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
Cheers AnT & JennS
Oprahtion Gayleorg
We know the real reason
For aiding HaM’s treason
Why Oprah and Gayle joined the fray
It’s not about race
More basic, and base
Ratings, and their thirst for more pay
I have a touch, so I went into "appearance" in settings and fixed the pointer from there. It was easy.
Megxhalted
The Queen of Tarts
Is sly, lacking smarts
Nasty, spiteful, reviled
She will rant, screech, and rave
With Hazza, her Knave
When they realise they’ll both be re-styled
From Megxist, to Megxit, Megxiled
Why do people assume Charles will outlive The Queen? Even if the Queen lives another 10 years, Charles may not (he’ll be 82 by then). The next Monarch could very likely be William.
Don’t worry she won’t ever be, it would be Princess Henry of Wales, because she’ll never be a Princess in her own (birth) right. Personally, I think Harry should be stripped of his British citizenship so it removes him from the bloody lot...succession and all his titles etc. He’s a traitor and should be duly treated as one. ;o)
--------------------
`Not facing up to their racist past' - and what, pray, is anyone supposed to do about to do about dubious ancestors?
Just as grand families know who their ancestors were, they also know where where their money came from and what was done with it. Most of us over here haven't a clue about either.
Yet I recently read that, mathematically, the probability is that most people with a substantially English heritage have Edward III somewhere among their ancestors, even if the link is via an unknown royal bastard. Similarly, most northern Europeans can count Charlemagne as a forebear - and most of us, if not all, have other ancestors who were effectively enslaved under one system or another. Also, we are far more closely related than we realise.
I've been astonished at where my enquiries into my own ancestry have taken me. Searching online for one unusual family name (a French place name), trying to get an idea of when it first occurred here, I found it in an Elizabethan list - the captain of a vessel that sounds like a sister ship to that of a known early slaver. So this chap may have been a slaver - assuming I'm connected (and I may not be) what am I supposed to do about it? Is it cancelled out by whoever it was who contributed the genes that gave some of my full-blood relatives a mixed-race look?
Theories of inherited guilt are very dangerous - look where that went in 1930s Europe.
"Lizzie said, ‘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! ‘
"Why do people assume Charles will outlive The Queen? Even if the Queen lives another 10 years, Charles may not (he’ll be 82 by then). The next Monarch could very likely be William."
-------
You are quite right that could happen. No one is guaranteed a certain number of years including everybody in the royal family.
I wasn't referring though to Charles dying. Rather i was referring to the fact some people have suggested Charles "step aside" now (not sure how that could be done) or when the Queen dies, abdicate immediately in favor of William because he is more qualified to be King right now than Charles is.
I do understand why people might have concerns about some of Charles's ideas. But overall I don't understand that sort of thinking. Will has been a full-time working royal only since autumn of 2017-- about 3 1/2 years. And pre-pandemic in 2018 and 2019 Will made fewer appearances than all other senior royals except Kate, Harry, & Meghan.
While I'm sure he'd step up if he had to, personally I doubt he'd welcome that or welcome the effect on his family overall and the effect on George in particular (and of course, he wouldn't welcome the deaths that led to it.) And because he's been in a full-time position for much less time than Charles has, less is known about his ideas than Charles's. He has said some iffy things, after all. Probably because of strong feelings, but still.
Cheers @WildBoar
Speaking of pasts, I recently got my
Ancestry DNA results.
Apart from English, pinpointed the correct area,
I was surprised how strong the Welsh
genes are.
Also Swedish, which I’d reckoned on.
Scottish, a dinnae ken.
The monarchy is funded by the taxpayer, and the BRF represent the UK, and thus is increasingly accountable to the British taxpayer and public.
The Palace has a dignity at work policy for its approximately 1 300 employees, and an HR department to serve those employees.
The 'bosses/top management' in the Firm are the principals ... working royals. They are not hired nor have formal employment contracts, but have their position as birthright or as 'married ins'. They can be fired (Andrew, but that was not a staff matter), but they are unique 'bosses' - they are royal! If royals are subjected to an inquiry every time staff complains, and can be 'fired', there may very well be no working royals left! In the new woke world, the complaints could be endless!
Of course the Palace does not want this investigation! The Queen is a monarch, not an elected President.
The Queen did speak to both Meghan and Harry about their behaviour during the run up to the wedding. Staff, such as Melissa, were quietly 'paid off'. The complaint to HR was buried. Everyone hoped the Sussexes, especially Meghan (an American actress needing to learn a lot), would settle down. The Queen, head of the Firm, is very tolerant and forgiving.
So why the investigation? It was not a complaint from A staff member. It was all staff and numerous complaints. There was clearly a pattern of behaviour and the Sussexes were resistant to advice or censure or guidance of any kind.
So, there was bullying because there were many complaints from just about all staff (different people with different levels of experience, different characters, different roles). But, an investigation will establish that using objective criteria.
HR processes failed as the complaints did not reach the one person who could have acted - the Queen. Or did the Queen know and do nothing? Or are HR processes not in place to escalate a problem to the Queen?
Is there anyone who does not see that this is a nightmare for the Firm and is not a personal attack on the Sussexes but an investigation the Palace was forced into when the extent of the bullying was outed in the media?
And of course it is confidential. This is not a public trial.
The Sussexes are gone; The Queen is still there. It is the latter who 'is on trial' here.
I knew what you meant, my overall feeling was more on whether Charles ever got the option to step aside (he never would) because dying got in the way. ;o)
We have no way of knowing if either would make good Monarch’s, as always, until the reality hits they probably don’t know for certain either. I think I’d prefer William overall, it would solve so many lose ends about Harry etc. With William being our next monarch it would also mean Archie would never get the option of Prince as his title, I’d keep Harry in permanent exile and hope he’d become persona non grata whether he went.
...whether he went..
Should be wherever he went.
Well, I reckon that if they really wanted to do something, they would no longer accept any money to because of the historical taintedness.
I can see your point.
Of course, like Charles, none of the other senior royals are guaranteed a certain number of years either. I do wonder, for example, if Anne intends to do royal work until she drops in her tracks. Or even if Edward and Sophie intend to keep doing everything they've been doing when Charles or William is King. If not, if their loyalty has been more to the Queen, William as King won't have that much support. And if it happens as you have correctly pointed out it could, Will would have (at the oldest) teenage children. And no Harry. That's for sure.
However, staff have been talking to the media so, once the investigation is finished (I am sure they will be required to keep silent while the investigation is being conducted), we will get stories being leaked.
This is not over for the Sussexes! Will Meghan realize that and try to sue the Palace to stop the investigation, or to challenge the report? She will definitely try to frame the investigation and report as a one-sided attack on her, and expect everyone to believe that her truth is the only truth and up to a dozen or more people are telling lies to attack her and are racists, and, actually, she was bullied! Will Oprah and Gayle continue to champion this kind of garbage?
Do you recall how EACH and the Scouts got so fed up with her cancellations that they tried to un-couple from her?
One of the cancellations was due to a 'prior engagement' which turned out to be a holiday on Mustique meanwhile the event she cancelled was a fubdraiser that was publicised for a month with EACH providing raffles and tickets to the public. She did nothing for this event and it was so poorly sold that they ended up cancelling the fundraiser. And afterwards drafted in Ed Sheeran to help their future fundraising efforts. He has been doing wonders for them. Ditto Bear Gryls for the Scouts and again he was drafted in after she cancelled so many events and or did 15min drive bys.
But i think we forget the most flagrant cancellation of duties because it was overshadowed by the papped naked pictures. She and William were supposed to fully support the paraolympics, but bowed out after the first few days with Palace saying that for next few weeks William needed to go finish up some work duties at RAF Anglesey and she needed to get ready for the Asian tour, but then they were papped in France on that balcony clearly on holiday. Everyone was so outraged by the papped photos that it overshadowed the cancelled paraolympics.
I don't know the source of this, but think it is hilarious! (Some contradictions in what the Sussexes say.)
@lizzie
I’m sure Edward will carry on,
as the Duke of Edinburgh,
Sophie by his side.
Anne will support her brother, Charles.
It will be a very slimmed down monarchy,
who knows what Charles has planned.
That's what Oprah did to afew people she had previoysly elevated only for them to ge exposed as liars eg James Frey.
I expect you are right. But I was thinking more about possible deaths or health problems. I mean, just as you pointed out Charles will be 82 in 10 years, Anne will be 80. And even Edward and Sophie will be in their mid/late 60s. And they seem to do alot of unglamorous overseas work like attending funerals.
@Aquitaine
Why the vitriol against Kate?
All in the past.
We should be uniting against the
common enemy, not adding to the
obvious pile on.
Thanks Sandie & WildBoar
Thought I’d entered the Meglight Zone!!
Uncalled for, Unwarranted, and Unnecessary.
What if it were returned/accepted return/forcible taken but not the Dumbarton one? She'd still have a title but perhaps not as cool but would still require all new business cards. Still a title and something in the way of a political run.
Margatha - Princess Meg of Wails. Funny
Ah, here we are..
`...pay reparations to the descendants of enslaved people'. So what should I do? Transfer cash from one pocket to another?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/british-royal-family-slavery-reparations.html
Perhaps Herself regards the RF's cash as owed to her personally?
@lizzie
Speaking of unglamorous overseas work.
Edward, until recently, regularly visited
Australia to hand out Duke of Edinburgh
Gold Awards.
He’s visited my local Town Hall, nice, but
hardly salubrious, on a couple of occasions.
All without fanfare, or media.
Edward will be there to the end.
Herself will be enraged that - she's `lost her name', revealed as technically subservient to H, and would have to renounce the HRH herself for a career in politics. Being dubbed `Princess', the Royal equivalent of `Mrs', might not be much compensation after all.
"@Aquitaine
Why the vitriol against Kate?
All in the past."
Not vitriol. Just a reminder how far we've come.
10yrs a royal, but only 3yrs as a normal one.
Not forgetting the current Palace PR push to paint her as Queen Kate in much the same way that we had the Palace PR push to create Hero Harry.
Please note that i'm not equating Harry to Kate.
All 3, Harry, Kate and William were lazy and problematic in different ways and it was public despite palace efforts to hide it.
Harry has stepped away from Palace protection which has allowed the public to see him properly.
I call it the Pat Kingsley sans Tom Cruise effect.
Kate and William have been drawn into the working life of the monarchy and perhaps that's what has made the difference, but that PR push is also very effective in changing perceptions.
https://thewigblog.tumblr.com/post/622763870808915968
I love Kate but she doesn't really impress me. Her public speaking has improved a little. Her fashion is still very drab but some say that's how royals should be. Other European royals dress far better than Kate. Her one dimensional coats, wedges, culottes and erdem clothes annoy me. She's lucky Meghan was a mess, if not, Meghan would have blown her out of water. I just imagine that Harry married someone who is always put together like the Queen of Spain, she would have completely dusted Kate.
So Kate is just lucky that Harry married someone who failed as a royal.
About perception, the Economist commissioned a Yougov poll in the US three days ago and 1500 respondents took part in it. The poll showed that post Oprah interview, the Queen and the Cambridges were far ahead in popularity than the Sussexes in the US. I don't know if having only 1500 American respondents for the poll is sufficient to draw a conclusion, yet it tells me that the Sussexes interview didn't cause the kind of damage they thought it will cause the RF in the US considering how most if the liberal media were in support of them.
As it is, they would be waiting for business offers to start rolling in, and if it does not, they will intensify attacks on the RF because that's the only thing that gives them press. I don't know if any big organisations would want to do business with them. But who knows, the US is a strange place.
As for titles, let them keep the titles but STOP monetizing them in business. Unless they are doing royal duties (which they are not) not allowed to use for business purposes. I believe there are already laws on the books to that effect.
Not only that, there is no where to hide as the public, globally, see her for the garbage person she is?
@Aquitaine
Nothing normal about joining the Royals.
My perceptions of William & Kate
is not based on PR projections.
You either like someone, or you don’t,
a gut reaction, something PR hasn’t
quite got.
I like them. As do most people.
You said:
“10 years a royal, but only 3 years as a
normal one”
Rude, and condescending.
As for your Tom Cruise effect,
will affect those already affected.
I don't how it's productive to bring up the past vis a vis the Cambridge's They have grown into their roles splendidly. William was dragging his feet for a while about accepting his role, and in hindsight it shows how serious he considered the job to be. Once the children came along, he and Catherine grew up and stepped up. Surely you can allow them the normal arc of changing and evolving. In their case the change has been positive. Whereas Harry has been mired in a toxic pool of jealousy and resentment for decades.
I agree with all you've written (with the minor exception of ages--PC was 28, PW was 35. To me those ages are pretty different.) I can't imagine Will (or anyone) taking on all you've described PC as doing and being King at the same time.
I'm sure you are right that all the royals do tasks "behind the scenes" that don't end up on the court circular (although many "internal meetings" are listed.) But QEII also had a point when she said, "I have to be seen to be believed."
You’re absolutely right William as King won’t have much support at all, too many ageing Aunts and Uncles. Charles has been saying for years he’s wants a slimlined monarchy, we’ll very much have that, cheaper for the British taxpayer though.
