If you fear that anything you say privately may be revealed publicly, you cannot express yourself freely. You can't play with ideas, you can't think aloud, you cannot debate and discuss. You can only repeat concepts that have been approved by the authorities. Your mind is in prison.
When there is no distinction between public and private conversation, you can trust no one. Not even your family.
Which brings us to the Sussexes.
Taking a private conversation public
During Harry and Meghan's notorious broadcast last week, the couple gave contradictory statements about an unnamed family member who had - in a private conversation - expressed "concern" about the Sussex child's skin color.
Putting aside the fact that most families speculate about what an unborn child might look like, the revelation that someone had been "concerned" took what had been a private family conversation into the public sphere, where it was never intended to be.
Was it (supposedly) wrong that the speaker had felt concern or wrong that the speaker had expressed concern about the baby's looks?
(My guess is that we are probably talking about a throwaway remark like "Maybe we'll call him the Dark Prince" or some other dry humor blown out of proportion by the Sussexes.)
Anyway, if the speaker had simply wondered about the unborn baby's physical characteristics, was the "right" thing to do to keep it to himself or herself, even in front of close family?
If we cannot speak freely to our family, to whom can we speak freely?
A chat with William and Charles
On Tuesday, CBS anchor Gayle King revealed that she had been in touch with Harry, who said he had spoken to his father and brother after the interview.
Harry told her that the conversations were "not productive", said King, who added that what the Sussexes really wanted was for the Royal family to condemn the (supposedly) racist press coverage of the pair.
Once again, the Sussexes had dragged private conversations with the family into the public sphere, spitting on the family's attempts at de-escalation and reconciliation.
If I were William or Charles, I would be reluctant to ever again speak directly to Harry. The chance that he would repeat - if not record and release - whatever was said to him is simply too high.
Comments
Thanks @Magatha Mistie. Jenn S and others have a different take on Michelle's interview.
................
@Este
I’m not sure if my posts have been misunderstood. I agree with the statements Michelle made in the interview but my point was I just felt she should not have said anything at all.
I made that point after reading the first version of the Daily Mail article that slanted her interview to appear supportive of Markle. And I was even more certain of it when I realized the DM had written a new article with different interpretations of her comments.
It seems my point that she should have stayed silent was proven right because:
-her comments were misinterpreted by nearly all media everywhere and reported as supportive of Markle
-her comment about not being surprised at MM's experiences has been interpreted by many as a jab at the Royal Family
-Michelle apparently tried to set the record straight regarding the misinterpretation of her statements as evidenced by the appearance of the new article about her interview claiming she took swipes at Markle.
I don't know if you saw my other posts on this particular topic but if you check my previous comments above you'll find the info I provided about the new DM article and the differences in how MO's statements were interpreted and reported on.
I'm just a bit confused by your comment addressed to Magatha since she also made several posts agreeing that Michelle's interview has caused problems and that she should have said nothing.
“
I think Meghan's Narcissism reached it's breaking point/peak shortly before the interview. I know many of you do not believe in Meghan's pregnancies, but I do. I think she is highly emotional and her narcissism goes off the charts while pregnant. She was the same way while pregnant with Archie. Her decision making is so incredibly rash. She decided to take on the RF directly. She thinks she's weaponized with her emails and texts. She wants money, titles for her children and she wants the Queen, Charles and William to speak nicely about her in the open so that she may continue her projects and make money. They signed up for Netflix, made the one podcast and it wasn't widely viewed and no one cared. No money is pouring in the door, so it was time. I stand by that the interview was a massive mistake and she will pay for it.”
I believe that she was pregnant with Archie and that she’s pregnant again. She was rather transparent with all the bump clutching and the coat flicking. She screamed look at ME ME ME like she was the first and only pregnant woman that ever walked the earth. As a malignant narcissist, she has no maternal instincts or feelings but she knows how powerfully persuasive she can be while pregnant. She has zero interest in becoming a mother. Notice how during the first pregnancy she was totally out of control and made the most dramatic decisions. The emotional terrorism she subjected Hapless to by pretending to be suicidal is typical narcissist behavior. Her needs superseded everything and everyone. And now here she goes again with this interview where she barely mentioned her supposed miscarriage and never delved into motherhood at all. Even when they announced they were expecting a girl, she did not bother to pretend to be genuinely happy or excited. While pregnant, her sense of entitlement and her arrogance are off the chart! As I’ve said it many times, I feel sorry for the children...
Hapless is a bitter jealous petulant man child who hates his family but wants their status and money. What about her? I wish they would just shut the f*** up and go away but that’s not happening!
As Hapless infamously yelled : What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!
I am wondering what does she want? Money? More money? A high profile job? All of this could have been achieved without airing your dirty laundry and trashing the BRF.
I am not buying the multimillion $ deals with Netflix and Spotify. Has OW decided to make her the host of some talk show?? She seems to have become OW’s new rescue pet who has to follow her master’s instructions.
`Meghan revealed the truth about what went down during bridesmaids fittings'
WTF?????
Thanks for the link. That headline really sucks. The article-- WAY down-- also says:
"Nicholl also said "From what I hear, there are different versions of the bridesmaid story, not just the one Meghan discussed,” and that Kate is "not in a position to respond" to Meghan's claim."
I interpreted the comment that "other versions" were said by people other than Meghan and Duchess Catherine. But who knows for sure, the writing style is not the best IMO.
It is poorly written. But I think the terminology "other versions" suggests other facts. But we can't know for sure what KN meant. We do know though there's at least one other version-- in Omid's book-- an in that version, nobody cried.
FF was quite clear that all the facts were checked and sorted. P 245 for the tears story
Paragraph above it begins with "Frogmore was perfect Harry and Meghan, given its connection to Windsor-except that it wasn't next door to William and Kate and their children." It then goes on to say that this is what started the whole "Dueling Duchesses" a couple days later when the Telegraph broke the story of tears before the wedding.
(note: All the stories from that time seem to mention Kate cried.)
The next paragraph is that a source (who was at the fitting but had never spoken about it (apparently to anyone) did talk to the authors and described them as "puzzling" and that some of the kids were cooperating ... "There were not tears from anyone...Kate and Meghan were both a little stressed but professionals in the room, and there were other people there including Clare ... Melissa and two Givenchy assistants."
FF was supposed to be the setting the record straight. So if that were true, Why didn't we hear about how Omid and friend got this major wrinkle all wrong when the book came out?
That it's only now when the story changes is suspect on many levels (given the BRF never complain/explain = not allowing Kate to speak out).
I don't know if this is the film you were talking about but I looked up. Here is our Meg in action
https://images.app.goo.gl/3M5qz1EcQRZafa3z6
Enjoy! as they say.
In a survey of adults 18-39, 23% said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, had been exaggerated, or they weren’t sure. The study had other equally shocking results - - you can find them. The study was commissioned by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany.
Not sure where this ignorance comes from. Do we blame schools, video games, TV, Fox News, lack of reading?
Anyway, ignorance and credulity runs deep. This is just one example that was shocking and easy to remember. So Lucy's 45% probably didn't need much more than a whisper campaign.
I have a couple of questions for you as a former journalist that I hope you don't mind helping me with! Yesterday I left several posts about how Michelle Obama's interview had been misinterpreted and an article in the Daily Mail had been re-written to more accurately reflect the points she had made.
Today I realized that both articles are still active on their website. They were each written by 2 people with one of the authors changing between articles. Each article has a different link and number of comments. And they each slant MO's interview differently - one more in favor of MM, the other claims MO took a swipe at her. (see my other posts)
Is this a normal thing to do? I've seen articles updated before but I've never seen the general tone and point change like this. And now I find that the second article is not an update but a whole different article about the same topic.
Why would a media website have 2 articles online about one topic with 2 different viewpoints?
Thanks for any light you can shed on this for me. I do a lot of research online and could use some understanding of how something like this would happen.
😁😍😁😍😁
Here are the links to the two articles on the same topic:
#1 Michelle Obama says it 'wasn't a complete surprise' to hear Meghan Markle's claims of 'racism' within Royal Family: Hopes for 'forgiveness and healing' for the whole family
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9365159/Michelle-Obama-urges-Harry-Meghan-forgive-royals.html
#2 'Public service is not about us... it's about the people we serve': Michelle Obama takes thinly veiled swipe at Meghan's Oprah interview but adds she was 'NOT surprised' by claims of Royal Family racism
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9367567/Michelle-Obama-Meghan-Markle-interview-Public-service-isnt-us.html
It comes as the Duchess of Sussex was advised "it would be best if she could be 50 percent less", according to Oprah Winfrey.
The talk show star said Meghan confided in her in 2018, and the conversation left Winfrey "disheartened".
Winfrey appeared on US breakfast show CBS This Morning to discuss her bombshell interview with Meghan and the Duke of Sussex and recalled a conversation she had with Meghan when she first approached her in 2018.
She told the programme: "She had just joined the royal family and she shared a conversation with me then that made me feel somewhat disheartened.
"She said she had been told, been given advice, that it would be best if she could be 50 percent less than she was. That was the quote, if she could be 50 percent less.
"I remember hearing that in 2018 and I said to her, 'I don't know how you're going to survive, being half of yourself'."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1411340/queen-news-elizabeth-II-prince-harry-meghan-markle-exit-royal-family-latest-vn
King Goodwill Zwelithini (the Zulu king) died and will be buried tonight in a private ceremony with only male family members present.
Contradictions in the media about cause of death, but he was in hospital for diabetes-related complications. Some reports say he then contracted Covid in the ICU.
So, you can impress your friends with some news they won't know!
This should be a link directly to that story:
https://talkingtarot.tumblr.com/post/645860578088321024/ooop-theres-a-video-resurface-in-canada
https://talkingtarot.tumblr.com/page/2
So what's the holdup? I would love to see this screaming hissy fit but what is the holder of it waiting for? A payout? The 5 o'clock news?
Does anyone/everyone believe it exists?
If true, it's a look at Meghan behind closed doors and she is evil. The calm dignified demeanour the royal family, especially William and Kate, has displayed is absolute class.
Part 1 - Times Gayle King
Article #1
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harrys-calls-with-charles-and-william-not-productive-psj0zlbft
Prince Harry’s calls with Charles and William ‘not productive’
Greg Wilford
Tuesday March 16 2021, 2.15pm GMT, The Times
The Duke of Sussex has had “unproductive” talks with his brother and the Prince of Wales since his interview with Oprah Winfrey, according to a mutual friend of the duchess and the talk show host.
Gayle King, an anchor for CBS News, said that she was told about the conversations when she called the couple to ask how they were after the interview.
“Harry has talked to his brother and he has talked to his father too,” King, 66, told CBS This Morning on Tuesday.
“The word I was given was that those conversations were not productive. But they are glad that they have at least started a conversation.”
During the Oprah interview, Harry, 36, described his relationship with William, 38, as “space, at the moment” and said he felt “really let down” by the Prince of Wales.
He also claimed that Charles, 72, had “cut him off” financially and had “stopped taking my calls” while he was in Canada.
The rift between the royal family and the Sussexes was laid bare when Meghan, 39, made an allegation of racism against an unnamed royal — said not to be the Queen or Prince Philip — and said that she had felt suicidal during her pregnancy.
Buckingham Palace responded by saying that the “serious allegations” would be addressed privately, adding “recollections may vary”.
King suggested that the Sussexes were upset with the palace because they believe “false stories ... that are very disparaging against Meghan”.
“No one in the royal family has talked to Meghan yet, at this particular time,” Gayle said.
“And 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.
https://the-empress-7.tumblr.com/post/645937017030688768/hi-so-i-have-a-cousin-who-works-as-within#notes
“And until you can acknowledge that, I think it’s going to be hard to move forward.”
Her comments came after Michelle Obama, 57, expressed sympathy with the duchess, saying she had not been surprised to hear her raise the issue of race.
The former US first lady told NBC: “Race isn’t a new construct in this world for people of colour, and so it wasn’t a complete surprise to hear her feelings and to have them articulated.”
........................................................
Article #2
Prince Harry’s calls with William and Charles ‘not productive’
Ben Hoyle, Los Angeles | Valentine Low
Tuesday March 16 2021, 5.00pm GMT, The Times
Talks between the Duke of Sussex and his brother and father after the Oprah Winfrey interview have not been “productive”, a confidante of the duke and duchess said yesterday.
The couple are relieved that a dialogue is under way but upset about new stories that are “very disparaging against Meghan”, said Gayle King, one of the most high-profile television journalists in America.
King, 66, covered the couple’s wedding in Windsor in 2018 and is one of Winfrey’s closest friends. She was also among 20 guests from the duchess’s inner circle who attended her baby shower in New York before Archie was born in 2019.
All that the couple wanted was “a conversation” but no one from the royal family had contacted Meghan to address her claims in the interview with Winfrey that she had been refused help when she felt suicidal during her time as a working royal, King added.
On CBS’s This Morning, the breakfast show which she co-hosts, King addressed recent reports that Prince Harry had spoken to the Duke of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales since the interview.
“I’m not trying to break news but I did actually call them to see how they were feeling and it’s true Harry has talked to his brother and he has talked to his father too,” King said.
“The word I was given was that those conversations were not productive but they are glad that they have at least started a conversation. And I think what is still upsetting to them is that the palace keeps saying they want to work it out privately but yet they believe these false stories are coming out that are very disparaging against Meghan still — no one in the royal family has talked to Meghan yet.”
CBS This Morning enjoyed a ratings after coverage of the build-up to and fallout from the interview, which was broadcast on the same network on March 7, becoming one of the most viewed programmes of the year in the United States. It was screened in the UK the following night.
The interview led to global condemnation of the royal family after Meghan, 39, made an allegation of racism against an unnamed royal — later said not to be the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh — and added that she had felt suicidal while pregnant.
Buckingham Palace responded by saying that the “serious allegations” would be addressed privately, adding that “recollections may vary”.
Yesterday a royal source said of the talks between the duke and his family: “None of the households will be giving a running commentary on private conversations.”
King also tackled the investigation now under way into allegations of bullying made by some of the former staff of Harry and Meghan, which were first reported by The Times.
“The bullying thing was raised in 2018 and now there’s an ongoing investigation about bullying from Meghan Markle, when anyone who has worked with her will tell you exactly who she is.
“You know, she’s really a very sweet, caring person. And as I say, Meghan has documents to back up everything that she said on Oprah’s interview. Everything.”
Her comments came after Michelle Obama, 57, expressed sympathy with the duchess, saying she had not been surprised to hear her raise the issue of race.
The former US first lady told NBC: “Race isn’t a new construct in this world for people of colour, and so it wasn’t a complete surprise to hear her feelings and to have them articulated.”
“I think the thing that I hope for, and the thing I think about, is that this, first and foremost, is a family. I pray for forgiveness and healing for them so that they can use this as a teachable moment for us all.”
King responded that for that to happen: “Well, the family has to acknowledge there are issues and right now no one is acknowledging [that]. Houston — we have a problem here! That’s really all they want. They want a conversation. They both want a conversation.”
During the Oprah interview, Prince Harry, 36, described his relationship with his brother, 38, as “space, at the moment” and added that he had felt “really let down” by his father.
