Good morning! It's a work day here and I haven't been able to delve deeply into the Sussex interview with Oprah last night, but here are a few quick thoughts:
- If we're allowed to have Halloween celebrations this year, lots of couples are going to go dressed as Harry and Meghan.
Beaten-down redhead in a wrinkled grey suit, crying pregnant (?) woman with heavily-applied eyeliner and a black dress - it's an easy costume that anyone can manage.
- Talking about how a baby will look as a balance between its parents is a pretty common thing. Speculating on the baby's skin color when you have one biracial parent is also not an unusual thing. (I'm sure there was also some discussion about whether or not the baby would be a redhead.)
Anyway, the ladies at Lipstick Alley spent a lot of time trying to figure out how "Black" the baby would be.
Apparently so did Prince Philip. It's easy to imagine him saying something stupid about it. He's 99 years old.
- It makes no sense to anyone that the baby's skin color should determine his security status. What should determine his security status - and that of his parents - is "Do you live in the UK? Or have you left the UK by choice?"
No one should expect to be protected indefinitely wherever they choose to live in the world.
At any rate, do Lady Louise and Viscount Severn have security? They're not at all Black, but they are minor children who are minor Royals, as is "Archie".
- Charles really got thrown under the bus here, apparently for cutting off his 37-year-old son from an ongoing allowance and expecting him or his wife to work for a living.
There's already a lot of sentiment for skipping over Charles when it comes to the line of succession. Will this add to this sentiment?
- The palace response will have to be a doozy.
No more "Prince" Harry, no more Duchess of Sussex, and Archie (if he exists) can just be an ordinary boy.
Comments
@Animal Lover: Thank you for the post from Politico. It's written with a clear head by someone with completely neutral observations regarding the Harkles.
Meghan is getting more attention than Harry for a change. She can now be somebody without him. I say this in light of all the celebrities tweeting their support of her.
And, what's with a 36-year-old man-boy sniveling on a world-wide stage that his daddy didn't send an allowance, while same sniveling ingrate is sitting on mega bucks of an inheritance. Aren't they raking in millions from speeches to bankers, the Spotify and Netflix deals? Why complain about daddy if one is rolling in money?
Harry stating that he feels sorry for Charles and William because they are "trapped" indicates that Harry is suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
IMO this is the beginning of the end for the Harkle's marriage. Harry can't support Meghan, and Meghan is gaining in popularity over Harry. If this continues, Harry is toast.
How did this modern, independent strong "feisty" whipsmart woman not get called out on reducing herself to a children's cartoon, and a white one at that?
Maybe MM is trying to get back into the good graces of Disney!
To be honest most Australians don't actually pay too much attention to the Monarchy. There are the staunch supporters for the Monarchy and those who want us to become a Republic. The Republic talk comes up every couple of years or so, is in the media for a few days and then dies down. The last time I recall it being raised was during the last Royal tour.
Most people could care less.
Meghan is getting more attention than Harry for a change. She can now be somebody without him. I say this in light of all the celebrities tweeting their support of her.
Hasn't that always been her goal to get more attention than H?
For example, the many, many pics of her pushing herself ahead of H at royal events. In their Zoom calls, M front and center and H at the side...
The recent pic posted yesterday of the "Happy Family" where her face is front and center and H and Archie's are hidden?
Disney has a star-studded live-action remake in the works that got delayed because of Covid-19. There was some controversy over casting Ariel with a black actress: Halle Bailey. She is one half of the sister group and R&B duo: Chloe x Halle. Beyoncé took the sisters under her wing and signed them to her label.
I'm pretty sure Rache mentioned The Little Mermaid for a cameo role and invites to all the glitzy events surrounding the premiere.
Please get a name as soon as you can. Unknown comments generally will be deleted. Here are two sets of instructions to help you get a name. Hope this helps.
Instructions:
- Click on your "Unknown" name where you last posted.
- You should arrive on your profile page where you can then click the "B" icon; once clicked, you should arrive at the blogger info page
- Next click the dropdown menu to the left of the "B" icon and click on "Settings" and then click "User Profile"
- Scroll down to "Display Name" and type your name
- Hit "Save Profile" at the bottom
- Finally, you can add an image/avatar on this page if you wish
Alternative Instructions:
- Get a gmail account, preferably unique to this blog for extra security.
- Google the phrase "Google Accounts." You will land on the page where you can sign into and make updates to your account. If you don't have a gmail, you will be prompted to create one.
- Go to the Personal Info tab. In the Profile section, you can click on "Name" and change to whatever you like.
The RF could use some help from other sources here.
I've now gone back to my phone so will comment from here from now on.
Referencing the MM "dossier" I put together....your 10:46 pm post.
Megs and Oprah threw down stumpers and big cards. Look at the Australian reaction already.
This is why I think the statement needed to be stronger and more precise. They can handle like a family matter, but I think it is no longer a family matter, if it ever was.
Anyway, the point I am here to make is that I am troubled by the idea that people really don't think strange things happen and strange forces can be at work in front of our faces. Even though we see evidence in the news from time to time. It can't happen with people we know, or around the corner, or with a prince or an actress....a baby must be real! a marriage is always love.
As I have zigzagged around the world in various cities, meeting various people who are in a position to tell me various things, I have come to the conclusion that there is some rather weird stuff out there because people will do anything for power.
We can be as innocent as 16 year old Diana with her romance novels, or we can be aware. It is impossible for me to look at the last year, for example, and not feeling little pops of concern.
I have no trouble believing the story about that young woman being recruited around the same time as Meghan. Honey pots have been around forever. I personally knew a professor who was imprisoned for about six months after being lured by a honey pot before the wall fell, and he got out of it with pure luck per his friends and family. I mentioned before here that I have a friend whose BF (now former BF) is a high-figure multimillionaire hedge fund man with deep fingers in a few odd pies and extensive known holdings, around Megs' age, and he and his friends would absolutely sit around over a fine dinner and toss ideas around that would make your head spin. I think they would find it humorous to hire a Meghan to knock the monarchy for a loop as a first chaos step to loosening the hold on banks family real estate holdings in England alone, where real estate is finite. This would be in line with their conversations. They could throw 20 million at this escapade without blinking. They could call goons if unhappy or just call it off if she was too stupid. They wouldn't haveinterest or connections to hire some top flight spy-worthy Megs, but if they ran across this sort of devious willing yacht girl one weekend, who seems to be stone cold, they might think, huh, why not? They might check out a few similar but more sane and stable girls, but those say NO, get lost, creep.(though I think that suggests a higher end operation). So say they have to stick with Megs. And Soho House Markus tells them don't worry, he can control her if she's too crazy. So, they're off and running. To these guys it would be a lark, a gamble, an amusement and if it works and they win the land deals, all the better!
That is just one example I can speak to, guys you might see laughing in nice clothes in a pub in London and you'd have zero idea of who they are or their families are or what amuses them.
Multiply that times others like them around the world with more serious $ goals. They might hire a Megs as a sort of disposable human can opener. Even if she went rogue, maybe she stays just on track enough to be allowed the rogue moments to throw people off. It's ludicrous, yet things like this do happen in real life while the rest of us are working, cleaning the house, taking care of our relatives.
Add to my list:
(*) A focussed attacker will attack when you're weak. Say, when a 99 year old patriarch is fighting for his life.
I hope that the BRF are planning a long game show of strength. Serious strength. This is no showgirl, and that is no prince.
Harry’s complaints about the Money. Great point. It says a couple things to me: Harry is worried he can’t afford his security. And to a lesser extent: Meghan’s fairytale from hell. It also says, he knows exactly the kind of money hungry person she is. She’s obviously beat him over the head about this, verbally. If things were THAT bad, suicidal even...why the concern about an extravagant lifestyle? Take your $10mm and go. Sure it’s less, but the press is gone and that’s a pretty great life to most people. Solve the Suicide issue.
A friend called and recommended ‘streaming services’ and he took the deal for *security*?! They are living on two different planets of IQ understanding. He seems totally unaware of Meghan’s grand plans. Trademarking Sussex Royal? Hello Harry? Anyone home??
is the lack of "support" or "protection" from the RF. The enemy to br protected from is the media and your general mean person.
I think, and I may have to go back in and re-listen (shudders)
that she didnt specifically day she couldn't seek medical help. She was under the care of an OBGYN and various doulas. Its ridiculous to even claim that.
She didnt seek medical help because she didnt want it.
She wanted the "institution" to let her clap back to the press, to explain, to state her case.
She wanted the palace to silence her critics, the trolls and the commenters in the DM.
And they did try, sort of. The communications team issued a statement that both she AND KATE were the recipients of a lot of hateful stuff and those commenters would be dealt with.
But, their attitude probably was "pull up your pants and make your peace with it, as everyone has had to do.".
M, never having heard the word " no" before decided they were all racists and started threats about killing herself to make them do what she wanted. It always worked with Thomas. And it worked with H.
She leaves when it gets tough. She was going and she needed H with her. He had the funds.
