fiancee' who would also receive remuneration. and witnesses called in from the street given the price of a few pints of beer for a half-hour of their time. Divorce then follows as soon as possible and the partners go their separate ways.
The foreigner acquires the right to live and work here, the `bride' and the parson pocket substantial payments and may even repeat the process with another candidate.
The other is the Fraudulent Marriage where one partner intends to defraud the other - eg one partner persuades the other to put their personal bank accounts into joint names, withdrawal allowed on one signature. The fraudster then clears out the account and disappears. Or a woman, already pregnant with X's child, tricks Y into marrying her.
These are just example to illustrate my point that a Marriage Certificate isn't evidence that the marriage relationship is genuine.
What I meant about `time' is that the partners in a `sham' arrangement could decide to stay together in a loving relationship meeting all the criteria for `marriage' - what started as a business arrangement could come to be a marriage in fact.
The questions I wonder about are:
Did the H$Ms intend to defraud the RF, the authorities and the people of UK for their joint or several purposes?
Has M defrauded H? Did he genuinely love her? Were in it together?
Or what?
Just thinking things through here. So, if they didn't have a wedding three days before, but had an exchanging of their own vows, why would Welby give them anything to sign and hang on their bedroom wall? What would this supposed document say? That they met with Welby in the backyard and exchanged a few words?
It just doesn't make sense. Harry may believe that, but MM is smart enough to know that it wasn't a real marriage. I think she made the whole thing up. She is incapable of telling the truth, and she brought Welby down with her lies, too. I agree that Welby needs to make solid statement about this. Any other source is just conjecture, as there were only three people there, if any vows were exchanged at all.
Harry would believe this.
@Maneki Neko
I first went to Iceland in '71, thinking it was a one-off trip (so expensive!). It's addictive & captivated me and I've been there on average every 3 years. It's had the same effect on my husband!
Most of our time has been spent in the wilds but `roughing it' has less appeal now we're in our 8th & 9th decades. Mass tourism had become big business in the last few years though - good for their economy by it's not the same. 2020 must have hit them hard - it had been attracting many Chinese.
We'd planned to have a big anniversary trip this year but circumstances have put a halt to that.
I stumbled across this video. No source given nor date.
Doubtless done in finest `calligraphy' but it could just be what they promised each other, subject to a contract that can be voided. Vows aren't like that.
Each of your suggestions is a possibility, I believe. Funny how nobody has suggested it really was `twue wuv'
I think it was symbolic. Would that not have occurred around the same time that either MM made Kate cry or Kate made Meghan cry or both made each other cry? The stress levels were high. Harry and Meghan were distraught at the idea that this wedding was becoming “ a thing” so Welby went over to their house to listen to them and counsel them about the upcoming wedding and then he said something like “why don’t we go into the garden and you can tell each other how you really feel and if you want to consider that a spiritual union in front of God, then it is—the Bible says ‘Whenever two or more are gathered in My name, there is love...’”
So they had a non binding, spiritual marriage in their garden, just the three of them and HAMS consider that their real wedding. She then made a “calligraphy” (lol) copy of the vows, framed them and put them on the wall in their bedroom.
"So, if they didn't have a wedding three days before, but had an exchanging of their own vows, why would Welby give them anything to sign and hang on their bedroom wall? What would this supposed document say? That they met with Welby in the backyard and exchanged a few words?"
It seemed to me M was a little vague about what was framed. I thought she meant their self-written vows were framed, probably in "calligraphy" or what she calls calligraphy. I never thought it was a marriage document-- who frames those? And as much as I don't like Welby, I seriously doubt he printed up a fake marriage document anyway.
I wonder what the crocodile story was a cross- promotion for. Remains to be seen, eh?
That being said, from the moment she said "framed on the wall' I assumed it was some sappy vows that she "calligraphicated" . No doubt she wrote both sets of vows.
It may be legal to exchange vows in the garden in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the UK. For that you need official documentation to be signed, submitted, and filed.
Married "spiritually" (I chocked a little on either being spiritual) in the garden and "for real" on Tv.
Opus has previously (as in some time ago) covered all the possible sham stuff and blew it out of the water, so I’m not going down any rabbit holes with it, especially when the Duo had what we know as a very public bona fide wedding where they both said I do and therefore sealed the deal. ;o)
I do however totally echo fellow Nutties sentiments with Welby needing to speak out publicly, his silence doesn’t look good. However, his silence is something BP more than likely prefers, seeing it doesn’t want to engage in any public crossfire etc. For we all know lying narcissists thrive on (constant) drama and attention.
Things that make you say, hmmmmm.
Mm truly taints the reputation of everyone associated with her.
You'd think word would get around and people would refuse to work for them.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14419011/meghan-harrys-archewell-director-leaves-year-bullying/amp/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebaramp&__twitter_impression=true
Those 2 clips of Meghan are from Oprah, surely?
She's wearing the same outfit as when in the chicken coop.
Yes, maybe I'm reaching there. I'm just trying to look at all of the angles, and I keep coming up with nothing that explains this completely. I agree, who frames their marriage license?
I can see MM using her "calligraphy" to write their self-written vows, but we still come back to MM definitively saying they were married in the backyard. I guess it's just another MM lie. It doesn't make Welby or Oprah look good, though.
Wozrd will get around that:
1) you're treated badly
2) they don't pay their bills, i.e. your salary
3) you're asked to either participate in or overlook some really shady things
4) you don't want to get involved in their lies and risk jail or a lawsuit
5) job is not as high end as what they said it would be i.e. they don't value your expertise and listen to you, you're basically just errand girl
Someone jumping ship?
I'm so sorry about your husband, but that Locke jewelry is just beautiful! I've bookmarked it for my birthday as a hint to my BF. I wish my birthday were sooner, though. My b'day is in July.
I agree it's not explained completely by anything we know. And I guess @tatty could be right. But that would be incredible to me that the head honcho of the COE is promoting "spiritual marriage" outside of the church requirements for marriage.
Wonder too when this marriage "3 days before" fit with the Thomas M drama and known texts from the court case. From those and her letter, it didn't seem like M had time to do much except text dear old dad and send help to Mexico (yeah, right) during that time frame.
Married "spiritually" (I chocked a little on either being spiritual) in the garden and "for real" on Tv.
Absolutely this, and Megsy loves to spin! I think Tatty has the correct gauge of the Duo no matter how farcical it sounds ! Lol
I particularly loved this....lol .....sappy vows that she "calligraphicated" . No doubt she wrote both sets of vows.
I also think it is from the Oprah interview, but the person who posted it gives no reference.
By the way, Scobie says that St Laurent is staying on as a senior advisor. Really?!
The article says that St Laurent is moving over to Archewell, where she will have a senior advisory position.
my new take on the Welby 3 days. Something happened three days before the wedding and Megs mentioned it on Oprah as a wedding but maybe its more nafarious, like Welby was doing something he shouldnt have (and possibly blackmailable) and she reminded him by mentioning it as a backyard wedding more to let BRG, Welby know she has something on them, him. It just seemed so random and verifiable that I dont think it was a wedding. it was a coded threat and that is why hes not talking.
Exactly this. Perfectly phrased.
There's also a picture from around the wedding time with her looking all doe eyed at the bishop, and he's looking back at her the way a man looks at a woman.
It caught my eye at the time because it seemed unusual for a pastoral interaction. It was similar to the weird stares she gives PW. Makes you wonder if she was using flirting as a way of using the guy to do what she wanted.
I'll have to see if I can find it again.
When the woman from the Gates foundation started, it was said that Charles had paid her salary a year in full so I expect she is resigning as she may not be getting paid after the first year (no more Charles money and Grip and Drip haven't brought in enough to keep her employed--they have to be selective about which positions they can fund. Security and nanny appears to be about it)
As to the three days before event...just Grip flapping her gums. Remember "she's very good at bending the rules" as her own father said. Possibly "she's very good at bending the truth" as well.
So, if they didn't have a wedding three days before, but had an exchanging of their own vows, why would Welby give them anything to sign and hang on their bedroom wall? What would this supposed document say? That they met with Welby in the backyard and exchanged a few words?
My impression was that Meg was saying that 'the vows' Haz and she made to each other are framed on the wall--no doubt rendered in her breathtaking professional calligraphy as a keepsake--not that any sort of officially notarized document attesting to their 'secret' marriage is framed on the wall. Such a valuable document would be lodged in a bank vault somewhere, methinks, AND, if Meg really is in possession of such a document, why not show it?
Mugsy still behaves so much like a prevaricating middle school girl who insists that we *must* believe everything she says is true just because she says so. She and Hazza could equally have a pair of smudged and crumpled bar napkins with some scrawl on them framed on the wall with 'vows' on them--doesn't mean they actually 'got married' as a result of having something which Meg claims is hanging on the wall.
It just doesn't make sense. Harry may believe that, but MM is smart enough to know that it wasn't a real marriage. I think she made the whole thing up. She is incapable of telling the truth, and she brought Welby down with her lies, too. I agree that Welby needs to make solid statement about this. Any other source is just conjecture, as there were only three people there, if any vows were exchanged at all.