He also claimed that Charles, 72, had “cut him off” financially and had “stopped taking my calls” while he was living temporarily in Canada with Meghan and Archie and alleged that the royal family had “literally” cut him off financially
After King’s comments on the breakfast show, Chris Ship, ITV’s royal editor, tweeted: “Clearly, @GayleKing would not have shared these comments with millions of viewers without Meghan’s permission so this marks a significant new approach.
“Private family dissuasions will now be made public if Meghan wants it out there. She has plenty of people who can do it for her.”
A Palace statement after the interview, on behalf of the Queen, said: “The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.”
i think the Cambridges should pass/ skip the BAFTA awards and concentrate their efforts and Royal Fairy Dust where it is appreciated.
The entertainment industry currently doesn’t appreciate the BRF, they proved that last year with all their super snideness ‘jokes’ comments and I doubt that has changed at all this year.
That is the entertainment industries loss. plus CBS, the US network that aired the fake news/ Harkle lies, is the network that also aired Princess Di’s death photos. that is vile, and the BRF protested when it happened 15 -20 years ago. but obviously, Prince Harry didn’t care that he was teaming up with the network that defiled the memory of his mother to the world/ US.
Cambridges should pass, or better yet, if the BAFTAs are held in Public versus remotely, they should donate their Royal box ticktes to First Responders or Hospital Staff so they can attend and get a ‘perk’ for all their hard work this last year.
@JennS I wonder if the DM put out those two articles as a way to do A/B testing? They’re trying to figure out which narrative gets more clicks.
Markle Sibling Extraordinaire
@TheMarkleSammy
"And for PR or democrats to suggest that my sister is eyeing a bid for the presidency is like suggesting that Harvey Weinstein is eyeing a bid for the presidency LOL
I think more at issue is the fact that there are highly qualified Democrats who have held other offices who will run.
She has the diplomacy skills of a schizophrenic
She's not smart enough to be president and she has no experience in Civic or foreign affairs. That would be à joke at best. The way she has demonstrated treating great Britain already disqualifies her. She can't be president of a glee club."
🤣🤣🤣
@JennS I wonder if the DM put out those two articles as a way to do A/B testing? They’re trying to figure out which narrative gets more clicks.
...................
@Mom Mobile
Oh that's a funny thought! I will have to check which article has the higher numbers. Of course the trend is different in the tone of the comments between the articles.
I noticed that the Times didn't change their interpretation of the Obama article between their 2 Gayle King stories. They shade MO's interview statements as pro-meghan in both articles.😒
It's a PR created story that like all great PR stories has become truth because it's based on a different story that is verifiably true.
In the 6mths of the engagement, Palace PR oversold Kate as a new royal bride. The phrase 'hitting the ground running' was coined for her. The world was told that she was the most prepared bride due to her long proximity as a girlfriend, chomping at the bit to start work because paps and inquisitive journalists had prevented her working as a girlfiend. Her charities already chosen. We would be dazzled by her work ethic.
It was overkill.
And then 2 days after the wedding, the Palace announced that rather than start working as engagement PR had promised, Kate had decided to go back to be a housewife and even join her local RAF wives club. There was no time frame included.
This was not greeted with joy though her papstroll at her local supermarket plus ongoing Pippa press got glowing write ups and positive press for a few weeks.
A week or two after the palace announcement when the TV talking heads started discussing this about turn and no, one of the royal experts them randomly mentioned the Queen's Malta visits and how much she enjoyed being a housewife in Malta.
Before you knew it this random anecdote about The Queen's time in Malta became part of any write up about Kate's decision to bevome a housewife.
Before long the Malta story was embellished such that it turned into The Queen took 2yrs off from her duties staright after her wedding to go be a housewife in Malta.
Unfortunately for the PR people pushing this story, the national archives tell a different story. The Queen never took any time off post-wedding because her father needed her. His health was deteriorating so she ubdertook duties on his behalf.
Plus, Philip was stationed in Malta 2yrs AFTER their wedding, stayed for 2yrs and Queen visited him 4times for 2mths each time, but never stopped working though she took it easier when she was in Malta and definitely lived a leisurely, housewifey existence there. She's always been public about how much she enjoyed her time in Malta.
As several months past and no signs from Kate that she was going to take up any royal work AND it became known that she hadn't joined the RAF wives' club, the Malta story morphed into The Queen giving them 2yrs to enjoy their early marriage because she done the same in Malta with no duties at all.
As time went on and 2yrs became 7yrs, different excuses were found for Kate's reluctance to work or to work substantially. We criticise Megsy for her pap stroll engagements, but Kate used to clock in 15mins - 30mins engagements routinely. Royal reporters routinely tweeted time in and time out for her engagements.
When she stayed an hour or longer, it was noteworthy and printed in the papers eg her first engagement for place2be in November 2013 which was running a day long conference filled with seminars about chikd development ranging from newborns to toddlers. The seminars she attended coincided with George's 4mths age. It's the only charity that she's shown consistent and committed engagement.
Her work ethic only picked up after she got Catherine Quinn as a private secretary in 2017. CQ's hired from the Oxford business school and it was under her tutelage that Kate's overall interests were properly explored and put into action. CQ was to Kate what ELF was to Harry except that Kate was a willing student and blossomed under the guidance of an expert. She has come on leaps and bounds since 2017.
Sorry if this has been answered already - I'm trying to catch up:
Your inside story rings like the real truth. It's even worse than I'd imagined
What's the betting that Catherine did cry - and that Rache then did her 'party piece' of turning on the tap so the crocodile tears flowed? So she could make out that `Catherine made me cry'?
That she can do it is recorded on a video after all.
@Maneki Neko - that looks like the film but I found more on IMDB
Enjoyed the background to Kate's work. Creates for a great perspective.
@ Wild Boar Battle-maid
All credit to the poster on the tumblr site. The many details in it made me wonder if this is more true than false. And if it is - Meghan as an opponent scares me, I think that fear is obvious in those who couldn't speak up in the past and those who cant't today either. Such entitled arrogance creates a lingering atmosphere of submission and fear.
Do Nutties think she wasn't surprised that it existed?
Or was she not surprised that M would say it did, whether or not it was true?
There may be quite a difference.
Thanks for knocking down the Malta Myth. I knew it was false but couldn't pull the details together enough to post. I do remember though how surprising it was after all the build up when immediately after the wedding there was the "Kate's going to be a housewife" announcement. And I do remember the 15-minute pit stop appearances a few years later.
Interesting thought (about MO’s remark). You may be right.
Hi!
So I have a cousin who works as within Givenchy and one of her best friends from work was at the fittings for Meghan’s wedding dress and the flower girls. My cousin had just went on maternity leave but basically what Meghan is saying is nothing but lies and nonsense as she was a complete diva and treated the seamstresses & Givenchy staff horribly so and was nasty to Clare who was there most of the time alongside my cousin’s colleagues and best friend.
Meghan made Catherine cry, knowing she was pregnant and this was because she was incredibly nasty to Charlotte. Meghan was adamant on not having Charlotte or George in the wedding party but Charles & the Queen made her do so as they are Harry’s niece & nephew, and basically they’re paying for all this so you will do this.
Meghan didn’t pay for the dress either as Charles paid for it, and she was forever changing her mind on what style & design she wanted for the dress & veil - this is why it was such a badly fitted dress & veil because it was basically a last minute piece put together as she wouldn’t stop changing her mind.
All the staff were at their wits end because of Meghan. She would have them working on strict rules and long hours but then would shout at them saying that their work was awful, that she didn’t want it like that and forcing them to start all over again. She slapped one of the staff who was trying to do the fitting for one of the first design ideas that Meghan wanted, when they did nothing wrong. All the staff have said that Meghan definitely seemed to enjoy treating them like servants and constantly belittling them whilst on their backs about it all. Most were nervous wrecks, and I’m glad my cousin was off away from it all.
The Givenchy staff gave her nicknames such as were The Dictator Duchess-To-Be, Meddlesome Meghan and Ms. Snobby. My cousin’s colleagues say they’re certain that how Clare allowed Meghan to constantly treat them, the Givenchy staff but also the end result not reflecting the high standards of Givenchy either, is a major factor in why Clare was let go so suddenly. But Clare is apparently quite like Meghan in that they are arrogant & pushy.
But concerning Charlotte. Meghan HATED having to include her as a bridesmaid and made it quite frighteningly clear & constantly mocked and made fun of her especially when she would arrive from home or school like any young child, a bit messy from having fun, called her chubby and mocked her voice. Charlotte said to Meghan about how she’d be her new Auntie like how she had her Auntie Pippa which Meghan went off about saying she was much better than Pippa Middleton, who it had been announced privately, was pregnant.
Catherine found out from María who witnessed it, and both ladies including William were furious as Charlotte had been reduced to tears but Meghan would then mock her for crying. Ivy Mulroney isn’t a nice little girl whatsoever, and was constantly rude to the women working on her dress fittings when she arrived and Meghan definitely showed a lot of favouritism towards Ivy over Charlotte and pitted them against one another, saying that Ivy was going to be the best flower girl and that Charlotte should learn how a proper girl behaves, basically encouraged Ivy to bully Charlotte which she did. Charlotte ended up getting pulled out of the fittings due to how Meghan and also Jess & Ivy were mocking and bullying her which is the reason why Charlotte’s dress didn’t fit to her proper measurements as the seamstresses had to use Florence van Cutsem for the fitting of Charlotte’s dress. Meghan had been rude to Catherine, Charlotte and María for pretty much the whole thing, and a strong rumour is that is one of the reasons the FabFour summit was so tense.
The shoes were a big issue for the British born flower girls and their parents as they were really uncomfortable for them but Meghan refused to let them wear tights or even socks, and said to the Givenchy and Aquazurra staff that this was what happens when you coddle children, they turn into horrible whiny brats that want everything when it is HER wedding. The flower crown head-wreaths were also last minute and literally had Charlotte told at before she got in the car that here was hers which is when it was quickly fitted best as possible. Ivy was singled out again by Meghan as the special one, and called the mini maid of honour which is why she didn’t have a flower crown head-wreath or her own bouquet as Meghan had made it clear to all the other girls even Remi and Rylan, children of her college friend that they weren’t as good as Ivy.
The florist was so last minute getting chased up that it is a reason for why the flower colour scheme didn’t fit with the wedding & flower-girl dress colours. Clare tried to get Meghan to try a more muted white fitting for a divorcee and an understated veil but Meghan just screamed at her about unnecessary negative opinions and my cousin’s best friend that was there at the time.
Thank you for this. This is horrendous, far worse than I imagined. Megalo is unhinged. This is not a one off, her despicable behaviour seems to have been a constant during the dress fittings etc. Who mocks a young like like that? And the fact she didn't want to include George and Charlotte show how nasty and mean she is. She should have been delighted to include them. She is definitely a psychiatric case.
Oh my! Thank you for the news on the birthday of Hot Rob! @JennS, are you having Champagne and cake? 🎂🥂
“Born on March 17: You are spontaneous and creative. You like indulging in all kinds of experiences. You are also well known for spirituality and passion. The inner workings of your mind are full of spiritual and philosophical questions, which explains why you may have spent a great deal of time dwelling on the meaning of life. You are also a determined, motivated but restless person. You often are successful but can transcend greatness to see the practical side of life.”
Knowing all they knew at the time- they should have stopped the over-the-top wedding. She basically just threw it in their faces in the interview claiming it wasn’t for her anyway. I’m sure that gobsmacked Charles and his accountant. To be that level of ungrateful and entitled? She basically called the RF suckers.
I read elsewhere that she is setting the stage for the bullying claims to come out. Everyone’s racist. Her reactions were to race remarks etc.
I really don’t understand at all why a newbie Royal was swiftly granted unlimited access and privilege.
I also remember reading that the Cambridge KP staff early on was filled with young 20 somethings that were friends with and similar in age to the Cambridges. It was very looseygoosey. Then there was some staff turnover and they got some older seasoned professional tyoes in place. Sounds like the professionals helped organize and guide them alot.
Its intersting that the pro came on juat as MM (competition) was coming on the scene and maybe that also lite a fire under Kates butt. She put a foot out of place since then.
If MM had given it more time....and wasnt psycho....maybe it would have all worked out.
Re MO's comment s about `racism in the FR-
Do Nutties think she wasn't surprised that it existed?
Or was she not surprised that M would say it did, whether or not it was true?
There may be quite a difference.
................
AnT said...
@Wild Boar Battle-maid,
Interesting thought (about MO’s remark). You may be right.
..................
@Wild Boar @AnT
Yes, that's a good point and your idea is also another reminder MO should have kept quiet on such a sensitive topic with the stakes so high.
For some reason MO's words although not nearly as harsh as other folks are bothering me more. Meghan's fans are claiming her as a supporter now.
Reading her comment once again which I've pasted below, I think she is saying she is not surprised that MM CLAIMS to have found racism within the monarchy. And she is also not surprised MM is verbalizing her feelings about it (this could potentially be a dig). She does not confirm MM's racism claims but all her words/statements are actually too subtle and ambiguous and have added to this mess.
“Race isn’t a new construct in this world for people of colour, and so it wasn’t a complete surprise to hear her feelings and to have them articulated.”
Have you ladies ever seen two articles written so differently before?
☘Hot💋Rob☘ is a St Patty's babe?
Oh how cute!!!
I shall send him some sweet leprechaun kisses and a wee pot of gold.☘
No champagne for me tonight but I'm having corned beef and cabbage in honor of my Irish ancestors!
@AnT what is your hubby doing tonight?☘
🍀☘☘🍀☘☘🍀☘☘🍀
How ironic are Lady C's claims that Harry blackmailed his grandparents with claims of racism if they didn't let him marry Megalo?
Now look where we are - like you said - it was always going to happen. They should have realized that.
We once discussed here what would have happened if the Queen had said NO to their marriage. It was explained that they could have gotten married on their own - no royal wedding, just a normal one and they would have been out of the family. She probably would have walked away.
Another thought I've been having a lot lately after seeing the look on her face when she said they were married prior to the wedding...they tied the knot sometime earlier and the RF couldn't do anything about it.
Thank you for giving us the full text of that story from the person whose cousin worked at Givenchy.....but, my god. If this is accurate, even 50% accurate, M is certifiable. That is child abuse, as well as emotional abuse of that staff. What a monster. Again, I hope Archie isn’t real, or is safe far away. But I am worried sick about the next baby, and the dogs. This is....she is a psychopath.
Is this our most accurate glimpse into what life must have been like for Kate, and what life is like now for Harry? Her total madness during the year of lockdown must be off the charts.
We are watching The Quiet Man! I know you are busy with family, but it is on TCM now too. Happy St Patrick’s Day!
That reads worse than anything I was thinking. Poor Charlotte saying you will be my new auntie like Pippa and Meg shoots her down and says better. Demented. So many horrible moments in that . Pitting the kids against eachother. She really is twisted.
I saw further back that someone mentioned lumping in Meghan with being progressive and/or “woke.” I’m definitely liberal, but certainly not taken in by all of H & M’s nonsense. Trust me, no one here across the pond is electing Meghan for dog-catcher, let along President, despite her delusions of grandeur. I also don’t see how they plan to make any money. So far, they’re not setting the world on fire with any of their Netflix or Spotify ventures. Honestly, she should have just sucked it up and done her Royal duties as well as possible (this would mean TAKING INSTRUCTION) until the furor died down. Seems to me 5 minutes ago the tabloids were hysterical every time Catherine put a foot wrong or wore the wrong thing—the tabloids would have moved on, like they did with Catherine.