This is how she rationalizes the leaks, the sugars and the outright lies. They say for her what she wants to say fo herself.They somehow make it "fair". Or fairer. And like a child she cries "foul" when she doesnt get her way.
And like a child (a mean one) takes her vengeance by starting rumours, lying and bullying.
Harry really married his momma. And he is trying to "save" her.
I literally have chills.
It’s not easy and requires dedication and persistence, especially when you’re feeling not on top of it all.
You’ve done an amazing job. Thank you!
I am also cynical enough to the believe the RF overlooked some gigantic red flags with regards to her past for the sake of snagging a "black" princess.
I think the HM will weather this, and some other scandal will come along to knock it off the front pages, but I doubt the BRF will ever be truly free of Ariel and her lies.
Charles is going to have it far worse; HM's age and the affection people hold her in for a lifetime of duty are insulating her to an extent.
I thought the quote from the Australian PM (?) upthread a bit summed things up really well. He said that they (in Australia) were really more Elizabethans than Monarchists. I don't think Charles is going to have that kind of place in people's hearts. I hope I'm wrong!
Too bad she’s not a novelist.
I share your views and am impressed by your knowledge, writing, and experience.
@AntT...thank you for expressing precisely what I could not.
I share your views and am impressed by your knowledge, writing, and experience.
Agreed!
My very random thoughts:
1. Our Smug lacks originality. She copied Jim and Pam from The Office who snuck away to privately (secretly) get married before their ceremony. We see you, Smug!
2. If Smug is Ariel from The Little Mermaid, then the story ends with Prince Eric being imprisoned in a bubble under the sea where the only voice he will ever hear again is that of his princess.
3. I view HMTQ’s statement as slightly threatening (in her very reserved, regal, obtuse way of speaking). Translated: “We can talk about this privately or publicly, Huck and Smug. Do you really want to go there?”
If disclosures ensue, I believe the RF will have plenty of ammunition. They have been suspicous (cautiously documenting) from the start of this debacle.
Now there is an article in DM saying she and Haz are worried that Charles won’t make him a prince when the queen dies because he’s stripping down the monarchy.
I thought they didn’t care about the title. Oh. And it proves they KNEW why Archie wasn’t made a prince if they knew he would get an automatic upgrade when Charles takes over.
These two are exhausting.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9344733/Harry-Meghan-fear-CHARLES-refuse-make-Archie-Prince-Queen-dies.html
Wednesday, 10 March 2021
Daily Telegraph UK
Part One
The Duchess of Sussex "called all the shots" when it came to managing her own media, royal sources have said, casting doubt on her claim she could not be interviewed by Oprah Winfrey three years ago.
Multiple royal sources have told The Telegraph the 39-year-old former actress "had full control" over her media interviews and had personally forged relationships not only with Winfrey, but other powerful industry figures including Vogue editor Edward Enninful.
In a teaser clip released from the Sussexes' interview with the US chat show host, due to be aired in the US on Sunday and New Zealand on Tuesday (see details at end of article), the Duchess said it felt "liberating" to be able to speak and accused the Royal family of effectively gagging her and taking away that choice.
"It's really liberating to be able to have the right and the privilege in some ways to be able to say yes, I'm ready to talk, to be able to make a choice on your own and be able to speak for yourself," the Duchess said.
In the clip, the Duchess and Winfrey reference the fact a royal aide was listening in to their first phone call in February 2018, although it is understood the pair had spoken privately before then.
But far from being gagged, it appears the Duchess was cultivating her own personal relationships with media figures
Two separate royal sources have confirmed to The Telegraph the two women also met privately at Kensington Palace shortly after their phone call, with no palace PR staff present.
One royal insider said: "It was the Duchess calling all the shots throughout. She was given advice but ultimately it was Meghan and Harry who took the decisions."
Another said: "Requests would come in daily from all over the world. They had their pick of who to speak to and the freedom to choose. The idea that they were gagged in any way just isn't accurate."
A third added: "This idea that media bids were somehow vetoed by the palace just isn't true. The institution didn't get involved when it came to Meghan's press. No one was ever running anything by the Queen. A proposal would come in, the Duchess would decide whether she wanted to do it, and it would be set up. Diary clashes were discussed with other households but that's it."
Royal sources highlighted how the Duchess was able to collaborate on a Vogue magazine cover in September 2019 with Enninful.
Surely titles are not of value in America, or are they in her mind?
Children with titles more valuable for her as a commodity than children without?
Furious that Catherine got special treatment for her children but it was denied for her?
In October 2017, Meghan also gave an interview to Vanity Fair in which she declared her relationship with Harry. She said: "We're in love. I'm sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but what I hope people will understand is that this is our time."
A month later they became engaged and agreed to give an interview to the BBC's Mishal Husain, who was specially selected by the palace PR team at the couple's request.
The Telegraph has learned as well as involving the palace PR team in the Vanity Fair cover, Meghan also consulted publicist Keleigh Thomas Morgan, of LA-based PR firm Sunshine Sachs, who remained one of her advisers throughout.
The couple also consulted Tim Burt, the vice chairman of corporate communications firm Teneo, for advice and even held talks with former advertising executive David Furnish, who is married to the singer Elton John.
Harry was also in regular contact with Tom Bradby, the ITV news anchor with whom they gave an explosive interview following their autumn 2019 tour of Africa.
According to one royal insider, after working on the Royal wedding in May 2018, the palace PR team were "sidelined" as the Duchess came to increasingly rely on her US team of advisers, including her former talent agent Nick Collins, of Gersh, business manager Andrew Meyer and lawyer Rick Genow.
Around the time of Archie's birth in May 2019, Meghan was paid a private visit by Gayle King, who works for CBS, the network which broadcasts Winfrey's programmes.
The two TV presenters are close friends, and in recent days King has described the Duchess as being "oppressed" by the royal family.
Reports Meghan was "blocked" from doing an interview with King by palace spin doctors worried it would upset the UK media appear wide of the mark, however.
"They weren't blocked from doing anything," added the royal insider.
"If they had wanted to speak to Gayle King or anyone else, they would have been able to do so."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/meghan-called-all-the-pr-shots-royal-sources-say-despite-oprah-interview-claims-she-was-gagged/4TZ47MKR27Y7TQ4ZXWK7BDRBZU/
I think they are a novelty attraction here, but not much more. Like you said, the advantage is in her mind.
I think Mugs has a plan. This second baby is a girl. We know they are going to name her Diana. Princess Diana. Every time Charles has to say that kid’s name, the knife will twist. That’s what Mugs wants.
@Puds said,
"One comment made when Harry was dating Megs has turned into something Megs claims was repeated and repeated each time the birth was brought up getting worse in her mind. No Negs it was one comment 4 years ago that was repeated to you by someone spiteful namely your petty and jealous husband. It could have been a sweet comment, it could have been a good to have more diversity in the family comment as many newspapers said when Megs joined the BRF. But as Judge Warby said Megs suffers from Hyperbolic Asserting, she exaggerates everything because she is a spoilt Diva encouraged by Harry's sense of entitlement. Look at how other members of the royal family fair without titles. .."
Puds, I think this is a superb comment. As you note, a UK court has indeed recently recognized Megs for what she is, a Hyperbolic Asserter. Roll this into the ideathat this "whip-smart, independent feminist" claims to have fallen apart without support or anyone to turn to, even though we know:
* she was with new man, Harry, a prince of the realm
* Eugenie was her BFF
* Amal was her BFF
* G Clooney was her BFF and they stayed at his Lake Como estate too
* Lindsay Roth, her BFF, an American like her married to a British man, was a call away
* Serena was her BFF
* Jessica, linked to top heads of state of Canada, and rich, and a frequent flyer, was her BFF
* She had 5 BFFs to talk to, the way they talked to PEOPLE
* She had BFF Markus Anderson and Soho House, where secret mental health visits could have been arranged
* Her own devoted mother Doria was a "social worker"
In addition, though unable to access basic mental health advice
* She was able to sneak out and work on an entire issue of Vogue, even do playful hat photos with its EIC Enninful
* She was able to fly crying make-up artists in and out to glue on lashes
* She was able to run a dress resale merch business with Canadian BFF, Messica
* She was able to go to studies and laugh and create a (crap( wardrobe for SmartWorks
* She was able to fly to visit Elton John, and could have asked for a therapist there
* She was able to go on a lavish spa hotel trip with Harry
* She was able to arrange and attend a $500,000 baby shower, acquire Away luggage guest gifts too
* She was able to acquire a whole bump collection
* She was able to be Unpregnant for a night out in NYC with BFF Markus, laughing as they walked
* She was able to leave newborn Archie behind for a tennis match in NYC, and greet Serena's husband with open legs and scraped knees in a J Crew ensemble she was merching
* She was able to work on a book with Scobie
* She was able to create dozens of trademarked businesses in the US
* She was able to sue media and paps
* She was able to work with staff for days on a letter to her father
* She was able to hire PR agents and work with them on a range of things
* She was able to record a Lion King voiceover
* She was able to talk her husband out of attending the Deal Memorial
* She was able to party in Amsterdam Sept 2018, and start the Rose rumor with her new pal
* She was able to dig thru the boot of Harry's car, and be chased away three times, showing stalwart energy
(CONTD)
Meghan’s Crying! Markle Throws Princess Diana ‘Under The Bus’ & Harry Let’s Her Have It
January 19, 2018 Rebecca Diserio, Opinion Columnist
Part One
Meghan Markle isn’t winning the British people over, and that couldn’t have been more clear than when she opened her big mouth and started ranting while on her recent trip to Cardiff. At first, Princess Pushy, which is her nickname in the press, didn’t realize Harry had overheard her huge snafu, throwing Princess Diana “under the bus,” which was caught on live TV. Later, Harry whispered in her ear, and that’s when Princess Pushy shed some tears of rage.