Indeed, it's nonsensical. Of what possible benefit is it to Meg in casting doubt upon the legitimacy of the wedding ceremony we all saw performed in St. George's Chapel? I don't think Meg is congenitally as dumb as Harry, but she doesn't seem capable of thinking things through in terms of potential downsides. She is driven by a compulsion to always one-up her targets, to have the upper hand over them as she sees it. This makes her impulsive and reactive, not a long-range planner. Concocting a secret marriage was guaranteed to be a bombshell revelation so she deployed it. The second pregnancy show is not getting the kind of reaction she hoped for, so she went for further inflaming the tensions between the Royal family and the British public over money by basically saying 'Nyah, nyah . . we really pulled the wool over all your eyes--we got you all to splash out for the 42 million pound wedding and we were already married!! Don't you feel stupid now? But we got away with it and there's nothing anyone can do about it!"
If that's not Duper's Delight, I don't know what is.
I think Mugsie *wanted* the Archbishop at the christening but he was not available . . perhaps for the same reason the Queen was not available to bear witness to a sacred rite involving a child of mysterious provenance and documented with photos of equally mysterious provenance. Is this newly-asserted 'secret wedding' tale some form of Narc revenge on Welby? What might he know about the circumstances of their marriage? Is it blackmail, and if so, why? That's why it's quite disturbing that Welby refuses to issue an official statement on the matter. What might he be afraid will happen if he issues a 'correction' of Meg's recollection of the facts? In other circumstances, he's been a pretty forthcoming guy in interviews. If Meg and Harry read some creative writing pieces to one another in front of the Archbishop, there's no wrongdoing on his part there. He can say he wanted to support the couple and calm their jitters before the wedding, and having refused their request to read them during the public ceremony, citing Church law, let them do it informally at their home. If it was anything like Meg described. Personally, as I mentioned before, I don't picture him dropping by informally to them at Kensington, then or any time. So if she's made the entire thing up, his letting a whale tale stand like it actually happened is bizarre. Time to shut her down with a The Duchess was a bit overwrought with the stress of the wedding preparations and what was happening with her father at the time. I counselled the couple privately at their home and they shared their hopes for the future with me and with each other, but there was no ceremony of any sort and the Duchess's allegation during her recent interview was not a correct representation of what happened. The Church of England does not recognize private ceremonies which do not take place before witnesses in one of our churches, and I can assure everyone that the only wedding I presided over took place on May 19, 2018 at St. George's Chapel in Windsor."
Time to call her out as a liar. Unless he can't because he's hiding something big.
It just looks to me that MM was trying to lock Harry down quickly. Who knows?
According to twitter account @PorneMichaels M was engaged to the chef in 2014, I've not read that they were actually engaged - I'm not on twitter but can access the tweets as not made private, some interesting stuff on there if anyone wants to take a look. Also on same thread another poster alleges that although M filed for divorce from Trev in 2013 it wasn't finalised until 2018 as she wanted to gain control of Trevs assets. Not sure if that can be true?
-------------------------
I remember reading that The Chef's mother was very surprised when the relationship ended and she had thought they were going to get married. Then she stopped talking about it.
I also remember reading that something happened with her marriage to Trev before she married H. My memory says she was receiving some type of alimony from him and she had to legally stop that before she married Harry. I cannot find anything online about it and didn't save it at the time. I remember thinking - ah ha !!!
"Why throw Welby under the bus?"
In MM's world, it's standard operating procedure for her to throw people under the bus. She's done that to her family, the BRF and too many friends to count. It's her standard MO to use people, then throw them away. She's in the US now, and doesn't need Welby.
@Mel
"Did you see that the Archewell Foundation director has quit? Things that make you say, hmmmmm. Mm truly taints the reputation of everyone associated with her.
You'd think word would get around and people would refuse to work for them."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14419011/meghan-harrys-archewell-director-leaves-year-bullying/amp/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebaramp&__twitter_impression=true
So Archewell has just got off the ground and it's already plagued by logo rip off and Director whose jumped ship. These 2 poison everything they touch. How long will it be before the Woke press in the US will not be able to deny what a bully and terror to work for Meg is?
I love coming here for the commentary and the dirt. Sorry I don't have time to respond to more of these posts/posters. The comments fly fast and I don't have that much time to entertain myself with this. But I do enjoy and read the comments!
she didn't realize the impact it would have on people & their opinion. In her mind - isn't that romantic? Um, no. You are basically telling everyone the spectacle was not what you wanted and wasted $30million just for the show.
There is a part of me that really wonders if she did that as she saw H getting cold feet or she was afraid something was going wrong. She wanted to lock H in to consider himself already married to her.
and i still wonder if she had convinced him they were "common-law" already. Maybe they had done fake/pretend vows before. I can picture her setting him up, candles, champagne and saying - I Meghan, take thee Harry, to be my husband. and then he of course, would respond with something similar. Then she could say, as far as I'm concerned are are married and he, of course, would agree.
Duper's Delight is a microexpression of the mouth in which the duper gives a sly, quick grin, believing that he has put something over on another person. The expression is so fast that even professional interrogators often have to slow down the tape to find it.
Just a friendly FYI. I'm taking a series of classes on interrogation techniques and microexpressions, so I'm learning, too.
I posted a photo of the AoC leering at MM during the wedding a few days ago. Is that the photo you're looking for?
Makes ya wonder what he's afraid of.
Of course it doesn't look good to outright call a member of the royal family a liar, either. And there is the fact that actively engaging in a public tit for tat with mm is exactly what she wants, publicity. She makes it so hard to be the ethically straightforward person you want to be.
Jdubya said…
In her mind - isn't that romantic? Um, no.
I do think there was some of that going on. Fits in with her Disney princess Ariel story.
What was really funny was watching H trying to become one with the fence and fade into the chicken coop, hoping she wouldn't notice.
I had the impression he was embarrassed, knew it was a lie, but at that point he felt that there wasn't anything that he could do about it.
https://twitter.com/Dailybugle1898/status/1373893295315816454/photo/1
click on it to enlarge
When the woman from the Gates foundation started, it was said that Charles had paid her salary a year in full so I expect she is resigning as she may not be getting paid after the first year
I'd forgotten about that. Your explanation makes sense.
I am wondering if any news agency/ report is going to take on Oprah through Gayle King (Oprah's mouthpiece) to refute everything that was said in the published 85 minute interview. The DM has run an article (thank you DM). The article about the private convo beteween the brothers being leaked is telling: she/ they do not care if there is a reapproachment. March 31st - wonder if it will bring fresh cannon fodder or a kraken. One can hope the family sees them for what the duo truly is - unrepentant.
In MM's world, it's standard operating procedure for her to throw people under the bus. She's done that to her family, the BRF and too many friends to count. It's her standard MO to use people, then throw them away. She's in the US now, and doesn't need Welby.
I agree that Meghan's World is a special place comprised of its own reality. This is why I think she is legitimately insane, I really do. Because she definitely still needs Welby as the figure of Church authority who performed the sacred rite that transformed her into Princess Henry of Wales, The Duchess of Sussex. If Welby doesn't fight her corner--which she definitely needs him to do on two fronts--the marriage and the christening a year later--should there be anything 'irregular' in the official documents attesting to the legitimacy of both these events, then she is nothing. Harry is blood Royal, and apparently will retain his style of HRH Prince and his place in the succession regardless of what happens with Sussex and if he ever sets foot in England again.
But she? Without the Archbishop testifying to her legitimate marriage and to the christening of her legitimate Royal offspring, she's nothing at all, and neither are her alleged children. If Welby doesn't vouch for her, then Harry has no legitimate wife and his children aren't legit either. Her claims on any financial support from the BRF for her and her kids are predicated entirely on the legitimacy of that marriage.
Perhaps this is why the BRF let Harry go, with expressed regret but nothing resembling a fight, and why they let her go with a sense of relief, even though technically she was kidnapping an heir to the throne of Britain and continues to hold him hostage on foreign soil, refusing his Royal family access to him: If Harry is basically shacked up with his yacht girl, whose marriage is as fraudulent as her pregnancies, then she's really and truly nothing to them. Not something a Narc can accept, as we see. If this admittedly wild scenario has even a kernel of truth, and Welby could out her (whilst tanking his own reputation and job, too), it'd sure be in her interest to let that particular sleeping dog lie.
But Meg's disorder means that she sabotages even her own long-range self-interest for the immediate gratification of getting someone else in trouble. She's gonna torch everything to watch the conflagration she's created, all the while seeming not to notice that the flames are licking at her own sleeves. Maybe that's why she rushed to the immediate defense of that girl who accidentally burned herself while in the course of committing vandalism and concocted a racially motivated attack by some fictional white frat guys as a means of gaining attention and deflecting her true responsibility for her own injuries/actions. Meg recognized a kindred spirit at once.
That's why if Welby is innocent, he needs to discredit Meg's version of events and let the chips fall where they may. If he's not innocent, then he's got larger problems.
O/T
@Maneki Neko
I first went to Iceland in '71, thinking it was a one-off trip (so expensive!). It's addictive & captivated me and I've been there on average every 3 years. It's had the same effect on my husband!
Most of our time has been spent in the wilds but `roughing it' has less appeal now we're in our 8th & 9th decades. Mass tourism had become big business in the last few years though - good for their economy by it's not the same. 2020 must have hit them hard - it had been attracting many Chinese.
We'd planned to have a big anniversary trip this year but circumstances have put a halt to that.
It is strange how a person can go someplace for the first time and feel so connected to it. For me, it was a feeling of recognition as though I've seen it and been there before. There is a particular location that, when I visited for the first time as a teen, felt like coming home. I "knew" this landscape although I had never been there before.