My personal part of the Oprah/Harkle lovefest was when Meghan declared that she personally calls the Queen. HEH??? If people believe that, I have property in the Everglades to sell them...
I slow cooked corned beef brisket in Guinness for Mr AnT, with potatoes, cabbage and carrots, and an attempt at bread! We are feasting and watching the Quiet Man movie. He normally goes out with the brothers and guys to celebrate, so trying to add cheer with Guinness!
Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you and Hot Rob! 🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀
Did you see a little further back where the person is speculating that Mm and H were married secretly by Welby during her confirmation classes, which occurred during Jan or Feb 2018. That MM and H used a (possibly fake) pregnancy to justify the secret marriage to Welby.
She doesn't offer a reason why they would have done such a thing. Just that why would mm say they were secretly married if they weren't. (My own comment: surely this being her 3rd wedding and at age 39+, mm knows the difference a conversation and a ceremony or rite of the church.)
She speculates that a mm deliberately brought it up during the chicken coop conversation for nefarious reasons, as yet unknown. Possibly just to cause havoc with PP and the Queen. Or possibly in the way of a threat...do what I want or I spill the beans on the secret wedding. Or maybe just to throw her weight around.
She further speculates that the family was only told about the secret marriage a week or so before the wedding, with one person not being told until 2 days before the wedding. That could certainly explain all the sour looks on the part of the family, couldn't it.
It could also explain Welby's silence in this matter. He doesn't want to publicly lie.
Notice that he has not personally come out and denied that he married them 3 days before. He hasn't personally denied that he married them at any time other than the official wedding. His silence is interesting.
Things to ponder.Remains to be seen how it plays out.
@Jessica
"All the staff were at their wits end because of Meghan. She would have them working on strict rules and long hours but then would shout at them saying that their work was awful, that she didn’t want it like that and forcing them to start all over again. She slapped one of the staff who was trying to do the fitting for one of the first design ideas that Meghan wanted, when they did nothing wrong. All the staff have said that Meghan definitely seemed to enjoy treating them like servants and constantly belittling them whilst on their backs about it all. Most were nervous wrecks, and I’m glad my cousin was off away from it all."
WOW. This whole story, if true, and I hope it is, really shows us who Meghan is. It also kind of makes more sense why Meghan tried to throw Kate under the bus. She knew this was hanging over here and was trying to get her lying version out there first, and she's clearly jealous of Kate on top of it all. Poor Charlotte. What she went through was horrible and when that comes to light, even the the Wokies, will abandon that sinking ship. Their all a bunch of users anyway. Will Oprah be done as well as an interview with the "big gets?" One can only hope. I still can't fathom how Harry could marry and stand by such a divisive and ugly harridan? Then again, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets!" So, he's got some ego issues too, I guess.
It's unusual to see two versions of the same story, but there could be some reasons. one would be an "update" with new info, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
My guess is that an editor came on duty late and had it changed for unknown reasons. Those reasons could be that they wanted the clickbait to be higher than the original story, so they added some punch to the article.
It could be that somebody with a lot of clout, either the BRF, HMTQ, Charles or Will or gave "suggestions" to an editor for some changes, or that MO was really pissed off and asked for changes, but my guess is that The Harkles made some behind the scenes threats, forcing them to change their copy.
Usually, if an article is changed, the news org will write something like, "This article was updated at (time)." It's unusual that this is missing.
I also made two guesses above, and meant to have only one. My guess is that The Harkles sent a threat of some kind.
When MO said she wasn't surprised, I think she was saying that, as a public figure, MM might have experienced some racist remarks, as MO did as first lady, but she was not implying that the BRF had anything to do with it.
Lady C’s latest video gives an excellent description of their psychological issues.. it is not her most exciting presentation, but merits a close listen. Perhaps in her next video, she will explain the difficulty of treating their deep psychological issues. Neither MM or JH are ever likely to seek the necessary therapy to address their problems.
While we can express our moral outrage @ their behavior, MM will never see anything wrong with her behavior. It is always somebody else fault; blame it on the BFR, but never will she examine her role in destroying her future and that of Harry’s. She is a victim but has underestimated the strength of her perceived enemy and those who support the BFR.
“ My personal part of the Oprah/Harkle lovefest was when Meghan declared that she personally calls the Queen. HEH??? If people believe that, I have property in the Everglades to sell them...”
😂😂😂 You picked on that too!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9372607/Meghan-Markles-engagement-dress-designer-Ralph-Russo-set-collapse-covid-19.html
Snip: "Ralph & Russo, the high-end clothing designer behind Meghan Markle's semi-sheer engagement shoot dress, has gone into administration, it was announced today.
The London-based label, which specialises in creating haute couture and ready-to-wear gowns loved by celebrities, has appointed administrators to investigate 'all possible options' for the company."
I am convinced everything Megs does or says is the opposite of reality, due to the twists of her brain.
Is Charlotte fat? No, and neither is Kate, but Kate makes Megs feel like a dumpy toad, hence the abusive language toward her child.
By the way, Megs abusiveness to Charlotte supports the Markle warning about not letting Megs be left alone with children.
But, it makes the coy smile she gave to Harry during the wedding ceremony seem even creepier.
Warning: if you are or were a Louis Jourdan (actor) fan, read no further.
... .... ......
Actor Louis Jourdan was a narcissist. I once worked with an older woman who’d grown up in the privileged side of life in LA, and knew Jourdan’s son, same school near LA. She said the boy was severely emotionally (I will add “allegedly” here, but I believe her) abused by his father, and terrified, morose, depressed. She was about 11 when she stopped at the Jourdan home with homework for him, and caught Jourdan screaming at the cowering boy. Jourdan saw her, snarled at her, she fled. She tried from that day on to help the shattered, shy boy through school, and after, but the ending is tragic. I think any child of Megs may be in similar danger. It is upsetting.
I think Megs is using the “we got married before the spectacle wedding for two reasons:
1. To spit in the face of the Queen and Charles: “I tricked you! You can’t tell me what to do or when to marry!”
2. To prove to the world that Harry wanted to marry her so desperately, he couldn’t wait! Because she probably reads all the millions of hostage comments and went crazy and came up with this story. He wasn’t Diana going glumly through the wedding due to “the tea towels being printed” as the tale went.
On the other hand,
1. I think they may have at least thought they married early, being ignorant of Church law, as Megs was certainly worried that someone would stop them before the Big Day. (William with two guards and a sword? Kate with Maria, each armed with a shoe? Philip in a Land Rover? The Queen and Philip meeting Senior Master Grifter, Doria?)
2. Then why has she claimed to be a weeping broken mess because her daddy “couldn’t be there” on her fake big day?
3. I know of three real life genuine gold diggers who married their husband choices for money. Each of them demanded have three, four and three ven six wedding ceremonies in different “special places” — theorizing out loud (two of them, while drunk) that this way it would be much much harder to annul the marriage or get a divorce. More money! So.... all three are still married and miserable.
justice of peace or Registrars office, Vegas, their home, at party with a friend with an online minister accreditation, Italian countryside, cruise, NYC in park for fun, church wedding, in former home town where once lived, Hawaii,Florida beach..... anywhere and everywhere!
Post on LSA, Unpop MM op thread 2, post #219790
🧶 🐸“Hi guys, I’ve been reading your thread for a few weeks after my friend told me about it. I have never felt the nee pd to speak out about it publicly, but I worked on Suits in a service position. I will say meghan faked having a gluten intolerance and being vegan. I think she might actually have bulimia as I definitely saw disordered eating on set. But the bullying accusations seem absolutely in character. She was a terror to work with, and I suspect it’s gotten a lot worse now that she has more power.” 🧶
⚡️⚡️🧶
More sources speaking up on Megs’ alleged bullying,
This time, from a Tourre Bakahai retweet of a tweet comment written by Russell Myers on Mar 13:
“..Royal sources tell RoyaNikkhah: ‘The actual worst incidences haven’t come out. There are some harrowing stories to tell.”
⚡️⚡️🧶
✨🧶. And, from Penny Junor, in the Mirror today:
“William is very protective of Kate and can get very angry, For Meghan to name Kate in a negative light is worse than getting attacked himself.”
Oh oh! Megs better have great running shoes.
Have not really been on since the interview. The backlash towards the Royal family and any criticism of The Maleficent One was unbearable.
Am tip toeing back in. Just read Milo Yiannopoulos commentary in The Spectator (Australian edition). Nothing new, but heartwarming for me to read.
His first line: 'Meghan Markle is a vicious, conniving, hypocritical, manipulative, unlikable witch."
Milo can dish it out and sometimes take it (and sometimes not). For those of you familiar with Milo, he is entering a new phase in his life and is coming out as straight. Whatever you think of him, he is bitchy and biting, even about himself.
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/068/735/048/original/0174227606aeac0f.png
Angelina is pushing the Brad was abusive and I have receipts story in The Blast according to the DM. This kind of thing has been surfacing periodically since 2016.
So years now and not really what you call an end in sight. There's a lesson or two here?
Sounds like you and Mr AnT had a great Silent Man feast! Top of the morn to ya! We went to my sister's house for our corned beef dinner. yum yum 🍀😁🍀
@Puds said...
One of the reporters said that the Palace want to close down all discord including the bullying allegation.
...............
@Puds
Gosh I hope this doesn't mean the RF are backing down! I thought the fact they hired an outside law firm to investigate signified they meant business. Do you remember which reporter said this? I don't have a Twitter account but can look through their timelines.
I do think that Jason Knauf is very anxious to go ahead with the bullying claims. I believe he was bullied himself. I read that he wants to clear his name. He's been accused of being racist, of inventing the bullying stories, of harassing MM. I don't remember where I read it but I saw somewhere online that he would need to clear his name for future employment as well as personal satisfaction and for the sake of the other employees who came to him for help.
I wonder what happened with Melissa T? Your post above brought back memories. I think I recall reading at the time that MM hired MT because she had experience working with a celeb (Madonna). I remember that story about her calling around for the free clothes.
Just recently I have seen MM's fans arguing on Twitter with Markle-critics about Melissa being inexperienced and that she was let go for gross misconduct. This is so unfair to Melissa. I don't know what really happened but it was publicly reported that she quit!
I always thought it was MT who was the target of the tea but more recently it has been said that it was an Admiralty staff member.
One story about Melissa on the Australian tour was that she was the recipient of a mighty tongue lashing from the vile one while helping her get dressed/ready for her Invictus speech!
I also don't see how the RF could give in to MM re the bullying complaints since they owe an obligation to all the staff who have come forward. It's all out in the public domain now so they can't hide the complaints.
Markle has some nerve speaking out claiming it's all an agenda to malign her. IMO the palace should release a public statement through the attorneys to legitimize the investigation and shut her down - send her a cease and desist or whatever similar legal doc necessary. She should not be allowed to continue to bully and intimidate her ex-staff and the rf this way.
Yes, The Maleficent Ones are like two castor (poison) beans in a pod. Those kids will be adults before the divorce is finalized. No one AJ had to see her Churchill artwork.
I am sure when Meghan looks in the mirror she sees Angelina's reflection.
No wonder AJ had to sell her Churchill artwork (for 11.5million) btw.
I thought the latest Lady C video was a very calculated ploy by the palace. They clearly believe that MM and Just Harry watch Lady C, and want to provoke MM into even more extreme narc rage by exposing her mental illness to her, in the hopes she self-destructs completely. She does seem on the brink. Perhaps also a message to JH reminding him of his mental problems, which the palace knows about and has handled compassionately before. Though the video was dull by Lady C's usual dramatic standards, I doubt it was dull to her intended audience of two in Montecito. We were mere bystanders in this strategic move, IMO.
I found the reporter - it was indeed Palmer. I made a copy of everything he said. I'll look for you tomorrow as I'm falling asleep. 😴
You may, or may not, recall I once mentioned an article written by Giles Fraser, a fairly left-wing CofE clergyman. In a recent post, since the interview, I referred to it again, wondering if `he'd have to eat his own sermon?'
Nobody picked up on it - I expect the title was off-putting.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/nov/30/how-meghan-markle-might-bring-the-royals-closer-to-christ-the-king
Anyway, here's the critical paragraph -:
'It was a similar logic that had the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, having a go at the government’s definition of extremism last year. In an address to school leaders, he described a conversation with “a very senior politician” who thought it was obvious that an extremist could be defined as someone whose faith is more important than the rule of law. Welby responded: “Well, you’ve got a real problem here because for me personally my faith is more important than the rule of law, so you have an extremist sitting here with you.” He went on: “We do not believe as Christians that the rule of law outweighs everything else, we believe that the kingdom of God outweighs everything else.” It was a version of the “No King but Jesus” banner.'
Do you think this will come back to haunt him or will he be in the clear?
*Shocking allegations about Meghan's dithering behaviour over her wedding dress, bridesmaids dresses and head pieces. But most of all about her favouritism of one bridesmaid to the detriment of others. Is it true?
https://twitter.com/angelalevin1/status/1372442910331973632
Thanks for sharing that article on Welby.
He forgets that the head of the Church is actually the Queen!
I think he did perform a marriage ceremony three days before the wedding ... exchanging of vows, blessing ... married in the eyes of God.
The investigation at the Palace, to Meghan, is all about an attack on her. It's not. The investigation is the last thing that the Queen wants. They have a dignity at work policy and are funded by taxpayers. And they have 'principals' who cannot be fired or sanctioned and who are not hired for their ability to do the job. It is a nightmare for the Firm. What went wrong with their HR department? What could they have done and who could have done it? What can they do to 'manage' the behaviour of 'principals'?
The doubts I have mostly come from not understanding how the outfits of children in the bridal party would be fitted as its not usual in American weddings to have multiple young girls as participants. Since I don't know how that's done, I'm skeptical and think this account seems potentially cobbled together citing known events for authenticity.
The account says Kate was pregnant so it had to happen before April 23 and probably not nearly as late as that week. The account also seems to suggest the critical incident happened early & Charlotte didn't attend later fittings. The account also suggests the "Fab Four Summit" was tense because of the Charlotte issue. If the summit was the group interview, that was in Feb. But if that Charlotte incident happened very early how did the "I'm going to be a better aunt than Pippa" kick in with Charlotte since it was mentioned Pippa was pregnant at the time? It says that was privately known but Pippa gave birth in Oct. Would she have been sharing pregnancy news-- even privately-- in Feb?
I can't believe for early "fittings" (more like measuring, I'd think) you'd have the entire gang of girls from two continents all there at the same time. They are kids after all. And would you really have everybody fly to the UK from Canada and the US for multiple group fittings? But for the Meg-directed Ivy bullying of Charlotte to happen, there had to be group meetings. If W&K pulled Charlotte out as reported, why not just send someone from Givenchy to KP to do a private fitting vs fit her dress to another child? Perhaps W&K wouldn't allow that but that's kind of dumb since they weren't pulling Charlotte out of the wedding.
On LSA where this account also appears, it says there were eight separate bridesmaid dress fittings. I flat out don't believe that. I don't care if it was Givenchy or not, but those simple children's dresses would not have required eight fittings even if I were making them! The hems were wonky besides (not only Charlotte's) Parts of the account could be true though.
You couldn't write this stuff for even the worst of soap operas.