William and Catherine have truly grown into their roles (long before 2017 I might add too), maybe the York girls will step in, who knows. ;o)
@lizzie
I get your point, The Queen saying
“She has to be seen to be believed”
That does not relay to Charles, or
William. They are not the Monarch.
Might like to see more of them, but...
ROYAL BRUSH Painting of Prince Harry is sold for £2000 despite being created by a PIG in just a few minutes
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14391676/painting-pigcasso-prince-harry/
@RaspberryRuffle - good to see you back. :)
@Blithe Spirit
I agree,
Living Next Door, to Malice.
@Nelo
Williams great Grandfather had a
speech impediment.
Didn’t impede his great rule of the UK.
Catherine may, or may not, overcome
her fear of speaking in public.
But it’s what she says, means,
that makes a difference.
As to how she dresses, I personally love
most of her outfits.
All a question of taste.
Does funding from Duchy of Cornwall, through Charles, stop if Harry ceases to be a working royal? I think it should, and I think publuc opinion would support me, but are there rules that limit funding to 'working' royals?
Also, a number of royals live on Crown Estate property but also pay rent (they have long-term lease agreements). Why did the Sussexes 'qualify' to live rent free?
Those who live on Crown property:
Andrew - lease agreement (paid for refurbishment so lower rent); was a full-time working royal at time of signing lease agreement but no longer
Wessexes - lease agreement (did not pay for refurbishment so higher rent); both full-time working royals
Duke of Kent - supposedly Queen pays his rent, but I am not sure where he lives; full-time working royal
Duke and Duchess of Gloucester - supposedly Queen pays their rent at KP; full-time working royals
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent - supposedly Queen pays their rent at KP; not working royals
Beatrice and Eugenie - live in Crown property and pay rent; not working royals
Then there is Princess Anne - owns private property; full-time working royal
Why did Harry expect to be treated like William and not Andrew or Edward or Anne?
Harry said he’d been cut off financially when he left for Canada, this would have meant any money received from the Duchy of Cornwall via Charles. ;o)
Thank you...I’m just wandering by.... :o)
I hope all is well with you.
@Raspberry @Sandie
So desperate for money,
hence their Oprahgate.
Lol let’s also not forget about the friend who suggested they liaise with Netflix and Spotify to make money!
@Ron
Thank you for saying
that the RF keep playing
Long after we’ve all gone to bed
I believe it’s all true
That we’ll win, through and through
Megsie will end up on her head...
I did not write that last verse.
Part One
They Could Have Saved the Royal Family
Like Diana, Meghan Markle offered the Royal Family a way to stay relevant in the face of a major challenge. But for a second time, the monarchy rejected a talented outsider.
10:45 AM ET
Caitlin Flanagan
Staff writer at The Atlantic and author of Girl Land
Looks like prince harry married a girl just like the one who married dear old Dad. We recognized all of it: the desperate unhappiness, the adoration of the masses, the beautiful clothes worn beautifully—but especially the easy and immediate way of reaching out to commoners and blessing them with the life-changing gift of her attention. He found—and then gave to us, the grateful public—another Diana. And Meghan Markle more than repaid the palace for her admission to the golden circle. She captured the affection of the entire world, she pumped up interest in the royals, and she had much to offer, all of it gladly given. Like Diana, she had the power to help the Royal Family survive a major challenge to its relevance. But, once again, a talented and life-giving outsider was rejected by the host organism.
In the couple’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan looked poised and thoughtful, and managed to make her series of shocking revelations seem reluctantly tendered, a hostile witness having the terrible truth pulled out of her, much more in sorrow than in anger. When Harry was allowed into the conversation, he sat beside his wife looking like he’d been shot from a canon. Before he met Meghan, he was a prince of Europe—almost a crown prince—a young man whose life was part of a continuation from Excalibur to Afghanistan, where he fought with valor in the manner of Prince Hal finding within himself Henry V. Now, however, he is like Antonio: tempest-tossed and thrown up upon the wide beaches of the brave new world. Once, he led men into battle, as his forebears had done for generations. Now he is a Californian with a Spotify deal, charged with thinking up some podcasts, which could be a heavy lift. For Harry, the situation is evolving.
Diana joined the Royal Family when the operation was at a low ebb and somewhat imperiled. She signed up in 1981, when the grim realities of the 1970s showed no sign of abating. That decade had been a time of strikes and large-scale unemployment, and young people were disillusioned with many things, not least of them the notion of a family of magical creatures who must be carted around in golden carriages at government expense. In 1977, the Queen celebrated her Silver Jubilee, which touched the hearts of many Britons, especially those who had been young during the Blitz. To them she represented courage, continuity, and endurance. To the young, in the midst of the punk movement and a profound sense of alienation from the country’s elite, she represented something very different. They wore stuff the jubilee badges, and the same year, the Sex Pistols delivered the imperishable Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex Pistols, with its famous anthem, “God Save the Queen”:
God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
A potential H bomb
God save the queen
She ain’t no human being
And there’s no future
In England’s dreaming
Don’t be told what you want, you want
The album was a working-class yelp of frustration at the bollocks, that is to say the rubbish, all the things that weren’t working in England—the ridiculous Royal Family very much among them. But then, just a year into the new and potentially anti-monarchist decade: Diana. For someone joining the family at the height of the punk movement’s hatred of the monarchy, she shouldn’t have been such an immediate hit. She was the daughter of an earl who had spent much of her life in Althorp, a grand pile located on a 13,000-acre estate, the Spencer family’s home since 1508. The house is a short drive from Sandringham, the Queen’s country home, where Diana spent an unhappy portion of many unhappy Christmas mornings. Diana had attended a Swiss finishing school, and her father bought her a fashionable flat when she moved to London, where she became a member of the Sloane Rangers—its beau ideal, actually—a group of well-healed, sophisticated Londoners. A perfect fit for the fascist regime, or so it might have seemed.
But that’s not how it played. Not by a mile. With the announcement of her engagement to Prince Charles—her a naive 19, him a jaded 32—she instantly became a global celebrity, on her way to becoming the most known and most loved woman in the world. She didn’t seem like the rest of the royals. She was painfully shy, and she was afraid of the press. She hadn’t worked in the kind of Sloane Ranger patronage job she could have had in a second—at Sotheby’s, or a PR firm or fashion magazine. She had worked in a kindergarten and as a nanny; she had cleaned her sister’s flat on the weekends, for one pound an hour. She was the lonely child of a terrible divorce, which might have led to her great sympathy for children.
She was also a girl without “a history,” as people would say, meaning she was assumed to have been a virgin, a girl whose head was filled with romantic fantasies and who had imagined that she was bound for an enchanted life. At first the fantasies seemed plausible: She was borne forward on a giant tide of goodwill and international excitement to her bombastic, category-crushing wedding. There was an actual glass coach, a wedding dress with a 25-foot train, and a honeymoon on the royal yacht.
But Charles, of course, never left Camilla Parker Bowles, and soon enough Diana was embittered. She had revived people’s fondness for the silly old monarchy and its endless nonsense, but what were her thanks? Her husband was MIA and her in-laws thought of her as troubled and childish. And soon she was no longer an impressionable teenager. She was someone who wielded tremendous power, who had great feeling for those who were suffering, but who had also become manipulative and narcissistic, vengeful and shallow. When she decided to unload both barrels on the Royal Family, first to the journalist Andrew Morton, the author of Diana: Her True Story—In Her Own Words, and then to the broadcaster Martin Bashir in an explosive television interview, she scorched the earth. She told him that “the establishment,” meaning the palace, couldn’t stand her. The reason for this, she said—sounding much like Meghan Markle would nearly 30 years later—was that “I don’t go by a rule book, because I lead from the heart, not the head … Someone’s got to go out there and love people and show it.” She would never be the Queen of England, she understood, but she would instead be “the queen of people’s hearts.” When she was killed two years later, the Queen’s apparent indifference to the nation’s wild grief almost threatened to overturn the monarchy. Only when Elizabeth acknowledged the loss—flying the flag at Buckingham Palace at half mast; returning to London from Balmoral Castle, where she had been on holiday; and meeting with mourners outside the gates of Buckingham Palace—was a crisis averted.
Like diana, meghan entered the Royal Family at a time when it faced a considerable challenge to its longevity, one that she was uniquely capable of forestalling. In 1996—the year before Diana died—Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour government passed an act that would permanently change the face and character of the United Kingdom, something that the writer and social critic Benjamin Schwarz called the country’s “most profound social transformation since the Industrial Revolution.” In an effort, apparently, to make the U.K. a full participant in the modern, globalized world, the government radically relaxed immigration policies, making it much easier for people to settle there. It initiated a wave of mass immigration to the country, which continues to this day. As Schwarz noted in his essential essay, “Unmaking England,” in 2014 “636,000 migrants came to live in Britain, and 27 percent of births in Britain were to foreign-born mothers.” The majority of the immigrants were from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Somalia, and Nigeria. The result is that Britain, of all places, is becoming one of the most multiethnic, multiracial, and culturally diverse countries in the world—yet a monarchical structure remains within it that is and has always been 100 percent white. Before Meghan, thousands of English girls of color harbored the same princess dreams that white English girls had harbored for centuries. But when they saw pictures of the royals on the Buckingham Palace balcony, at their weddings and special events, and during the exciting moments when they presented their new babies to the world, they didn’t see a single person who looked like them. They saw a family that, as Stephen Colbert put it, was a “medieval selective breeding program.”
Meghan placed an oxygen mask on the monarchy, offering the potential to future-proof the institution for at least a couple more decades. Suddenly, a beautiful mixed-race woman was having the enchanted wedding, emerging from an ancient chapel under an enormous bower of flowers, and then riding off in an open coach, with her prince beside her. Like Diana, she had the magic touch, a preternatural ability to make a powerful connection with people, in even just the moment or two of encountering them on a rope line. Crowds appeared wherever she went; she was loved.
In October 2019, Meghan and Harry made an official visit to South Africa. Meghan was received with adulation and great excitement, and this was evidence that she was the best thing that could have happened to the Royal Family, making it relevant and modern and respected by a new generation. In Cape Town’s Nyanga township, she visited a human-rights organization and made a speech to a large group of women. She began it this way:
“While I am here with my husband as a member of the Royal Family, I want you to know that for me, I am here with you as a mother, as a wife, as a woman, as a woman of color, and as your sister. I am here, and I am here for you.”
When I watched the video of the speech, I thought, This woman is going to single-handedly save the British monarchy.
But it turned out that visit was really the end of things. In a documentary about the trip, Harry and Meghan: An African Journey, a reporter asked Meghan whether she was “okay,” and she took a long time to answer. “It’s hard,” she said at last, “and I don’t think anyone could understand that. But in all fairness I had no idea.” She said that when she had gotten engaged, her American friends had told her that was wonderful news, but her British friends had said, “I’m sure he’s great. But you shouldn’t do it, because the British tabloids will destroy your life.” And then she said that for a long time she had told Harry, “It’s not enough to just survive something. That’s not the point of life.” She could have been Diana talking about leading from the heart, about the way that unchecked suffering can hollow you out. For his part, Harry told the reporter that he fretted about history repeating itself—his unhappy wife following in the footsteps of his unhappy mother, with devastation to come.
And all of this led, strangely enough, to Montecito, California, which is paradise on Earth, an enclave of very rich people living very enviable lives under the clean Santa Barbara sunshine, where the air is perfumed with orange blossoms, lavender, and rosemary. It led to Meghan’s sitting down with Oprah for a TV interview in the Edenic garden of a pleasure palace midway between Oprah’s Montecito pleasure palace and her own, and it led to her narrowing her eyes, looking at Oprah, and letting them have it back there in England.
Some viewers tuned in not understanding that Meghan is an extremely accomplished person, that she had not arrived in the Royal Family with only a B-list television show to her credit. Not at all. She had gone to Northwestern University, where she’d studied international relations and theater—probably the perfect combination of subjects for her future role as Harry’s wife—and she had done an internship at the American embassy in Argentina. She had planned a life in the Foreign Service, although she did not pass the notoriously hard exam. In 2015, she was invited to speak about feminism at the United Nations, and in 2016, she traveled to Rwanda, Delhi, and Mumbai to promote World Vision’s Clean Water Campaign. In short, she was hardly an L.A. starlet who got lucky and landed a series, but had little else to show for herself. She’s smart. Next to poor Harry, she’s a Rhodes Scholar.
The interview began with the two women sitting across from each other under a pergola, making a convincing appearance of not knowing each other very well, even though they have a history. Oprah befriended Meghan early on, and she saw the ways that she and Harry were suffering. Long before Harry and Meghan left England, Oprah and Harry had begun working together on a docuseries about mental health. So Meghan felt very safe—and was very safe—talking with Oprah and, in her measured and calculated way, plunging the knife into her in-laws’ hearts.