Prince Harry whispers to Meghan Markle in Cardiff (left), Meghan Markle visibly upset in Cardiff (middle & right) (Photo Credit: YouTube/Screengrabs)
Since American actress Meghan Markle announced her engagement to Prince Harry, we have been watching a train wreck. Markle has dismissed “royal protocol,” trying to portray herself as a cutesy misfit who just doesn’t know any better. The problem is, she is a 36-year-old divorcee, who does know better. There is no way she has not been schooled on the “dos” and “don’ts” of the royal family.
Markle’s huge problem is the liberal politics she spouts. We all know about her hatred of President Donald Trump. In May 2016, she appeared on Larry Wilmore’s show and vowed, if Trump won, she would “stay in Canada,” where she was filming her TV show.
“Yes, of course, Trump is divisive. Think about just female voters alone. I think it was in 2012, the Republican Party lost the female vote by 12 points. That’s a huge number and with as misogynistic as Trump is and so vocal about it, that’s a huge chunk of it,” Markle said.
While it’s possibly hush hush...she wasn’t hanging out with the creme de la creme of society. She was hanging out with her stylist Messica, and Markus Anderson the town gossip, and a chef, and a few small time media pals. Yes, these were big ‘scores’ for her friendship group, but she wasn’t exactly hanging out with the Banking Sector. Yes, she could have met one or two on dates. If that was the case- why look for a rich ‘tech bro’? Most tech guys don’t have a lot of money. Not like the ease of access to bankers in London. In London, she wasn’t looking for a banker, either. At least not that I’ve ever heard of. I’d think Meg with the limited cashe of ideas would hone in on hedge funders, if she had learned that’s where the money is..but no she was still ‘rich guy any rich guy, hopefully famous’....seems a little off that she’d be angling for that if she was able to have the intelligence required to con Harry. I just have a feeling Meghan would have tried to get WITH the backer, not work for them.
She’s conned him so well, though, that the backer theory could be legit. Her engagement interview was weird from the start.
Maybe her politics could be laid to rest, put in the past now that she is joining the Royal Family, who are not allowed to take political positions, but she can’t stop putting her foot in her mouth. The Telegraph reports, “Undertaking a long walkabout [in Cardiff] to greet admirers who had waited hours in the cold for them, Ms. Markle was complimented by Jessica Phillips, 23, for her outspoken views on equality.”
Ms. Phillips said, “She was so lovely. I said it was really lovely to have a feminist in the Royal Family.”
Gesturing to her fiance, the former actress told her, “He’s a feminist too.” Harry cringed and whispered in Princess Pushy’s ear. Princess Diana’s youngest son knew the point of Ms. Phillips’ statement was obvious: Thank God for Meghan Markle, finally, the stuffy backward Royal Family has a real “feminist.”
Harry knew Meghan blew it. Gesturing to Harry, Meghan was admitting, “Oh, I’m not the only feminist, Harry is one too,” as if they are the first in the Royal Family to view woman respectfully. This had Brits shaking their heads. What’s more, depending on your definition of a “feminist,” Markle made a real fool of herself. Was Princess Diana not a woman who could be called a “feminist”?
Making matters worse, Markle is joining the Windsor family. Harry comes from a long line of strong female “heads of state” who ruled in their own right: Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and Harry’s grandmother Queen Elizabeth II. Are these women not true “feminists”?
Harry knows the response should have been, “Well, I’m no trailblazer. Harry’s family has a long line of strong women who were true feminists. His mother was a real role model for girls.” But, that’s the problem with Princess Pushy. Either she isn’t doing her homework, or she’s so delusional that she really believes she’s the trailblazer “feminist” in the Royal Family — a family led by a woman; namely the Queen.
Harry handled it as quietly as possible, whispering in her ear. Princess Pushy’s face went from big grin to utter humiliation. She appeared to bat away some tears before quickly recovering like a professional actress. With that moment coming on the heels of her statements, it’s pretty obvious Harry must have let her have it.
Meghan is a liberal feminist, which should be kept to herself, and is a real problem for the Royal Family. The truth is, Meghan gets her politics from the Hollywood crowd, and she probably couldn’t define real “feminism.” The other huge problem she had in Cardiff was she was acting like a C-list actress on the red carpet, signing autographs, which is a royal “no-no,” and posing for selfies.
Talk show host Wendy Williams threw Meghan Markle under the bus last month, saying, Meghan “came here to see Wendy,” referring to her show. “To find out what she can do here. She’s been here,” she continued, insinuating that Meghan wanted to see what Wendy could do for her and calling her out as a bit of a gold digger, looking for fame.
The public also weighed in on the latest shenanigans over the “feminist” comments. “Still the same social climbing, self-absorbed individual, with no respect for our traditions. Starting up her and PH [Prince Harry] agenda, with both being feminists. I doubt PH knows what it means. After the wedding she’ll be preaching to us like Bono,” wrote commenter “Crawford12” from Rye, United Kingdom.
Another commenter said, “Meghag is universally disliked, it seems. Nottingham booed her, bustling Brixton couldn’t produce a crowd, and the people of Wales were doing something more interesting, such as watching paint dry. Harry should be getting the message by now. We don’t want her to be a part of the Royal family, and, while we wish him happiness, it is as Henry Wales. Kindly deposit your title and privileges Harry and take her somewhere far from the UK.”
Ouch! The liberal media has been pushing “Meg-a-mania” on the United Kingdom, and it’s not working. Even Americans are aghast at her antics, and while no one wishes people ill will, it looks like this marriage is going to be a royal pain in the butt.
https://madworldnews.com/meghan-markle-princess-diana/
@Puds,
continuing:
Now, the thing is, I think we probably all agree there are mental issues aplenty in Harkleland. She may have been enraged when she found out Harry was "Unrich" and that William was "Uninterested" and that ipso facto, she was destined to be "Unqueen".
And maybe she then was so stunned at the first-ever string of "NO" in her entire life, she interpreted this crash landing as "depression" and the lack of control made her feel life was not worth living in England without being Queen by January 2020. Just as a spoiled thirteen year old girl might rage dramatically.
However, agreeing that she is also a narcissist, my understanding is that narcs will always try to destroy their victims, but never their precious selves. They may threaten self harm to get their own way, but they would never harm themselves. She would grab some shoes and jewels and go! If she can't be prom queen, sod it! She's gone! Life isn't worth it in the UK for Rachel! She'll show them!
And so, for me, that is where the story became false, just one more manipulative lie. Narcs don't want to harm themselves, they want to harm you, their victim. In this case, the narc lie is designed to
* control a prince with fear, and make this dumb prince stomp out with her for press effect,
* end a 1000+ year old monarchy (1) because a spoiled brat cannot be its next queen, no one will especially Kate
* cause a scene and hammer for an end to monarchy more nefarious reasons
*. get out before Andrew spills some beans, or people ask where Archie is, or want some DNA
I think the racism angle is her power pedal from her backers, or PR, or plot with Oprah. If someone said something, go address them on it like a whip-smart feminist. Clarify what they meant, like a diplomat. Educate, like a leader, or laugh about the miscommunication, like a NON-Hyperbolic Asserter. IF the person meant it meanly, call them out on it there. But we know Megs is a coward who prefers to fling mud from afar or through others or by innuendo. Even her Oprah answers ("assumption") were cowardly vague. What really happened? No one knows but her low-IQ husband, who dressed like a Nazi and used slurs on fellow soldiers. But with this, they managed to wipe bullying from the headlines, didn't they? They managed to make the BRF creep out with a lightweight doily of a statement. To cover up for their own behavior, or something more? As we have often asked here, and as they ask also on LSA, When will anyone ask Megs about her "Caucasian" listing on her CV, her three white husbands, white boyfriend Corey, BFFs, skin bleaching covered by globs of bronzer only in the UK, costly cosmetic surgery to alter her natural features, her straightened Cher hair? When will that be part of this new conversation? How about her rudeness and the privilege she displayed when she laughed at the schoolboys of Tonga as they performed their mosquito song, or angrily claw-handed her remarks to the startled Jamaican waiter at the wedding she crashed, or they way she ordered the women in Africa to sit on the floor in their best clothes, and imperiously handed them used baby clothes? How is that behavior classified?