Fastforward to Feb/ March 2021 when the bullying claims are made public and articles are written about the various staff who'd left Meghan's employment in record time. All were publicly identified by the media.
At first Meghan said it was a smear campaign by the palace because they were afraid of what she had to say in the tv interview.
When the palace didn't back down, a vicious smear was sent to deuxmoi that specifically targeted Melissa. It claimed that Melissa was incompetent, lied to get her job at the Palace and had been sacked for gross misconduct. All the terrible things circulating about her time with Meghan.
A couple of days later, specifically the morning after the interview, Janina ( Meghan's friend) talks to This Morning, a UK tv show, and alludes to an employee being sacked for gross misconduct.
After that the blind at deuxmoi went viral. Almost all Meghan critics saw it for the smear it was and the Sussex Squad took it as the starting point to smear Melissa.
The smear has now been embellished by a freelance journalist (Helene N Moore) who has the Guardian and NYTimes in her twitter bio to add that Melissa was or is Jason K's girlfriend and Jason is trying to smear Meghan as revenge for sacking Melissa.
Btw, Jason K is gay!!!!
This smear is standard SUnshine Sachs tactics, and it says alot that Melissa is the target because she's the one who can inflict the most damage while Jason is being targetted because he is the one who brought the claims.
Harvey and Michael Jackson used Sunschine Sachs to smear their accusers in much the same way. .
One of their smear jobs for Harvey was revealed after #meToo snared him. It involved an Italian model who went to the police after Harvey tried to assault her. She later returned to trap him as he propositioned her in a sting operation which tape was later played to the world.
Harvey got Sunschine Sachs to plant articles in the media that she was a prostitute who was a regular paid member of Berlusconi's Bunga Bunga parties.
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/harvey-weinstein-ambra-gutierrez-page-six-daily-mail-smear-campaign
The fact that Meghan is willing to use similar tactics is beyond despicable and i hope it's traced to them and revealed publicly and i hope Melissa and Jason can sue them all.
Melissa Touabti worked 'happily'for Robbie Williams (also Madonna). I seem to remember that Robbie Williams was a demanding employer (I could be wrong), but if this is the case, I'm certainly not implying he's a bully. Robbie and his wife are close to the royal family, and attended Princess Eugenie’s wedding.
'Melissa, 39, has been snapped up by Natalie Livingstone, journalist wife of billionaire Richard Livingstone who owns super-posh stately home Cliveden House.
Melissa is to be weekend nanny for the couple and their three children at their £20million Notting Hill home.' (DM)
Pippa's pregnancy is the glaring bit that rings false because if all this trouble also includes the fab four forum that took place in February her time line doesn't add up.
She gave birth in late October so if we work backwards she was in the process of getting pregnant in February.
I agree with you that it's highly likely that is what happened and how he thinks.
On a theological point though, Jesus Christ is Head of the Church (in it's very broadest, catholic with a small `c').
Henry VIII may have called himself that, in contradistinction to the Pope. HM's correct title is `Supreme Governor of the Church of England'
Wikipedia explains it well:
By 1536, King Henry VIII of England had broken with the Holy See, seized assets of the Catholic Church in England and Wales and declared the Church of England as the established church with himself as its supreme head. The Act of Supremacy 1534 confirmed the king's status as having supremacy over the church and required the peers to swear an oath recognising Henry's supremacy.[2] Henry's daughter Mary I attempted to restore the English Church's allegiance to the pope and repealed the Act of Supremacy in 1555.[3] Elizabeth I ascended to the throne in 1558 and the Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy 1558 which restored the original act.[4] To placate critics, the Oath of Supremacy which peers were required to swear, gave the monarch's title as supreme governor rather than supreme head of the church. This wording avoided the charge that the monarchy was claiming divinity or usurping Christ, whom the Bible explicitly identifies as head of the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England
In the temporal sense, though, she is Welby's `boss' - as far as I'm aware, she has never intervened in Church matters, unlike the first Elizabeth.
That Elizabeth is credited with blocking a firm definition on the CofE's belief to what happened at Communion/Mass - whatever Christ meant by `This is My Body/Blood', that's what she accepted. Whether or not she declared that she had no wish to make a window into men's souls isn't clear - but that was the general idea. There is no obligation to believe, or not believe, in Transubstantiation.
In those days, religion was tied up with international politics but as long as one kept quiet, turned up regularly at the parish church and did not harbour Roman Catholic priests who had come to celebrate Mass, one was safe.
Barbara Pym frequently mentions Anglo-Catholics - that's the wing of the CofE that since the 1830s has sought to restore the Catholic element in the CofE. I was once present when a former AofC led the saying of the Angelus at a one-day pilgrimage to commemorate the start of the Oxford Movement.
It also looks as if one of my London ancestors was up in court in 1614 for `not repairing to church' ie was a Catholic. A little later that century, my Sussex ancestors failed to sign a pledge of allegiance to Charles I, which suggested the same. A little later still, it looks as if another member of the same family made a bit of local history as as a Captain in Parliament's army. Such is civil war.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9375445/Piers-Morgan-criticises-Gayle-King-comments-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle.html
'And if something, God forbid, had happened to him, the interview would not have run at this particular time. But the interview was done and was scheduled before he went into the hospital. But a lot of people have raised that point.'
But there appear to be inconsistencies in her story. On the day that Philip was admitted to King Edward VII's Hospital, Miss King went on air to say that Oprah had been working on her questions 'all weekend' and had been told by Meghan that 'nothing was off limits', intimating the interview had yet to be filmed.
This was backed by industry sources, who told ITV that the interview would be filmed later that week. It was shown on CBS in the US on March 7 and on ITV in the UK the following evening.
MT can ruin Megalo. I think she’s a key witness to her appalling behavior before and after the wedding. I remember how the palace praised MT when she left and reports were coming out saying that Megalo was fuming about that statement. Unfortunately, due to NDAs and to save her career, I am afraid we won’t learn much🙄
The palace made a great mistake covering for her. They should have let the truth out then!
How frightfully magnanimous of them! How thoroughly decent of them!! So very considerate!!!
Thank you sharing the information about CofE history. The more I read about the current Archbishop of Canterbury, the more I smell an odd duck among the lambs. And, I enjoyed reading about the history of some of your ancestors as well! Fascinating.
Makes me wonder if Shallow Harry is even aware of the historical context from which he emerged.
So easy for them to say that now when prior to the show, Oprah’s interview producers and CBS were putting out statements across American news sources that the program would absolutely not be cancelled for any reason. Now they are trying to backpedal fast as polls are slamming them, and because oh oh! Philip is back home in the nest of power.
One of my LA industry friends said at the time that CBS would never cancel it and would look as the hospitalization and a potential death as great extra PR. Sick.
If you sign any NDA under duress (quitting after an abuse episode) or potential crime is involved, I believe you can normally be released from the NDA for purpose of testimony. At least that is how it worked for a friend who gave a statement once in the US; there are cases where NDAs and non-competes can be re-evaluated or found to be egregious under circumstances. I know of one U.K. firm where a man had his NDA walked back specifically to supply a statement as well for a similar reason.
I hope @Opus can weigh in.
Thanks, @AnT
One Tudor economic policy was tied up with religious observance in strange ways - once ferociously Protestant Edward VI ascended the throne we had to eat fish on Fridays, and sometimes other days again. Forget luscious fresh fish - it was dried stuff, almost a penance to have to eat it, partly to support fishing and partly to avoid over-exploitation of herds and flocks.
See https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232770977.pdf
Peter Iver Kaufman: Fasting in England in the 1560s: "A Thinge of Nought"? 2003
Nevertheless, if one didn't want to be suspected of Catholicism, I gather one had to be seen to eat a little meat as well!
For Janina to publicly smear private citizen MT at the obvious behest of Megs, would I thInk be actionable. I doubt MT will wish to spend her time and money pursuing the she-beast of hell, but, she has that in her back pocket if a more powerful guardian angel decided to help her.
Overall, it seems to me that Megs continues to deploy the tactics that worked for her in junior high and high school as resident mean girl.
I did read somewhere that the Other Side were alleging that Philip's time in hospital was being used as a diversion, even that it was all made up.
As you say -sick.
(Delightfully) OT,
I’d never heard that before! Lol, the practicality of religious leadership when influenced by kings! And the bite of meat to avoid a different sort of persecution as well. I can imagine being a tired hardworking common man or country peasant, rolling one’s eyes at the latest edict, and sneaking the secret egg.
I read that too. The more these creatures reveal themselves in their vile statements, cruelty, lack of empathy and ruthlessness, the more eyes will be opened. Fellow hell-creatures will always cheer them (like the one starting her kindness brand by praising the Sussex sugars as the most loving and kind stans in the SM world!) — but at least we know who and what they are.
I am also skeptical of the bridezilla post. As you have said, much of story simply doesn’t add up.
Friends of Meghan told the DM exclusively on 5th March:
“Even if Meghan had the choice to postpone the Oprah special she said she wouldn’t because it has absolutely nothing to do with Prince Philip and that this is just an excuse by the palace to keep her muzzled.
Prince Harry has no say on the matter. What’s done is done. Meghan said now the whole world can see what she had to endure for months on end. No support whatsoever and now even across the pond, still no loyalty or support.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9330101/Meghan-Markle-claims-palace-using-Prince-Philips-health-excuse-muzzled.html
But now Gayle wants us to believe that Meghan and Garry were concerned enough to negotiate a deal that postponed the interview in the event of his death?!
And what a demonstration of callousness and lack of empathy because they would have smeared the Queen and the family as they grieved for Philip?
How is that better?
I was working in Ibiza during the summer of 2019, and worked at a luxury hotel complex that has its own spa & wellness centre, restaurants with its own luxury cocktail bar and is eco friendly sustainability designed with Feng Shui in mind as well. I know for a fact that Meghan and Harry were there quite a lot as it’s 5 star and ultra luxury-exclusive. They basically never left, I worked in the cocktail bar area in the evenings until the early mornings and then in one of the restaurants in the day for my shifts, as I was trying to save up money as a student.
Archie was never with them. At all. Which I found strange and so did the staff in the spa & wellness centre as many mothers take their babies along with them for mother-baby sessions, or the pools but nope no sign of Archie whatsoever. Not even with his nanny, Harry and Meghan were there themselves.
One night I was off as I had been unwell that day, and my coworkers that I was friendly with said that Meghan was full on wasted out of her mind, and kept shouting for refills then changing her order. Harry was nippy with them as well which for such a luxury high end hotel complex like the one I worked at, was very disturbing as we had served some really famous people before and literal billionaires who are known for being high maintenance but Meghan especially made herself known as someone nobody wanted to serve or treat. There is even yoga sessions that happens but Meghan who I thought was into it, was never there but always in the restaurant or cocktail bar criticising staff members over everything even how they picked up wine glasses or picked up things that had dropped. One of my coworkers heard that during a spa session Meghan threw a hot stone at the woman doing her massage that was filed as a complaint to Kensington Palace by all accounts. But I’ve worked in a few luxury hotel complexes and billionaire hangouts as a student saving money up, and I just want to point out I never prostitued myself or was a yacht girl at all and that Harry & Meghan, the latter especially are one of the most entitled rude people I have ever come across in my career and life. Glad that I’m out of it now as I’ve graduated from my degree program with a very good job in the hospitality business 😊
And then I still go back to - we are not even at March 31 yet and that was suppose to the the end of the one year reveiw. We know decisions were made, but we dont know all of them. We could be seeing more crazy stuff ahead of March 31. And even then, there may not be a public pronouncement. Like the archwell logo, we are seeing shift in narrative with little Duchess and Duke titles being used and no royal logo
It was a combination of division of what was considered peasant food vs food for the wealthy eg oysters were considered peasant food.
Together with heavy influence of the church which dictated how much meat vs fish could be eaten and when throughout the year. The church imposed so many fish eating days that people resorted to re-classifying sea mammals as 'fish' just to ba able to eat it eg beaver and ducks were re-classified as 'fish', but not Geese or Swans!!!
The Protestant church was in reality Catholic lite and simply carried on the traditions and rules laid down by the catholic church and wanting to differentiate themselves imposed even more fish eating days.
The rules around food kept changing throughout history such that even the puritans brought in their own rules and then it changed again with the restoration.
To this day, strict catholics observe at least one day a week as a fish eating day!!!
Ps: i'm so glad we got rid of the puritans - apologies to Americans, but at least they gave us registry weddings on account of their belief that church weddings were catholic popery!!!
@Wild Boar Battle-maid,
Thank you sharing the information about CofE history. The more I read about the current Archbishop of Canterbury, the more I smell an odd duck among the lambs.
I could Google this for myself, but I'm just throwing it out here . . Isn't it correct that the Sovereign appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury? 'Odd Duck' is right in re. to Justin Welby. I am in fact deeply suspicious of this person. Like our malicious Madame Muckety Muck, he seems to have emerged from nowhere and exploited shady connections to rise to a position of great influence and power in an incredibly brief space of time, and with dubious credentials for the position he holds. He went from being a civilian working for Big Oil to having his spiritual conversion and rising to be a bishop within what, 5, 6 years? Unheard of. Then even more unlikely, being appointed the top church man in England with such a brief tenure while still in his 50s.
He seems to have quite a bit in common, philosophically speaking with Pope Francis, who must be the most progressive Pope in history. I find the synchronicity interesting. Progressive sounds so positive, but what it most often means in practice is the tearing down and obliterating of tradition because in the current atmosphere, anything that happened more than ten years ago is by its very nature bad and must be destroyed.
Makes me wonder if Shallow Harry is even aware of the historical context from which he emerged.
Since I don't think Haz is capable of writing more than his own name without assistance (or cheating) I'm going with 'Not at all'. Not for lack of trying to teach him on behalf of the family, I'm sure. Like his wife, Harry seems to be unteachable. It's quite shocking that a prince of England would know far less about his own family than even an average American. If the family were relying on Haz to teach Meg all about Royal history and protocol, they were delusional. I don't think they expected Harry to take that on, given his obstinate refusal to be schooled. I'm sure they hired tutors for Meghan though, only to be met with the same brick wall.
Johnny Depp, 57, lost libel case over claims he beat his ex Amber Heard for three years beginning in 2013
Judge accepted 12 of Heard's 14 allegations that actor attacked her and dismissed star's 'gold-digger' claim
The Pirates of the Caribbean star has now applied to London's Court of Appeal for full re-trial of his libel claim
His lawyers claim Ms Heard lied about giving away her $7m divorce settlement and donations were about $1m
Neither the actor or his ex-wife were at court in central London for appeal hearing with ruling at a later date
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9375995/Johnny-Depps-lawyers-accuse-Amber-Heard-lying-giving-5-5m-divorce-settlement-charity.html
_________________________
I always thought Amber's donations were fake. Seems like Depps lawyers got the goods on her. We shall see. More amusement now that the Megsy scene has gone a bit quiet until the Sussex titles get stripped at the end of this month. No one can predict but hopefully the Useless Twosome wake up on April Fools day to find out they are no longer Sussex
I tried to watch the appeal LIVE but it was too difficult to follow as the sound quality was very poor.
However, Nick Wallis covered it brilliantly. (as he did last time.)