I do so hope that you get to return together.
left the Director position to an unspecified "senior" position. Things that make you go: What? Why? Questions.
I always thought it odd about her leaving the Gates after 8 years and going to Archewell. Why? unproven could be tempting but did she have the skill set they needed or was it the Gates aura with a chance to try something new?
I looked at the various foundations we were talking about at the time: Clinton and the Gates. Very marked differences. Clinton is all about bringing in money (who is the next friend donating) but the Gates does not solicit money Full Stop. Yeah, it is nice if you give to them but they aren't spending money to get it.
Duper's Delight is a microexpression of the mouth in which the duper gives a sly, quick grin, believing that he has put something over on another person. The expression is so fast that even professional interrogators often have to slow down the tape to find it.
Just a friendly FYI. I'm taking a series of classes on interrogation techniques and microexpressions, so I'm learning, too.
Yes, I'm aware of the 'micro-expression' usage of Duper's Delight. Just a friendly FYI back atcha that I enjoy the phrase Duper's Delight so much as a perfect description for Markle and how she lives her completely fraudulent life, that I use the phrase Duper's Delight to mean all of the manifestations of her schemes. From her grandiose vocal stylings, flat-out tall tales that have zero basis in fact, fake smiles/bent over at waist hysterical laughter . . ostentatious ill-fitting costumery as clothing . . and not least of all, her smug expressions of superiority that last for far longer than microseconds--that smug self-congratulatory 'Ima so fine!' smirk is permanently plastered to her filler-packed lips, except when she goes on Oprah and adopts the 'vengeful harpy' look--it's all Duper's Delight to me from this woman who's as genuine to the pores as her wax dummy at Madame Toussauds--the same one that wound up in the dumpster out back the day after their Megxit Manifesto was released.
If you see me use Duper's Delight again in the Macro rather than Micro sense, which I feel certain I will do, I hope you'll indulge me. It's too great a phrase to confine to that one extremely narrow parameter.
It does look that way to me. In an excess display of fairness (yes, I can do that occasionally), perhaps he feels that it is beneath his dignity (?) to respond to what may appear to him to be obvious flights of fancy and is letting his underlings attend to it rather than him thumbing his nose and saying "liar, liar, pants on fire".
Maybe St Laurent left her job working for Bill Gates because he had decided to step down as CEO, and there wasn't a position for her there anymore? A decision to step down like that would be in the works for a few years before it came to fruition.
I have been watching (force fed me if you must know) a lot of ads for Discovery + and they have recently added Oprah's show to the here's part of what you get. But included in the heavy rotation is about the Irwin Zoo in Australia reopening. What if there was a trip to Australia which included a stop at the zoo?
I don't know. Best I could think of.
Actually im thinking Megs probably went for a go to move (with that woman its probably something nasty) because i not sure a wink would work she doesnt have that much charm!
I agree that Duper's Delight is a great-sounding term. It's just fun to say aloud. I'd love to use it for many things, too, but my instructor would kill me if I didn't use the correct psychological term for it. He's a former instructor of Navy Seals and a Navy interrogator/investigator, so I'm not kidding about the killing me part! LOL!
Meghan may have told Harry, as a form of control that HE was banned from consuming meat or alcohol and his continued abstinence would be a test of his love.
But, I don't believe she ever actually denies herself anything. Her fondness for the Tig is legendary--she bathes in the stuff, yet Hazza can't have a beer with his mates? After insisting that she was such a strict vegan that she had to source nursery wall paint from only vegan outlets, it came out that well, she adheres to veganism Mondays through Fridays, so if she wants to consume an entire cow at the weekend, that's her prerogative. The animals butchered for weekend consumption do not count as meat apparently.
So, Meg lies. I just assume that anything she's ever said about practicing a healthy lifestyle and inspiring Harry to do the same is nothing but a load of old cobblers.
Though I suppose technically, booze and cocaine are vegetable products rather than animal. Harry isn't allowed to shoot birds or have bacon any more but he can do all the blow he wants. Apparently.
Thank you for the explanation about Iceland. I've never been but like these wild landscapes. As a linguist, I am interested in the language. Do you know in its written form it has hardly changed since the time of the Sagas?
A young Australian writer, Hannah Kent, has wrote a book called 'Burial Rites' set in Iceland in the late 1820s. The novel is based on a true story. Hannah Kent stayed in Iceland as an exchange student and her novel was thoroughly researched. The book describes life at the time in Iceland and is very absorbing. You might like it.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/31/burial-rites-hannah-kent-review
I think the article put out about the certificates proving that Meghan and Harry's actual wedding date was the day of the wedding we all saw, is directly put out by the palace, thus the Queen and thus Welby. It looks like as direct of a responce of the matter as we are likely to get.
The part that is hard to rectify, is the fact that this makes Meghan appear stupid, which most know that she is not. I do not think Meg is stupid but she can be childish and rash. I too think they had some kind of a practice and Meg used her calligraphy skills to write up the vows and slapped them on the wall. When you watch the piece where she makes that claim, you can feel deception or something in the air. Harry literally acts like an awkward kid with the stupid "Just the 3 of us" comment. As an extreme narcissist, religion and religious rules and regulations are not something she gives a sh*t about so the little details about whether reciting some vows in a garden makes for a legitimate wedding are immaterial to her. She told Oprah she would produce bombshells and that was all she was thinking about there. She was being rash.
The Queen uses the long game and it's clear she's doing that here. She always delivers the bitter with something sweet. So it's released that H&M did indeed marry on that day in May, and not before, but it's also released that the Queen will appoint someone to oversee 'diversity' within the family. Just a salve to make the story about their vows go down the throat a little easier.
I am a great fan of espionage thrillers and I sometimes fantasize about being a spy. Your course sounds so interesting.
I have come to the conclusion that I would make a lousy spy on a couple of grounds:
1. I hate pain, and completely lack a poker face.
2. I possess a conventional set of moral and theological beliefs that would make it impossible for me to lie, cheat steal and whatever else would be required to carry out my orders and maintain my cover. I think a really good spy has to be at least a little sociopathic to carry out the job without a complete psychological breakdown. I wouldn't be up to it.
But I enjoy movies and stories set in the espionage world and enjoy learning about the techniques employed. Profiling is a lot of fun.
The marriage would be over if I couldn't have bacon! No bacon? Call my attorney!
The part that is hard to rectify, is the fact that this makes Meghan appear stupid, which most know that she is not. I do not think Meg is stupid but she can be childish and rash.
I think Megs would probably score above average on an intelligence test, and unlike thick Hazza, probably had decent marks in school. I suppose she can be a quick study and when she hadn't studied sufficiently for a test or assignment had ways to manipulate teachers into giving her the grades she felt she deserved.
I totally believe that Meg wouldn't have flinched at sleeping with professors in exchange for easy As and it would be in keeping with her MO to have done so.
I believe that Meg has some pernicious, hard-wired personality disorders that manifest themselves as compulsions toward certain repetitive and self-destructive behaviors. Being childish and rash is very much how she operates. She cannot tolerate slights and has to feel like she's getting the upper hand on people all the time. Hyper competitive and obsessed with her facade management. She's like a kid who has to trash the entire game board if she feels herself losing at Monopoly. Therefore, whatever native intelligence she's got is consistently hindered by her psychiatric disorders. We've all known, or known of, people who were intellectually brilliant but incapable of holding down a job due to their dearth of life management skills or interpersonal abilities. Harry is definitely like that, but Meg is too, to a less obvious degree. Her disorders make her destroy relationships, both personal and professional. She's got a lot of grandiose ideas but the ability to execute a plan long term, with its attendant details, isn't there. The behavior is masking a higher IQ than she evidences in daily life, perhaps but her demons are what drives her, not her brain. I think she got praise from teachers and from her parents when she was younger about how smart she was . . the woman we see before us does not evidence a mature, systematic adult intelligence to me. She seems very immature for her age and with ADD tendencies. Whatever her IQ is on paper, she is severely handicapped by her psychological disorders.
Harry's even worse off, which makes her seem like the smart one, but really, these are two spoilt, petulant, vengeful children playing 'Home Alone' with big stakes. Meg might be intelligent--for an 11 year old--but all her reactions and her thinking seem like that of a child. That's why she's so stuck in the past . . .she is trying to recreate herself as the person she fantasized about being in high school. It really is a juvenile preoccupation, but both the Sussexes are incredibly juvenile. Basic IQ doesn't change throughout life, but I wouldn't say anything Meg has done since locking onto Harry could be called 'smart'.
The marriage would be over if I couldn't have bacon! No bacon? Call my attorney!
I enjoy the occasional bacon . . I have a lot of guilt about this because pigs are highly intelligent and quite sophisticated animals who can be very loving. Why did they also ahve to be so tasty?
I read today about a UK study which demonstrates that eating the equivalent of even one rasher a day of bacon led to a 44% increase in dementia among study participants. Processed meat in general is very bad; fresh meat on the other hand had protective qualities on brain health.
This will help me to further resist bacon, I think. Though there is nothing like the smell of bacon wafting on the breeze when camping. So if I go camping (a rarity!) I reserve the right to eat bacon.
Ben Ellery
Monday March 22 2021, 12.01am GMT, The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7749c9c0-8a92-11eb-8f69-0367b6f4fca7
The Queen is considering appointing a diversity chief amid claims by the Duchess of Sussex of racism within the royal family.