The problems had begun about six months after the wedding; that was when things began to turn, when the tabloids decided to create a narrative. They had written that shortly before the wedding, Meghan had made Prince William’s wife, Kate, cry in a dustup over flower-girl dresses, but that wasn’t at all what had happened! Not at all! What had happened was that Kate had made Meghan cry about the flower-girl dresses. But Kate had made things right. Kate had behaved the way Meghan would have behaved if she had been in the wrong—although she had in no way been in the wrong—by apologizing and sending flowers. The palace should have protected her; the palace should have made a correction. But it had done nothing. The palace was willing to lie to protect others in the family, but not “to tell the truth to protect” Meghan and Harry.
The problems had begun about six months after the wedding; that was when things began to turn, when the tabloids decided to create a narrative. They had written that shortly before the wedding, Meghan had made Prince William’s wife, Kate, cry in a dustup over flower-girl dresses, but that wasn’t at all what had happened! Not at all! What had happened was that Kate had made Meghan cry about the flower-girl dresses. But Kate had made things right. Kate had behaved the way Meghan would have behaved if she had been in the wrong—although she had in no way been in the wrong—by apologizing and sending flowers. The palace should have protected her; the palace should have made a correction. But it had done nothing. The palace was willing to lie to protect others in the family, but not “to tell the truth to protect” Meghan and Harry.
Meghan suggested during the two-hour interview that one of the chief acts of cruelty perpetrated against the couple had been the palace’s refusal to “protect” them from the lies of the press. It did not seem to occur to her that the palace has no ability to protect its members from the tabloids, and that a story as inconsequential as tears shed over a flower girl’s dress was best starved of oxygen, not inflamed by correction. Diana was killed because the palace couldn’t control the tabloid press, and Prince Andrew had to be taken out of rotation because the papers kept the story of his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein alive week after week.
With the calumny of the flower-girl dresses cleared up, it was time to roll a piece of previously recorded tape, featuring Meghan, Harry, and Oprah squeezed into the young couple’s chicken coop, which is populated with “rescue chickens.” (Meghan: “I just love rescuing.”) What was the best thing about their new life? Oprah asked from inside the coop. The chance “to live authentically,” Meghan said, as though she and Harry were mucking out stables in Hertfordshire, not tending to rescue chickens on a $15 million estate. “It’s so basic,” she continued, “but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics.”
Cut to the pergola. The couple’s case against the Crown was that the Royal Family had not protected them from the tabloids, had stopped paying Harry—had “cut me off,” he said, in the particular expression of shocked trust-funders the world over whenever Daddy decides: enough!—and had not provided any help when Meghan found herself so unhappy that she was having suicidal thoughts. The parents were also shocked by apparent concerns about how dark their future babies would be—a revolting development, but hardly a surprising one.
A black and white photograph of Harry and Meghan returning to the inside of Buckingham Palace from a viewing balcony.
Max Mumby / Indigo / Getty
Part of Meghan’s problem, it turned out, was her naïveté about the workings of the Royal Family, which she had assumed would be similar to the workings of celebrity culture. What was she, Meghan Markle, a simple girl from Los Angeles, to have understood about such an institution as the British? How was she to know that Her Royal Highness Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith was in any way different from the Lady of Gaga? One wonders whether her study of foreign service and international relations, her internship at the American embassy in Argentina, and her work with the UN might have clued her in to the fact that a whole world exists beyond the Jamba Juice on La Brea and the set of Deal or No Deal, on which she had once been one of the beautiful “suitcase girls.” Apparently, they had not.
She told Oprah that she had never even Googled her future husband’s name—a remark that united the viewing world in hilarity, time zone by time zone. It was an assertion that strained credulity, but it was necessary to her contention that she’d had no idea that the Windsors had not, as we now say, “done the work” when it came to exploring their own racial biases. Had she herself done some work by punching her beloved’s name into a search engine, she would have understood that she was not marrying the most racially conscious person on the planet. She would have seen pictures of him dressed as a Nazi at a costume party (his great-granduncle Dickie—briefly Edward VIII—had palled around with Adolf Hitler) and a videotape of him introducing a fellow cadet as “our little Paki friend.” The Palace said that “Prince Harry used the term without any malice and as a nickname about a highly popular member of his platoon.” But the palace had no good explanation for why Harry introduced another cadet in the video by saying, “It’s Dan the Man. Fuck me, you look like a raghead.”
But it was markle’s piety regarding the British Commonwealth and her possible relationship to it that revealed the essential incoherence of her case against the monarchy. For some reason she seemed to think that representing the British monarchy to the countries it had colonized was valorous. This group of countries, she told Oprah, is “60, 70 percent ... people of color.” Absolutely true. But what force brought these nations together? And why is this institution, composed of 54 countries, headed by—of all people—the Queen of England?
The English relationship to the “commonwealth” is a natural (or unnatural) connection to the British empire.
Overwhelmingly, these are the countries that were colonized, exploited, and subjected to ruinous campaigns of violence and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the British in the name not merely of country, but of the specific family Meghan chose to join. And her desire had been to become a special emissary to this confederation of countries as a representative of the Crown, as a standard bearer of a foreign power historically responsible for many of the specific miseries that exist in these places to this very day. Britain’s eager participation in the notorious “Scramble for Africa” is directly responsible for the exploitation of natural resources in many parts of that continent. And that’s the team she wanted to represent? Meghan Markel: defender of the Queen’s “realms and territories.”
The best thing the Royal Family could do for the former colonies would be to send money and stay away.
This matter had been left unaddressed by the time Harry arrived under the pergola—a bit flushed, obviously pained, and by no means as comfortable with the complicated new narrative as was his wife—and started answering questions. He revealed that he is estranged from his father, who at some point stopped taking his calls; that he loves his brother to bits, but that this relationship is also strained; that his adored grandmother had disinvited him and Meghan to lunch; and that when Netflix approached the couple with a deal, it was a stroke of luck, because “we hadn’t thought about it.” When they arrived in Los Angeles, cut off financially and stranded with only the funds left to Harry by his mother (and Meghan’s money from her television work), they had been forced to huddle like refugees in Tyler Perry’s mansion, allowing the superstar to pay for their security.
I think PC was 28 when he started F/T Royalling after his Navy service so round about same age as PW. As Monarch you don’t get to retire (TQ at 94, still having to get tarted up to meet some Ambassador...) so they have 60+ years ahead of them. I believe PW is currently learning how to be CEO of the multi million pound company that is the Duchy, ready to take over when he’s PoW. PP managed all the Royal estates - PC has his hands full with his 500 patronage’s, The Princes Trust, The Princes Foundation and the Princes Charitable Trust so possibly Andrew might have been given that to keep him out of bother. Not all Royal work is ribbon cutting. However, the main complaint against the RF in the DM comments is that “they’ve never done a days work in their lives.....” (which must kill PC as he sits at his desk at 11 o clock at night) so getting out to cut those ribbons should be a priority.
Thank you, Ron, for bringing up those points! Good grief, just running a small business with a family is difficult. There is the juggling of the school schedules, projects, business projects, meeting with customers, meeting with bankers, meeting with the IRS (grin), wading through the pages and pages and pages of required paperwork, making bids, making payroll, dealing with cancellation of projects, law changes, rule changes, and having to have at least 40 hours of (billable) work per employee per week. Did I mention vehicle maintenance, heavy equipment maintenance, license maintenance, and meeting state standards for continuing education for state licenses? Did I mention employee evaluation, interviewing, hiring, and firing? Oh, geez, I forgot the trade meetings and schmoozing. There are the meetings with sales people, public officials that hint heavily that the project may run into some unforeseen difficulties unless certain palms are blessed with green stuff, pulling permits, scheduling deliveries of materials and workmen. Having to switch between hard-as-nails businesswoman to nice drill sergeant mommy for the band boosters and 4-H meetings (because those people will waste every bit of time that you have dithering over inconsequential details) can hurt feelings.
And that was WITHOUT the press circling like a great white shark looking for prey and blood in the water while PC is administering a billion-dollar business which means WAY more problems in addition to his vice monarching and teaching PW the business of administration. In addition, PW knows that he must be a good dad now because he may not be able to be there (in terms of spare time) for the children, and the wife, in the future.
And that is ALL the time for commenting that the grandchildren are going to allow me for today (grin).
But more than any of this—more than Diana’s sad life and tragic death, more than Meghan’s disappointment at discovering that the Windsors aren’t devotees of critical race theory, more than the rescue chickens and the Spotify deal and even the Montecito mansion—the main takeaway from Oprah’s interview with Meghan and Harry was that it was spectacular television. Minute-for-minute excellent television. Oprah is one of the most famous people in the world; Meghan is an enormous celebrity. They both looked beautiful, and the setting was a garden of such exquisiteness that most of us will never lay eyes on its likeness outside of television or the movies. But what they were doing was talking about something most women have talked about with other women: in-law problems. They were on the grounds of an estate, but they could have been on the sidelines of a T-ball game or at a girls’ night out, or waiting for the subway. The father-in-law was a prick; the brother’s wife was a real pain and hadn’t done anything to reduce bridal anxieties before the wedding; the grandmother was a doll, but too easily exploited by the nursing-home staff. They were loaded, but they had cut off a favored son when he’d most needed the money. Meghan had, in fact, realized the highest aspiration of many married people: She had convinced her spouse that his entire family was a bunch of losers. (Harry, on life before meeting Meghan: “I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped.”) She had plucked him out of its bosom and made herself and their child his only true family. She was—depending on your point of view—either a virago or an icon.
Nothing is as galvanizing and unifying as an episode of appointment television in which a hugely famous female broadcaster delivers an exclusive interview with another hugely famous celebrity who is in the midst of what is essentially a personal drama.
I was reminded of Diane Sawyer’s 1995 interview with Lisa Marie Presley and Michael Jackson soon after the pair’s marriage, an event that had closely followed accusations that he was a child molester. Had she been worried about the charges? Asked him about the charges before marrying him?
“I’ve seen these children. They don't let him go to the bathroom without running in there with him.”
And of Barbara Walters’s 1999 interview with Monica Lewinsky. Why had she flashed her thong at Bill Clinton?
“It was saying, ‘I’m interested, too. I’ll play.’”
And Emily Maitlis’s 2020 interview with Prince Andrew. Why had he stayed in Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion after Epstein had been implicated in a massive sex-trafficking scheme?
“My judgment was probably colored by my tendency to be too honorable.”
These were questions about marriage and crimes against women and sex between powerful men and impressionable young women. They were conversations among famous people, but they were also conversations among all of us: the world’s women. They took the most elemental and baleful female conditions—sex and marriage, motherhood, and the ever-present threat of sexual danger—and transformed them into glossy television events. They gave us the kinds of details in which women—even the most intellectual and high-minded women—take an enduring interest, and they gave us an instant way to talk about them with one another.
I had an unpleasant medical procedure a few days after the Oprah special, but I was so focused on my nurse’s opinion of the show (surprisingly anti-Meghan) that I hardly noticed the pain. I had forced my sons and husband to watch the interview with me, and when Oprah reminded Meghan that when you marry a person, you are also marrying that person’s family, I cried out, “That’s right!” The things women care about will always be with us, and the way women work through them is not to drop ordinance on Afghanistan. It’s to find one another, put on the kettle or open the wine, and talk.
At the end of the interview, Harry sat beside Meghan, still looking a bit stunned, a bit unsure what was happening to him in this new life. Looking, in fact, a bit like a rescue chicken. Oprah asked him if Meghan had “saved him.”
“Yeah, she did,” he said. “Without question, she saved me.”
Meghan reached out her hand and touched his arm, stopping him from going on.
“I would … I would …” she said, trying to locate the right note, trying perhaps to avoid the impression that her husband was one more chicken in her coop. She hadn’t done the rescuing, she said—Harry had. It was Harry who had “certainly saved my life and saved all of us.”
And Harry sat there beside her, 7,000 miles from home, in the land of rich Californians and Meyer lemons and eucalyptus trees trailing Spanish moss. He had plighted his troth to this unexpected and very beautiful woman; he had hurt his grandmother, and alienated his father and his only brother. He had thought that having Desmond Tutu deliver the homily at his wedding would reverse a thousand years of English racial attitudes, but he had been wrong about that. He was a combat veteran, a prince, the grandson, great-grandson, and great-great-grandson of English kings, and now he was going to have to think up some podcasts.
While I was reading it, I was thinking:
Yeah, the never complain, never explain worked until it didn't. Now, it is who get's their "truth" story out first, controls the media who is basically sorta fighting a story which leads with their first question as: When did you stop beating your wife?.
Irish #RoyalBaby
Warning: Language NSFW, but side-splittingly funny so do watch.
---------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t025HCVasKU
My Cambridge comments were part of a discussion about Kate and William's history. Specifically a question was put to me by @Hikari to justify how i arrived at my opinion and whether or not it was drawing from factual, verifiable sources or media / internet gossip. I provided my sources.
Furthermore, I have pointed out that Kate has improved exponentially in the past 3yrs thanks to the private secretary hired to help her in the autumn of 2017.
I appreciate @Hikari's take on the matter just as i hope they have a better understanding how i drew my conclusions.
I would write a similar set of comments if i were discussing Charles, Diana, Sophie, Fergie, Edward and more. And i believe i have on afew occasions when they came up.