Here's the link for anyone who might be interested.
https://twitter.com/nickwallis/status/1372498087286083587
Unfortunately, the CEO does not intend to sue: 'But Dmitry Pryanishnikov, chief executive of Am Werdertor's parent company Allea Group, was unconcerned by the similarities today when he said: 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.'
Mr Pryanishnikov added: 'Despite obvious similarities between our logo and the logo of Archewell, we do not plan to take any action in this regard, as the subject projects are very much different by their nature, so we do not take offence.'
The article shows the two logos, which look remarkably similar. A marketing executive said 'There seems to be no diligent research and effort done in creating unique branding and a creative logo for Archewell,' she said.
'In any branding project nowadays, it is important to do online research for similar names, logos and check if they are trademarked or copyrighted.
'Especially if you are a global firm, research should be done on a global scale. Isn't Archewell a global charity organization? They should know better.'
Twitter users were equally scathing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9376829/Austrian-property-firm-boss-laughs-claims-Harry-Meghan-plagiarised-company-logo.html
"The new logo for the Harkles' Archewell foundation bears a striking resemblance - the article says 'plagiarises' - to Am Werdertor, an Austrian property company."
And they were gonna merch the hell out of their names until the Queen put a stop to it
And Travalyst is being investigated for fraud.
And, now they've played their last card with the Oprah trainwreck. The only reason they got away with making outrageous claims without providing any proof and smearing The Family as racists without even naming names is because of a small dedicated group in the US committed to the ID politics racket. Most Americans are sick to death of it but the media is doing everything in its power to keep it alive and this too will backfire on them. Smearing people without proof is precisely what will doom them.
Everything they touch, they screw up. It's clear they don't know what they are doing and are in way over their heads. Meghan is completely delusional if she thinks she has a snowball's chance in hell at being President. She'll be eaten alive and spit out by the public and that too will be spun as racist and that too will backfire on them. The media and celebs are irrelevant for fomenting this ugliness.
At the end of the day, the mudslingers, the race baiters and other charlatans lose. What they are doing is increasing support for the Monarchy and making it a symbol of resistance. So keep calm, drink good tea and carry on! This too shall pass, like gas and a bad case of indigestion.
You make some interesting points re: the bridesmaid dress account.
I had noticed Ivy did not have a head dress. Others on a now-defunct blog I used to read discussed it. It could have been to make her "special" or there could be other explanations. For example, let's say the story about the flower hair bands being added at the last minute was true. I can easily imagine a band not working on Ivy's head given her hair was in a long braid. It could have been hard to invisibly secure a band with that hair style. Or Ivy could have thrown a fit. I believe she was only 4 at the time. Or Jessica could have. One thing I did think was odd though. While Ivy carried no flowers, she was holding Florence Van Cutseum's bouquet in the group picture. Seemed kind of bratty but it could have been that the photographer suggested it.
As I said before, the timelines in the account do not ring true to me. Neither does the idea that multiple fittings were done en masse with girls from California, Toronto, and the UK. Finally why wouldn't Givenchy make some effort to arrange a separate private fitting for Charlotte? It is Givenchy and she is a princess of the UK and the groom's niece.
I don't know whether a fancy-dancy design house could have accidentally cut Charlotte's dress too short. (Note: This latest account doesn't say it was too short but that it didn't fit because Florence had to be used for the fitting. Personally I thought it fit as well as the others did.)
But I do know that design house did a terrible job hemming all the dresses. It looks like to me the hem was marked from the waistband down when the dresses weren't being worn rather than marked from the ground up when they were. Definitely not the best way to mark a hem. I learned that in Home Ec.
That blog post about Ibiza reads suspiciously like the Bridezilla one. I wonder if they weren’t written by the same person?
👀 Welby is a former oil company executive who suddenly found he had a religious calling. Yes, shady.
👀 As I posted a few weeks ago, Welby’s mother Jane was a personal secretary to Churchill. She had an affair with Churchill’s private secretary, Sir Anthony Montague Browne, and Justin Welby was the result. His mother married another man, Welby, and Welby thought that man was his father until a 2016 DNA test showed Browne was his father.
👀 His mother’s brother served as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Deputy Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, etc. Lots of political connection, in other words.
👀. And then his alcoholic ex stepfather, Welby, went on to be engaged to Vanessa Redgrave for awhile.
👀. Welby said in interviews that he went from being only vaguely aware of religion, to feeling suddenly converted while praying with a school friend in 1975, to “speaking in tongues” by age 19. Asked about speaking in tongues, he said “Oh yes, it is just a routine part of spiritual discipline— you choose to speak and you speak a language you don’t know. It just comes.”
👀. He absolutely loves to spend his free time and holidays in France.
Just a man of the cloth, as they say.
Meghan/Harry/Gayle King invade royals' privacy & play with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnXcNyuMcBU
To clarify, Aquitaine, as I'm not sure which side of the Atlantic you're on- so please forgive me if I'm saying what you are already aware of.
In England & Wales, until 1837 when civil registration of births, marriages and deaths were instituted by the Government of the day, and with the sole exceptions of Jews and Quakers, everyone had to marry in, or at the door of, their parish church. The clergy were in effect the only `civil' as opposed to military, servants of they were likely to ever to see.
There were 2 sorts of `Puritans ' in the broad sense in 16th & 17th Centuries.
In the narrow sense, Puritans were those who wanted to `purify' ie reform the CofE on strict scriptural principles, eliminating all aspects that could be considered `popish' - 2 sacraments only (Baptism and Communion - Christ was baptised - & he said `Do this (ie break bread) in remembrance of Me') Even so, Communion was seldom celebrated. Preaching the Word was what mattered Georgian churches were just `preaching boxes'- no candles. (Elizabeth I had allowed 2 candles so that the vicar/rector/curate could see to read the Gospel) No crucifixes, few crosses, plain glass only, no Elevation of the Host, no coloured vestments. This was backed by the literal and metaphorical `Light of Reason', no `monkish owl-light'.
The others `puritans' were Independents/sectaries/Non-conformists who established their own congregations because of fundamental differences with CofE - eg rejecting Infant Baptism in favour of the Baptism of Believers. Congregationalists and various Baptists and Presbyterians were among the earliest. They also varied in the degree to which they were influenced by Continental reformers such as Calvin & Zwingli. (Methodists came later).
Since Henry VIII broke with Rome the Archbishops of Canterbury have been selected by the English (latterly British) monarch. Today the choice is made in the name of the Sovereign by the prime minister, from a shortlist of two selected by an ad-hoc committee called the Crown Nominations Commission.
Cameron was PM
A Parody of the word salad coming from Harry and Meghan
Here is an article listing the steps to be taken when the present Archbishop was selected:
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/how_to_select_an_archbishop_of_canterbury/
The Crown Nominations Commission presents a nominee (with a backup name) to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister commends the name preferred by the commission to the Queen. Once she has approved the candidate and that person is willing to serve, the Prime Minister announces the Archbishop-designate. The College of Canons of Canterbury Cathedral formally elect the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
His conversion to Christianity, as he calls it, dates from his Cambridge undergraduate years.
You can't tell me that he wasn't baptised into the CofE - it was just `not done' to for the upper classes to omit that in the 1950s. Nor do I imagine he was `excused chapel' at Eton. I think we may assume he was recived into membership of the CofE as a baby, like me. In some circles that doesn't count as being a `real' Christian, even after Confirmation, - not unless one has had a `baptism of the spirit'.
I've known many Evangelicals, including the elder brother of Cundy's great friend, the late Ian Cundy, former Bp of Peterborough. I'm not really comfortable with them - too much like the Non-Conformists I knew when I was at school who placed overmuch reliance on one translation if the Bible, almost as if the language of biblical times was an old form of English. I don't accept Sola Scriptura.
I met Ian just once, long before he went into the church. I imagine their friendship dates from the time Welby was at St.John's Durham - they weren't Cambridge contemporaries.
Yet Cundy's this obituary does reveal something interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/28/obituary-right-rev-ian-cundy
Yes, a Diana link which seems related to the question of confidentiality.
There may be a very simple explanation as to how Welby went from Durham to Canterbury so quickly - the post alternates between the 2 wings of the Church and it was the Evangelicals' turn! We don't know what the competition was like - perhaps they were even less likely candidates.
Thanks for the entertaining tidbits about Justin Welby. I had perused his Wiki and learned a lot of it. Quite a surprising background for the head Vicar of the Anglican Church. He shares a lot in common with Bill Clinton viz being the product of a humble background and a mother who was, in the words of Churchill 'loved too well' and who obscured the true paternity of her son from him for years. Also a family history of alcoholism. Though Bill was pretty laser-focused early on that he would go into politics. There is a famous photograph of Bill, aged 16 or so, shaking hands with President Kennedy at National Boys State. That is to young men who aspire to be politicians rather akin to the Miss America pageant for young ladies . . the most promising youths across the country compete at the state level to represent their states at the national event in Washington D.C. in a sort of space camp for political nerds. Bill was cute back then . . a very 'young Elvis' vibe--another young man from a poor Southern background who idolized his mamma too much. Nothing good ever comes out of a son idolizing momma that much, and Harry is a case in point for sure.
I hail from the Lutheran tradition, and it is very common for men to have secular careers, sometimes more than one, before deciding to study for the ministry and entering the seminary. In fact, I think these 'second career' guys, as they are called now outnumber the youths choosing seminary straight out of college. It's getting increasingly difficult for all religious faiths to attract large numbers of young people to even fill the pews on a Sunday much less undertake rigorous study to prepare for leadership in a career that never going to pay much. These more mature students who enter the seminary in their 40s or 50s are highly prized and probably more prepared, via life experience and maturity, for the rigors of pastoral life than the callow 25, 26 year olds. Like the CoE, my church permits married ministers and actually prefers that our clergy be married. It is a rare Lutheran pastor who is not a family man, since even the young ones tend to marry during their studies and usually show up at their first parish with a wife if not a baby already. It's a penurious life for a seminarian with a wife and small children for sure. The older ones who made a secular living prior to taking a vow of poverty for the church are better-off and probably have investment portfolios and have sold a home already.
The fact that Welby made a late start on the ministry does not in itself disturb me, or the fact he's the father of six, and had a rocky birth family life. All these traits should contribute to a more solid character for his role. But--have they? Generally speaking, someone with such an unconventional path to the ministry would not have rocketed to his current position so quickly but would probably be working as a parish priest somewhere, and happy to be so, if he were genuine. Anyone who joins the church with an eye on the fast track to personal advancement is not serving with the right attitude in my opinion. There are transferrable skills between secular careers and the church, of course. The Church needs people with administrative skills, guys who can run a meeting and delegate tasks and persuade donors to give and etc. But a former oil company executive with just a few years of experience, relatively speaking, in his new field does not immediately seem like the go-to candidate for the top job in the whole outfit, and that sure has me asking--Why?? How many dedicated, devoted parish ministers, who'd been serving the Church and her Majesty for decades, since they were young men, were passed over for the promotions that Welby, a new arrival and confessed agnostic (!) got instead? It gives me a very uneasy feeling to think on it.
When Meg first appeared on the scene, I only thought that she'd be a flash in the pan--the entertaining saga of a dim Prince who brought his transparently gold-digging and pushy hooker home and insisted on putting a ring on it. The deportment and wardrobe gaffes were amusing. With the appearance of Moonbump Mountbatten Windsor this Ellie Mae Clampett Goes to the Palace comedy of errors began to morph into what appeared to be a highly public spectacle of untreated mental illness and heavy substance abuse. Now, though, in the wake of the Oprah interview and its fallout, I am starting to take a more eschatological view of this whole thing.
The Eye always refer to Welby as Oilwellby.
Sad to hear about Louis Jordan. It always amazed me that he has been married since 1943.
Sad to hear about Louis Jordan. It always amazed me that he has been married since 1943.
-------
Louis Jordan died in 2015.
I was frequently briefed by the established church and much enjoyed working for them.
"Markle is not alone as an agent of spiritual opposition promoting rancor and anarchy to the established order, it seems. Has she got powerful figures aligned to her, either by accident or design, helping her to tear down the institutions that have given Britain stability for its hundreds of years?"
I think you're really onto something here. Meghan's a bit player whose been allow to be this destructive. Part of my disdain for ID politics is the agenda behind it to discredit the family, debase women and men, tear down tradition, smear Caucasians as racists and upend our respect and knowledge of Western civilization. I'm leaving the Church out, and maybe I shouldn't, only because Christians have had a mark on our back since Christ walked the earth. Not to stomp on any toes here, but I'm not all that ga-ga over the Monarchy but in light of what's going on in the world and what they stand for, tradition and the family, they are taking on a new significance in my mind. Part of me thinks I'm being too blase about the severity of the attack here and I think you've put your finger on it. And yes there is a spiritual decay at the heart of it all. This is a battle for our ethos and our soul and the opposition will stoop to any level to further their agenda. The truth doesn't matter to them. Only power.
The correct name is Heidi N. Moore, and here is an example of what she's tweeting against Jason.
https://mobile.twitter.com/moorehn/status/1372622034233131014
Her entire twitter account is set up to tweet misinformation about Jason and MT.
Her dedication considering her public profile and the highly regarded legitimate publications that usually hire her calcifies my thought that she's part of a deliberate smear campaign. I think she's on SS / Meghan's payroll.
In general I very much enjoy your knowledgeable posts about aspects of British institutions which are more obscure to me as an American. I have learned a great deal from you about the workings of your country which has been valuable to know. You display a fairly consistent animosity toward the Cambridges at least toward them prior to circa 2018. I appreciate that given your background you may be trying for balance as we routinely criticize Meghan for her very un-Royal behavior in her role, but at times you come off as so critical of Catherine that I wonder if you are actually trying to give Markle a pass for her behavior. So I'm asking for some clarification I guess, of how you actually feel about Catherine these days, and William also. Do you really feel that the Cambridges' earlier growing pains as senior working royals can be compared to the Sussexes' post-marriage behavior?
As several months past and no signs from Kate that she was going to take up any royal work AND it became known that she hadn't joined the RAF wives' club, the Malta story morphed into The Queen giving them 2yrs to enjoy their early marriage because she done the same in Malta with no duties at all.
I was aware of the 'Waity Katie' and lightweight party girl image Catherine had as William's girlfriend. It distressed me a bit that a university-educated woman from a family of such means appeared content to do so evidently little with her time for the whole of her 20s, faffing about with some short-term dabbling in fashion and taking pictures for Daddy's business. There was an awful lot of holidays, nightclubbing and waiting for William to call. But considering who her boyfriend was, and what that potentially meant for her future, prioritizing keeping herself available for the future King of England over some fashion accessories job that she didn't need anyway was probably the choice I'd have made too, if I were in a position to do so. Kate's father is a multimillionaire and, the rich, as they say, are not like you and me. Considering the burden of working for the Firm and being in the glare of the klieg lights of the world as she will now be for the rest of her days, it's just as well that she had a carefree 20s period. As the future Queen consort and now mother of three, she'll never be completely carefree again. She's the first consort in like, ever, to have a university degree, and so she's not a complete airhead. I would like to see her use her art history degree in her current position, where it could actually be useful. When she moves to BP, she will be living in one of the greatest private art museums in the world . .let's hope that she will find a use for what she studied at university beyond the waiting for her M.R.S.