By the way,
I wonder if MI6 has any sort of trail about a surrogate, doll, rental or adoption that might include Megs' own stated preference and comments in regard to how a baby Archie should look?
So much to unpack. But the Harkles are sitting on the suitcase, trying to keep it shut with two magic words.
That January 2019 article is a great find!!! Thank you for posting it. Hard to believe that was written two years ago and all of this was being talked about two years ago.....and here we are.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/08/royals-case-defence-against-harry-meghans-claims/
history←priornext→
10 Mar 2021 04:16:30 UTC
The Royals' case for the defence against Harry and Meghan's claims
The Telegraph examines the explosive allegations against the Royal family by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex during their Oprah interview
By Bill Gardner
10 March 2021 • 3:44am
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a series of explosive allegations against the Royal family during their Oprah interview – including that Archie was unfairly denied a royal title amid questions about his skin colour.
They claimed to have been "silenced" and controlled by the monarchy, while Meghan claimed that her sister-in-law had made her cry during a row over dresses for flower girls.
Palace aides, however, have painted a very different picture of Harry and Meghan’s life as working royals.
Duchess was 'silenced
The Duchess of Sussex claimed in the Oprah Winfrey interview that she had been “silenced” by Buckingham Palace as she struggled to get to grips with life as a royal.
“It was only once we were married and everything started to really worsen that I came to understand that, not only was I not being protected, but that they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family,” she said.
“They were not willing to tell the truth to protect myself and my husband.”
Asked she was “silent” or “silenced”, she replied: “The latter.”
However, palace sources hit back at the idea that the Duchess was left to fend for herself, suggesting it was her own aides who needed protection.
Last week, an email emerged showing that the Duchess had been the subject of bullying complaints from junior aides. Buckingham Palace is investigating the allegations.
One source told the Times: “The institution just protected Meghan constantly. All the men in grey suits who she hates have a lot to answer for, because they did absolutely nothing to protect people.”
Part two
The Duchess also suggested that she had been forbidden from meeting her friends or speaking out against false tabloid stories.
But palace aides insisted that they tried their best to welcome Meghan but found that she “wanted to be the victim”.
“Everyone knew that the institution would be judged by her happiness,” a source told the Times. “The mistake they made was thinking she wanted to be happy. She wanted to be rejected because she was obsessed with that narrative from day one.”
Another claimed: “She wanted to be the victim because then she could convince Harry that it was an unbearable experience and they had no choice but to move to America.”
Lawyers for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have denied this was the case.
During the interview the Duchess claimed that the Palace press team had failed to defend the couple when “something's not true”, unlike the protection offered to the Duke and Duchess and Cambridge.
However media insiders pointed out that in the months and years following their marriage, palace aides had issued a stream of on and off the record denials attempting to defend their reputation. “They did their best to stop stories that turned out to be completely accurate,” one source said.
Meghan also accused the Palace of throwing “holiday parties” for journalists to try and get better press.
But their claims were rebuffed by the Society of Editors, who today said it was “not acceptable” for the couple to make such accusations without providing evidence.
The Duchess also claimed that she was completely unprepared for her role and “didn't do any research” into the monarchy before marrying Prince Harry.
She added that she “didn't fully understand what the job was”, and did not grow up “knowing much about the Royal family”.
She claimed that Sarah Ferguson had to teach her how to curtsy before meeting the Queen, adding that she had “never looked up her husband online”.
However, in previous interviews friends of the Duchess have revealed that she was fascinated by the royals in her youth.
Before the royal wedding in 2018, Ninaki Priddy, who was the Duchess’s maid of honour at her first wedding to Trevor Engelson, said her childhood friend was “always fascinated by the Royal family. She wants to be Princess Diana 2.0.”
“She had one of Princess Diana’s books [Diana: Her True Story] on her bookshelf, and even when she was with Trevor she told me she wanted to go and stay in London for at least a month. I know she used to love The Princess Diaries — films about a commoner who becomes part of a Royal family. She was very taken with that idea.”
Archie denied title
Meghan said she wanted Archie to be a prince so he could have police protection, and expressed her shock at the idea of the first member of colour in the family not being titled in the same way as other grandchildren.
“In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time, we have in tandem, the conversation of "He won't be given security, he's not going to be given a title," and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born,” she said.
Asked by Ms Winfrey whether she was saying that the Royal family would have seen it as “ a problem” if Archie were “too brown”, the Duchess replied: “I wasn't able to follow up with why, but if that's the assumption you're making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one, which was really hard to understand, right?'
However, royal rules suggest Archie has not been singled out. Seventh in line Archie is not at this stage entitled to be a prince because of rules established more than 100 years ago.
In 1917, King George V decided to limit the number of royal highnesses within the family. He decreed that only the children of the monarch, and grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, would be given the title.
The Queen stepped in ahead of Prince George's birth to issue a Letters Patent to ensure all the Cambridges' children, not just George, would have fitting titles. However, the Cambridges' children are the offspring of a future monarch, whereas Archie is not.
He will be entitled to be an HRH or a prince however when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne.
Indeed sources close to the Duke and Duchess suggested to the Sunday Times in May 2019 that they considered Archie a “private citizen” and felt strongly about “shielding” him from excessive scrutiny. The couple had insisted that he be styled ‘Master’ instead, the source said, adding that the Sussexes were not using a title for their son in the hope that he would live a more normal life.
"As Archie is not an HRH, [Harry] feels he has every right to strictly police his son’s privacy,” the source said.
Royal experts have also pointed out that decisions about security are made by the government and the Metropolitan Police, rather than the palace.
The Duchess also claimed that she had been forced to “turn over” her passport, driving licence and keys upon joining the Royal Family, adding that Harry had “saved my life'” by agreeing to move to Los Angeles. Despite the apparent loss of her passport, Meghan did travel to New York in August 2019 for her baby shower. Amal Clooney, Serena Williams and CBS anchor Gayle King were among the women to attend the $500,000 (£411,000) celebration, to which the Duchess reportedly travelled on the Clooneys’ private jet.
Prince Harry also insisted that the couple did not blindside the Queen with their announcement that they planned to leave the Royal Family in January last year. At the time, however, senior Palace sources insisted the couple did not consult any royal about issuing the explosive statement on their personal Sussex Royal website.
Kate made Meghan cry
The Duchess of Sussex claimed that the Duchess of Cambridge had made her cry before her marriage to Prince Harry, adding that her sister-in-law “really hurt my feelings”.
In her interview, the Duchess of Sussex said the pair had fallen out over dresses for the flower girls, but insisted she had forgiven Kate Middleton after she bought her flowers and apologised.
Sources close to the Cambridges told a different version when news of the row leaked out in late 2018.
According to friends, the argument followed a dress fitting for Princess Charlotte that left Kate Middleton in tears, rather than the other way around.
“Kate had only just given birth to Prince Louis and was feeling quite emotional,” one insider said at the time.
According to Tatler magazine, the Duchess of Cambridge was upset because she wanted Charlotte and the other bridesmaids to follow “protocol” and wear tights.
“There was an incident at the wedding rehearsal,” a source said. “It was a hot day and apparently there was a row over whether the bridesmaids should wear tights or not. Kate, following protocol, felt that they should. Meghan didn’t want them to.”
At the wedding the children appeared without tights, suggesting the bride eventually got her way.
The Duchess of Sussex said: “A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something pertaining – yes, the issue was correct – about flower girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings.
“And I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn't make sense to not be just doing whatever everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot.”
Meghan said it was a turning point when the false story was not put straight, adding: "Everyone in the institution knew it wasn't true.
"I think it's really important for people to understand the truth, but also I think a lot of it was fed into by the media, and look, I would hope that she would have wanted that corrected, and maybe in the same way that the palace wouldn't let anybody else negate it, they wouldn't let her because she's a good person.
"And I think so much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity, where if you love me, you don't have to hate her.
"And if you love her, you don't need to hate me."
"The thing about Meghan with backers...
While it’s possibly hush hush...she wasn’t hanging out with the creme de la creme of society. She was hanging out with her stylist Messica, and Markus Anderson the town gossip, and a chef, and a few small time media pals. Yes, these were big ‘scores’ for her friendship group, but she wasn’t exactly hanging out with the Banking Sector."
......
That's ^^^. why it took me awhile to form my theory, advance to tin tiara, then arrive here.
But stylist Messica is married to a Mulroney, and through him and a tech female friend Meghan got her invitation to the White House Trudeau dinner where she was photographed greeting Obama.
Markus Anderson was the global ambassador for the richly funded, connected to journalist and politics Soho House. The club Harry and his friends belonged to before Megs got there. Important to know the gatekeeper (Markus) as she probably didn't want to pay for membership there any more than for her SAG card. Much more than a town gossip, but even a town gossip winds up with huge connections, as Oscar Wilde, Truman Capote, Alice Roosevelt Longworth and others have shown us.