However, given the repeated negative feedback of my Cambridge specific comments by various people including yourself, i've belatedly realised that this is a Cambridge sugar blog. I shall therefore refrain from making any further comment on the Cambridges.
So i ask all of you to stop coming at me.
The Sussexes continued to get security, SG funding (for staff and offices, travel, among other things), and Duchy of Cornwall money until the end of March (I doubt the Sussexes paid for Meghan's designer clothes for that farewell visit). Canada chipped in for the security while they were in Canada. Charles then gave them a huge lump sum to assist them for the year, supposedly, to last until the 12-month review. However, although they had that money from Charles, supposedly, they no longer had SG money (but Clarence House continued to deal with their mail), they were forced to start paying rent for Frogmore Cottage (call in the Brooksbanks for rescue from that one), they had to pay for their own security and transport, and the bills from Meghan for designer clothes et al. could no longer be passed on to Papa to pay.
I think Harry did not realize how expensive Meghan is to maintain,and the cost of his lifestyle, until Megxit truly swung into action. He is frustrated, bitter and angry, but the source of it all accepts no responsibility or blame or fault, so he projects it all on his family and thus sounds like a delusional, entitled, spoilt brat who is full of outrage and anger because his family 'cut him off'.
@KCM1212: Thanks for sharing that article. It is a good read.
The nature of the Sussex topic does encompass other members of the family, history, tradition, and so on.
I did not mention names as I did not want to target anyone.
The Cambridges digression rarely referenced the Sussexes or their story and was becoming protracted and increasingly a justification of a very negative judgement of the Cambridges. I personally became annoyed and expressed that instead of just scrolling past.
Moving on ...
Moreover, this wasn't an easy ride for her - I wouldn't wish hyperemesis on anyone. We can be pretty certain that Princess-Henry-to-be never suffered from that when she bore Archie - just the occasional fart as she bent down/stood up (and used it to claim moral superiority over Catherine).
I am open to being corrected if I'm wrong
I apologise if I've upset anyone.
The legal wording in it's royal charter is very specific on this point.
(Paraphrasing) The funding is provided to the Heir APPARENT, Duke of Cornwall, and Prince of Wales *in service to the Crown*.
If there is no such person or if they are minors, the funding goes into a trustfund controlled by parliament until such a person is available or the minor reached legal maturity and is able to take control of the trust.
Every Heir Apparent, Duke of Cornwall has been far wealthier than their siblings as a result.
Charles became Heir Apparent, Duke of Cornwall at 3yrs old so he grew up far wealtheir than his siblings. In his minority, The Queen had to ask parliament in order to draw any funds on his behalf for his use.
The Queen was Heir PRESUMPTIVE and not Duke of Cornwall so she never accessed the trust nor did she have any rights to it.
William is currently Heir PRESUMPTIVE and not Duke of Cornwall so like the Queen before becoming Queen has no rights to it.
And poor Harry especially has no rights to it as The Duke of Sussex who may never become Heir Apparent, Duke of Cornwall.
Charles got around this legal wrinkle by claiming the Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex as members of his household and hides this expenditure as 'other household items'. However he qualifies his support by claiming that it is used *in service to the Crown*. It was done quietly.
This is new wording that has been inserted in the narrative over the past 5yrs because Charles's support was originally understood to come from his private funds. And where it criss-crossed with public duties was reimbursed or written off via taxes.
His support using duchy funds was never supposed to be overt. Where people assumed he was using duchy funds, it was still understood that it funded their offices *in srrvice to the crown*
The Sussexes shot themselves in the foot in their Megxit statement when they very public revealed their lives -some 95% - funding was duchy money.
That statement forced Charles to cut them off duchy money because it was direct violation of the Duchy charter plus he couldn't pretend they were using it *in service of the Crown*
This is the situation for all the other royals except The Queen has chosen to use her duchy of Lancaster funds to provide income to some of her relatives.
The difference between duchy of Cornwall funds and duchy of Lancaster funds is that one is provided in service to the crown while the other is simply private income for the monarch.
It isn't ergregious how the monarch chooses to spend their Lancaster money because that charter doesn't specifically qualify how they should spend it.
In the past, parliament granted annuities to all and sundry princelings if the monarch requested it.
By the Victorian age, there were far too many of the monarch's relatives getting these annuities, high or low ranking alike.
After George 5 reorganised the family in 1917, many of these annuities stopped except for the Consort and perhaps one or two very special family members, but the govt continued to pay for various family members' residences especially if they resided in palaces eg at KP.
The Queen kept this residences practice up until 00s when another review of the govt royal funding saw her stop paying for various relatives who were also required to start paying for their palace residences at market value.
With regards her children, she bought Gatcombe Park and Sunninghill Park outright for Anne and Andrew as wedding presents.
Charles used duchy of Cornwall funds to buy Highgrove and it remains a duchy property.
Edward leased Bagshott Park. Andrew has now leased Royal Lodge. Both from The Crown Estate.
They have obviously known from the beginning it wasn't an option, so why bang on about it?? Stomping your feet and throwing a very public tantrum doesn't change how the government, laws, or institution work.I just don't get it.
I love Kate but she doesn't really impress me. Her public speaking has improved a little. Her fashion is still very drab but some say that's how royals should be. Other European royals dress far better than Kate. Her one dimensional coats, wedges, culottes and erdem clothes annoy me.
It's kind of you to profess love for someone you otherwise find so unexceptional. Catherine needs all the love she can get these days.
The obsession with what Royal ladies are wearing and how they've accessorized their outfits didn't start with Diana entirely but she made it 'the' main point of interest with the female Royals. I have to ask, rhetorically, if in the 21st century, looking decorative in beautiful clothes with beautifully coiffed hair and makeup should still be demanded of Royal women as their primary achievement in life, with anything else they do a secondary consideration. It's hardly surprising that Kate has a reputation for being very strict with what she eats and is rumored, at least pre-children, to work out 6 hours a day with this kind of scrutiny on her appearance. I think she always looks very pulled together. In the early days, some of her High Street fashion, the gauzy short dresses in the whimsical prints felt a little too frivolous for Royal engagements. Her new stylist has helped her kick her style into a more sophisticated tier as befits a mother of three and a now-established and important part of the Firm. I don't care for the Erdem stuff myself either; bit too schoolmarmish on the Prairie and I find they aren't flattering. It's hard to make a 5'10" rail-thin woman look dumpy but those garments manage it. Otherwise what you call 'one-dimensional' I'd be more likely to call 'classic'. She could devote more time to competing with other European royals in a fashion show of 'Who Wore it Better?' but I'd like to assume that she's got more weighty things on her mind.
I just imagine that Harry married someone who is always put together like the Queen of Spain, she would have completely dusted Kate.
I cannot imagine any scenario where Meghan would have blown Catherine out of the water in a style contest. Do you really believe what you've written here? This sentiment does not sound at all loving toward Catherine, even for someone who finds her fashion underwhelming. Meghan was capable of a few flattering outfits/photographs, but nearly all of them where taken while she was being dressed, styled and photographed by the professionals on Suits, or for Reitman's. When Meg was entirely responsible for her own look, she was mostly a hot mess. I think, purposely, because she WANTED to invite criticism. It wasn't clear to me then but it is now that she intentionally looked bad most of the time to fuel her narrative of having to escape her Royal duties on account of the vicious tabloid press.
Whether or not one would (or could) choose to dress the way Catherine does, she gets the details right and shows respect for and awareness of the context of her visit in the clothes and accessories she selects. She does this with a lot of help. A whole team helps her get dressed, but she alone shoulders the criticism for the result--which is one of the burdens of her position for the rest of her life. She's been dealing with the Royal spotlight and this criticism for more than 10 years and Meg couldn't even hack it for 18 months. Who's really dusting who?
Do you really believe that Catherine only seems appealing now is because Meghan couldn't put an outfit together and otherwise 'failed' (I'll say. She failed spectacularly and no amount of merched Versace can make up for that.).
If Catherine only shines because Meghan failed as a Royal, the Queen doesn't seem to be aware of this. She awarded Catherine The Royal Family Order in December 2017. Markle and Harry had been engaged less than two weeks. 18 months later, Catherine received from her sovereign the Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, the highest award she can give in acknowledgement of her services to the Queen over her 8 years of marriage.
Meg and Harry have a proven track record of being the laziest/most entitled and under-engaged Royals during their incredibly brief stint. Their deficiencies highlighted the better, steadier showing the Cambridges were making, but Catherine didn't rate the Dame Grand Cross just because Meg couldn't comb her hair properly.
At the present time, with all the anguish and likely irreparable rift within the family, I doubt very much that Catherine counts herself 'lucky' that Meghan was such a disaster in the Royal family. Everyone that Harry and Meg abandoned and burned have been 'dusted' all right--with hatred, discord and lies. I think there have been tears and heartache in the Cambridge household over this. When Harry announced his engagement, I'm sure Catherine might have felt 'luckier' to be blessed with a sister-in-law who would have been a friend to her and helped share the load. Nobody in the Royal family is lucky that the Sussex situation is what it is . . and that's down to Meghan, with Harry's help, but where she leads, he follows.
I'll repeat my earlier call for kindness toward Catherine, no matter how much we might hate Erdem and wedges. I think she's risen to the demands of her role and is doing a great job under pressure. I've always been impressed with her poise. That is always going to be a timeless quality that transcends fashion.
Also, for people who are critical that Catherine didn't 'do more' for the Firm while her children were very small/infants (apart from cranking out three Crown heirs while suffering greatly from HG each time)--take a look back at Diana's career as a working royal. She had a higher rank than Kate currently does and apart from a few joint appearances with Charles during her first year of marriage, and a speech in Wales, she was very under the radar until the Australia tour when William was a year old. She didn't become the face of charity within the RF until her boys were a lot older. So . . 40 years ago, it was acceptable for a new Windsor bride to concentrate on nesting and home life and having babies, in a way it now is not for Catherine to prioritize being mum during her children's earliest years. If she were from any other well-heeled family who could afford nannies and who had no job apart from lunching, beauty treatments and luxury holidays, she wouldn't be getting this kind of criticism for being 'lazy'. But of course, she's a public servant on the dole, so she must 'earn' her right to a life of such privilege.
Just the way Meg is earning her privilege, right.
Their very public tantrum over being cut off from taxpayer funding is where they continue to lose more people once you explain what 'cutting off' actually means.
Especially when you throw in the estimated value of his diana trustfund.
No room was given for her pregnancy and we did see her at engagements tired and even asleep due to the pregnancy.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Princess-Diana-6.jpg
Alot of people remember her charm, her fashion and all manner of things which has blunted the fact that the woman worked straight out of the gate, and by that i mean her honeymoon.
It was one of her many complaints later in life.
Thanks for that explanation of Duchy of Cornwall funds. It is all rather messy isn't it?
I suppose Charles justified supporting his sons as an extended part of his household who were in service to the Crown. There is no way he could find a way to justify funding the Sussexes from the Duchy when they are living in California, but I suppose that is why the Sussexes emphasized 'serving the Queen' in their manifesto. They thought they had covered the criteria for continued funding from the Duchy. Papa said no.
I agree Sandie - there's a lot of bitterness here which I don't need. Presumably I'm not alone?
I’m with you 100%.
Thanks for the explanation of Duchy of Cornwall funding. As I recall, that did make Will and Harry's establishment of a separate "household" at KP a little dicey years ago.
---
I hope this isn't seen as argumentative, but I would like to say that when comparisons are made between Will/Kate and Harry/Meghan it's a little hard to see how discussion of W&K is off-topic. It seemed one recent "sub-thread" (for lack of a better word) concerned H&M not wanting to take a "Malta deal" as was given to Will and Kate. But as Acquitaine pretty clearly laid out, there wasn't a Malta deal for W&K (and in fact even QEII didn't have one with 2 years off.)
IF W&K are used to highlight H&M's failings (and they do have many IMO) to me it doesn't make sense to whitewash/revise/ignore W&K's known history to make that work. Neither does comparing M's performance her first year as a royal to Kate's performance after many years. Others obviously prefer to take a different approach. And that's fine.
Has the Spectator Australia article been posted?
Please remember that Duchess Catherine has already performed her main royal duty three times over - she has secured the Succession by bearing 3 children that take precedence over Harry.
Moreover, this wasn't an easy ride for her - I wouldn't wish hyperemesis on anyone. We can be pretty certain that Princess-Henry-to-be never suffered from that when she bore Archie - just the occasional fart as she bent down/stood up (and used it to claim moral superiority over Catherine).
Thank you for echoing the sentiments I put in my earlier post. The working Royals justify their existences with the British public by carrying out these public appearances in support of various organizations, in which pictures will be taken, sound bites possibly aired on the evening news and their profile is therefore put before the public in a display of goodwill and support, to show that they are 'working/listening/down with the common people.' It's a full-time PR job and the product they are peddling is themselves primarily, and British organizations as an adjunct. This is an important aspect of 'the Job' . . . but in my opinion (some will argue otherwise), being seen at public engagements pulling pints, cutting ribbons, strolling with flowers, posing for pictures which will be endlessly dissected, et. al is not more vital than producing the next generation and being good parents and raising children to be good people. Charles has followed his mother's example in prioritizing his Royal role over his role as a father--I'm not really blaming him as such--what other role model did he receive in how to be a parent? Plus, as the Crown heir from birth he's always had to shoulder a bigger helping of 'Family Business' even as a youth than his children ever were expected to at such a young age.