My question is, to what degree were Kate's (and Wiliam's, also) repututations as being work-shy and lazy, based on their light schedule of engagements when they were first married derived from media gossip vs. any official expressions from displeasure from the Queen that they weren't working hard enough? William's position relative to the Crown hasn't changed since he was born until now, of course--he's always been #2--but the Queen's expectation of the couple's workload that they'd be expected to take on in the first several years was probably not what it would be now, I imagine. Where did this idea that the couple wasn't pulling their weight come from? I gather that William's job with the air ambulance service was not incredibly demanding of his time, and also that he'd claim Royal engagements to get out of the flight rotation, and flight engagements to get out of the Royal rotation. Okay, but . .they were newlyweds and well aware that in few years, they'd be on the hamster wheel of endless duty for the next 60 years. They were, and are, privileged to not have to work in the normal way of us plebs and they get really nice holidays and don't have to spend hours every day/weekend scrubbing and cooking and doing laundry like all of us without cadres of servants. But, as William put it, rather testily in response to a query about his light schedule of engagements--he was waiting to be asked by the Queen to do more, and she had not asked. In the context of the Firm they are part of, wouldn't it be expected that they *should* wait upon the sovereign for instructions/approval as to where and when they visited on behalf of the Crown? Was it expected that they should be hustling to find their own work assignments or calling up BP with suggestions for places they could visit/support? It seems plausible to me that it might be preferable to wait for direction rather than risk overstepping their boundaries?
Also, it wasn't as if Catherine was doing absolutely nothing but shopping and working out between 2012 and 2018--in that interim she had three babies. If she was largely a stay-at-home mum/expectant mum during that time, I'd consider that a more valuable contribution to the Crown than unveiling some plaques and posing for photographs.
What's her deal with Jason? While yes it may have bothered Jason who had an entire career that Meghan waltzed in and claimed more power, and abused that power, that is obviously not the core issue.
Meghan demonstrated abusive behavior in a workplace to over 13 people at BP/KP alone. Jason is one of many.
We haven't heard of any abuse allegations against Jason from his past employers.
Depending on where he is, he could file a suit in America for defamation against this Heidi character.
To be fair, I think it's noteworthy when any of the Royals stay at an engagement longer than a half hour, isn't it? Most of these appearances are by their natures, brief, and for optics. I don't think Catherine is unique in this. I'd say the difference between C. and Meghan is that she would follow the protocols for the visit and fufill the agreed-upon parameters of the visit, which would be managed by the staff accompanying her. When Meg would bail after 15 minutes or less for an event that was supposed to entail actually meeting people for a longer time, that's quite different.
eg her first engagement for place2be in November 2013 which was running a day long conference filled with seminars about chikd development ranging from newborns to toddlers. The seminars she attended coincided with George's 4mths age. It's the only charity that she's shown consistent and committed engagement.
The early years initiative is her 'thing', yes, and it seems that she has been developing her programme and her base of knowledge over several years, with her focus tightening and becoming more comfortable with the whole thing as she gained experience as a mother. It's seemed like a natural progression of something she is committed to as a lasting platform and not just a flashy short term project for publicity. We the public are also not privy to the number of hours any of the Royals invest in terms of development meetings,logistical meetings, reading and research, etc. for their individual projects that take place out of the papers and in the privacy of their offices and home. Catherine may and probably has spent hundreds of hours in behind-the-scenes preparation for her projects that doesn't turn up on the Court Circular or as a photo array in the papers to give her credit for 'working'.
Her work ethic only picked up after she got Catherine Quinn as a private secretary in 2017. CQ's hired from the Oxford business school and it was under her tutelage that Kate's overall interests were properly explored and put into action. CQ was to Kate what ELF was to Harry except that Kate was a willing student and blossomed under the guidance of an expert. She has come on leaps and bounds since 2017.
So is it far to say that seeing that she's blossomed and come on leaps and bounds in her role in the last few years that we can maybe let her more tentative earlier past go and stop criticizing the couple for things they did 10 years ago? Everybody starts out a new job as an intern or junior employee that makes a lot of mistakes. When we know better we do better, right? The young girl Catherine was has been replaced by a more confident woman who is proving to have been a very good investment for William and for the Firm. We have all changed for the better since we were in our 20s, I'd hope. We've certainly learned that what we didn't know then was a lot and have modified ourselves accordingly. Catherine needs all of our support and good wishes now considering what she's going through right now.
and I wait the release of the Kraken (did someon loose the key and that is what is taking so long?).
I'm in England, same as you.....i think?
I should have been clear about which puritans i meant in my pithy comment about registrer weddings and Americans.
I was specifically referring to Cromwell and his puritans. As you know they banned all sorts of things because anything that was pleasurable or thought to be pleasurable was sinful in their view, but some of their innovations as a result of banning so much from society are still with us.
One of them being registry weddings because Church weddings were deemed Catholic poppery and therefore sinful. Whatever innovations the protestants made in distinguishing themselves from Catholic church traditions, they remained Catholic-lite which is why Cromwell and his puritans viewed them as they did and banned the lot.
For the 10yrs of his Commonwealth, weddings were banned from Churches and so people were married by Judges which is how we got that particular tradition instituted.
When the Restoration happened, Charles 2 didn't want to ruffle feathers and so he decreed that people could have both types of weddings if they chose. Soon the tradition was imported into the restored CoE weddings and wedding registries were signed in church where before the Cromwellian era it only required a church blessing and witnesses to make the marriage legitimate. And having a registerer wedding without the church wedding/ blessing was deemed equal to a church wedding.
That said, the entire Church wedding business was a Church invention that only took root in the 12th Century after the Church realised it needed to control marriages and by extension people's behaviour. Prior to that Marriage was a free for all. You could be married anywhere you liked and by anyone.
Even though the Church had been in existence for over 1000yrs at that point, it wasn't strictly concerned with policing the social life of it's congregants. A Pope in the 12th century who was a devotee of St Augustine's writings is to blame for the Church's new direction in policing the social life of the public. This pope set about reorganising Church doctrines and rules governing social life and before you know it everyone was being subjected to the more tyranical interpretations of his writings eg Church weddings were deemed the only legitimate way to get married.
The point you mention whereby people were wed at the doorway of a church was the result of initially strict Church doctrine which is actually funny in hindsight.
To wit, Single people walking alone into church were entering under God's grace. Ditto married couples. However, 2 single people of opposite s3x walking into a church together, even if for the purpose of marriage, were committing sin. Therefore the priest had to marry them at the door so they could enter in God's grace as a married couple. Once inside he would then bless their marriage.
The covered porch / hallway entrance over the church door was an architectural solution to the often disagreeable weather whilst conducting these doorway weddings.
I love that our churches have kept up this silly architectural design feature for churches even though it's no longer needed and it's about as useful in the modern world as an appendix.
@ 9:11 PM
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Not to forget that timing can also be minimized in advance in planning to avoid threat situations, even for celebs.
Thank you SO much for your responses re the contradicting Michelle Obama articles. It's so nice to have Nutties from various professions and with diverse skills to turn to adding so much expertise and knowledge to our discussions!
I spend a lot of time researching different projects online and don't like the idea that I may have found another version of fake news - a manipulative type.
After I read your messages I went back to the Daily Mail and did a search for articles on MO to check for the sequence of when they appeared. I found the first article that was published on the 15th was the one that was slanted in Markles favor.
The DM then released an article by Reuters news service which also skewed MO's statements as backing MM and against the monarchy.
The next day the re-written version of the first article appeared with a new link - this time focusing on her comments about service and family, and openly stating MO was taking a swipe at Markle.
After that in all subsequent articles on various Harkle topics that were written by journalists where the Michelle Obama story was included as an internal sub-story, the version with the swipe at Markle was used.
However, Reuters continued to offer more articles for days afterward with the pro-markle anti-monarchy interpretation for a total of at least 3 different stories on the same topic. Other news service groups offered stories with headlines that fostered the anti-monarchy slant as well even if they included the lines about the service and family points she made. They do not make the connection that those statements could be construed as snark.
I've also noticed the Times and the Telegraph have written about Michelle's comments as if they favored Markle AND they have NOT walked back or changed their interpretations of her interview comments. The Times even published a re-written article that included a mention
of MO and did NOT change the slant. I posted both versions of those articles above.
It seems that within the 3 newspapers I checked only one journalist from the DM decoded MO's comments and saw them as snark against the Sussexes.
So...in thinking about what you said re the changes made in the DM article being very unusual and that someone with a lot of clout may have pushed for the change - I wonder if Michelle Obama herself could have done so?
But why then did she only pull strings at the DM and not the other news orgs?
I suppose it could also be that the one journalist who contributed to the rewritten article is more aware of Megalo's true persona and thus was intuitive enough to pick up on MO's snark.
Or maybe they got the idea by reading here or at LSA!🤣
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@Este said...
@Jenn S...You raise valid points on saying nothing and being misunderstood by what you said. I just think Michelle O, in the Black community, is probably the biggest deal and the ultimate get for team Markle.
...........
@Este
Thanks for your response. I agree with you that MO was the ultimate get for the Sussex team which was why I was so hoping she would stay out of it. My guess is she was pressured into saying something by SS.
I took a quick look at the clip of her interview and thought she looked quite uncomfortable answering questions about Markle's claims.
IMO although her words were measured and clever, they were too subtle and were not understood by anyone other than those who follow the story very closely - therefore she hurt team Monarchy. I bet MO felt trapped between a rock and a hard place. Perhaps she could have at least added a positive statement about the monarchy like a reference to the Obamas's visit to the Queen during his presidency. It almost feels like MO tried to sneak in some anti-markle speak while being pressured to support the vile pair. Apparently cancel culture won out over truth and common decency.
🤷♀️😢🤷♀️
Thanks for the applause. :)
If Markle cited 'security concerns' as an excuse for not showing up or staying more than a few minutes at her engagements, such concern must have only sprung into being AFTER she had defied all the RPOs assigned to protect her and told them she'd walk where she liked.
Among all the Royal staff who quit Meg's employ after a few months or weeks, there was a female RPO who certainly looked like she could handle herself. Seems like everyone surrounding Markle decided in short order that no amount of prestige could make guarding/serving a crazy b*t*h worthwhile. If the Palace has been protecting this mad dog all this while because she was 'part of the family', while minions pushed into mental breakdowns or requiring medical attention for injuries were viewed as necessary collateral damage, well, shame on them is all I can say. I hate to express it this way but BP (including the Queen) are reaping what they have sown. It was all to keep Harry happy and present themselves as inclusive, but it's backfired spectacularly on them. If there had been an earlier secret wedding in Africa and the childish twosome presented their list of demands with a "Nyah nyah, we're already married so there's nothing you can do about it now" . . I'm surprised the Queen didn't stroke out on the spot. That would have been her best opportunity to say, "Well, gee whiz Halfwit, you've just screwed yourselves out of the big White Wedding Show now . . we can't marry you 'again'. One doesn't get more married with extra ceremonies. And we're certainly not spending that kind of money on what is a cosplay of a wedding. So your father has agreed to throw you a barbecue for whichever friends you want to invite and then we can offer you the keys to this gameskeeper's cottage up at Balmoral going spare. You can have it rent-free in exchange for mucking out stalls. Now sod orf and tell Palmerston that One requires a double Bombay Sapphire on your way out."
Or something along those lines. Allowing Markle to marry in before the world was like using a dirty needle . . no point in being surprised that one is now infected with an insidious virus that is never going away. To what level it can now be managed with some quality of life remaining for the host is now the question.
"To be fair, I think it's noteworthy when any of the Royals stay at an engagement longer than a half hour, isn't it?"
This only started with Kate and the young royals.
Prior to that they stayed at minimum an hour and if they did / do not it was because they had another engagement lined up eg Anne usually has 5-6 engagements each day in different parts of the country. Ditto all the older royals of her generation. The older royals carry or carried over 500 patronages vs less than 20 each for the young royals a decade since they were launched.
Kate did 15mins- 30mins one day a week. Sometimes once a month except for November/ December when she'd suddenly do a flurry of engagements to clock in her numbers as the yearly totals are published in the Times in the first week of January or last week of December each year.
"The early years initiative is her 'thing', yes, and it seems that she has been developing her programme and her base of knowledge over several years"
I pinpoint her interest in her early learning initiative to the 2013 Place2be engagement. It was the first time she stayed at an engagement for longer than her driveby 15-30mins. It was so extraordinary that reporters were live tweeting it.
It was the first engagement that she stayed close to 3hrs, possibly 4hrs and was engaged throughout instead of her usual bored, rolling her eyes, can't wait to get outta here demeanour that she was usually caught doing. And she canceloed or wasn't engaged so often that 2 of her patronages tried to de-couple from her. Palace soothed ruffled feathers and the patronages drafted in celebrity patrons to do the work.
"So is it far to say that seeing that she's blossomed and come on leaps and bounds in her role in the last few years that we can maybe let her more tentative earlier past go and stop criticizing the couple for things they did 10 years ago?"
Let's not pretend that her improvement was organic and expected after 7yrs of lackluster performance. Frankly when her office sanctioned the biannual article about how she was hoing to UP her game in September 2017, we all just snickered and rolled our eyes because the article was a cut and paste job written up by which ever RR drew the short straw. Twice a year for 7yrs. And that was after the disappointment of the engagement PR of the dazzling duchess who was going to "hit the ground running".
I give all kudos to Catherine Quinn for mentoring Kate to UP her game because the previous private secretary who was in the job 7yrs or longer did not help Kate at all and clearly didn't know how to help her at basics such as getting the required help to improving her speechmaking skills because if that private secretary was good or competent the early learning project would have taken off in 2013 or 2014 instead of 2019. The success of Catherine Quinn and ELF is a good demonstration of what a good private secretary can do for a royal or anyone in public life just as the failurevof Rebecca is a good demonstration of what a bad private secretary can do.
The Kate we see today is still not dazzling as promised, but i've learnt to lower my expectations and just be grateful especially when the alternative is Meghan and her spectacular failure at the job and such basics as self-presentation.
Ultimately, my harsh judgement of Kate lies in the ruins of those broken promises from so many years. If the engagement PR hadn't promised us a dazzling Duchess, and if the earlier royal women hadn't been hardworking ( records are innthe national archives), my expectations for Kate wouldn't have been so high or at the very least they would have been manageable
French street fashion is supposed to look artfully undone eg the messy bun, mismatched items, but the problem is that look takes alot of effort and attention to detail. It also helps to have a very specific body type.
The correct name is Heidi N. Moore, and here is an example of what she's tweeting against Jason.
https://mobile.twitter.com/moorehn/status/1372622034233131014
Her entire twitter account is set up to tweet misinformation about Jason and MT.
Her dedication considering her public profile and the highly regarded legitimate publications that usually hire her calcifies my thought that she's part of a deliberate smear campaign. I think she's on SS / Meghan's payroll.
When the palace didn't back down, a vicious smear was sent to deuxmoi that specifically targeted Melissa. It claimed that Melissa was incompetent, lied to get her job at the Palace and had been sacked for gross misconduct. All the terrible things circulating about her time with Meghan.
.............
**@Acquitaine
It looks like Heide Moore has gone private with her Twitter. Do you have any copies of what she said about Jason and Melissa or is there anywhere we can go to find out more about this smear campaign? (other than deuxmoi)
Also what do you mean by the part of your post I put in bold above? Were there negative stories coming out about Melissa while she was still working for MM? I only remember the leaks about MM's behavior towards her staff.