The move is part of proposals to champion the rights of minorities. A Palace source said the move had the “full support” of the royal household.
Aides will undertake a “listen and learn” exercise over coming weeks that will involve speaking to businesses and people about how the monarchy can improve representation.
The source admitted that “more needs to be done” to address the issue, adding that the proposals would affect Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.
The work to improve diversity, which will include the potential recruitment of a diversity chief, will cover ethnic minorities, the disabled, gay and trans communities and disability representation. While the proposals around diversity predate the interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, their comments will be taken on board as part of the process, it is understood.
A royal source said: “This is an issue which has been taken very seriously across the royal households. We have the policies, the procedures and programmes in place but we haven’t seen the progress we would like and accept more needs to be done . . . we can always improve.
“Therefore we are not afraid to look at new ways of approaching it. The work to do this has been under way for some time now and comes with the full support of the family.”
On the potential appointment of a diversity chief the source added: “It is something that has to be considered but it is too early for any firm plans to be announced. We are listening and learning, to get this right.”
The development arose after the couple claimed in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that a family member had raised concerns about how dark their son’s skin might be.
Winfrey responded: “Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem? Are you saying that?”
Meghan replied: “I wasn’t able to follow up with why but if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one.”
Buckingham Palace said that the issues raised, particularly that of race, were “concerning”. The Palace added, however, that “recollections may vary”, suggesting some of the allegations were disputed. Prince William said later: “We are very much not a racist family.”
The Mail on Sunday reported claims that the issue of racism continued to trouble the relationship between Harry, his father and his brother.
This was the reason that Gayle King, a US chat-show host and friend of the couple, described recent phone calls between them as “not productive”.
The newspaper said it understood that the Sussexes felt that while allegations of bullying made against Meghan were the subject of an independent review ordered by the Palace, the claims of racism were not under formal investigation.
King claimed last week that Meghan had “documents to back up everything”. She added: “All they wanted was for the royals to intervene and tell the press to stop with the unfair, inaccurate, false stories that definitely have a racial slant.”
Harry and Meghan’s wedding certificate was published last night showing that they wed at Windsor Castle on May 19, 2018. They had said in the interview that they had secretly got married three days earlier.
I think the married three days earlier was a teenager's idea of the p[erfect detail to a fairy tale love story (whether it was a love story or not).
Who would think to challenge it? She doesn't take marriage or religion very seriously I would say.
And did she really think it was a good idea, a romantic notion, etc to basically say "you spent £30.000.000 on a wedding that wasn't needed?
That will endear you to the world.
Pffftt.
He doesn't say "I have a pile of papers on my desk." He says, "There is a cubic foot of papers on my desk." He does this without measuring, but his measurements are always correct. He counts eye blinks faster than anybody else.
I work with law enforcement in my spare time working on missing person cases, so this course is invaluable to me.
@hikari,
Yeah, you can't overdo it with the bacon. In addition to it putting on extra weight, it really isn't good for you, but as an occasional treat, I love it. I eat mostly chicken. I've never met a pig, so don't know much about them. I'm a city girl who moved to the beach, so maybe I'll run into one here.
I sound like Homer from the Simpson's, but MMMM, bacon cheeseburger! That's my last meal request. Yeah, I'm fancy like that.
One of the first things that I learned in my classes is that EVERYBODY lies. They may lie for good purposes (you tell your friend that their new hair style looks great, when it looks awful), you may lie to keep pain or fear from yourself or others, etc., but there is nobody who doesn't lie at some time. There many types of lies, good and bad, for example, a lie of omission.
Canadian Catherine St-Laurent had previously held senior roles at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
By
Camilla Tominey,
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
22 March 2021 • 3:37pm
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's chief of staff has stepped down after less than a year in the role.
Catherine St-Laurent, who previously held senior roles at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, started working for Harry and Meghan in April 2020. As well as acting as the couple's chief of staff, she was also the executive director of their non-profit organisation, Archewell Foundation.
A spokesman for the Sussexes confirmed that the Montreal-born mother-of-two will transition to an "advisory" role and be replaced by James Holt, the couple's UK spokesman.
It comes after Harry and Meghan appointed Ben Browning as Archewell's head of content to "work closely with Netflix and Spotify", with whom the couple signed multi-million dollar deals last year.
It means the two most powerful people in the Sussexes' top team are now both white males, despite the couple having voiced their concerns about a lack of diversity in the Royal family. A statement issued on behalf of Archewell made clear that it would also be advised by Invisible Hand, "a female-led, diverse team" based in New York and run by Genevieve Roth.
Toya Holness, the global press secretary for Archewell, said: "Archewell is incredibly pleased to welcome Ben, Genevieve and the Invisible Hand team to the organisation.
"Along with the appointment of James Holt as executive director of Archewell Foundation, they join a rapidly expanding team that's deeply dedicated to advancing systemic cultural change and supporting compassionate communities across the world."
Part 1
Newspaper’s Meghan statement can be smaller, rules judge
Valentine Low
Monday March 22 2021, 12.00pm GMT, The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/newspapers-meghan-statement-can-be-smaller-rules-judge-6zkbmd556
The Mail on Sunday has won the right to print a smaller front-page statement about the Duchess of Sussex’s court victory against the newspaper than the one she demanded.
The statement has also been put on hold to allow the newspaper’s publisher time to seek permission to appeal.
Associated Newspapers Ltd, the publisher of The Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, was previously ordered to print a statement on its front page and a notice on page three of the paper stating it “infringed her copyright” by publishing parts of a “personal and private” letter to her estranged father, Thomas Markle.
The judge also ruled that Associated must publish a notice on Mail Online for one week rather than the six months sought by the duchess.
The duchess, 39, sued Associated over a series of articles which reproduced parts of a “heartfelt” letter sent to Markle, 76, in August 2018.
She claimed the five articles published in February 2019 involved a misuse of her private information, breached her copyright and breached the Data Protection Act.
Last month she was granted summary judgment in relation to her privacy claim, meaning she won that part of the case without having to go to trial, as well as most of her copyright claim.
Associated was initially refused permission to appeal against that decision, but can still apply directly to the Court of Appeal.
The duchess demanded that the front-page statement should be the same font size as the front-page trailer for the original article in 2018.
However, The Mail on Sunday argued that the statement was five times longer than the trailer and would take up so much of the front page that it would become the main story of the day. “This is clearly a reasonable point,” said Lord Justice Warby, who approved the newspaper’s proposal that the statement should be published across the bottom of the front page.
In his ruling the judge said Associated had also applied for permission to appeal against his order requiring The Mail On Sunday and Mail Online to publish the statements.
The judge refused Associated permission to appeal, but granted a stay of the order requiring publication of the statements “only until the matter has been decided by the Court of Appeal”.
Warby said the stay would expire on April 6, to give Associated time to apply directly to the Court of Appeal.
The statement will read: “The court has given judgment for the Duchess of Sussex on her claim for copyright infringement.
“The court found that Associated Newspapers infringed her copyright by publishing extracts of her handwritten letter to her father in The Mail On Sunday and in Mail Online.
“There will be a trial of the remedies to which the duchess is entitled, at which the court will decide whether the duchess is the exclusive owner of copyright in all parts of the letter, or whether any other person owns a share.”
It will refer readers to a further statement on page three of the newspaper.
Warby also ordered Associated to publish the statement on Mail Online “for a period of one week” with a hyperlink to his full judgment.
The judge added: “In my judgment, these are measured incursions into the defendant’s freedom to decide what it publishes and does not publish, that are justified in pursuit of the legitimate aim I have identified, and proportionate to that aim.
“They will involve little if any additional expense, and certainly nothing approaching the scale of the expense that has been lavished on this litigation.”
In the summary judgment ruling last month, the judge said publication of Meghan’s letter to her father was “manifestly excessive and hence unlawful”.
He said: “It was, in short, a personal and private letter. The majority of what was published was about the claimant’s own behaviour, her feelings of anguish about her father’s behaviour, as she saw it, and the resulting rift between them. These are inherently private and personal matters.”
Announcing Ms St-Laurent’s appointment 11 months ago, the Sussexes said: "We are proud to be joined by Catherine St-Laurent in this next chapter with us.
"Her leadership and proven track record working within two organisations that have tremendous impact in the world – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Pivotal Ventures – makes her an incredible asset, and we're excited to have her on our team."
A source told The Telegraph: "Catherine was a great hire for Harry and Meghan. She is a Canadian who has worked for Bill and Melinda Gates. She's very bubbly and a big personality. She was the bright hope to run their organisation, so this is surprising news. They do not have a big team out in LA, so this is going to be a blow."
It is thought Ms St-Laurent will also be launching her own social impact firm, which will work closely with Archewell.
While in the UK, the couple lost a string of employees, including Meghan's personal assistant, Melissa Toubati, and their senior communications officer, Amy Pickerill, alongside Samantha Cohen, their private secretary.
Last month, it was reported that complaints of alleged bullying within Harry and Meghan's former office at Kensington Palace had been made to Buckingham Palace, although none of the complainants were named.