Has William been tutored intensively in Welsh in preparation for his future investiture as Prince of Wales? I'd say not or we would have heard about it already. In terms of 'the Firm', Charles was expected at 20 years of age to do more than is now expected of his son at nearly 40. If the younger generation has been coddled until their middle age and allowed to blow off Royal duties in favor of holidays and movie premieres . . where should the blame be assigned? 'Work-shy' youth or their elders who didn't push them harder to do and be more? Charles is in a precarious position--in the normal course of events, he would be eyeing retirement or have already done so and passed off the reins of the family business to his nearly-40 year old son. But he hasn't gotten the CEO job yet. He's still the first VP, and can't or doesn't fancy, giving his Second VP a more powerful profile than his current position warrants.
To compare the amount of time the Queen spent in Malta and the amount of time the Cambridge spent in Angelsey is a false analogy to fit an agenda.
Rumour has it that the Sussexes were offered some kind of 'time out' deal, but Meghan rejected it and wanted to start 'royalling' immediately. Would things have turned out differently if she had chosen not to be a working royal? She would have had restrictions, especially if Harry continued to be a working royal, but they would have had more breathing space to get to know each other and for Meghan to adjust to the UK and the royal family.
Charles doesn't have `siblings' - he has one sibling, a sister called Anne.
William as Heir Presumptive? How come?
Their is one Heir to the Throne at a time. In the `old days' the Heir was either `Apparent' or `Presumptive' depending on whether male or female. The eldest son was Heir Apparent; if he predeceased his father the King, the next son became Heir Apparent, as happened in the case of George V. If the king had no sons, the eldest daughter was Heir Presumptive, ie she was Heir on the presumption that no more sons would be born who would supplant her as according to the rules of Succession at the time.
Well made, in high-quality fabric, beautifully tailored, should last for years. Tough if looks `stuffy'.
The alternative is throw-away stuff that's out of fashion the next year, if not sooner. Some of us prefer our Royals to look as if they value skill and quality, stuff that endures, over the temporary. It signals `stability' `reliability' and `durability'. Wearing clothes only once is not a good look for them.
Until He is safely granted the titles, William is a presumptive heir. Just like The Queen was her entire life until she became Queen.
Charles was officially declared Heir Apparent at 3yrs old, and that was that because that is an absolute term legally speaking.
Heir presumptive is not an absolute term. It requires wriggle room in case a better offer comes along to replace the holder.
Given our gendered succession laws, daughters got lumped with that term by default including the Queen, but it is not restricted to daughters.
Our only female Heir Apparent is Matilda, and we know how they treated her. She's not taught in history books and is largely ignored in favour of her usurper Stephen.
I didn't like Catherine in the early days but couldn't put my finger on why, them some hateful press piece described her as having a rictus grin, as in her smile never seemed genuine. I was a bit shocked it could be something like that made people unsure of Catherine.
The sheer amount of public smiling required has got to be overwhelming. There's a scene The Crown, presumably drawn from life, where the new Queen, on her Australia tour of 1954 has to have muscle relaxants injected into her face due to spasms caused by so much smiling. It'd be impossible for every single public smile to be 100% genuine all the time. I just remember that Catherine was always smiling and seemed like a game lass, especially for a self-professed shy person. I have read unkind comments about the natural shape of her lips contributing to the 'rictus grin' look--and surely she cannot be blamed for having thin lips or a small bust or what have you. This is the kind of criticism they have to develop a Teflon skin for or they won't make it.
I agree that someone may have come into Catherine's life around 2015/16 who may have enabled her to approach royalling in a way that worked for her, not just ribbon cutting but getting down to the root causes of problems.
By 2016 she was a mother of two and probably just felt a great deal more secure in herself, as a mom and and as an established member of the family. She and Wills also replaced the personal friends from uni they'd hired in some of their staff positions with more seasoned professionals, and I think that has helped both of them cultivate a more serious image. Having children probably gave her a focus and direction toward the early years project, which looks like it's going to be her legacy, at least for this first part of her tenure. Maybe once her children well away at school, she will explore other areas of her interest, like art history and branch out, but she's dedicated a significant amount of time into becoming a real leader of this early years initiative rather than just a glamorous Royal figurehead. I think of this project as her fourth child, really. All the work she puts into her family-friendly active gardens for the Chelsea Flower Show are aligned with her work on early development. She interned in the mother-baby unit at the hospital, which impressed me. It took a few years in between bouts of HG and giving birth for her to find her 'brand', but I think she's hit on it and has a clear direction to head in. In any other job, a brand-new hire would be mentored for a couple of years at least and given time to develop in her role, and would not be saddled with a workload expected of the more senior employees with decades of experience immediately . . especially on leave with pregnancy complications. This does seem to have been expected of Catherine out of the gate by a lot of people which doesn't feel fair to me, but given her immense privileges, 'fair' gets tossed out of the window and perhaps rightly so. She is not at present being treated 'fairly' by her sister-in-law's PR.
"@Aquitaine
Charles doesn't have `siblings' - he has one sibling, a sister called Anne."
Are you saying that Andrew and Edward are not Charles's siblings?
Of course, you're right - Charles has other siblings - I'm so old I forgot the `after thoughts'. My mind was still in 1951 and visualising them on the National savings stamps.
Assessing value to the Firm by 'number of engagements' has always felt to me like petty bean counting. It is one measure of output for money, as it were, but only one, and numbers don't tell the whole story. How many visits to the Wool Board or an old folks' home could be sandwiched into a 4 or 6-hour shift at the maternity hospital or MI-6? Is comforting a sick child at home all night worth more or less than christening a barge for a photo op? Is opening a new garden centre worth more to the Firm than spending 3 hours reading a book on child development in preparation for a speech on the early years, when the former will rate press coverage and a new outfit by a British designer and the latter won't? This is the kind of constant mental calculus that has to go on over every minute of the Royals' time. It's got to be exhausting. Not to mention that Catherine is required to look fabulous during every outing and Zoom chat or there will be negative talk. Nobody really seems to care what the guys are wearing, as long as they don't look like Sussex hoboes.
Quality over quantity seems to be what the Cambridges are aiming for, and partly that's practicality--with so few able bodied full-time Royals to represent the various patronages, there just aren't enough bodies to go around. Investing in a more limited number of organizations and projects where more of their time is going to go makes their contributions able to be more substantial, and more manageable for them. I expect that in the future, a lot of organizations which currently enjoy a Royal patron may have content themselves with more sporadic Royal patronage . .they'll still have a patron, but perhaps the Royal patron will only be able to attend one event every other year rather than yearly or more according to past custom. Being able to do virtual events will help with the coverage and I think even after the pandemic is over, Zoom meetings are here to stay as a regular feature in every industry, including the Royals.
I think it was the final straw.
The 'bad press' they got was an issue easily ignored, and there were other family members who had been relentlessly harassed by paparazzi and dragged through mud in the press but who had survived and thrived (except Diana, ans that is a hge and significant exception, but royals are now protected from that kind of paparazzi). It was unbearable for the Sussexes even though the Palace and royal reporters buried most of the stories, and the Palace spoke out in defence of the Sussexes 10x more than they had ever done for any other family member. They just could not let anything go and focus on important stuff.
Meghan's character and personality was just not suitable for being a part of the royal family. She lives in a fantastical delusion (greatest love story, global style icon, smartest person ever, humanitarian, champion of women's rights ... and now the supreme victim), so she could not follow advice because everyone was there to deliver her Disney fantasy and not question or criticise her.
She also refuses to follow rules but spends so much energy breaking them. (It is this characteristic of a toxic narcissist that gets them into trouble with the law.) Engagement with the Queen? It is going to be a windy day. Wear a darn hat or a fascinator and you won't have photos living forever online of you looking a mess! Let the flower girls wear tights so if their skirt lifts up, they retain some modesty, and so they do not get blisters on their feet. Hire someone to buy for you and manage your outfits so you don't end up looking a mess because you saw something that looks great on a model but you have a different body shape and don't wear the right foundation garments...
I think they did feel unsupported because they retreated into a silo instead of building a loyal support group around them of rational people who understood royalty. Harry had a loyal group of friends since his school days. They understood what being a royal is all about, but Meghan cut them out instead of seeing how valuable they could be. Jessica and Daniel the make-up artist were never going to be the kind of useful friends that the Sussexes needed, and they were definitely not going to keep them grounded in reality, and they were never going to connect them to the wealth they needed to schmooze for big donations to their foundation to fund big projects. (As an extreme, compare Earthshot Prize/Prince's Trust and a donation to sponsor a dog kennel for a year/takeaway lunch for a group of volunteers.)
I hardly think William can be unaware of the Welsh language, having lived on Anglesey.
I wasn't suggesting he was unaware of the Welsh language. Even I, an American, am aware of the Welsh language--The bits of the Crown devoted to Charles's time in Wales prior to his investiture even led me to watch some Welsh language lessons on YouTube, and I am the proud owner of a DVD of Very Annie Mary, a film featuring the comedic stylings of Mssrs. Gwyfudd and Rhys. William has heard more Welsh on the ground, having lived there and seen the road signs. What I was doubtful of is that he has been intensively tutored in Welsh like Charles was for a whole term of immersion study in 1969. Frankly, I thought the BRF had left it way too late for Charles to be learning Welsh for the first time just months prior to his investiture--and then be expected to give a lengthy and grammatical, pronunciation-perfect speech in the language to a globally televised audience of millions.
And our little Montecito snowflake flower thinks *she* experienced pressure from the media?? As if. Charles gets a bad, and persistent rap as a weak personality, but time and again he rose to occasions that would have crushed a weaker sort--trials that were against his natural inclination and temperament all the way, like Gordonstoun and facing down Welsh separatist protesters while on his Wales tour. But I don't need to recite to you the tidbits of his life I have gleaned from The Crown when you've lived through them. I just doubt that William picked up Welsh by osmosis whilst he was living in Anglesey. I'm sure he can do a bit of greetings and pub chat. I lived in Japan for six years and I had intensive lessons for six months . . and continued to study on my own, while being immersed in Japanese life. But I was there to teach English and that consumed most of my time. I learned a great deal, but speechmaking in formal Japanese was way beyond my level.
Surprised that all future Princes of Wales aren't introduced to the language from the age of 6 or 7 onwards.
I agree with your post about number of patronages and what a patron is supposed to do.
The idea of a royal patronage is a very old one, but needs to be modernized, as the Cambridges are doing.
Mozart had a a royal patron - a king. It meant financial support. He lost his patron and ended up in a pauper's grave. I think the Queen persnally does give a small donation each year to her patronages and she tries to visit each once or twice a year, depending on if there is a special event and her schedule. Charles and the Cambridges seem to focus more on huge projects that make a big difference fir a long time.
During the last world war, the King and Queen went out to meet the people during the blitz to keep up spirits. They went to poor areas of the city to do so. That was something new.
Charles and Camilla are presently visiting pop-up vaccination sites in areas where there is resistance to the vaccine. This is not part of their normal schedule.
Any model must be flexible, but as you describe, Hikari, as the world changes and the population grows, royals will change how they do things, but not the underlying motivation for what they do - to fulfil a duty of service.
I once asked an English chap, living in Gwynedd, how his children were getting on at the Welsh-speaking local primary school
`Huh!', he replied. `They're illiterate in two languages.'
@Aquitaine
Charles doesn't have `siblings' - he has one sibling, a sister called Anne.
I confess, you've lost me in the weeds here. Does 'sibling' have some special restricted meaning for Crown heirs? Aren't younger brothers considered siblings? Andrew in particular wouldn't be pleased to hear that he doesn't rate as a sibling.
Thank God Charles had Anne so close in age to him; the two seem very close, and she could take some of the heat of his father's overbearing attentions off him. The pictures of Charles and Anne as youngsters show a little boy who was very solicitous of his little sister. I'm sure she's his favorite sibling; the other boys are so much younger than he, I expect he barely feels like he knows them.
If 'sibling' means only 'sister', this is the first I'm hearing of it.
There is one Heir to the Throne at a time. In the `old days' the Heir was either `Apparent' or `Presumptive' depending on whether male or female. The eldest son was Heir Apparent; if he predeceased his father the King, the next son became Heir Apparent, as happened in the case of George V. If the king had no sons, the eldest daughter was Heir Presumptive, ie she was Heir on the presumption that no more sons would be born who would supplant her as according to the rules of Succession at the time.
Is there a title then, for the Heir Apparent to the Heir Apparent, the position that William now holds, and George will have once Wills becomes PoW?
"I suspect the Royals don't consider Sovereign Grant and Duchy of Cornwall money to be taxpayer funds. The income is from land, etc. stolen centuries ago fair and square."
The royals are very aware that this money is taxpayer funding because of the public accounts they provide every year. These are public records that have become a way to keep an eye on how they spend this money even if you disagree with the principal of the thing.