Do we know what MM is trying to claim MT was fired for? Gross misconduct is a strong allegation and if it's false then it's more proof of MM's bullying and attempts to defame MT.
********************************
**@AnT
Melissa and Jason were two of the palace-four so I don't think NDA's are coming into play anymore since they were going to get around them for the copyright lawsuit.
Also I read an odd bit of info a few weeks ago about MM thinking some of these staff members have NDA's but they in fact do not - I will have to see if I can find that again.
Sorry -not in my book! he is rather (English understatement!) `well connected' on his mother's side.
His mother was a Portal, the family being paper makers to the Bank of England - wealthy Huguenot industrialists, albeit in a rural setting. That's a fascinating story in its own right:
https://www.hampshire-history.com/henry-portal-1690-1747-paper-maker/
In her turn, Welby's mother was a Butler, sister to RAB (pronounced Rab). RAB was a public school chap (Marlborough Coll) - certainly not a `council school kid'. What today one would call `privileged'. They came from line of colonial administrators and academics. true, one might call them Upper Middle Class, rather than aristos, but they'd have been on a par with the Gentry.
The relatively humble Tories who did make it to the top in those days (eg Heath, Clarke, Major) were mainly, if not entirely, products of grammar school.
------------------
@Aquitaine - my apologies, I forget to mention A Directory for the Public Worship of God of 1644, which applied, in England until 1660.
It was silly of me because the Captain of Horse to whom I referred, who was probably a member of of the same, very large, W. Sussex family as some of my forebears, made his name, and got a pub named after himself, as a result of an incident where the Directory was not used.
https://comptonshawford-pc.gov.uk/about/parish-history/place-lane/
"On the first part of the Lane sits Compton Manor(Farm) House with Goldfinch Cottage. The House may predate 1362, but the fascia is from the Queen Anne period, early 18th century.
Both Drew(1939) and Whitaker(1985) quote a wonderful story about this house and the Goldfinch family, who lived here between 1596 and 1868. In 1645, during the Civil War, Captain Barnard (remembered at the Inn on the Otterbourne Road, no longer in existence.) was in command of a company of Roundheads billeted at the House, prior to advancing on Winchester. He found his men on the point of eating a feast prepared by the Goldfinches in honour of the birth of their son. He intervened to prevent this outrage and in return asked that the boy be christened “Barnard”. This duly happened, and 75 years later, Barnard Goldfinch was buried at All Saints Compton."
A variant of the story that I've heard is that the Goldfinch babe was about to be christened ie baptised contrary to the Directory. That was the `outrage'! Barnard took no further action as long as it was called after him - and the baptismal feast was `forfeit'.
Strangely enough, another group of my forebears are thought to have been involved in another sideline to history involving religion and food. That is to say, some family historians claim to have founds evidence that we were among John Wesley's Staffordshire converts of 1743 and the did entertain him to dinner. From what I've read, he was a hearty trencherman and tended to eat his supporters out of hearth and home'!
Catherine of Paragon
Despite Kate’s long wait
She’s stepped up to the plate
Bravo Catherine, she’s Great
Better brace ourselves - it's going to be a long journey.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9378381/Queen-sad-not-angry-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Oprah-interview.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1411815/kate-middleton-news-duchess-of-cambridge-meghan-markle-royal-family-latest-vn
"My question is, to what degree were Kate's (and Wiliam's, also) repututations as being work-shy and lazy, based on their light schedule of engagements when they were first married derived from media gossip vs. any official expressions from displeasure from the Queen that they weren't working hard enough?"
Lots of publicly available information from official sources.
Kate
1. The annual tally of royal engagements published in the Times Newspaper at the end of December each year (sometimes it's published during the first week of January). Record is kept in the national archives.
2. After Kate's few engagements numbers drew media comment,the court circular and diary started including internal meetings as a way to prove that Kate was working behind the scenes even if not seen her in public - palace statement to this effect.
3. The very frequent cancellations of already published engagements. Explanations were rarely given.
4. The Bi-annual article telling the world that for the following 6mths Kate had filled up her diary with work and was going to commence dazzling us with her work ethic. And then crickets.
It's interesting to note that since she started doing the work once CQ joined the team, we haven't had that article published.
5. Richard Palmer once wrote a really funny article about Kate being spotted more on the Kings road shopping than doing any work which prompted the palace to arrange for 6 solo engagements for Kate over a 5wk period.
6. In those early days the RR often live tweeted engagements and there was a livefeed of the engagement. We don't get that anymore.
William
1. He started the marriage working at RAF Anglesey so some leeway was given.
However, the RAF exposed that he nearly lost his pilot's licence due to his unfulfilled minimum flight hours requirements for that year which apparently was an ongoing problem every year which required him to catch up in the final month every year. Minimum requirement is currently 140 flight hours per year.
2. When he eventually left, he had 2 gap years. This was initially explained away by a very public discussion about which military service he would join after he left the RAF.
3. When no military service was willing to have him, plans began to be made to start royal duties, but then he went to an engagement at EAAA where he very publicly cornered them for a job. Charles made his displeasure public via passive aggressive articles.
4. It took longer than anticipated for William to take up his role at EAAA because it turned out that he didn't have enough flight hours again and required extra training. On commencement of his job at EAAA, he gave an interview that is best summed up as #whateverroyalworkis!!!
5. EAAA made public that he would work 2/3 the hours of his colleagues so that he could fit in royal work. Unfortunately, William's flight path could be tracked publicly which allowed the media to figure out that he was barely showing up to work for EAAA. When they looked at the public record of his royal duties, he was doing little work there too. 'Throne-idle' was born.
The Palace put out a statement that EAAA required him to have lots of downtime after his shifts, but the civil Aviation authority publicly responded on EAAA's behalf that they had no such policy. They went as far as saying the 'Palace was misinformed'. This little kerfuffle revealed that William had been telling fibs to both sides.
He sanctioned Camilla Tominey to write an article saying that being a stay at home Dad was the best life for his kids because working parents were bad parents. Embellished with an anecdote about his trauma that Charles AND Diana worked so much that it was often just him, Harry and the nanny in the nursery. He also gave a barely civil interview to the BBC to explain himself.
The British royal family has turned a blind eye to its racist past
https://www.insider.com/british-royal-family-racist-history-black-lives-matter-2020-8
Is he applying for citizenship? If not, he'll have to go back to UK occasionally. Don't think too many people will be happy to see him.
Will HM remove Counselor of State? He is no longer qualified as he doesn't "reside" in UK. Its an insult that he still has it at this point.
Wonder what Handbag's old friends (Skippy et al) think about him now? The price of getting close to royals was his friendship. Was it worth being humiliated (no evening reception) by him globally? I think not. Life goes on without him and I wonder if he realizes that?
Personally, I have lost all respect (such that I had) for Oprah and Gayle. When lies ar publicly proven, its hard to recover your "journalist" credentials after that.
I also can't get into deuxmoi without signing up.
Do you have a link to any of that info that we can get to?
TIA
The tumblr blogs, The Cat in the Emeral Tiara and The Empress 7, were posting screen shots of her various tweets. Unfortunately they are doing it hapharzardly rather than gathering them up in a single blog post like Houseplant would do.
If you have the patience, i'd suggest you go to those blogs and scroll through. Heidi has been very busy over the past week so plenty of material screen shot and copied by those blogs.
My comment about all the terrible things circulating about MT was in respinse to an earlier comment by @puds where she mentioned some of the terrible rumours that have suddenly sprang up about MT that started with deuxmoi and have since become embellished by verifiably legit journalists and operatives innan orchestrated campaign to ruin MT. Very much the attack strategy of Sunshine Sachs.
Knowing what I know from experience about people with narcissistic personality disorder, I shudder to think what Meghan is like behind the closed doors of mudslide mansion and how she treats not only Harry, but Archie too. Once her daughter is born, Meghan may concentrate so heavily on favoring her daughter that Archie becomes a useless appendage.
It depends on if she basically ignores Archie or if as with the little bridal attendants, she belittles Archie while comparing him to his sister.
Both of their kids will likely be damaged.
If they divorce, I hope Harry gets the kids. He could probably have a lot of ammunition in the form of testimony from nannies and other members of their household and others who could expose Meghan in court.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/5f5891a676b7cb6bd3b279d1bb22abe3/baaaf4a6b505735f-12/s1280x1920/4fe64437afa4776bfe6ee20d635b86989d32c3f0.jpg
@JennS I’ve been thinking about the MO statement and I wonder if it’s more about her Netflix deal than SS PR? Or maybe a combination of both?
"Wonder what Handbag's old friends (Skippy et al) think about him now? The price of getting close to royals was his friendship. Was it worth being humiliated (no evening reception) by him globally? I think not. Life goes on without him and I wonder if he realizes that?"
Recently, two random gossip items appeared in the Shakespeare column of the DM. Regardless of the Harkles PR that they are either mended fencescor they are being considered for godfather duties, both Skippy and Charlie Von Straubezee have made it very clear that they do not consider Harry a friend anymore nor do they want to repair the relationship.
She wants the $$$$ and Harry is not having any luck throwing tantrums at pa.
I'm not sure what this says about her husband.
Is this about Kate--or Meghan? Isn't the yachting season over in September?
French street fashion is sometimes called "off-duty model" fashion, and I agree, it's hard to pull off. What looks like you've just thrown on some clothes and put your hair up in a messy bun takes a practiced eye nd a lot of time to achieve, and many get it wrong, as MM does. She thinks French street fashion is just another term for being unkempt or dressed down. How wrong she is!
It also helps if you look like a model, and MM certainly does not. When she tries to do French street fashion, she just looks sloppy. LOL.
Also, most models know what appropriate dress would be (or would find out) for most occasions, and MM never got the message for that. Hence, the ripped jeans and stupid hat at Wimbledon and the Pillsbury Doughboy dress at the Lion King premier, that was far too tight and showed every fat roll straining to be released. Then, we have the Jolly Green Giant dress. Can you think of one model who would wear that-ever?
I'm short with no waist, and I'd never attempt to wear French street fashion. I know my limits, and I'll never be a model. MM never got that message, either- dress for your height and figure, not because some 6-ft. model looks good in it. And wear the correct size. Even MM's bras are too tight.
In her court documents Meghan specified that they only had a ‘nominal’ amount of wealth. While that can mean, really, anything when compared to billions I have no doubt she makes Harry think she can do better.
DuexMoi is a very PRO-Meghan site. I don’t even know if what they publish is real gossip or a PR churn for LA reps. I’m starting to think it’s just a PR front. They ban anyone that speaks of Meghan in a realistic way. Meghan is a victim, everyone is racist. More nonsense.
Yes, Heidi publicly defamed Jason on Twitter. Stupid thing to do!
I read an explanation on Quora of the theory behind Archie being of surrogate and not with Meghan and Harry. I question that because I think if the surrogate kept Archie, Meghan would make that publicly known as that’s not acceptable in the US. I lean towards him possibly have been taken by services, if he exists. Meghan wouldn’t want that known, ever.
It’s probably the main reason he was happy to cut them off. Even her fashion was embarrassing him!
Thanks for the additional info on Melissa. I feel so bad for this woman.
**@Acquitlaine
Thanks for the links to research the latest cannon fire from MM's 'court'.
I've already just stumbled upon some of this Heidi's tweets in royal reporter's timelines.
I can't get over how they are turning the Melissa story around! I distinctly remember it being said that Markle wanted an aide who had celeb experience. Which is why she probably quickly put her to work calling around for free clothes!
**@Mom Mobile
That's a good thought - her whole reason for doing the interview was to plug her new Netflix show so it could have been due to both. Knowing how SS operates I can't let them off the hook in my speculation!
**@Nutties
Here are 2 amusing tweets from Piers:
Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
Mar 16
Memo to all high-profile, insufferably woke, unctuously virtue-signalling, shamefully race-baiting hypocrites: I'm watching, and I will retaliate.
Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
Mar 17
Hi @GayleKing - rather than acting as your Sussex friends’ PR mouthpiece to facilitate their ongoing public trashing of our Royal Family, how about doing your job as a journalist and ask them about all the lies they told in @Oprah’s interview? America should hear THE truth.
💓💓💓
🔥🔥🔥
From Theresa Longo (barkjack) Twitter, Today, 4 hrs ago...
(1)
“HRH Prince Henry of Wales remains but rumblings if beg. a formal process to return SUSSEX TITLES gifted 2018, to Crown. #megxit May be asked to “regift back to Crown” & avoid embarrassment. DECISION NOT MADE LIGHTLY Palace keen to avoid: stoking fire, ‘pettiness’. Still up in air.
(2)
More info: We worked on gathering information for this explosive story for days and nights. While the formal process has not been started, Palace Source says crisis talks have suggested SUSSEX TITLES be returned to the Crown. It is being explored in the realm of possibility!
(3)
We too are eager to see how this plays out!
(4)
These crisis talks did explore offering the #megxit duo the opportunity “to gracefully regift the (*Sussex) titles back to the crown”. There will have to be some agreement if it will proceed. Formal process & negotiations have not in any way started: still being discussed.
.
* Theresa Longo Fans Twitter (#barkjack). — sorry typing so eagerly I dropped “Fans”
Does anybody know what a "stop code" is on a computer? My new-ish (four months) laptop keeps getting a blue screen stop code, which says it's collecting data, then restarts the laptop. I've tried just about every video about removing it, but have had no luck.
This happens about 3-4 times a day, and it's so annoying, especially when I'm right in the middle of things and the blue screen stops all of my work.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Meghan & I
In another life, we’d be besties
Milo Yiannopoulos
Part 1
Meghan Markle is a vicious, conniving, hypocritical, manipulative, unlikable witch. In another life, we’d be the best of friends! But she’s just not royal material. And it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin. It’s because she’s a tarantula, a succubus, the living embodiment of the phrase, ‘It cries out in pain as it strikes you’.
As she basically admitted to Oprah, Markle thought that by marrying into the British royal family, she’d become a celebrity on steroids. Marrying Harry, she assumed, would be a passport to a life of unimaginable privilege in which she could bask in adoration, never more than 24 hours from the next custom Givenchy outfit.
But it didn’t pan out, because the Duchess of Sussex forgot the flip-side of all that pomp and circumstance: You only get to enjoy it as part of a lifetime of public service, dedicated to the little people.
Markle must have been horrified at her first public engagement. After all, the sort of people who show up for royal events are exactly the gauche, unsophisticated working-class right-wingers whom Markle abhors, associating them with Trump voters — and with her own trailer-park origins, an early life the Duchess has tried desperately to forget.
The British royal family is the hardest-working institution in the world, dedicated to the idea of noblesse oblige — or, to put it another way, ‘to whom much is given, much is expected’. It must bore the knickers off Her Majesty to snip ribbons outside hospitals and attend endless awful charity events, but she does it without complaint, and has done for decades.
That’s why we like her. And that’s why we don’t like Meghan, whose snooty, nasty and cruel treatment of staff was apparently legendary in Hollywood. She saw no reason to modify her manners —and, let’s face it, she probably got even more hoity-toity and unbearable — when she swapped a Beverly Hills mansion for Kensington Palace.