The palace's human resources department is now looking into the allegations, which the Sussexes have vehemently denied and described as a "calculated smear campaign" to deflect from their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Statement about her copyright victory printed in same size font as offending story would interfere with newspaper's 'freedom of expression'
By
Victoria Ward
22 March 2021 • 12:44pm
The Duchess of Sussex’s bid to have a front page statement about her legal victory against the Mail on Sunday published in the same size font as the original story has been rejected after the newspaper argued it would be a "vastly disproportionate interference" with its right to freedom of expression.
Lord Justice Warby, sitting at the High Court, said the agreed statement was five times longer than the headline used when the newspaper first published extracts of a letter Meghan sent to her father, making the two “not really comparable.”
He also rejected the uchess’s bid for the same notice to be published on MailOnline for six months, ruling instead that it should be on the home page for 24 hours and a news page for six days following.
He said her demand for it to be published in a “prominent position” was not suitably precise or necessary.
The judge also rejected the Duchess’s argument that there should be “no further delay” in the publication after she claimed she had been forced to wait long enough and should have certainty.
He noted that it was not “red-hot news of a perishable kind” and granted a “stay” of the order, pending an appeal.
Lord Justice Warby (pitcured below) made an unprecedented order last month for the Mail on Sunday to publish a front page statement declaring that it had “infringed her copyright” by publishing parts of a “personal and private” letter to her estranged father, Thomas Markle.
It was believed to be the first time a judge had demanded such a declaration and was described by media lawyers as “extraordinary” and "troubling."
The Duchess, 39, sued Associated Newspapers over the publication of five articles that reproduced extracts of the five-page handwritten letter.
She was last month granted a summary judgment, a legal step that saw the privacy claim and the bulk of the copyright claim resolved in her favour without trial.
The Duchess’s lawyers sought an order requiring Associated to publish a statement about the copyright win on the front page of the Mail On Sunday and the home page of MailOnline “to act as a deterrent to future infringers”.
Lord Justice Warby agreed, ruling that the newspaper must carry a statement that gave similar prominence to the original story.
He ordered that an 86-word notice must also be printed “above the fold” on page three stating that it had “infringed her copyright” by publishing parts of the letter.
The judge accepted that such an order represented an “interference with freedom of expression” that needed legal justification but said the “plain and obvious” aim was to protect and vindicate the Duchess’s civil rights.
Associated argued that rather than publishing the statement in the same size font as the original headline, it should be allowed to run it along the bottom of the page as a sub-banner in a smaller font, due to the number of words.
It said the Duchess’s proposals “would represent a disproportionate amount of the front page and a vastly disproportionate interference” with its freedom of expression rights.
Meghan’s riposte, the judge noted, was that this was a problem of its own making.
My thoughts as well. As I stated before, IIRC when she was hired, it was said Charles paid her salary a year in advance. Which should be up at the end of the month.
But he accepted the thrust of Associated’s submissions, stating: “The statement is much longer than the front page trailer was; it contains five times as many words. So, the two are not really comparable.
“If the statement was printed in the same font as the trailer it would consume a much much greater proportion of the front page, becoming the main story of the day, or significantly downgrading the news story.”
He added: “The purposes for which I have decided to make a publication order are not compelling enough to justify an interference of the scale or nature described by the defendant.”
Having seen a mock-up of the proposed front page with a sub-banner, he said he considered it “sufficiently prominent and eye-catching”.
Lord Justice Warby refused Associated’s application to appeal the publication order but granted a “stay” of the order “only until the matter has been decided by the Court of Appeal”.
He said the stay would expire on April 6, to give the company time to apply directly to the appeal court.
Associated will also appeal the wider ruling handed down last month.
I am of the mind that the Archbishop is on sabbatical because he was so advised to keep quiet and not respond rather than because of shame due to wrongdoing. Perhaps he has been urged to remove himself from the line of fire for what is to come.
Last night, after you signed off, I nominated you to go find Hot Rob and ask him what he knows about the Harkles and Mudslide Mansion. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to intercept Hot Rob, ply him with liquor, and get the tea.
"My first thought with these resignations is that H&M have run out of money, as St-Laurent will still be advising them, but will not be on salary with benefits. Stay tuned."
It's a good theory. I think this and diva behavior and she's ghost.
Plus this....
@Joselyn Bellinis
"Maybe St Laurent left her job working for Bill Gates because he had decided to step down as CEO, and there wasn't a position for her there anymore? A decision to step down like that would be in the works for a few years before it came to fruition."
THIS!! I can't imagine leaving Gates for The Grifters for any other reason. At that level, executives don't get fired; but they do resign and/or leave for other opportunities.
So, I think settling for The Grifters was a short-term tactic to save face but either/or; both/and the money ran dry and St. Laurent had her can full of Deceitful Duchess Diva antics. Maybe she was also appalled by the interview. Seems like she travels in the highest stratosphere of power and airing dirty laundry and trashing the super rich is extremely gauche. I think Meg just sunk her boat with that trashy interview. She doesn't care what you or I think but the people who matter to her are in the process of ghosting her, kind of like she ghosted her own family, swiftly and without mercy.
What goes around, comes around. They misread the crowd and badly botched it.
I'm sure he's taking a page out of the Queen's book by staying silent. I note though that in the absence of comment, media outlets are rushing to fill the void with the provocative: The Archbishop of Canterbury REFUSES to comment (Emphasis mine.)
That sounds ever so much more bad and dodgy than the equally unforthcoming but more statesmanlike: The Archbishop has declined to comment. The former sounds a lot more combative, like active hiding of something nefarious is occurring. It was a newspaper's word, not his. But maybe in order to head off a frenzy of 'Why is the AoC REFUSING comment???' it would be better for Welby's office to release a statement saying "Lambeth Palace has no comment." That would feel like ignoring nonsense with intent vs. hiding from a potentially sticky area. Even though the sum total of comment is the same: Nil.
Meg has *absolutely nothing else to do all day* but concoct spin. No harm in her victims employing her same tactics. Gray Rock is a good strategy with a Narc but even more effective perhaps if she knows that she's being *pointedly* ignored, rather than accidentally ignored.
As this vendetta of Meg's wears on and on, she is reminding me more and more of Jim Moriarty in the BBC Sherlock series. {Spoiler Alert!} In a confrontation with his sworn enemy, Sherlock Holmes, a man whose integrity he can't shift, Moriarty sets a plan in motion to completely destroy SH by smearing his reputation and hurting his friends. Torture is even more effective when one has to stand by and watch one's friends get maimed and killed instead of getting hurt oneself . . because the guilt makes it that much worse.
Moriarty holds the key to the plot--he alone can revoke the order to hurt Sherlock's friends. But so determined is he to destroy Sherlock that he *blows his own brains out* to ensure that Holmes can't induce him in some way to put a stop to the plan. His last words are taunting his enemy about his triumph before he eats a pistol.
Nobody expected that, not even the Great Detective. Who is then forced to astounding lengths to clear his name and save his friends.
I believe Meg is a narcissistic sociopath, and they value themselves above all else. But so great is their need to win and their terror of failure that they *could* view self-sacrifice as a necessary adjunct to destroying their enemies completely. It's kind of like when estranged marriage partners kill their children and then themselves to 'show' the surviving spouse. Ask anyone who's experienced that and I think they would all say that they'd gladly trade their own lives for those of their kids. The particular kind of living hell they are relegated to as the sole survivor that has to carry the memory of such horrors as long as they draw breath is why the Narc does what they do.
Meg has already very probably harmed domestic animals and perhaps neighborhood children . . I am thinking that she could be very capable of harming her husband and any other vulnerable people/animals living with her. Harming herself would be an absolute last resort but I think she's turned a corner of insanity over the past several months were I do not rule out self-harm. But she'll be sure to harm as many other people on the way down that she can.
Maybe The harkles are gunning for a contract with Lacoste? They have an alligator on their polo shirts. Izod does, too, but they are a much less expensive brand. We'll need to keep an eye out for Harry's polo shirts to check for logos. He seems like a Ralph Lauren type to me, though.
It means the two most powerful people in the Sussexes' top team are now both white males, despite the couple having voiced their concerns about a lack of diversity in the Royal family.
Do as I say, not as I do, peasants!
Prince William already went off the reservation and point blank refuted the biggest piece of Meg's nonsense. The trick is to not say 'She's a bat sh*t crazy liar' but just keep hammering on Her Majesty's patented phrase, vetted by the best team of legal and speechwriters in the land--'Recollections may vary.'
From now on, whatever tripe emanates from Montecito the boilerplate response should be 'Recollections may vary'. She'll go ballistic.
They better have a real good product. I think they have a fairly large following among black women, but I won't swear on it. We'll see when they produce something what the ratings are.
Whatever is going on with H&M, there's a lot of churn, turmoil and drama. Sometimes I find it entertaining, others times my eyes glaze over because it's the same old same old.
What we are seeing play out on a global stage in terms of churn, turmoil and drama is what people who have known Meg up close when she only had small canvases to work from have always known about her. This is what happens when you give a mad dog bully rife with mental disorders a global platform and seemingly endless funds. The funds aren't endless, of course but they are compared to the sums she was used to dealing with. Back when she was just a hustling starlet-wannabe, one of 25 girls on Deal or No Deal, supporting office slut on a mediocre cable drama filmed in Canada, hustling to get her profile out there any way she could, she was still beholden to a lot of people and broke some of the time. This forced her to pretend to be nice to a larger number of people for a longer time than she was ever able to sustain as a Royal because after she had that engagement ring, she didn't see herself as having to be nice to anyone any longer.