If you are ever unsure about their awareness on this point, think back to Charles and Diana's divorce in 1996.
At that point the duchy was valued at over a quarter billion pounds.
And yet Charles had to scramble to get a loan, sell some personal art and cash out his financial investments to meet her comparatively paltry £17M divorce settlement.
The government refused any attempts to use the duchy as collateral or to base any settlement on it's value, real or estimated.
Secondly, the Sovereign grant is a slice of The Crown Estates which is a property already owned by the public. It has never belonged to the royals.
It was created by parliament in Norman times to fund the instrument of government which was defined then as army, judiciary, parliament and the royal household. In modern times government has expanded to include public services, social services and services like NHS, police etc. It's revenues have always gone straight into the treasury since it's inception.
It's charter, ratified over time, makes it clear that it is not and will never be the property of the monarch.
The confusion lies in it's history because it's management was handed over to the Monarch.That personal involvement has gradually led to a belief that The Crown Estates were personal property, looted or otherwise, of the Monarch.
Not helped by George 3 handing management responsibility to parliament though keeping the perk of having his expenses and those of the royal household paid. This was the original civil list which eventually switched to the Sovereign grant, a 15% carve out of the Crown Estates.
The Duchy of Cornwall was similarly created by parliament for the heir to the throne.
The Duchy of Lancaster fits the assumption of looting ancestors because it came to the royals first as the marriage dowry of Blanche of Lancaster and therefore a private estate within the family ranks. However, her son, Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne to become Henry 4 which sowed the seeds for the later war of the roses.
After the Yorks won that battle albight temporarily, they retrospectively pronounced Henry 4 traitor to the Crown and his duchy forfeited to the crown.
They created a charter that kept the duchy as a state property whose only purpose was to provide income for the monarchy, BUT also made very clear that it can never, ever be the personal property of the monarch.
This charter has been ratified to retain the provisions made by the Yorks all those centuries ago.
There is definitely an argument to be made against the ongoing funding of the royals via property that belongs to us, especially when the additional 10% carve out of The Crown Estates to refurbish Buckingham Palace means that other services have to be cut due to reduced funding however minor the overall contribution the Estates make to the treasury - imagine what that £360M could do for nurses' salaries.
But the looting argument against the duchies isn't correct unless you want to make a case for the entire norman invasion which created the system.
But she has to stay rail-thin. At 16, I was 6'2" and 120 lbs, and I never looked that thin.
Heir apparent is not a title as such, however it is a person who is first in an order of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person.
Heir presumptive is someone who is first in line to inherit a title but who can be displaced by the birth of a more eligible heir.
due to the gendered laws of inheritance, females tended to be called heir presumptive because if a boy was born after them, then that boy displaced them.
The duchy of Cornwall requires that whoever inherits it has been declared heir apparent and ONLY that person.
Someone who is heir presumptive can not inherit the duchy of Cornwall or it's dukedom.
The Queen was always heir presumptive until she became Queen. She had no rights to the duchy of Cornwall as a result.
My Mother brought me up to believe that it was as inevitable as day following night that any composer would live in a garret and die young. My mother had some very strange views.
Of course, you're right - Charles has other siblings - I'm so old I forgot the `after thoughts'. My mind was still in 1951 and visualising them on the National savings stamps.
:)
Sometimes I wish we could go back to 1960 and have a do-over as well. I didn't make my debut until a year after Edward was born, but imagine how life might be now if we could have do-overs in this world.
Do you watch Endeavour on ITV? In the S1 episode 'Girl' there's a scene where the young lady makes a deposit at the post office on behalf of her baby son and she hands over her passbook for stamping--the props department had got ahold of a book showing Prince Charles on the stamps. The show took place in 1965, when Charles was 17, but this was a younger version of him at maybe 8 years old? That was my best guess.
When William was 21, Granny commissioned a new stamp for his birthday and at that time, PW was the most eligible bachelor in the world and the spitting image of his Mum. That shock of blond hair is all gone now, sadly. I didn't see that coming. William still looks like the young man I remember watching grow up when he's got a hat on. Otherwise, it seems like as he gets older, he comes more and more to resemble his grandfather the Duke of Edinburgh. I used to think that Charlotte favored the Queen but actually she's the spitting image of her father--same eyes in her head. Charles and his boys have got Philip's eyes, I think. Harry has got even more of him.
The Queen did essentially have two families, with there being such a gap, the elder two were more like uncle and aunt to the younger boys rather than siblings. It worked well for each sibling pair to have a close cohort, but it just brings home how very young the Queen was when she ascended to still be in her 30s with Edward despite such a large gap in her family. I remember from Crawfie Crawford's book that, owing to concerns that Charles and Anne had been too overexposed in their early years, when Andrew was born, he did not make any public appearances until he was 18 months old on the balcony. This led to wild speculation in the media that there was something wrong with the baby, and he wasn't seen because he had Down's syndrome (called by its other 'm' moniker then) or was in some other way physically deformed . . or even that he had been stillborn or had died shortly after birth.
'Archie' is the new Andrew . . just goes to show how long the Royals have been dealing with the media frenzy around their personal lives.
There was a parliament in Norman times? I thought Simon de Montfort got the credit for creating the first.
Wikipedia: in 1660, the total revenue arising from Crown lands was estimated to be £263,598 (equal to £39,866,574 today). By the end of the reign of William III (1689–1702), however, it was reduced to some £6,000.
Charles and William must have given away a lot of land as rewards/bribes for support when ascending the throne. The current C & W must be wondering how much cash will it take to get MM to go away.
@Nelo,
My mother had a saying that has held me in good stead over the years:
"Just because somebody asks you a question, it doesn't mean that you have to answer it."
You have a right to your opinion. Just because somebody here demands that you explain or defend your opinion to them, there is no need to respond. It's your opinion, and you have a right to say it.
Somebody tried that with me on here once, demanding that I "prove" my opinion to them. I just ignored the request because they have no authority to make me prove anything to them. They don't realize how rude they sound in demanding an answer.
It's the same as the long missives that some like to write here. It's their right to do so, but usually, I just scroll on by. They can continue to write as much as they want, but it doesn't mean that I will waste my time reading it. They haven't learned to write cohesively, so I understand that they have problems in organizing their thoughts.
George, Duke of Kent, inherited about a million from George V, yet the present Kents say they were (relatively) poor growing up. Bad investments? Gambling?
"Assessing value to the Firm by 'number of engagements' has always felt to me like petty bean counting. It is one measure of output for money, as it were, but only one, and numbers don't tell the whole story. How many visits to the Wool Board or an old folks' home could be sandwiched into a 4 or 6-hour shift at the maternity hospital or MI-6?"
It depends on whether or not you think it's a value add and whether you think big splashy hollywood style endevours are of value to little villages throughout the countryside.
Those numbers speak to a place, town, organisation visited. They are not just numbers on a board.
I speak from experience of a friend who 40yrs after the fact still tells a childhood story of a literal driveby as she stood at the side of a road. The Queen's car drove slowly past her section of the road, and the Queen turned and smiled at her. She claims the Queen also waved at her and is a diehard, lifelong Queen fan just from those few seconds.
Then there is the charity i volunteer with. One visit from Anne. Couldn't have lasted longer than one hour. These ladies are ready to go to war for Anne. It's been years since her visit. Can't get them to elaborate what was so valuable about her visit beyond the fact that she came.
My home town was the first stop on the Queen's Jubillee tour of 2012. She stopped by for an hour, popped into one of the schools. It's still a celebrated visit. And being a tiny village pretending to be a town, almost everyone has a story to tell about the day the Queen visited us.
The WI gets more members everytime the Sandrigham WI is mentioned as The Queen's WI even though she only pops in once a year.
All this to say that the greatest support and impact is those little towns and villages and fetes that are visited by the royals in the numbers that you think are unimportant. People find them inspiring even when they don't agree with the concept of monarchy.
Ultimately there has to be a mid-point between the 2.
They can lend their weight to big splashy PR campaigns, but they have to acknowledge the little people of those villages.
"George VI was disgusted to discover that his brother, after pleading poverty, had saved about a million pounds from the Duchy income during his two decades as PoW. Was that in The Crown?"
I haven't watched the Crown, but that was definitely true.
George also had to buy back Sandrigham and Balmoral Estates from David because he'd inherited them as monarch prior to abdicating.
And then he got a lifelong government annuity of £25,000 which is about £500K+ in todays money
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
I bow to your superior knowledge. Please tell me who could supplant William, whether it's to the Welsh or Cornish titles?
Of course, you're right - Charles has other siblings - I'm so old I forgot the `after thoughts'. My mind was still in 1951 and visualising them on the National savings stamps.
March 19, 2021 at 8:10 PM Delete
I think it was Hikari who then queried `siblings' - that's a handy word for `brothers & sisters'.
I rather enjoyed that advice...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤓
Reminds me of a meme one of my friends keeps telling me to remember
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
I keep falling down that rabbit hole.
British National Savings stamps: I meant 1953, of course.
Princess Anne (1953) at http://www.ibredguy.co.uk/main.php?g2_itemId=20632
Charles (1953) at: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/373404324803?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=710-134428-41853-0&mkcid=2&itemid=373404324803&targetid=1140163972769&device=
These are ones on sale at the moment -the images may get taken down
https://www.harryforpresident.com
Darn ... there goes my belief that Mozart died young, as a pauper ... a rejected and brilliant genius who fell out of favour with the king! My beliefs about his story probably come from a Hollywood movie from many years ago ...
I was somewhat nonplussed, until I clicked on `Issues'!
"It was created by parliament in Norman times
There was a parliament in Norman times? I thought Simon de Montfort got the credit for creating the first."
Yes there was though it wasn't a parliament like Simon de Montfort's proper one.
Just as there wasn't a Monarch as we understand that term, but a "first among equals".
And the aristocracy was simply 'barons'
The Crown Estates have had several name changes through time which makes putting together the history rather interesting. Each name change requires a new, ratified charter. The current name change and new charter was created in the 1700s.
Monarchs (and their predessesors, 'first among equals) were horrendous managers of these lands. They often granted their revenues to favourites who kept the proceeds or managers who were just plain corrupt.
Successive Monarchs had to frequently go cap in hand to parliament to beg for cash via taxation to meet the shortfall.
The best thing that ever happened to the estates was being handed to parliament to manage.
"H for president, because Meghan says so." Have you read it yet? It's a satirical take on Hapless Harry. Notice that every thing he quotes starts with, "Meghan says."
Look at his accomplishments. They're hysterical!
Oh that link is brilliant
and @Jocelyn'sBellinis your meme too, good laugh
M&H are so draining - the relief is welcome
I am sorry to have been the bearer of bad news but everyone likes a good story and they have been writing nonsense about Mozart since the Nineteenth century so you are not to be blamed. Not only was he impoverished and buried in a paupers grave it was all the fault of his murderer Salieri. Now if you want a composer who murdered not once but twice I give you Gesualdo who bumped off his wife and her lover. It is also suggested that Van Dieren murdered Peter Warlock (Philip Heseltine) rather than the Coroner's verdict of Suicide but the idea that Salieri murdered Mozart is preposterous.
Salieri was Court Composer, the position that Mozart eyed. In so far as history has recorded it Salieri was most generous to Mozart. If anyone was about to do any slaying then it would have been Mozart! If you have never heard any of Salieri's music you may be in for a shock as in some ways he is better than Mozart: his music has far more drive that Wolfgang's and it is partly from Salieri that Beethoven (who was a Salieri pupil - as were Liszt and Schubert and even Mozart's son Franz Xaver) derived his own 'drive'.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b681cd0a37bea9c225ffe9b0d00b9886b5f2a2a4f0857efac7325c6a8ac61f22.jpg
harryforpresident.com is brilliant, at every level (even the design is satirical)!
True. The last year or so she has grown into her looks and her position. She has seemed happy, a glowing smile on outings.
It just breaks my heart to see her so sad since the Harkles' interview. Her body language radiates betrayal. She really didn't deserve any of that.
Oh that website Harry for President is soooo funny! With the backlash comes the ridicule. This is why I come here, to find stuff like this. This made my day!
https://thelondonroyal.tumblr.com/
https://teespring.com/stores/harry-for-president
Blind Item #1
I wonder if the ginger haired one thinks that some random pap must have got really lucky to snap his photo while out randomly biking with no helmet, mask, sunglasses or anything to disguise who he is. Of course not. He was sent out by the wife knowing full well there would be a pap, because they were called in advance. And yes, US taxpayers are still paying for security for the couple.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/03/19/14/40683334-9380947-image-a-28_1616165870555.jpg
LOL on the Harry for VP site!
'Meghan says'!!!
I wonder if the Harkles will attack the site owner with all manner of legal papers - after all NO ONE is allowed to profit off the Sussexes and it looks like they are selling shirts with logos.
That story made me laugh too. Lithium battery for 50 minutes of go.. these royal feet don’t pedal? And, not that he had to wear a mask out in fresh air alone, but jeez. Wear it or don’t. He never seems to master it.
Saddest part is it was another backgrid arranged pap shot. Marketing the bike, the vest, what?