Even Michelle Obama, normally the most racially tribal of political figures, broke ranks this week to wag a finger at Meghan for classlessly crapping on the Windsors, in a statement that pointedly reminded Markle that family comes ‘first and foremost’. Like the rest of us, the former First Lady is amazed at how many bridges Markle has burned with both her own family and her adoptive one.
Incidentally, Meghan the professional race-baiter was Kappa Kappa Gamma in college. Unlike the VP, Kamala Harris, she didn’t bother joining Alpha Kappa Alpha to cement her black identity.
Is it appropriate to blame Harry for not reining in his wife’s excesses? He’s the man of the house, after all. The darkest corners of the internet, where I like to hang out, are overflowing with memes and jokes about how hopelessly under the cosh he is.
I dunno. Perhaps it’s cruel to expect any woman in public life to exercise agency in 2021. After all, women are such victims, aren’t they? If I’m reading contemporary feminism correctly, the poor dears can’t take living in reality with the rest of us.
Women desperately need special treatment, lowered standards in the military, tiptoeing around on television so their delicate feelings aren’t trampled on, and reassuring lies about ‘wage gaps’ and ‘sexist air-conditioning’.
And I do agree on the whole that women go where men lead, and that half the problem with modern culture is that men have forgotten how to say ‘No’ to overwrought cat ladies. Women look to their husbands for stability and security — for a guiding and steady hand.
But just as I muster up fury at Harry, I come across a photo montage on the internet showing how Meghan has scrupulously imitated half a dozen of the late Princess Diana’s most iconic outfits, and it makes me shudder.
This strikes me as sinister and creepy, channeling Harry’s dead mother to hypnotise and bamboozle the poor git into nodding along with her ludicrously transparent and self-serving machinations. Meghan poisons everything she touches, draining the life and joy out of all who cross her path.
Watching the disintegration of young Prince Harry — at one time, the only handsome ginger in the world! — into his prematurely weary present incarnation is heartbreaking. It reminds you of a horror movie where the life is slowly getting sucked out of the lead character.
Another ten years and he’ll be a walking cadaver, still vainly parroting social justice platitudes in the hope of a disinterested peck on the cheek from his suspiciously timeless wife — who was once photographed outside Buckingham Palace as a coquettish tourist. Check out the photo online. You can practically hear the cogs whirring!
It was of course in Australia that we got the first glimpse of what was to come, as Meghan basked in praise and attention, gleefully shoving Harry aside to grab centre-stage. That’s when her relationship with the royal family began to go south —not because she was popular, but because she clearly didn’t know or care what was expected of her as a senior royal.
The scary thing is, enchantress Meghan’s only just getting started. Next up she wants to run for President. (LOL!) Poor Harry has no idea what’s coming down the slipway. But I do: I fear he’s about to join the ranks of the whipped, cuckolded, immiserated and impoverished Night of the Living Dead husbands of real-world Hollywood fruitcakes.
Playing Princess Di dress-up has been the actress’s most challenging but well-remunerated role. For years, she lived high on the hog thanks to the generosity of British taxpayers — and the Queen spent thirty-seven million quid on her wedding. But Markle misjudged her popularity horribly, mistaking transient Hollywood fame for the kind of deep, engrained affection you can only earn from decades of dutiful public appearances.
Harry’s already lost his dignity, his street cred and his cojones. He can never go back to Britain, so hated is the couple all over the world now. (Good. They deserve it.) He has been the perfect stepping stone for his ruthless, careerist wife.
All that’s left is his inheritance. In the words of our greatest living African American poet: ‘When she leave yo ass, she gone leave with half.’
Ugh....computer issues!
My cousin’s husband says that is usually a sign of a faulty driver —- might be a hardware driver but probably a faulty third party driver code. (From a security program or a wireless network etc.....third party-type software.)
Write down any code you see at the stop, and then look up the code online to see what it is, what kind of software, and what the workaround is. You can also contact the software maker for updates and fixes. Also google this to find it on Microsoft docs for information—
“Advanced troubleshooting for Stop error or blue screen error issues on Microsoft”
@Puds and Nutties
Here are the tweets from Richard Palmer's timeline. These are all the comments he made about the bullying investigation over the last couple of days. I've included a couple of other people's tweets when necessary to show a Palmer reply in context.
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
While there were some balanced US news reports about the bullying allegations against Meghan, I think it’s fair to say coverage of the Sussexes has opened British eyes to the shortcomings of American TV. Time to bring back that fairness doctrine?
Quote Tweet
Press Gazette
@pressgazette
Mar 16
CBS report accuses UK tabloids of 'blatant' racial element as it refuses to alter Meghan headlines montage + full list of stories cited by the Oprah interview to back up impact on Meghan's mental health https://bit.ly/3eLxWhJ
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Replying to
@d**idjmcc**lure
Did I miss CBS news presenters countering the very personal takes of Gayle King and Oprah Winfrey by pointing out to viewers that former staff and British journalists who covered the Sussexes say they were a nightmare to work with and for?
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
That briefing war between the two camps in the Sussexes v Royal Family dispute continues. Former aides and the Sussexes are furious. In the middle stands the Royal Household, which wants to shut down the debate and take the heat off the “institution” by making this about family.
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Most journalists naturally don’t want to see it shut down. They want to get to the bottom of it, especially after Harry and Meghan made such disparaging and unsubstantiated comments about the UK public, the monarchy, and the media. It’s hard to see how this can be forgotten.
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
So Gayle King and any other friends blathering on is manna from heaven, let’s be honest. Likewise briefings from those who had the misfortune to work for the Sussexes and want to see their narrative challenged.
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Make no mistake, there is real anger out there among staff and former staff who believe the claims made by Harry and Meghan are outrageous. One former senior aide speaking to the Daily Express said of Meghan: “It’s despicable that she’s played the race card.”
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Mar 17
Replying to
@davidjmcclure
Yep. I’m sure in a British version of this you would expect to see one of the presenters at least putting the other side of the story and testing the account given by the friend who also happens to be a top presenter.
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
But just to stress, don’t mistake the individuals briefing for the palace. The palace wants to put a lid on this.
kim***ley ru**e
@Kim***leyRu**e
17h
Replying to
@RoyalReporter
You can’t continue to have “royal leaks” but then say you want to put a lid on it
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Replying to
@KimberleyRunge
How does an organisation with 1,200 employees - and ex-employees who feel they have been traduced and mistreated - stop every single person from talking?
Whimsy
@Whimsy47449890
Mar 17
Racism isn’t just about overt actions/speech, e.g., the n-word, lynching, pelting and beating them. It’s often more subtle than that and involves micro aggressions. By your own standards, you may not think your actions are racist or misogynistic but to the recipient they are.
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Mar 17
Replying to
@Whimsy47449890
Well yes, this is one of the big questions: how does an individual or organisation defend themselves against charges of racism/sexism/ageism etc? You can understand that someone might have felt something but insist that wasn’t the intention but will you ever convince them?
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Mar 17
Replying to
@Whimsy47449890
It can surely be the same with bullying. You may not think your actions are bullying but your “victim” might feel that. How does one get to the bottom of it all?
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Replying to
@hibi*sclubht
Anyone who talks about “the tabloids” (including some prominent British and American journalists) is showing a lack of grasp of this story and snobbery. Papers such as The Daily Telegraph, The Times, and The Sunday Times have written very similar stories to the others.
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Replying to
@Mama4Obama1
There is plenty of racism in the UK as elsewhere but there are also cases where courts or tribunals find, for example, that race was not the reason for someone’s dismissal despite claims to the contrary. As with bullying. Should Meghan just accepted she bullied staff?
Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter
Replying to
@cam***dges4all
@richardaeden
Blimey, those are some wild allegations. Hope she can substantiate them or people might think she has gone doolally.
(this was in reply to a screenshot troll tweet from that Heidi person about Jason Knauf!)
Actually, I think in seriously smearing and bullying the aides with this latest attack from 'Heidi' the Markle camp has ensured the investigation will have to go through.
**In the middle stands the Royal Household, which wants to shut down the debate and take the heat off the “institution” by making this about family.
**But just to stress, don’t mistake the individuals briefing for the palace. The palace wants to put a lid on this.
what Ant said
since your laptop is new - call and get help.
good luck!!
I've been having problems with my laptop fans but mine is old.
I usually buy new in-person and am not crazy about doing so online
@Este
Great article, thanks
#MoreMilo
Excellent record of his tweets.
My guess: The royal households are run and managed like a business, and businesses generally don’t talk about their employee investigations in the public press. So the RF want to keep it quiet. However since it is all over the world press already, this will seem a ridiculous stance to the rest of us. But legally, they may be wise to keep an investigation invisible. Again, just a guess.
See my scoop from Theresa Longo Fans above at 3:33 AM, as to what is apparently going on behind the scenes! Title-stripping chats.
@JennS
Not sure what to make of Palmer’s tweets?
Confusing.
Looks like some good tea from the TL fans twitter account! I hope it's true and that they also do the line of succession at the same time. They can't keep doing things piecemeal.
I saw that twitter account has some other interesting bits so will take a look at it again!
😍👏😍👏😍
I'm a bit confused right now about where his loyalty lies...
I've always liked him and felt bad for all the aggressive attacks he has suffered from the monsters flying monkeys.
But the other day he tweeted out a sarcastic comment about Prince Charles response to being asked about the Harkles interview. He said something about how Charles was asked about the racism and had laughed and walked away. I don't think it happened quite like that. Charles was not going to give a response and I thought it was just a nervous kind of smile.
Palmer's tweet made Charles look bad and it got some traction.
Then in this series of tweets he sort of validated Markle's accusations of racism.
@AnT
BP may well think bugger it, strip Sussex
titles and weather the optics (tit for tat )
No doubt she would use Princess Meg of Wails.
She can posture all she wants,
only her sugars will swallow it.
Thank you for posting the Milo article (at 4:09 and 4:10 AM)...
Wow, he held back no punches! Kind of fantastic. Yes, some of what writes can be offensive but he is true to his PC battle.
And it is refreshing to hear a non-stifled voice today (besides MM!). I agree, he took MO’s remarks as I did too, I laughed out
loud at at his Meghan jibes here a few times. Love that he was horrified by her brazen dead Diana “mom cosplay” too.
And he has Harry cold. Kind of wish he would tackle the Archie mystery someday. He and Camilla Long could decimate
Meghan in a book, I think.
@Jenn,
AnT,
Thanks for the info. It looks like the problem is with Chrome, so I'm going to try to remove and reinstall Chrome tomorrow.
If that doesn't work, I'll have my BF take a look at it. He's much better at computer stuff than me. If he can't fix it, I'll call Acer.
@Jenn,
I hear ya! Computers are way beyond me.
Coronet Virus
When will we be rid
Of the scourge of Megvid
Injected, infected all with her spleen
Her jabs to the nation
Require mass inoculation
Bring on the Cambridge Vaccine
@MagathaMistie,
While Palmer does break royal news, I somehow find him a little spiteful in bursts. May just his way, or his attempt to seem unbiased. But I tend to prefer reading Richard Eden’s royal reporter tweets.
At least you have it narrowed down! I loathe computer issues too. I stick with my MacBook Pro as I can usually solve their issues by now, and have two friends who are super savvy with Apple and have a good tech I can call otherwise. Whereas I get stabby with non-Apple at this point, lol. Good luck!
Coronet Virus may well be my new favorite!
If their titles are removed, I think MM will insist on being called "Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor Wales, the former Duchess of Sussex."
That way, she'll remind everybody of her former royal title and at the sam time, remind her sugars that the big old mean BRF took her titles away.
***********************************
Please excuse all errors above and in advance until i figure out why my pointer is now going crazy. Damn computer!
Falling asleep but meant to add that I still cling to hope that someone can correctly apply an interpretation of US Constitution Article 1 clause 8, to see to it that Megs cannot hold onto her Princess Henry title either. Her spate of corporations would seem to tick the profit box that would deny her use of that title, but who knows in the current climate. We’ll see.
I think I fixed it!
Emily Andrews
@byEmilyAndrews
Mar 8
Meghan says the press team didn’t defend her when “things weren’t true.” That is just not right. The press team with whom I interacted defended them again & again & again, told me things were wrong (so didn’t publish) & indeed tried to stop me when true.
Emily Andrews
@byEmilyAndrews
Mar 8
Equally, palace needs to come out with clear evidence of what they did to help Meghan (and Harry), which was a huge amount, & address/take action on most serious claims. Overwhelming feeling is such sadness. After H’s comments on William & Charles will their r/ship ever recover?
@1***appervb
Mar 10
The Royal Family/Buckingham Palace hosts a Christmas party for “news” (tabloid) reports. That tells us everything we need to know about their articles
Emily Andrews
@byEmilyAndrews
Replying to
@1sc***pervb
@scobie
@royal_suitor
No, they don’t. We have never been invited to Christmas parties. There have been occasional media receptions, to which tv, print, photographers, commentators have all been invited. Like maybe two/three.
I like Eden too but I don't think he's as loose-lipped as Palmer.🤣 I think RP supplies a bit more info and tea. Good call on his spitefulness - it's a good explanation for the occasional pettiness.
@Magatha
Lol at your latest witticisms!
@Jocelyn
Re-installing chrome is easy. You won't have a problem with that.
I had a similar problem with my pointer bouncing around recently. Are you using a mouse or touch?
When Markle leaves Harry (big surprise for Harry, he won't see it coming), she'll want half of his assets.
Thanks for the posts about the "real time" reports of W&K being "workshy." I do remember the hit piece on working parents and thought it was awful and stunningly out of touch.
Along with the Malta myth, Charles's jealousy has also been blamed for the Cambridges' past lack of activity. Charles may very well be jealous that younger royals automatically receive so much attention. And from all accounts he was jealous of Diana. But there's really no evidence W&K would work more except that "Charles won't let them." Not stepping on each other's important speeches, initiatives, and foreign tours is a different matter than not working at all.
I remember the year William was quoted as saying Day X in early December was his last workday of the year at EAAAS. His next shift wasn't until February. He also didn't do any Royal work during that period unless the Christmas church walk, Kate's birthday church walk, and the extended family BP Christmas lunch count as work. All while older royals (TQ, PP [many years], PC, Camilla, Andrew [until last year], Anne, the Wessexes) each made many more appearances and didn't take a 2-month Christmas vacation.
It was also a misstep when Kate didn't attend the St. Pat's shamrock ceremony in 2016. KP announced she didn't want to be expected to do that activity (a 100-year old tradition) every year. When there was pushback, KP said she was prioritizing time with her children before the India trip. But that trip was over 3 weeks away and the St. Pat's ceremony would have taken only a couple of hours. That was an incident made worse by inexperienced staff IMO.
When W&K married, she was 29 and he was only a few months away from turning 29. Of course, there was an adjustment to be made, but at nearly 30, neither was exactly "young." Kate was past her girlhood and Will past his boyhood. They do look good now compared to H&M but that's a pretty low bar. I agree CQ helped Kate (and various folks have helped Will) and I hope things continue to improve. (Honestly COVID lockdowns probably helped their PR too.) And as @Acquitaine said, at least we don't see the "Kate is keen to begin..." articles anymore.
I do find it amusing some seem to think the throne should go to Will next. Even with the improvement seen, I can't imagine Will working most days of the week, much less reading red boxes every day. He may be the most clear-eyed about H&M, but there's more to being monarch than that!