She's just the type of person her half-sibs warned us about years ago, but I suppose even for them, considering how Markle wrecked their family, her current level of destruction might take even them aback a little bit. She's like the Dark Phoenix in the Last Stand movie--a one-woman Armageddon. She's not done yet because they haven't come to the bottom of the barrel with the money.
Part of me hopes that she does try to run for Congress. Unlike the Queen, the Republican party has no ties of sentiment or distaste for a fight. It's used to being called racist every minute of every day. It will have no qualms about destroying her. That would give me something to look forward to.
@Maneki Neko;
Thank you for the book recommendation.
I hadn't picked up on Burial Rites - sounds gripping. I follow Arnaldur Indridason's Reykjavik Murder Mysteries - cold case detective stories linking contemporary Iceland with episodes in its 20th C history - the best, imo, are the Silence of the Grave (American wartime occupation) & the Draining Lake - Iceland's relationship with the Eastern bloc in the 1950s.)
Modern Icelandic is a very difficult language - highly inflected. It used to be said that it was relatively easy to read the Old Norse sagas if one had Icelandic, but I'm not sure how true that is now. Sometimes I wish I'd known how my life would turn out - I let the chance of learning Old Norse go by.
I share your sentiment. The Republicans would leak every detail about her entire made up life. Prance Harry through the streets while campaigning and he will get the history of a lifetime. I can see the signs now "No American monarchy", "Remember 1775?","Still Not a Disney Princess(with H picture)"- I need to think of few more,any suggestions?
Thank for your compliment earlier today.
I run a consignment business. So I buy almost nothing @ full price.
I found my bracelet on eBay and made an offer which was accepted.
Keep checking eBay as her stuff comes and goes fairly quickly. While 1stDibs carries lots of her pieces, they are priced to reflect the dealer’s markup.
I think it’s worth remembering that her items have a high inventory cost. In my own business, I frequently accept reasonable offers because I would rather sell it than keep it around.
If Harry is as cheap as reported, how does Mm get him to spend $$?
Do you think he actually knows how to manage money like the rest of us?
Thanks to everyone for so much new info about the Harkles or AKA the train wreck waiting to happen.
Happy Hunting
Part of me hopes that she does try to run for Congress. Unlike the Queen, the Republican party has no ties of sentiment or distaste for a fight. It's used to being called racist every minute of every day. It will have no qualms about destroying her. That would give me something to look forward.
...............
I've had many reasons for following this whole Harkle story and attempting to assist in revealing their scams. The threat that she could enter our political system is what keeps me hanging on.
Yes, Markle may have thin skin but that doesn't mean she could not get involved for at least a couple of years like she did with the RF and then afterward reap some sort of benefits from that involvement.
We've had candidates who didn't seem qualified and ones who had shady pasts and they still got elected to various positions. Markle is riding on identity politics, BLM, woke culture, anger over George Floyd, slavery reparations, anti-racism extremism and her personal victim narrative she has created.
I still fear she will end up in a position of power in our government due to being the 'right' race/color and being deemed untouchable regarding any background investigations. If the stories about the RF erasing her slimy past are true then that's another bonus in her favor.
The only issue that I take some comfort in is that she has brought a mental health angle into the picture which may based on what she has claimed make her less desirable as a political candidate. And if anyone is actually paying attention they should pick up on the fact that there are different and genuine mental health issues involved that are far more serious and of a distinctly disqualifying nature.
People would come questioning me forever after about my employment with the suicidal wench and grown man child. I wouldn't be able to answer interviews with a straight face. I wouldn't be able to network appropriately.
They've opened an employment nightmare for those not in PR. It's curious their non registered 'non profit' is now headed by a PR guru in Britain. That doesn't make any sense.
They cannot attract the talent they need. No surprise there.
Head of Engagement and Communications: Sussex Royal - The Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex
I thought sussex royal was no more. Im getting more confused all the time. Then again, I need more coffee so maybe that's it
Basically, he's a dud without any major leading PR experience. Probably just holding onto his job for dear life with all the UK lockdowns.
And this guy is now managing Archewell? LOL.
@WBBM
Thank you for the Reykjavik Murder Mysteries, I'll see if I can get some copies. It reminded me that I read a murder mystery set in Iceland, Snowblind by Ragnar Jónasson.
Modern Icelandic has retained two characters in its alphabet that were used in Old English, ð and þ. /ð/ is still used today in the IPA (international phonetic alphabet) to represent th as in father. It is also used as a phonetic symbol in Icelandic, as well as /θ/, in both English - as in month - and Icelandic ).
@jenn,
Last night, after you signed off, I nominated you to go find Hot Rob and ask him what he knows about the Harkles and Mudslide Mansion. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to intercept Hot Rob, ply him with liquor, and get the tea.
....................
**@JB
LOL!!💋💋💋 Yes, I will certainly accept that mission! I'm actually started doing a little investigating about that angle of the story last night...
I have to take a bit of a break though as I've been on the computer way too much since the interview and my eyes have been bothering me!
I saw that gorgeous wooden yacht - scanning through the article I noticed it was once owned by Edward VIII!
**@Puds
If I'm understanding the lawsuit news, ANL/MOS is appealing the entire thing which is what we hoped. Perhaps recent Harkle behavior will serve to demonstrate to the courts what they are really all about and also show just how dishonest they are.
They are also going to have a trial over the ownership of the copyright on the letter. I hope Jason Knauf steps up and testifies to all the help she may have had in writing that letter - whether it was a product of her employment or not considering they may have asked her to try to settle things with her father to end his public complaining.
James Holt worked as the director of a group named Liberal Democrats. Then, he worked at London Pride, was a VP of Mercury, a gin company. He then moved to be the senior communications director for the Royal Foundation of Harry and the Cambridges, and moved up to be the communications head of that org. He then became head of engagement of communications for The Harkles for almost two years.
I sometimes wonder if these people who used to work for the Cambridges, and then are hired by The Harkles, have been sent in to gather info on the Harkles for the BRF.
This interview along with the debunking will make Megsy too toxic to associate with. To do deals with. Megs wanted to settle scores with the BRF and intimidate and threaten them with new revelations. This is boomeranging on her as it kills potential business deals.
I missed that part about the yacht being owned by Edward VIII. I'm still drooling over that yacht.
I have to take breaks, too, because of my eyes. I use Theratears, recommended by my opthamologist, due to extreme dry eye and macular degeneration. I use the drops at least four times a day. That may help your eyes, too.
good point or was he spying on the Cambridges and had loyalty to harkles. seems he did get the short end of the stick when the separation occurred
Yes, it could go that way, too. Who's spying on whom?
@jenn,
I knew you'd love the Hot Rob mission!
According to twitter account @PorneMichaels M was engaged to the chef in 2014, I've not read that they were actually engaged - I'm not on twitter but can access the tweets as not made private, some interesting stuff on there if anyone wants to take a look. Also on same thread another poster alleges that although M filed for divorce from Trev in 2013 it wasn't finalised until 2018 as she wanted to gain control of Trevs assets. Not sure if that can be true?
................
@Pantsface
I remember years ago it was said that Corey and MM were going to get engaged/were as good as engaged...so I believe that story could be true.
I also read about the Trevor divorce not being finalized until 2018 just this morning (I think on Data Lounge). What I saw was that it wasn't all done until after she was married to Harry! I don't know how that could be true.
Normal people hire someone to do xxxx, but not the Harkles. They "appoint", like the royalty they are.
If Smeg’s divorce from Trevor was not finalized until sometime after May 19, 2018, would this not be the smoking gun of “impediment to the lawful marriage that Welby could be sitting on—along with the Palace? It seems incredible that they would not have checked the documentation on such an important issue, particularly since the former marriage was officiated in a foreign country. And Meg was a foreign national proposing to marry not just any British man, but a royal? Was is this marriage rushed through due to her visa status? How could the two chief institutions in the United Kingdom be so sloppy as to allow the prince of the Rome to enter into a bigamous marriage with a foreigner who had no other claim for legal residency in Britain?
The mind boggles. What would have been the hold up on the divorce if this is true? I can imagine if Trevor had decided to sue for grounds, say of infidelity, there would have been a delay As opposed to a no fault dissolution—But three years seems like a long time, encompassing her whole time with Corey as well as the entire showman century with Haz. As we have seen throughout this saga though, nobody was good at pressing meg for receipts about anything she said because no one was accustomed to dealing with such a pernicious and systematic liar. Failing to inspect a divorce decree properly executed is quite a bit different than taking her word for it when she said she’s made all the travel arrangements to the wedding for her dad. But I think the approach has been the same no matter what she’s lying about: take her word for it and get highly embarrassed later. That’s how she was able to con so much money out of Charles for the wardrobe and the Frogmore renovations. How she got away with doing the Vogue issue—-she just pretended convincingly that she was doing what she was supposed to be doing. Was it like that when she was asked a direct question about whether she was actually divorced? In order to try and keep hairy happy and give him what the couple was demanding at any cost, did the BRF collude in hosting a fraudulent marriage reasoning that they could finesse the details later? I.e., they could backdate her divorce decree or something? I’m not saying this happened… These are just rhetorical questions. I would suppose that there is a record of this divorce in The California Bureau of Records. Though there still seems to be a matter of dispute that Smeg is only 39 so who knows what palms have been greased.
Showmance not showman century.
Though I feel like the last 3 years have lasted a century. Anybody else?