He needs to be locked in a room for a couple of hours, listening to Anastasia’s Paid My Dues on blast.
Do you have the link for the blind that says we're paying for their security? TIA
"I wonder if the ginger haired one thinks that some random pap must have got really lucky to snap his photo while out randomly biking with no helmet, mask, sunglasses or anything to disguise who he is. Of course not. He was sent out by the wife knowing full well there would be a pap, because they were called in advance. And yes, US taxpayers are still paying for security for the couple. "
Harry for ‘Vice’ president. Meghan says I can stand with you. Lol.
The biker photo spread in DM was really off putting. What are they trying to accomplish with that?
Thanks for the link - I like to check the comments on the blinds.
I don't believe the US is paying for their security but I now have that idea planted in my head thanks to CDAN.
So is that what Enty is best at? Causing trouble?
I thought the only time our money was wasted on these two was when she blew into NYC for her shower. I know for certain local, state and possibly fed forces were used to "guard" her while she was here. A disgusting waste of our money and police time!
While Trump was still president he very publicly said NO to the US paying for their security. Is CDAN trying to say that the Harkles already wrangled an arrangement out of Biden? Is that why she was allegedly seen cosying up to those high up in the dem party according to the stories about her political ambitions?
I really doubt this security story - but what do other US Nutties think? Where would CDAN get an idea like that?
They LOOK like Harry but with the hat, glasses and mask it might also NOT be Harry. You never know with these 2. His nose looks wrong in some of the shots. Maybe they are trying to prove something about their residence? We need Hot💋Rob on the scene!
My feeling is that CDAN have become increasingly inaccurate.
But maybe someone in the BRF did a deal with Biden to provide Harry with security? Although, the Palace has repeated over and over again that the Harkles are private citizens, so I suspect that they have to pay for their own security.
But the White House just recently came out and sided with Markle's tales of racism and suicide. I don't know when they could have set up a deal for security when they have been in office for such a short amount of time on top of the fact they took a stand against the monarchy by legitimizing Meghan's claims.
Unfortunately, although I do doubt the story I also would not be surprised if something was worked out somehow. It would be typical of Harry to get someone else to pay for his security. I think that is one thing he is good at - getting other people to pay for things for him.
Visiting Heads of State, sure, just as a matter of logistics/coordination with the local police and whatever Feds might be needed for the duration of the visit.
But for a citizen and her Sugar Daddy? No way. Or even if she did some how get her British citizenship while she was in the UK, they are both domiciled here now, and are of no consequence politically.
I'm sure all the "intruder" nonsense is meant to make it seem like they are in dire need of security, but they are well able to afford private security.
If US-paid security — perhaps that was Part B of the infamous M&H visit to Governor Gavin Newsom.
I imagine it this way:
“I want to replace Kamala as Senator!”
“No.”
“Then we want taxpayer-paid security anyway or we’ll have to say you are the R word to Oprah.”
“Okay! How many guys? Can I call you Princess?”
.
THE OTHER BROTHER
Is the cover headline on this Sunday’s The Sunday Times magazine, with a stunning c/u photo of a regal and serious William in uniform.
Article content:
Prince William’s closest friends on what makes him tick. By Roya Nikkhah
The image and link are on Richard Palmer’s Twitter
💥💥💥👨🏼✈️💥💥✨
Link to William’s upcoming The Sunday Times Magazine cover
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSTMagazine
Enjoy.
Would that article be something he agreed to? I feel bad for him. The twitter responses are mostly negative and they are all from WOC - Meghan's stans/sussexsquad?
LOL at MM demanding security from the CA governor. Someone on CDAN actually said they thought California was paying for the security!
@PUDS
I really hope the palace does something to squash the campaign against Jason and Melissa. They have lawyers, I don't understand why they don't use them.
And why in the world doesn't anyone trace the sources of the ridiculous stories that end up in the papers. If the palace took a stand against her PR it would go a long way to ending all of this.
I think William knows about the inane Sussex Squad, and the anti-monarchists as we all do, and he may no longer care what they say about him. But i think he will come out swinging with a dozen lawyers soon if they keep going after Kate.
He cannot hide under a rock in his position to satisfy some mentally ill sugars or the last paid Sussex bots. Since it is The Times, I will assume it was shown to the RF for approvals.
That said, the final destruction of Megs will only come about when her sick, twisted fan base is exposed and dissected.
When I first became aware of them (and they started very early in the Harkle relationship) it was within the royal reporters' Twitter accounts and I couldn't believe how nasty, aggressive and threatening they were.
I thought at the time that Markle would have to make a public statement to get the abuse to stop. I expected her to. When she remained silent I realized just how much of a low-life we were dealing with. The fact that they have continued all this time, have also abused members of the royal family and she has stayed silent is just astounding. Yet she whines about the firm not protecting HER?
I really do not know that much about social media other than blogs/forums. I'm not on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram. Is there really nothing that can be done about these people? Do you know if that new regulation to protect journalists will help? I can't imagine why the firm couldn't investigate the worse of the trolls and go through legal channels to handle it.
I found some interesting old gossipy articles I'm putting up in a few...
@Jenn
@Margery,
I had a thought about taking some thunder from the Sussex Squad. We're legitimizing them by giving them a name with Sussex in it. Maybe we should address them with a quirky or derogatory name to either ridicule them (quirky) or delegitimize them (derogatory) them? Nothing with Sussex, Megs or Harry, royal, etc. in the name. Take them out of the equation completely.
The Sussex Squad loves their name, so let's change it!
I'm really tired, and can't come up with a good one, but we have so many good writers here that we should be able to come up with a perfect name. Hopefully, that name will spread, and the Sussex Squad will be no more.
The Loser's Club? The Traitors? I know we can do better than that.
@Magatha, We need your writing talent on this.
Good idea or bad idea? Thoughts?
I recently came across an interesting cache of old National Enquirer articles on Meghan Markle I thought I would share here.
Although this is a supermarket tabloid that has published many a questionable story in its past they have also been known for their investigative abilities. The National Enquirer was actually once in consideration to receive a Pulitzer Prize for 'Investigative Reporting'!
Some of these early articles are particularly interesting considering how the Sussex story has evolved. I've picked several that I thought were probably legitimate and relevant to the current state of affairs. Included below are the introductory paragraphs and titles along with the link for each where the rest of the story is told via a click-through gallery.
................
⭐ENQUIRER EXCLUSIVE!
Meghan Markle’s Wild Past Erased by British Agents
Hush money & intimidation help scrub her 'hot-mess' history!
Dec 13, 2017
Before Prince Harry’s fiancée Meghan Markle adds “duchess” to her resume in May, agents from Britain’s MI5 spy agency will have scrubbed her party-girl past clean! That amazing revelation came to The National ENQUIRER from a “technical adviser” who was contracted to work on what the agents are calling “Operation Clean Sweep…”
(This story claims Her Maj kept all the ‘dirt’ in a dossier! I guess the royal family did protect you after all Meghan, didn't they? Even from your own slimy past!)
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/meghan-markle-prince-harry-fiance-past/
.....................................
⭐BOMBSHELL EXCLUSIVES
Meghan Markle: The Scandals That Could’ve Cost Her Being A Princess
Royal sneering over her troubled past!
May 17, 2018
Meghan Markle is finally becoming a princess once she marries Prince Harry — but her scandalous life nearly had her tossed out of Buckingham Palace!
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/meghan-markle-prince-harry-scandals-2/
.......................................
⭐ENQUIRER EXCLUSIVE!
Meghan Markle’s Secret First Husband Found
Prince Harry's bride covered up the scandal by having marriage annulled!
May 9, 2018
Meghan Markle is hiding a secret marriage, sources claim to The National ENQUIRER — and the blockbuster news blindsided her groom-to-be Prince Harry and cast a frosty pall over their royal romance just weeks before they say “I do!”
(This story sounds plausible and puts more meat on a well-known rumor. It also includes a statement about the palace issuing a denial over the claim – more evidence of the Firm protecting you eh Meg?)
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/meghan-markle-first-husband-scandal/
⭐FIRST TO KNOW!
Meghan Markle: Royal Copycat Out To Be The New Diana
It's like he's marrying his own dead mom!
Oct 11, 2017
No intro for this article
(This story discusses all the copycat behavior Markle exhibited - oh yea, Meg you didn't know anything about the Royal Family before meeting Harry, did you? Claims Markle was so obsessed with Diana that she started helping at soup kitchens as a child in order to follow Di’s humanitarian example. MM chased down Di’s favorite makeup artist and used her for a shoot. She may have had a nose job specifically to look more like Diana. Also, The Enquirer claims in more than one of these articles that a friend introduced them during the Invictus Games of May 2016. Could this be tied in with the story about meeting at Corey's restaurant?)
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/meghan-markle-prince-harry-diana/
....................................
⭐HARRY'S HORROR!
Meghan Markle Nazi Scandal — Satanic Family Secrets
Royal wedding at risk over sick finds!
Apr 27, 2017
No intro for this article
(This story surprised me - apparently Samantha's daughter Noel Rasmussen was involved in some very dark activities. They have documents that appear to prove this.)
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/meghan-markle-prince-harry-scandals/
...............................
⭐DARK NET LEAKS!
Meghan Markle In Royal Scandal Over Nude Video & Pics
Topless tape adds to photo talk!
Mar 19, 2018
(This article doesn’t have an intro and the links to additional info about nude photos have been wiped. But it does contain a story I’ve never heard before of nude photos taken of Markle when she was skinny dipping with Trevor in New Zealand.)
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/meghan-markle-nude-hottest-photos-topless-naked-prince-harry-fears/
I was able to copy the entire article for these last 2 stories...
⭐SHE'S NO ANGEL!
Meghan Markle: Estranged Half-Sister Threatening Tell-All
Wheelchair-bound Samantha Grant says actress is no Princess Di!
Apr 2, 2017
Meghan Markle might want to think twice about marrying into the Royal Family — or she will be exposed by her vindictive half-sister!
Samantha Grant, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and is wheelchair bound, says she brought up Markle when they lived together in California for 12 years.
The book, rumored to be called, “The Diary of Princess Pushy’s Sister,” will be written and released if Markle’s rumored forthcoming engagement to Prince Harry comes to fruition. In it, she plans to reveal what it was really like growing up with the ‘Suits’ star.
Grant has been an outspoken critic of Markle for years on social media, claiming that she was dumped by her half-sister in 2008 – right after she developed MS!
She also says the actress has turned her back on her financially strapped kin and ignored the plight of their dad Tom, who filed for bankruptcy in June.
“Whistleblowers are not negative they’re just honest. I believe in calling it like I see it,” tweeted Grant. “Maybe when she is more mature and she reads the book she’ll understand some of it. She won’t like some of it…”
Grant, a mother-of-three who now resides in Florida, claims Markle, “always wanted to be a princess,” and that she has always been, “narcissistic and selfish.”
She also believes her half-sister is a ‘shallow social climber’ who would watch the Royal Family as a child.
Markle and Harry met last year while promoting his “Invictus Games,” an event he created to enable injured armed services personnel the opportunity to compete in paralympic sports contests.
The actress recently traveled to India on behalf of the American organization, “World Vision”, and was photographed with a “bindi” on her forehead – just as Harry’s mother the late Princess Diana wore on her visit there in 1992.
Grant, however, feels the Prince marrying Markle would dishonor his mother’s memory and the entire Royal Family.
“The truth would kill her relationship with Prince Harry, he wouldn’t want to date her any more because it puts her in a bad public light,” said Grant.
“The Queen’s grandson would be appalled by what she’s done.”
(Based on what Sam has said here in the past it seems she must have toned down her tell-all book!)
..............
⭐TO THE BANK!
Meghan Markle: Prince Harry’s Honey Cashes In On Fame
'Suits' siren gets raise and bigger role on show!
Aug 4, 2017
Prince Harry’s actress galpal Meghan Markle is getting the royal treatment on her TV series “Suits” — on the set and at the bank — after her blueblood beau went to bat for her, triggering outrage by cast-mates!
“Harry is making calls all over town on her behalf,” said one steamed source on the set to The National ENQUIRER. “It’s hard enough to make it in Hollywood — but when you’re up against somebody with a prince pushing for you, you haven’t got a chance!”
Bigwigs behind USA network’s legal drama are suddenly highlighting the 36-year-old beauty, who had a second-banana role as love interest to star Patrick J. Adams’ character until this season. Now Meghan is Harry’s squeeze and — POOF — her character Rachel Zane has been promoted from legal assistant to directing all the associates at the fictional law firm.
Sources also claim Meghan’s gotten a real-life raise. Insiders say the show execs want to milk every ratings point they can out of Meghan’s steamy relationship with her charming 32-year-old prince.
“The producers aren’t stupid,” added the snitch. “They know they have a publicity machine.” But the other cast members are fuming over the perks she’s getting.
“Producers are doing everything they can to keep her royal highness pleased — whether she deserves it or not,” said the source.
(Ha ha ha! I can just picture all of this! Markle probably directed Harry and told him what to do/who to call in order for her to reap benefits from the show for dating a famous prince. I remember stories of Harry being on set with her.)