A chef, for a place to stay, and food. A high profile man as she climbed, he wasn't some pancake house cook. A hot bachelor around town, who partied in the right places, with a job with long nights, so she could really go anywhere? And look at the important parties she catered with important guests. Amazing who you can meet through the right chef. Especially since Harry visited Toronto and Soho a lot more than LA.
She didn't need the big hanking sector or money boys, as that wasn't the goal. She had funds from backers, could meet the others anytime on "trips" and so maybe met her backers that way.
What WAS Meghan looking for? Hollywood stardom? But she ran to Toronto, and divorced the producer.
Money? But she DIDN'T chase the easy hedge fund types as far as we know, at least in a legit way.
Tech boys? Well, well, look how important the power of tech is today.
She kept going to London and asking for intros to rich British men .She was targeting, aiming, on mission. Everyone before that provided the semi-legit cover she needed of a created group of friends with famous city jobs (gossip, celeb chef, members only hotel where Harry and others like him played and belonged) -- all she was trying was to find someone to say, Hey, we know which rich British guy you should meet! And, lo, they did. She seemed legit to him because of her quickly formed Toronto friend group -- Toronto, the perfect under the radar sort of world city nearer London where no Hollywood people would point out that Megs was nothing.
She was aimed at the Palace and Harry, for whatever reason, not to be Mrs Banker. Though she'd be financially better off with a hedge fund guy, they don't have titles and world-stage presence. Her target mission paid off. Amazingly, huh?
Like @Jessica, I can't see what her strategy is.
This was precisely the source of my confusion last year. She seemed to shoot herself in the foot at every opportunity.
But now I agree with the writer who said that Meghan has realized her brand is trashing the BRF. She's going to keep at it forever. She has a strategy now.
I read Richard Kay's article. The tea was good and the conclusion fantastic.
". . . with William at her side, Kate represents our best chance of saving the monarchy.
Thank you so much for your kind words!
😁😁😁
Thanks for pointing out your post about Ariel. Now it makes perfect sense to me.
Thanks for sharing.
Valentine Low is on fire!
Slamming the door in Kate’s face doesn’t surprise me at all coming from the raging rude bully. Kate apologizing and bringing flowers sounds exactly like what a well-mannered lady would do. Classy vs trashy.
Manners have nothing to do with skin color, money, status, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Something that the woke Twitter mob would never understand.
Richard Kay’s article is perfect 👌🏻.
Ah Nutties, brilliant comments/articles👏
I’m way behind, still sifting through.
I’m so disgusted with the deplorables, sickened,
don’t know how much more I can stomach.
I have faith in the Queen.
The mills of God grind slowly...
God Save the Queen
Apologies to Sir Walter Alexander Raleigh
“ I wish I loved the human race “
Unity versus Impunity
I do not like this change of pace
I do not like all’s blamed on race
I do not like this lack of grace
It makes the world a scary place
I wish that we could all be friends
United, we can make amends
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9344147/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Never-mind-Press-Sussexes-sensationalised-story.html
Article after article, the press is dissecting the lies and exposing the truths. The BRF do not have to respond directly. The job is being done for them!
Jen, I can imagine her slamming the door.
I don’t recall ever, seeing her interact with Eugenie.
We saw Bea, at Christmas, step back from her.
Whatever she’s smoking, it’s strong!!
How rude! Who would in their right mind slam the door in the face of their future sister-in-law who came by to apologize??
I was surprised also about Eugenie’s supposed friendship. They may have crossed paths one night at SoHo House? And Megalo is lying again?? Or it’s just her twisted sick way of deflecting criticism regarding announcing her pregnancy at Eugenie’s wedding? We’re old friends so she didn’t mind me crashing her special day!
"Have we ever heard of MM having a friendship with Eugenie before she met Harry as she claimed in the interview?"
Not that I'm aware of.
I've read that Eugenie and Jack did "party" with them in Toronto once but it was reported to be in the context of Eugenie's connection to Harry, not to Meghan. Also we do know Harry used to party with Eugenie and Jack in London prior to meeting Meghan. We further know Eugenie set up Harry with Cressida Bonas and is friends with Chelsy Davy. Since Jack and Eugenie were together for 7+ years before they married, I'm sure Harry dated several other women during that time.
Ordure Winprey - Ursulas Und’ine’oing
Has she signed Opreys latest contract
Full of more lies, lacking in fact
All conjecture, plain travesty
I’m speaking of course
Of their pending divorce
Once again subject to Lies - mageste
Before I go though:
The whole thing is heart-breaking. I'm giving the news a miss today as well - as far as I can see, both BBC & ITV are featuring at least 3 black women with opinions and nothing to balance it out.
I'd also like to take another look at the `Archie Skin Colour' `issue' and I'd like to know what other Nutties think:
We all know that the reason for her child not being a Prince had nothing to do with skin-colour.
In the interview, however, she implied that Archie was a `child of colour', for want of a better term, yet as far as we can make out the `Archie or Archies' she deigned to show us, prior to Sunday/Monday, seemed to me to be as fair-skinned as any child with Northern European ancestry going back centuries, one moreover with very European facial features, as far as one can make out from a baby.
What did you make of the latest clip?
How does that fit in?
What might have been her twisted `logic'?
Is she taunting us?
Why lead us up the garden path?
Is there a shortage of mixed-race children for hire?
Or did she not thought it through and is now rationalising, that is, finding an invalid reason in retrospect?
Or were we being set up to coo and say things like `What a lovely white baby'?
----------
Being `forgiven' by a narcissist - it's happened to me and isn't nice.
It took the form of a recitation of my perceived faults followed by `... but I've forgiven you.'
Of course, it was said with an air of condescending superiority to establish that the narc, whose behaviour had driven me to distraction, actually occupied the higher moral ground.
See you later , folks. I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.
Could the issue just be an ordinary conversation about the future baby? Who hasn't wondered about who/what their baby will look like? Hair colour, eye colour, straight/curly hair, etc? But this could have been easily twisted to further Meg's agenda.
As for HR, I wonder if Megalo went to them to try and put her side of the story and a counter claim, i.e. boo hoo, Kate bullies me, boo hoo, in case anyone looked into Kate's claim she was bullied by Meg. Going to HR because she was depressed/suicidal? Do you go to the greengrocer's for a sore throat?
Markles Andercam
Long time ago
In the bowels of So Ho
Old Megs was plying her trade
She grasped at the chance
Skewered Haz, with a prance
From there on, his’tory was laid
'From there on, his’tory was laid'
Not just, history, Magatha, somebody got laid 😉
Maneki, skewered, roasted, his story,
well laid 😉
Long time ago
In the bowels of So Ho
Old Megs was plying her trade
She grasped at the chance
Skewered Haz, with a prance
From there on, his’tory was laid
*
Thank you for this!! LOL.
I've been hanging over at LSA. A whole thread by black women dragging the hell out of her. Laughing my rear off after all of the moaning and groaning and regurgitating.
Thank you!!! Chefs kiss... :D
"As for HR, I wonder if Megalo went to them to try and put her side of the story and a counter claim, i.e. boo hoo, Kate bullies me, boo hoo, in case anyone looked into Kate's claim she was bullied by Meg. Going to HR because she was depressed/suicidal? Do you go to the greengrocer's for a sore throat?"
I agree going to HR would have been ridiculous. But it doesn't make sense to me M would have thought HR would look into claims M bullied Kate. As others have said, it's possible she was trying to head off claims M bullied staff. But not Kate. I just don't think it's possible M would have thought her conflicts with Kate would go to HR. I mean, by the time M was married she'd gotten the idea of Kate's status. The huge apartment at KP, the huge house at Sandringham, the general hierarchy....Even someone who didn't envision herself as "whip smart" wouldn't think HR minions were how Kate's detractors were dealt with.
Personally I don't believe Meghan ever went to HR and if it she, it wasn't because she was seeking help for depression/suicidal ideation. She claimed she didn't want Harry to know. So she'd go to HR? Harry claimed after he found out he didn't want his family to know? But thought HR wouldn't have told anyone?
And where is HR anyway? From what I can tell, there's only one office that would have involved Samantha Carruthers and its at Clarence House. How would M have gotten there secretly? It's not exactly next door to KP.
Let’s go along with Megalo’s account of that conversation. ONE family member wondered about their unborn child’s skin tone. ONE person. Was it as malicious as she said it was? Or a simple question? Every parent to be and/or grandparents to be have wondered who their future child/grandchild will look like. But, let’s say it was a malicious and racist comment. So what? It happened years ago. It hurt. Move on. No need to air your dirty laundry on national television. At best, it’s spiteful. Who hasn’t been embarrassed or annoyed by something inappropriate an old relative has said or done??? I know I have !