It seems to have lasted a lifetime, I'm often cross with myself for being invested in the shenanagins, it's just not me, but so much of his debacle makes me furious and I don't really understand why. Yes, I'm a Brit, but the RF although always there, didn't register on my radar, I've protested with CND/miners strike and the poll tax in previous years, amongst many other causes, any excuse to get my DM's on lol. But this, I can't explain it, perhaps i'm getting older and appreciate the RF and traditions and the British way of life
Excellent revenge birthday present to yourself. Wear it with satisfaction and in good health every day!
Having been married to a narc myself, I can say with certainty that narcs pay in one way or another for the way they have treated us.
I take your point about Markle entering politics to a degree. If ever there were a time for a spectacularly unqualified and dodgy person with the “correct” gender and racial make up to appeal to the wokey brigade to run, that time is now. This talentless grifter with mental problems has gotten so far because she’s a double minority Who’s at the right place at the right time to substitute her identity politics for any sort of substantive accomplishment normally required for public office. Both the recently departed POTUS and his successor—Both elderly white guys— have questions of ethics swirling around them. So yes it’s been a very long time and maybe never since a Boy Scout was elected to public office, and even less for a Girl Scout based on the percentages. I do take some hope from the knowledge that everything the British security services may have “erased” from Markle’s past at the behest of the Palace Isn’t really gone. It’s just been put in a sort of lock box that is being sat on at present And can easily be retrieved if needed. Markle Harry an Oprah may have single-handedly tanked the Special Relationship, and Mr Biden Has ill advisedly put himself in the pro Markle column which by default is anti Queen. Not a really Swift move from Joe considering that he has yet to be extended an invitation to Buckingham Palace as the new President. I think if her Majesty wills it that lockbox information can be let out, and the CIA would also probably be interested in it. As a highly visible, polarizing and inflammatory pair of figures, one of them the member of a foreign head of states family, we can bet our booties That the CIA and the FBI or watching the Harkles. Not forgetting the IRS either. Taxes how they brought down Capone’s empire after all.
Markle may check enough boxes to get put on a ticket, but once suppose is that she would still have to participate in a debate or a Townhall meeting and actually meet and greet voters and answer their questions...The same kind of boring crap she felt beneath her as a royal. I would hope that even her fellow liberal Democrats would have enough self-respect to not give an important seat away to a plastic filled self-absorbed Barbie with a deity complex and such a sketchy past. Not to mention the royal titles and the millions of pounds spent on herself is going to be an issue in a campaign for a party that supposed to be about the government giving back to the regular people. Marcos consumption has been just too conspicuous in three countries. Then there’s a matter of her husband, a foreign national whose grandmother is the head of state of a foreign power. Even though Britain is an ally, this is problematic in an elected official.
Somebody mentioned the Liberal Democrats—was that you? The organization that plucked a 20 something bartender out of one of the working class New York boroughs and Got her elected to the United States Congress. She passed the audition because she was attractive, a minority woman, and could learn her lines. It helped also that she did not have a past that was so messy and potentially objectionable as Meg has. I hope that if the LDs Or any other group is eyeballing Meg as a potential candidate based on her racial demographics and her fame, they will effing reconsider because she would be nothing but a headache and a liability. She’s got at best a basic intelligence, a very thin and questionable resume, foreign connections, and zero likability. The biggest problem is that she has no experience, temperamental suitability Follow through, or original ideas. Yet despite all of these feelings, she is absolutely uninstructabke and unmanageable. She could be another AOC if she would be willing to take direction, but she isn’t. Show business is a pretty liberal industry as we know, and yet nobody who is ever worked with Meg in Hollywood found it in experience they want to repeat. Take note, Democrats. Look at what happened to Netflix and Spotify when they took on the Harkles… They bled millions of subscribers overnight, along with millions of dollars and stock points. If y’all want to ensure That the Democrats lose the White House next go round, by all means embrace Meghan. The Democratic Party will be Markled.
Not to mention, the Obamas would probably be solicited for their support of her candidacy. How do we think that would be received? Also, since she decided to play the mental health card to score points against the royal family, how would she answer questions about the current state of her mental health and her fitness for office? She admitted on international television to being so mentally fragile that she was suicidal. She would I think to be expected to answer legitimate questions about if she feels that running away from England and moving to California has completely healed all of her mental health issues like they never happened. The British royal family and queen are far too GenTeal and self interested to air all the dirty laundry they have on her. If megs he thinks that the British tabloid papers are brutal, let her try an American political campaign and see how she likes it. How many papers or communities while she try and sue for being mean to her? Well she throw televize tantrum‘s and maybe hurl things At members of the public because she’s having a fit? I say let her try let’s get all of this on camera in her home country where faux duchesses have zero expectation of deference. I give it three days minimum after announcing her candidacy that all the sex tapes, possible expunged arrest records, and details of her lost against the IRS come to light. Bring it. There isn’t enough popcorn for that show.
"I've had many reasons for following this whole Harkle story and attempting to assist in revealing their scams. The threat that she could enter our political system is what keeps me hanging on....Markle is riding on identity politics, BLM, woke culture, anger over George Floyd, slavery reparations, anti-racism extremism and her personal victim narrative she has created. I still fear she will end up in a position of power in our government due to being the 'right' race/color and being deemed untouchable regarding any background investigations."
I feel the same way you do. Truthfully, I lost interest in Markle until she detonated the race bomb and went nuclear on Harry's family. The fawning coverage in the US, the far left agenda that's literally being shoved in our faces 24/7 on the media, and the relentless attack on all ideological differences which led to Piers losing his job and will probably result in the same for Sharon defending him is frightening. It's downright dystopian and these days, conservatives are the new punk.
In this toxic climate, Meghan could be a useful tool for an Establishment that more and more is looking like an evil cabal. The Royal Family is a symbol of "white culture" (nevermind the truth of that statement today), which is why they've been so shamefully treated in the press coverage here. White culture is under relentless attack in the media here. No matter what we do, we're biased and need to be called out, shamed and humbled, never mind if we're rich, middle, blue color or poor. We're smeared with "white supremacy" and "privilege" and judged by the color of our skin but that's not racist. Only whites are capable of being racist and we can't help being racist because of so-called unconscious bias. So, let's not judge people by how they act. Let's judge them based on biases they aren't even aware that they have.
It's just vicious and this whole debacle is way bigger than a D list actress and her idiot husband of a Prince. I fear where this country is going. Western civilization is swirling down a rancid gutter of Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion performing lesbian sex acts on TV for kids to watch and be inspired by. In this climate, the Royal Family is looking like moral resistance to the corruption.
PageSix.com has an article highlighting Grip and Drip's lies (or misspoken words if you are HRC). Thank heavens someone has the bullocks to do this.
“So the world is falling apart because of coronavirus but an eccentric British judge rules that an angry, manipulative retired
show biz worker living in California on UK cash deserves to be front page news because she won a copyright case that’s
under appeal. Absolute madness.”
Tourre Bakahai Tweet in response to Chris Ship’s “The Mail on Sunday must publish its reply to Meghan.....”
“Why does Markle — an American who lives in the USA, who hates Britain, and who provably lies and distorts constantly — get
this, and nobody else who wins a basic copyright case? What’s going on? Where’s the outrage?”
Another Tourre tweet today
“Absolutely sickening that a proven liar and arch-manipulator with unlimited unearned cash to spend on litigation is being given
this front page ‘victory’ notice by an out-of-control judge. Anybody who believes in justice and democracy should protest. Markle
hates the UK too!”
More Tourre also today
I agree wholeheartedly with him. To me there is no question the judge is compromised as is Welby. Meghan is no ordinary hustler.
Brilliant comment.. I agree with you, and JennS.
If it wasn’t obvious to others before that something bizarre is up with her and her foray into the royal family, and the multi-million dollar lifestyle with a huge staff, huge home, splashy expenses and zero work, this bizarre behavior by Oprah, Welby and now again Warby on behalf of this d-lister should tell everyone something.
Invisible faked baby with zero medical receipts before or after? Constant proven lies? Shady past? Yet gets a pass every time.
Unless Warby, Welby and others step up in honor of Katie Price, you will know Megs is on the political runway. Rumor in CA is she may be up for Feinstein’s seat. Those in charge now are no longer hiding their agenda, I guess. Maybe the backer money is running through Oprah.
My opinion.
The RF look like the adults in the room.
At first, when they moved to California, I was happy with her just fading slowly into obscurity. Now that she's been annoyingly popping up in trailers and podcasts and promotional materials, I want to see her kicked violently into the gutter from whence she sprang, along with all of the people that have labored mightily to lift her out of that gutter in an attempt to make her relevant. She's not a role model, she's a whore. She isn't kind and charitable, she is an opportunistic grifter that will steal the money donated for others.
I know just how you feel.
"One is not amused. Walk it back.
P.S. Titles removed eom.
Gan Gan"
Blogger JennS said...
I don't know if it's been noted here or not but Catherine St. Laurent is not exactly leaving the Harkles - she's moving to a different position. They've hired people that have connections to the Clintons and Obamas.
Interesting the webs/connections that those two families weave...I doubt that most here know the relative obscurity from whence Obama sprang (as well as his lack of credentials).
Re the possibility of Markle getting elected...
I worry that since other people in our government have had scandals that have been overlooked, Markle's faults if they aren't all revealed will not prevent her from riding on that woke wave to victory.