...........................
⭐I noticed that elements from these stories contradict Markle’s tales during the interview and help to provide more evidence that she lied.
In a couple of the stories I did not include there were slight bigoted and elitist tones proving that the UK press were not the only ones publishing those types of negative pieces. Also found were stories that were false, royal family members described negatively and assigned incorrect roles in the drama - kate as good friends with MM and poor Camilla as the evil stepmother.
I like using Dumbarton as part of the name. What about the Dumbarton Gang?
The Dumbarton Despicables? Too long? The Dumbarton Disciples?
@Jenn,
Thanks for putting up all of those articles.
From the Telegraph:
The Duke of Cambridge approved Prince Harry's plea to trolls to leave Meghan Markle alone
Gordon Rayner, chief reporter, in st vincent
26 NOVEMBER 2016
The Duke of Cambridge gave Prince Harry his blessing to issue a controversial statement about alleged harassment of his girlfriend Meghan Markle, it emerged on Saturday.
The two brothers had a heart to heart conversation about whether it was right to make a public plea to internet trolls to stop their “abuse” of Miss Markle, which also officially confirmed the Prince and Miss Markle were an item.
Although the Duke is understood to have been wary of setting a precedent for confirming royal relationships, he agreed with his younger brother that the situation had gone too far and that something had to be done.
It was reported on Saturday that the Duke was unhappy with Prince Harry’s decision to go public, but Kensington Palace issued a statement at the Duke’s specific request to say that the opposite was true.
It said: “The Duke of Cambridge absolutely understands the situation concerning privacy and supports the need for Prince Harry to support those closest to him.”
The Duke, 34, never issued public statements about his love life, except on one occasion, before he began dating the Duchess of Cambridge, when his staff denied he was in a relationship with his friend Jecca Craig.
A royal source told The Telegraph: “They don't issue statements like that without talking to each other, and they talked about the Meghan Markle statement extensively in advance of it being put out.
“The Duke was as alarmed as anyone about what was happening with Meghan.
“No-one wanted to have to put that statement out, including Prince Harry, and there was concern about confirming the relationship.
“But over the course of one weekend things escalated to the extent that Prince Harry felt he had to act.”
Another royal insider said: “There is just no way Prince Harry would have put that statement out if William had disapproved.”
Prince Harry, 32, shares the same media advisers as his 34-year-old brother, meaning both brothers are consulted on anything that affects them both.
The Prince had been secretly dating American actress Miss Markle, 35, since June, and said they had been together “a few months” when the statement was issued on November 8.
How can you tell when it's a bot? Is there a way?
The sussex skanks I see seem real - I see them regularly and they are very organized. They have a website and pattern themselves after the behive or whatever Beyonce's group of stans is called. Some have been identified. Meghan called one of them to thank her for her support!!! They also run charity drives in Markle's name. I think she has more fans than some realize as I see them in all my wanderings. Would bots threaten to throw acid on a reporter's face or any of the other violent threats that have been made?
Beyoncé has real fans, yes because it’s Beyoncé. She sells a product. But Beyoncé spends massive amounts on PR and reputation management. I was shocked when she started publicly backing Meghan. Her team has been careful to position herself as a literal untouchable Queen. She stopped doing interviews years ago because she came across poorly. Over the last few years, she has been dropping the ‘white middle class’ pandering and moved into ‘Black’ targeting for her brand. The only reasonable reason I see that she hitched herself to ‘princess Meghan’ and fawned over her on the Yellow carpet. It was a wrong move. There was fallout for Bey for the Disney ‘gig hunting’ right next to her. She was quiet until last week, where she could grab some low rent publicity by backing Meghan yet again, thus reviving her own reputation for Lion King-gate. Beyoncé’s now at the stage where she needs publicity and has to do things differently.
Beyoncé has bot farms. Most people maybe don’t know this but social media teams at orgs have a large arsenal of tools and plug ins that constantly monitor what’s being said. You can trigger bots (massive amount of fake accounts) to then sway narratives, flag content, report content, release contradictory content. It makes it easier and more efficient to avert crises. It would be impossible to manage manually. Think of any brand you know. They all use this stuff.
As for Meghan, that was her biggest frustration with the BRF -not using their media powers to shut down more negative articles. She DID cause the algorithm to reward negative stories from *her* behavior. What she didn’t expect was the long term fall out and spiral that it would create. She got messier and the stories followed. This system has sped up vastly over the last 4 years. It’s one reason we have things like mass awareness of QAnon, and hyper division in politics etc. it was a reason an unknown Trump could get elected.
I DO believe she tried desperately to get the BRF to participate and control the narrative, as she says. I do believe she was distraught over this considering her entire world is ‘merching’ and wannabe internet ‘influencing’ (even though she is as dull as cardboard). She hired SS to do everything in their power to flip the script.
As we’ve seen Kates behaved impeccably and played by the rules, so the BRF has been happy to support her and use their tools to keep her position elevated in the media. They have the resources. The BRF buys followers too, there was a big article in the NYTimes about this if I recall correctly.
Every major account you see online buys fake followers. Interestingly, Procter and Gamble came out around 2015/2016 and paused ALL ad spend online which they attributed to the fact that their research had found that 40% of all their efforts resulted in fake accounts. It’s a big problem for brands. It’s why Facebook faces a lot of backlash for their ad model.
Anyway it’s a big topic, but yes Meghan would be paying for a massive amount of social PR management. What’s funny to me is after all this effort, Oprah, and mass media coverage...no one is really interested in basic Meghan. She doesn’t have the *it* factor.
Michelle Obama knows Meghan messed it all up. All you have to do is follow MO: Do the public service for a few years, walk away with a stellar in-tact reputation then score big with Netflix, book deals, and speaking tours. Retire in demand and with $200m in the bank.
She’s practically saying this to Meghan in the interview with Jenna: play the game, don’t make it about yourself, move past the petty stuff that mass audiences aren’t going to relate too.
Meghan doesn’t get it, though.
There are other federal agencies though that could be involved. Or they could have state-level protection. I wouldn't put it past CA's Governor to make a dumb decision. (Although providing 24/7 state-funded protection for those 2 during COVID would seem even beyond his poor judgment.)
It didn't take long for a FOIA request to reveal the protection given for the baby shower. Of course, M was a working royal then. And it was a relatively brief visit. And she had RPOs then. So it's not comparable except that it was possible to get the information then.
Keep up the good work!
"Armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events, media appearances, and a party.
The LAPD routinely provides security for dignitaries and officials visiting LA, but a senior retired department official said the courtesy extended to Sen. Harris for her travels to other cities was unprecedented."
The interview was probably to cover their bums when it is revealed. They will just say "racism" and expect that Californians will pay their way, even though CA small business has had the roughest time during closure.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/sen-kamala-harris-given-lapd-protection-outside-of-los-angeles/174971/
You might be right. I think if they do have taxpayer-funded security it's more likely CA or local not federal. Not sure how LAPD could work 24/7 if they no longer live there though. And with Tyler footing the bill in LA, they didn't need it there. Somehow I'm not sure Montecito/Santa Barbara county would be so forthcoming if that's where they actually live. Especially for things like bike rides and rides in open-topped buses in LA.
Protection for Harris was very odd and slimy. But at least as a US senator, she was potentially in a position to benefit her state as well as specific areas. Not sure what benefit H&M can provide.
About Meghan, why does your husband say she's unlikable? If she's unlikeable, how come she has support in the US and especially among big hitters? I don't live in the US, so i don't know how liked she is. Im only basing my question on the support she got after the interview. However, I'm still observing if the support can translate to big money deals for her in the coming weeks.
What do you think of Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-Meghan-and-Harry-s-Oprah-interview/answer/Michael-de-Werd?ch=10&share=01709d71&srid=ufzqaD
"Each class would have preached the importance of those virtues, for whose exercise there was no necessity in their own lives. The rich would have spoken on the value of thrift, and the idle grown eloquent over the dignity of labour."
The Sussexes are merely using "authenticity" for "thrift".
The other thing I noticed this morning was the old photos of Meghan at the Trooping of Colour. That gorgeous pinky colour but once again breaking the rules. I'd forgotten just how much she plastered herself with bronzer. To an embarrassing degree. I remember Nutties pointing it out at the time, but now she has revealed her racial narrative so destructively, you see it as part of her dressing up kit, playing a role for future use. The royalty on the balcony are just ninepins to her, to be knocked down later. When her skin would return to being as pale as it was before she joined them.
At first glance I thought it looked like Olive Mill , because it and East Valley are the only roads with any real traffic and Olive Mill is the only one that goes downhill. So Olive Mill between Jameson and Hot Springs. All the other likely roads are too narrow or too straight and open. Like San Ysidro or Middle. Sycamore Canyon Rd can be busy but its not really a place for a relaxing bike ride. Or a pap shoot.
Plus Olive Mill is right by the freeway exit from LA. So very convenient for a pap coming from LA. About a 90 min drive from the westside of LA. The normal habitat of the pap. One or two shots could have been around Cold Springs at the top of Olive Mill.
Then I looked closely at the background of the first shot in the DM article. In the distance is an intersection with a white building and a white car pulling out. Now the only part of Montecito which might have an intersection like that would be on Coast Village Rd. The Lower Village. And the intersection in that photo is not on any street that intersects Coast Village Rd. Now it could possible be somewhere in Sycamore Canyon area but that does not really look like anywhere I know around Sycamore or APS. Especially with that white building.
One or two shots do look vaguely familiar. Might be in the Rivera. But one thing you get used to when driving around SoCal is a recurrent deja-vu as you turn into a street and it reminds you so much of somewhere you know. Which could be hundreds of miles away.
As for security. It would not be the local police. Montecito contacts out police to the County and I cannot imagine the SB County Sheriffs Dept wasting any resources without being paid well (very very well) on those two idiots. For a start the property is not very defensible and is difficult to secure. The property is overlooked and you can even see it from the live fire-cam on the mountain above when its pointing the right direction.
As for private security you do see them around every now and then but very low key. So if Ginger always travels with a security detail he will stick out like a sore thumb. Like when Big Wigs from DC are in town. Its basically a huge arrow pointing at him wherever he goes. Another reason for the locals to hate them.
The local news coverage since they arrived has gone to great lengths to totally ignore them. Its like they dont exist. Unlike the usual very low key coverage, or no coverage, that famous people normally get. Far more important local stories to cover. Like the San Ysidro Pharmacy has just changed ownership. Big news in the Upper Village.
Too funny @ MusicDSPGuy
Happy to help. I’ll follow up with him today!
@MusicDSPGuy
Sounds like they don’t even live there (in Montecito).
Canada Dry
How is Meghan Markle’s old Toronto crowd reacting to that explosive Oprah interview?
BY SHINAN GOVANI
MARCH 20, 2021
During the Sussexes’ Oprah interview, I was in touch with a young woman who was in Meghan Markle’s social circle back when the duchess was filming Suits in Toronto. For this friend, watching the interview re-acquainted her with an old friend. A four-legged one.
“Guy was the loveliest,” the woman said, looking lovingly at Markle’s pet beagle scampering across the screen. A regular at Toronto’s Trinity Bellwoods Park, Guy often served as a conversation starter that helped Markle make new friends.
But what about the duchess herself? That’s a little more complicated. As a longtime columnist in Canada who covers the social circuit, I’ve watched the Markle saga play out for years, beginning with her early days as just another B-level actress not without talent, and with a blog called the Tig.
“Trolling for Girlfriends”
From 2011 to 2018, when Markle was starring as Rachel Zane on the television series Suits, she lived primarily in the Annex neighborhood of Toronto, which is popular with students and young professionals. She later told the Toronto Star that she had spent her first two years in town doing sun salutations at Moksha Yoga and “trolling for girlfriends.” Eventually, the pursuit was fruitful, and she befriended Jessica Mulroney, the daughter-in-law of former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney. The Mulroneys’ exclusive circle also included current prime minister Justin Trudeau and his wife, Sophie.
Soon, Markle was dating Cory Vitiello, a well-known chef. He was celebrated enough that, in those days, it wouldn’t be unkind to say that she was often seen as his plus-one. She also fell into the Soho House eco-system due to her friendship with one of its well-connected consultants, Markus Anderson, who opened many doors for her. This would prove to be decisive in terms of providing runway to the worlds of Hollywood and the royals. Indeed, some reports suggest that Anderson was responsible for introducing Meghan and Harry.
While the Mulroneys were front and center at the Sussexes’ 2018 wedding, passions have cooled in recent years. Rumors of a falling-out whipped the British tabloids into a minor tizzy. (Curiously, just this week, Instagram users may have noticed that Jessica Mulroney had posted a bouquet of birthday flowers, bestowed upon her by “MM.”)
“This Makes Pinocchio Look Honest”
In their interview with Oprah, the Sussexes strapped themselves hard to two pillars of the current American culture wars—namely, race and mental health. But these are issues that do not exactly resonate in the same way in Canada. While some Gen Z-ers are sympathetic to Meghan’s plight, there is generally a more nuanced understanding of the complexities at hand—the thorny topic of titles, and the financial issues around income and security, for starters.