The most disturbing part is that this is a conversation that happened BEFORE they got married and Megalo wasn’t even in the room! So, Hapless reported back who said what and spiteful as she is she kept going on and on about that person’s racism and the unconscious bias of the rest of the family. Hapless was later rewired to be shocked.
@lizzie
As for HR, I think she was advised by her lawyer to let it slip out that she - also - went to HR and told them about her mental struggles and the lingering racism within the firm. So when the findings of the bullying accusations will be published to confirm that Megalo did indeed harass and bully her staff, she would have her magical free pass card already aligned. I was suicidal. HR knew about this and did nothing. The staff were actually bullying ME and undermining my self confidence. I was so depressed I don’t recall lashing out at anyone. And, if I did, well I was on the verge of killing my self and my unborn child. Easy!
Cheers Lavender, have to laugh,
or I’ll cry!!
"The most disturbing part is that this is a conversation that happened BEFORE they got married and Megalo wasn’t even in the room! So, Hapless reported back who said what and spiteful as she is she kept going on and on about that person’s racism and the unconscious bias of the rest of the family. Hapless was later rewired to be shocked."
Agree with most of your post. But the above part is in question. Harry said it happened before they got married so about 3 years ago. But M said it was while she was pregnant so not quite that long ago. Very odd they can't agree. I suppose it might have happened before marriage but Helpful Husband Harry didn't tell M until months later when she was pregnant. What a nice guy!
----
@Flore--
You might be right about the HR stuff. Her attorneys appear to be lying sacks of s*** just like she is so they may have told her to lie. Still, we know there is a paper trial for the bullied staff. I am close to 100% sure there isn't one for M seeking help for suicidal thoughts at HR.
I am also sure the HR staff couldn't have failed to hear all the Royal Foundation's Heads Together blather about everyone being encouraged to reach out and have conversations about mental problems. (I actually thought aspects of that campaign were ill-advised.) And even though Harry was doing much of the Heads Together blathering, and even though he'd been in therapy for years, and even though M managed to find an OB/GYN outside official channels, and even though she was seeing those OB/GYN doctors, and even though M had been able to find doctors to assess and treat her friend Silver Tree's child for a serious medical problem from miles away (according to Silver Tree), and even though M habitually researched new cities and complied notebooks of resources for traveling/relocating friends (according to Abigail Spencer), and even though supposedly H&M were introduced by a mutual friend in London, and even though M managed to get the Vet to the Stars to treat her dog, and even though M was an "independent woman" and Harry was a "hero soldier" supposedly helping veterans find psychiatric help, between the two of them the only place they knew to look for confidential psychiatric help for M was HR? Sure.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful analysis. I concur completely. MM has found her way to a lair of like-minded dark forces. It's such a relief to hear the British press and commentators point out the fallacies, the true facts, and so on. My goodness, I'm now a Piers Morgan fan.
I'm so confused by the US reaction in believing whole hog The Interview. Not just by our slobbering media, but my friends, family, neighbors. (Clearly, I made the mistake of letting too many people know I follow the Royal Family.) I've been fending off stupid questions, like a relentless hail storm. I've tried to dispense facts, but it's frightening how desperate people are to believe in a "narrative" rather than a messier truth.
Perhaps Britain is being punished for Brexit? Who knows, but there's more than meets the eye going on. I just hope William can work with his former secretary to get Parliament to at least hold a vote on removing their titles.
The Wonky Donkeys
It hurts seeing my Queen defiled
By a whore, and that’s putting it mild
I hate to see
Slurs of monarchy
The Crown always wins
Will reveal all her sins
As she’s proven to be irretrievably shonky
Totally agree. I'm not sure Megalo thought HR would actually look into claims she bullied Kate but you never know, with her entitled attitude she may well have thought she was in the right and that the Palace just couldn't ignore her claims. I don't think any good will come of this. When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging.
As a result of my drifting off topic @snarkyatherbest was wondering about Tosca and Boheme. Let me reassure her that they are entirely safe as in former the Nazi gets it in Act 2 - through the heart - and Mimi would never have died in Act 4 of Boheme if it had not been for that misogynist pickup artist Rudolfo. 'Your tiny hand is frozen' what a creepy pick-up line and as it was dark and Mimi never agreed to him holding her hand he is obviously a raaapist. All this assumes the Lockdown eventually ends and that at that time there are still opera companies around who are not out of business having been bankrupted. I am not feeling confident.
I this morning realise that @ Humorme must be American. I send a supply of virtual Us gratis for future use uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
The Duchess of Sussex claims she was not upset that Mr Morgan said he 'didn't believe a word she said' in her Oprah interview the broadcaster paid CBS £1million to show - but was worried about how his comments could affect people attempting to deal with their own mental health problems, an insider told the Press Association.
What about her comments about mental health affecting suicidal people? I thin after this, the Queen needs a very strong word (in private) with those two.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9345377/GMBs-Ranvir-Singh-reveals-Piers-Morgans-spot-Susanna-Reid-6-30am.html
So now she complained to ITV? Is she going to sue them?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9345377/GMBs-Ranvir-Singh-reveals-Piers-Morgans-spot-Susanna-Reid-6-30am.html
Meghan Markle formally complained to ITV about Piers Morgan hours before the Good Morning Britain co-host quit - but denies it was fuelled by the journalist's claims she was lying about being suicidal and the Royal Family being racist, it was revealed today.
The Duchess of Sussex claims she was not upset that Mr Morgan said he 'didn't believe a word she said' in her Oprah interview the broadcaster paid CBS £1million to show - but was worried about how his comments could affect people attempting to deal with their own mental health problems, an insider told the Press Association.
Ms Markle is understood to have gone directly to ITV's CEO Carolyn McCall, who said yesterday they were 'dealing with' Piers hours before he quit after reportedly refusing to apologise for his 'honestly held opinions'.
----------------------------------------------
I know that Piers Morgan claimed to be friends with MM before she met JH and and then she ghosted him so do you think he walked out because of something he knew but cannot say yet? His twitter just said 'tick tock'.
Philistines
Despite what they say
Prince Philip holds sway
He could say, it’s me, who said it
Would shut them all up
Leaving Megsie with nup
Not even a dollar in credit
Geek / trivial alert regarding skin tone.
After Wendell Pierce’s outburst at the Harkles and then his semi retraction, I did a little digging. He played her dad on Suits. Her character was named Rachel. A mixed race paralegal whose mother is white and father is black. She (Rachel / Megalo) is so fair skinned that the following explicitly sarcastic dialogue occurred between her and Mike or what’s his name Costar who lashed out like a lunatic on Twitter defending her.
Mike: Robert Zane is your dad?!
Rachel: Is it so hard to believe that my father is Black?
Mike: Robert Zane is black?
Rachel: You think this is a year-round tan?
Season 2/Episode 13
It was hard to watch her bad acting! But her fair skin and lack of African American features were raised to clarify how Wendell Pierce (who is undoubtedly Black) was her father. I wonder if she was offended then...
What you outline is very plausible. Meghan had a plan to hack into the palace backed by some shady group, and she grabbed the low-hanging fruit, an embittered and drugged Harry. My personal tin hat theory is she was going for William but it didn't work. Marriage catapulted her to fame and a lifestyle she could never afford. The question is will her ploy last. The thing about Megalo is she is best at grabbing not sustaining. That's her downfall.
http://archive.ph/RNEU8
Thank you for all the articles you are posting along with your comments. Soooo good. This latest by Valentine Low...well! What do you think — can the RF let the press fight the battle on their behalf? If so, how far will the press go?
@LavenderLady,
Agree, LSA comments (both the Un threads one and two) on this Markle saga have been brilliant!
On the statement
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan."
I read this in my grandmother's voice and hear the drip drip of sarcasm from icy disdain.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately."
Personally I think this is calling out lies and a barely veiled threat.
Too bad MM thinks she is invincible and Harry is too spineless to do anything but hope MeAgain can protect him.
What gets me though about Markle's assertion of a need for mental assistance is that it would not have helped her for in my opinion such help unknown until the beginning of the twentieth century is at best pseudo-science. In my experience if one is down one should either talk to ones friends (easier for a girl to do this) or better stay quietly alone until Time as it always does heals the pain. Counselling, and therapy are fake, and are make-weight jobs for the inquisitive. In my further experience talking of ones problems is rather like scratching an itch - it makes the itch worse.
The only other way that I am aware of that transforms a person is through religious conversion. No idea why or how that works but there are so many examples of such that I cannot doubt its effect.
Harry and Meghan ‘don’t need police protection — their risk isn’t high enough’
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s claims that their son Archie was denied security protection because he was not a prince are “utter nonsense”, police and Home Office sources said yesterday.
The Metropolitan Police, which protects the royal family around the globe, stopped providing security when the couple stepped down as working members while in Canada last spring.