What scandal would be enough to prevent Markle from getting anywhere within our government besides being pronounced in need of a straight jacket? I would guess that pretending to carry a child while rubbing and cupping a pillow on the world stage just might fit the bill! I wonder if it can be proved that she targeted Harry for a con? Someone would have to talk - Jessica or Markus? Severe bullying of staff will help so I hope the RF does the right thing and allows the legal team they hired to go all the way.
I thought that as well about St-Laurent, but just read a new Sun UK article stating that she became increasingly “frustrated” working for them, quit, and her new “advisor” role is not expected to last very long. She is out of there. She is also a mother of two according to the Sun, and I wonder if she noticed anything odd about Archie or this new faux pregnancy.
Sorry I am just spot reading backwards before I sleep — see my comment to SwampWoman above.
The Sun says St Laurent “became frustrated” and stepped down....she was “shifted to a ‘senior advisory role‘ but Is not expected to stay.”
Sorry if someone posted this already and I missed it… Camilla Tominey’s latest from the Telegraph, detailing all the staff members who have left Sussex employ since the wedding. It’s a lengthy list. Headline: Is All Well at Archewell?
Considering that the only thing Meghan & Harry’s foundation has achieved is coming up with a lame website, a lame logo and one lame podcast, while constantly appointing “directors” who work on nothing and then quit after a few months of doing nothing...I’m going out at limb and saying “Not it’s not. Archewell is not OK.” It’s been a year and nobody still knows how to pronounce this phantom company that does nothing, makes nothing and stands for nothing except word salad tossed by empty suits.
An ‘advisory’ role is someone they can pay a large freelance rate or a prearranged stock agreement to when they check in for strategy purposes every several of months. St.Laurent will cease to be a full time employee of Archewell.
“The Telegraph understands that she will no longer be considered a full-time employee nor remain on the payroll.
According to one well-placed insider: “I think there was a sense that she was having to fulfil a great many functions for the couple – not all of which were necessarily in her job spec.”
So she was overworked doing menial tasks meant for a larger staff. Where have we heard of this behavior before??? 3am emails anyone? :)
Sounds like Meghan and Harry cannot afford Archewell, otherwise they’d have appropriate support for their executive staff in place to execute the strategies. A lot of startups have great people walk out due to budgetary issues. This is what I suppose is at the core of what is happening here, on top of Meghan’s demanding presence.
Did you search for Trevor Engleson? Maybe he filed? He was the wronged party. I would suppose that her name would also come up attached as the defendant. I wonder where else they could file? Does it have to be in county of residence, even if the marriage was not performed there? This is an entirely new area for me. Now I’m seeing marriage conspiracy everywhere—Maybe you couldn’t find a divorce decree because they never got divorced—Not necessary if they weren’t actually legally married. Maybe the island wedding with the pot party favors was another of her hippie dippy “spiritual” unions. Or the Jamaican ceremony was legit, but it was never filed appropriately with the county of Los Angeles? I always thought it was a bit strange that she lived with Trevor as a sugar daddy for five years and only then married him—‘til death do us part’ Meaning “two years or less, just til I become a big shot in my own mind on a Canadian TV show.”
I hope you’re not out a lot of money. You definitely have provided food for thought now.
This is what I've been dwelling on since I heard the news about Catherine St Laurent. What do these splashy, high-powered appointees DO all day, working for the Sussexes? Whose only visible output seems to be grandiose announcements followed by a damp squib.
I agree with Nutties who think we'll now see a downward slide in the calibre of appointees but, honestly, that downward slide should have begun far earlier. If these people they hired were such big hitters, why couldn't they see what was staring them in the face? I guess they were seduced by having royal service on their CVs. Well that's gone for good. Harry and Meghan can no longer sprinkle people with fairy dust.
At least that's one satisfying thing in all this mess. The Sussexes are like two village drunks being finally kicked out of the local pub, clinging onto the door frame, threatening dire retribution on their way to the gutter.
More backpedaling about the fake garden wedding story. The line that is now being spun is that the Sussexes’ lavish global spectacle With the carriage, the choir, the crowds, the 25 foot cathedral veil embroidered with Commonwealth flowers, the whole flap over the tiara, the two designer wedding gowns, the celebrity studded evening gala, the convertible, etc—None of this was anything Meg and H actually wanted. Just a suffocating mass of outmoded traditions Insisted upon by Harry’s white supremacist family to crush her. They were *forced* Into this gargantuan wedding that cost all that money when all they really wanted what is a simple barefooted garden wedding and vegan barbecue!
I really just can’t any more with this....
Maybe her Jamaican wedding to Trevor
wasn’t legalised, too busy ingesting
the local vegetation?
Mick Jagger and Jerry Halls wedding
in Bali was declared null and void.
@Hikari
With a simple barefooted garden wedding
she could’ve had the red carpet she coveted 😉
@JennS
Sorry, just seen that you posted
that the Jamaican wedding wasn’t official.
What’s with her and her fondness
for pre - weddings? Doubling - dealing!
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex lost several staff as working royals
Valentine Low
Tuesday March 23 2021, 12.01am GMT, The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghans-chief-of-staff-quits-after-one-year-79sts2kfp
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s chief of staff is stepping down after 12 months working for the couple.
Catherine St-Laurent, who was also executive director of Archewell, the Sussexes’ non-profit organisation, continues as a senior adviser. The couple’s PR adviser in Britain, James Holt, replaces her as executive director, leaving Harry and Meghan with no UK press staff. Toya Holness, their spokeswoman based in California, becomes Archewell’s global press secretary.
A source said that St-Laurent, who has worked for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, would provide “daily guidance and support” for Archwell while she sets up her own social impact firm.
Ben Browning, one of the producers of Emerald Fennell’s debut feature film Promising Young Woman, which has been nominated for five Oscars, has joined Archewell as head of content. He will be in charge of their Netflix productions and Spotify podcasts.
Browning was also executive producer of the HBO series I Know This Much Is True, for which Mark Ruffalo won an Emmy and Golden Globe for acting.
He said: “From the moment they shared their vision for Archewell as a global production company that will spotlight diverse voices and share uplifting stories, I knew I wanted to help with this unique opportunity. It’s a thrilling company to be starting.”
Invisible Hand, which is described as a social impact and culture change agency, has joined Archewell to focus on “strategic change through storytelling and community building in support of gender and racial equality”. It is led by Genevieve Roth, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Holt, who previously worked for the Royal Foundation when the Sussexes were working members of the royal family, will lead Archewell’s mission to “to uplift and unite communities through acts of compassion”, according to a Sussex source.
Holness said: “Archewell is incredibly pleased to welcome Ben, Genevieve and the Invisible Hand team to the organisation. Along with the appointment of James Holt as executive director of Archewell foundation, they join a rapidly expanding team that’s deeply dedicated to advancing systemic cultural change and supporting compassionate communities across the world.”
While working as royals the Sussexes lost several staff including Melissa Touabti, Meghan’s personal assistant, Amy Pickerill, the assistant private secretary, Katrina McKeever, the deputy communications secretary, and Samantha Cohen, the couple’s private secretary.
This month The Times reported that a senior adviser to the couple reported allegations of bullying against the duchess in 2018. Jason Knauf, their communications secretary, claimed she drove two personal assistants out of the household and was undermining the confidence of a third member of staff. The email also expressed concern about the stress experienced by Cohen.
A spokesman for the Sussexes said that they were victims of a calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation.
Buckingham Palace has begun a review of the bullying allegations.
Maybe she thinks she is so special that she deserves two ceremonies per marriage?
Sam said Doria was plenty happy with the Jamaican wedding goodie bags!
🤣🚬🤣
So their production guy calls Archewell a ‘company’ while their, now former, executive director calls it a ‘non-profit’. Which is it? :)
@JennS
The quotes in that Times article sound like their
usual waffle salad.
“Waffle Maker” gift from the Queen is probably
another juvenile ‘in joke’
They obviously can’t afford St-Laurent,
Yves included!
Charles has cut the purse strings, and, as
others have said, she was expected to wear
many hats, none of them fitting.
Ah Doria, mother and daughter, bonding bags,
how delightful 😜
@jessica
Exactly, which is it?
Just had a quick google, very confusing.
Don’t think the titles, company v non profit,
makes much difference if you’re running a scam.
It all falls under the same cloak.
If Smeg’s divorce from Trevor was not finalized until sometime after May 19, 2018, would this not be the smoking gun of “impediment to the lawful marriage that Welby could be sitting on—along with the Palace?
Yes, under English Law one isn't divorced until after the Decree Absolute has been granted.
I know from bitter experience that it's possible to hold up a divorce for years in England by refusing to settle on financial matters. For example, by the defendant insisting the partner who filed for divorce (`plaintiff') gives up all claim to the the jointly-owned matrimonial home, even when they contributed to the purchase price. If the defending partner is a narc, acting as `litigant in person' it's at negligible cost to them, even when legally they haven't a leg to stand on; they enjoy the game of wasting the other's money.
Would MM have to have been in the clear with English or American law? Or both? Wouldn't it be wonderful if that turned out to be the case? Though it might be embarrassing if this was known at the time and nobody spoke up at the ceremony?
Can any one confirm that Justin did say the words about `any just cause why this man and this woman should not be joined in Holy Matrimony?' I can't remember for sure...