Round-the-clock protection during their time in Canada was estimated to be costing taxpayers more than £1 million a year. Between four and six officers on salaries of about £60,000 were stationed with them and there was the cost of an armoured vehicle and other items. They also had to cover the cost of help from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Protection of members of the royal family is based on a threat assessment conducted by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC). It gauges the risk individuals face using intelligence from across British security and intelligence services and others, including through the Five Eyes partnership with US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It makes its recommendations to the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, chaired by Sir Richard Mottram, a former civil servant.
A Home Office source separately said there had been “concerted efforts” to cut the huge taxpayer-funded cost of protecting the royals in the past five years. Only the most senior members of the royal family and government receive automatic protection from Scotland Yard but it will authorise protection for all individuals who face a large enough risk.
However, the duchess claimed in the interview that she was told her son would not receive security because he would not be a prince. Later the duke told Oprah Winfrey: “I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.”
Sources familiar with decisions over royal protection have debunked both claims and said it was “ridiculous” of them to expect continued protection. A police source said: “JTAC do threat assessments for anyone of any note and they obviously know who has targeted who in the past so certain individuals have been targeted by certain terror groups and their threat level is moderate high or very high. The leading royals all get protection but again done on a threat assessment basis.
So true. She cannot sustain. Maybe the jumps to Canada, Tyler Perry’s, and Montecito were a frantic interim outlet for her normal two year escape? Maybe she was ordered to stay in? But it could also be that, even as she performs, she is also edging backwards toward a door.
“If you cease to be a royal, you lose your HRH and you go to another country like America, your threat level is going to reduce quite considerably because basically, who wants to kill you? You’re not a royal. It still will exist — there still will be a threat against Meghan and Harry but it won’t be high. And the threat against their children is non-existent so the notion that her son should get protection just because they were born to Meghan and Harry is nonsense, really.”
Another source familiar with the process mocked Meghan for expecting that Archie would receive his own protection, saying: “The point they were making was stupid. A baby that can’t crawl wouldn’t get protection in its own right. It doesn’t need it. The baby doesn’t go anywhere independently, it’s with Harry and Meghan all the time.”
A Home Office source said: “When they stepped away from royal duties, if they then aren’t going to have any contact with the public — they’re going to be living in a private home — the risk assessment is automatically reduced. So even without any change in status, just not doing those day-to-day things will reduce your risk
assessment.
Dai Davies, a former chief superintendent who ran the Met’s royal protection unit, said there was no automatic right to security because Harry was born a royal. He said: “The duty on the officers is to protect the Queen and the line of succession. If there were any concerns about their safety, then they are now US residents, and she’s a citizen — the FBI would also take appropriate action. If there was any known risk or perceived threat then action could be taken by the police there.
Well, the Royal Family have reduced Princess Harry's risk even more by indicating how unimportant he is to them.
Frankly...they aren't above getting rid of pests.
That London Times article is brilliant! I can't decide which part I like best, but I'd say this line is currently the top contender:
If you cease to be a royal, you lose your HRH and you go to another country like America, your threat level is going to reduce quite considerably because basically, who wants to kill you? You’re not a royal.
Indeed.
I have always found the notion of Meghan being a plant to destroy the monarchy absurd, but it is looking more plausible now.
She was the perfect plant because she is a raging narc who is going to go ballistic. In fact, she is doing a better job destroying the monarchy outside than she did inside. I doubt that she even knows that she is being used by the elite in a class war.
Why? The values that the Queen upholds, the loyalty and admiration she attracts, do not serve the interests of the elite (service to others vs service to self; moderation of behaviour and desires to serve others vs give me everything I want; abiding truth vs manufactured truth to fit the moment ...). They want to use their jets, have their numerous huge mansions and all their expensive stuff without criticism, and with a compliant majority serving them and funding them. It is the classic class war. Those who are supporting Meghan so enthusiastically are on the wrong side of history. The people always win a class war, but much damage will be done before the war is won.
In retrospect, Meghan was the perfect weapon to plant in the BRF. She may be smart, but her and her husband are so self-obsessed that they are stupid and easy to use and manipulate - just flatter her and give him money!
Apologies if Americans find this insulting - McCarthyism was insane and absurd and happened in the heart of democracy and free speech and equality. Look how much we have gained since then. Meghanism will take us to dark places, but it will not prevail.
Wow. I have no words. Why have they appointed this woman the leader of pain and suffering.
Let me see, she marries a man who has a largely ceremonial job (because he's not very capable or stable) in a privately held family owned company where her husband's grandparent is the CEO, his father is the CFO, & his brother is an Exec. VP, or MD or something. The company has important ties to the national government which require great discretion. So, someone wasn't nice to Megs at a tea party or something, & she gets in a snit, & wants to self harm. So she goes to the potentially loose-lipped peons in HR? Give me a break. I know big companies are supposedly looking after their employees mental & physical health (until they can quietly off load them), but the people at the very top are going to protect their privacy by any means necessary. What a load of bull fa-fa.
Thanks for sharing.
But didn’t the JTAC get the memo from Megalo that she was harassed and received death threats because she’s a POC?? Jeez the JTAC must have an unconscious bias that they are not aware of!
If Piers was going to be fired or reprimanded for his comments about mm, they would have been done privately. The clip I saw, was Piers getting annoyed and walked out-effectively quitting. Mm complaints are just noise. Also, why didn't she complain sooner??
Worse she’s the savior of all the people suffering and who have lost their voice 🤮
@Opus: I was fortunate to be able to afford counselling after my run-in with my most recent narc.
I was badly depressed but couldn't be clear if my impression that I had been dealing with a narc was accurate or not. Was I imagining it? Over-reacting? Was I responsible?
She was able to reassure me that I had read the situation correctly and able to help me understand what it was about me that resulted in my repeatedly getting entangled with such people. I saw I was so used to `having my boundaries violated' that I accepted it as normal. I could recognise when relative strangers walked over me but not when it was done by those I trusted. (Gee, thanks Mum).
(Familiar example of boundary violation: a guest taking over in your kitchen without so much as a `by your leave'. That's violation of your authority in your own household).
She also gave me the courage to go `No Contact'.
My narc did try to establish the connection later, telling me she was prepared to overlook my behaviour. I ignored it. Had she tried again, she'd had got a formal `Cease and Desist' letter from our Solicitors.
The counsellor was a absolute professional, ex NHS, not somebody who'd done a flakey New Age course. Decent ones are thin on the ground.
It can be vital to talk to someone who knows that such narcissists exist and how they operate. Just be careful who you choose to talk to.
I'll go back into my box now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9346085/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-defends-Queen-Harry-Meghan-interview.html
Archie does have a title: Lord Dumbarton, Earl of Dumbarton
Their daughter will have a title: Lady ... Mountbatten-Windsor
If the marriage in the garden wasn't lawfully valid (no witnesses) -
- and if the St George's wedding wasn't wasn't lawfully valid (inadequate identification at time of vows, though she may perhaps have been baptised `Meghan' but he wasn't baptised `Harry') could that marriage not be lawful either?
In which case, would they kindly come clean about the Botswana rumours? If that one was valid, they would be revealed as monstrous liars who executed a multi-million pound fraud on the British people.
-------------------
Perhaps they'd like to tell us where that leaves Archie?
---------------------
Welby has to answer quite a few questions - fake weddings may be covered by the Seal of Confession or by professional confidentiality, possibly not. Prove it happened - where's the Certificate? where's the Register entry?
I feel for Charles, it makes me think of Henry I's grief over the White Ship disaster and Henry II's ill-judged cry and Thomas a Becket...
Justin, you've been Markled.
Could we please have a mew thread. We almost at 1,000 comments in this one.
Thank you and thank you for this blog.
Is Meghan trying to cancel the RF? She’s left them, and done with them. Talks to The Queen for inheritance reasons. Personally, I don’t think she cares what happens to the RF either way. She doesn’t feel responsible to them, or for them, and that’s what they aren’t seeing.
Are we seeing this with Meghan? It looks that way to me.
An insider with close ties to Meghan tells DailyMail.com exclusively, ’[Meghan] said she has absolutely no regrets about what was said during the interview and that speaking with Oprah was both cathartic and transformative - the best decision she ever made, other than marrying Harry.
‘Meghan said the Royal institution should be relieved that she didn’t name names or go into even more details of what went on behind closed doors. She said she stands by her truth and that ultimately everyone involved wins because it’s now all out in the open and from there the healing can begin.’
'Meghan said waiting to share her story with the entire world seemed like an eternity and that she couldn’t happier with the end result.'Meghan said in order to preserve her well-being, especially now that she’s pregnant, she will not expose herself to any toxic news stemming from the interview. She said she’s moved on, but is open to communicating with anyone from the Royal family who wants to engage in a constructive conversation.'Meghan credits her mom and Princess Diana for giving them (Meghan and Harry) the strength and courage to come forward and tell it like it is. She said it was especially nerve-wracking for Harry to show his vulnerability, and that she’s incredibly proud of him.'She added title or no title, Harry will always be her prince.'
Facts about who gets protection in the BRF and how much.
The horse has bolted in America, but the focus seems to be on reminding the British public of the truth, day by day.
Harry and Meghan should never have had full-time protection.
Did anyone else have the misfortune to view This Morning's interview with MM's friend Javina Gavanka - she basically said nothing for 10 minutes and then dropped the bomb that MM was pleased that bullying claims were being investigated because then everyone will see that the accuser was actually fired for gross misconduct. I thought more than one employee came forward
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/morning-viewers-cringe-over-painfully-23658470?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Pass the sick bucket!
This creature has zero self awareness. Was she wrongly jailed in an autocratic country?? What story?!
She is blackmailing the BRF. Plain and simple. I have dirt on you and I will tell if you don’t give ME what I want WHEN I want it.
An interesting article from Unherd
Why monarchies are more tolerant
History shows that the Royal Family has always been a better friend to minorities than American democrats
BY ED WEST
Happier times. Credit: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty
Ed West
Ed West is the Senior Editor of UnHerd. His book Tory Boy is published by Constable
edwest
March 9, 2021
Filed under:
Groupthink Don't missHarry and MeghanMeghan MarkleMonarchyPrince HarryRaceRoyal family
Share:
In 1850, an eight-year-old orphan from west Africa called Sarah Forbes Bonetta Davies was sent on the long journey to England. Sarah, a Yoruba from what is now Nigeria, had been captured by the King of Dahomey during a conflict in which both her parents were killed, and spent two years as a slave until a Royal Navy Captain, on a diplomatic mission for the Queen, took pity on her and persuaded the ruler to hand her over, telling him: “She would be a present from the King of the Blacks to the Queen of the Whites.” Once in England, Queen Victoria had Sarah raised by a couple from Chatham, and the girl became a regular visitor to Windsor Castle.
Alas, the story did not have a fairytale ending. Sarah died, aged just 40, from tuberculosis in 1880 after travelling to Madeira to convalesce, Victoria by now queen of much of Africa.
It was not so unusual for the Queen of the Whites to play host to an African girl. As ruler and empress of much of the globe, Victoria saw herself as the benevolent ruler of a family of nations, of all shades of humanity; at the same time, millions of her subjects at home lived in abject poverty, and when Miss Davies was growing up barely 1.5m could vote out of a population 20 times that.
Most American men, in contrast, could choose their head of state, thanks to the revolution that had ousted Victoria’s grandfather. The creation of Jefferson, Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers had been a tremendous success, not just in terms of wealth and power but in fulfilling its high-minded hope that all men might be able to pursue happiness. President Andrew Jackson was raised in the Waxhaws, a backcountry region of the Carolinas, the son of Irish immigrants, and had gone on to the White House; Abraham Lincoln grew up in a log cabin and reached the very top.
Yet Sarah Davies could never have dreamed of dining in the White House. Although there had been black guests since the time of Lincoln, the first African-American to be invited to have dinner at the president’s home was Booker T Washington – in 1901. Even then, it caused such anger that it wouldn’t be repeated for decades.
Such a visit would have raised few eyebrows in Britain, where Queen Victoria’s circle hosted people from various backgrounds, as did those of her successors; George V, in particular, had views on race that were unusually liberal for the time. The House of Windsor, whatever their other, many faults, have always stood for what most regard as basically decency on the subject — which is why perhaps the most damaging revelation in yesterday’s Oprah Winfrey interview was Meghan Markle’s suggestion that Harry had heard “there were concerns and conversations about how dark [Archie’s] skin might be”. The Oprah interview has placed race at the heart of the royal fall-out, and, as a result, the British Royal Family has been cancelled by American progressives. The Windsor family fall-out has, unfortunately, become part of The Discourse.
SUGGESTED READING
Hollywood's Cinderella has spoken
BY KAT ROSENFIELD
Obviously the royal family should be cancelled by progressives; hereditary monarchy is, after all, a very reactionary concept. Americans cancelled the monarchy in 1776. Yet monarchies have also historically been, paradoxically, more racially tolerant than republics.
The America that rebelled against Victoria’s grandfather came to be both more egalitarian and at the same time more racially conscious and prejudiced than Britain; it developed a “colour bar” and “one-drop rule”, ideas designed to separate races into a hierarchy (although these ideas were far more pronounced in the South). Most African-Americans, when given the chance, sided with Britain in 1776, as did pretty much every Native American, because they rightly understood that as racial outsiders they were better off with a monarch ruling an empire, rather than an egalitarian republic from which they were excluded.
But these American ideas about race did not develop back in Europe; they didn’t even develop in some other parts of the Americas. Modern academia, largely colonised by the American narrative, is obsessed with ideas of “whiteness” and race even though they make little sense in the context of pre-20th century British and European history. At the end of George III’s reign, life expectancy among slaves in Trinidad was 17. For the working class in Preston it was 18, while in Liverpool it was 16. What on earth does “white privilege” mean in the context of 19th century Lancashire? What does it even mean in 21st century Lancashire?
19th century Lancashire? What does it even mean in 21st century Lancashire?
SUGGESTED READING
Is Prince Harry the new Edward VIII?
BY TANYA GOLD
It’s an American concept, fitting the fact that Americans historically had far more antagonistic views about race. During the Second World War the behaviour of British people towards black soldiers — and the behaviour of British women in particular — shocked US soldiers stationed here. Indeed, it was the objections of US servicemen to sharing a hotel with a black man that led to British courts reaffirming that segregation did not and could not exist in England.
That racial attitudes in Britain were not as harsh as those in America partly reflected demography — there just weren’t many black people until the 1950s — but they were also the product of the hierarchical, class-bound nature of British society. In contrast to the awesome ascent of Jackson and Lincoln, Britain didn’t have a working-class MP until (arguably) 1874, 30 years after a mixed-race man of African heritage first sat in the Commons. The UK didn’t have a working-class prime minister until 1924. No one born in a Cornish mining community could have risen to the top in Victorian England. They certainly wouldn’t have been invited to dine with the Queen.
In Britain class differences were far more important than race and were often so highly formalised as to resemble segregation. When Blackburn Rover’s Jimmy Forrest became the first professional — i.e. working-class — footballer to play for England, he had to wear a different coloured shirt to his gentleman team mates. “Professional” players also had to have separate dressing rooms. That kind of open snobbery has always been anathema to the US, even if it had its own class system and elite schools.
In contrast, various Indian cricketers played for England in the Victorian and pre-war period, five of whom had princely titles, men such as Iftikhar Ali Khan, the 8th Nawab of Pataudi. Of course, there was racial prejudice. Had the Nawab of Pataudi turned up in a Victorian pub, he might have been treated as an outsider in a way that Jimmy Forrest wouldn’t have been. But among important people who mattered, there would have been little doubt who came further up the pecking order.
Even monarchy itself is by nature multi-racial; whether or not George III’s wife Queen Charlotte really had African ancestry, royalty has always been mixed, since the earliest “peace-weaver” princesses of the early middle ages. Yet Harry and Meghan’s marriage was treated by an America-brained press like it was an earth-shattering event, when hardly anyone cared about the racial angle, another dog that didn’t bark for the media. And now, thanks to our own Americanised discourse, we’re forced to see everything through the narrative of race rather than the more salient issue of class — even the tragic self-destruction of a family the Americans decided a long time ago they wanted rid of.
Re the baby' skin colour
Could the issue just be an ordinary conversation about the future baby? Who hasn't wondered about who/what their baby will look like? Hair colour, eye colour, straight/curly hair, etc? But this could have been easily twisted to further Meg's agenda.
If this conversation even took place, Megs is twisting it just the way you say. She is diabolical and knows that charges of racism fly today. As others have said, her career now is leaking, bashing, threatening the BRF. This raises her brand name recognition in America and other nations. UK....They are just plain sick and tired of her.
Foxes are very interesting, as I read for research. They cannot stop their instincts and behaviors, and gets bad reputations due to rabies. Rabid foxes were at the interview - the Shamus cannot stop their lies and bad, rabid behaviors, as they were born bad, and were infected early with hate and jealousy. They cannot stop themselves.
Our diocese will do that if there is a hint or question of possible impropriety.
As for the who cried saga, not only was the fact that Kate had just had a baby but that when M had had her baby, there was no talk in the interview about empathy about what it feels like 2 weeks post delivery (and crazy events demanding your participation). No sympathy even when looking back.
back to FF
In the early chapters, there is talk about how W confronted his brother about the need to seek help (pp 67-69). It makes a special point of how they hoped this would help take away the stigma. this makes it harder to claim unwillingness to have hard conversations within the family about the need to seek mental health
FF does have it out for Kate. K&W come off as the fuddy duddies who still make it an early night when out on the town (compared to the fun loving party stars of the book). Or that she was reserved around people (compared to the hug people other duchess).
Or that she failed to be there when W met M at KP (p 91 - she was at the other home with the kids) and that she clearly backed her husband and therefore did nada to help mend the gap between the brothers (p 127).
I've had other things going on but I wanted to go back over what was said about Jason now that he is in play.