Just a few weeks ago, the Sussex saga was a bit dull. Over the past week, of course, it's exploded.
First there was Harry's ridiculous bus-top interview with James Corden, in which he hopelessly flubbed his scripted lines and flopped his arms about like a man who is accustomed to not being taken seriously.
Of course, stopping at the exterior location home of a long-dead sitcom and then asking, on camera, to use the bathroom is an indication of a man who should not be taken seriously.
It's a good thing the protocol-loving Queen Mother isn't around to see the Corden show. She might have asked for her inheritance back.
Rushing through his dialogue
Then there was a quick clip from Oprah's upcoming interview with the Sussexes. Meg is shown sitting silent, plastic-faced, in an unflattering dress, looking somewhat like a showroom dummy of herself.
Harry, meanwhile, is babbling on again like a man who is accustomed to not being listened to, as he again draws parallels between his wife with his mother. (John Lennon had a terrible habit of doing this as well; he mixed his mother's name with his wife's in the otherwise gorgeous love song Julia.)
"My biggest concern was history repeating itself," he says. "I'm really relieved and happy to be sitting here talking to you with my wife by my side because I can't begin to imagine what it must have been for her going through this process by herself all these years ago."
He's speaking prepared dialogue, but he's rushing through it like somebody is going to cut him off at any moment. Which probably tells us a little bit more than what we want to know about life at Sussex Manor.
Earrings from MbS
Then there was the revelation that the earrings Meg wore to a royal event in Fiji - along with that simple blue dress that was one of her few great fashion moments - were an unreported wedding gift from Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman.
MbS, as he's referred to in the diplomatic community, is a controversial figure who was involved in the death of propagandist-not-journalist Jamal Khashoggi just three weeks earlier.
Wearing the earrings would have been bad enough style given the timing, but apparently Meghan lied about their provenance as well, saying they were "borrowed." (At the time, I believe, a Hong Kong jeweler took credit for loaning them to her.)
Receiving the earrings was not, quite frankly, improper, since MbS is a member of another Royal family.
But the timing of their public debut was awful, and the dishonesty about where they came from - was she lying just to the press? or also to the Royal staff assisting her? - was unsettling.
What else are we right about?
Of course, at this blog and at other non-sugar Meghan blogs, we've been saying for a long time that Meg is a liar.
We've also been saying for quite some time that she is a bully, information that is just beginning now to officially emerge from Kensington Palace, where an investigation is underway.
This raises the question: what else were we right about?
Yachting? Trevor? Corey? The hockey player? The dogs? Joseph Gordon-Giuliano? Meg's drug use? Doria's prison record? Meg's lack of a university diploma? Meg's real birthdate? Markus Anderson? Nicole?
Archie?
Comments
So is the red haired child positivity the IG poster's child?
I know many of you are saying Archie is a redhead but I'm not so sure. Has anyone noticed how blurry Archie is compared to everyone else? IMHO, his hair doesn't look kinky, more like soft curls. Not only that, his color saturation does not match the others. It looks like it was altered to be much, much warmer.
I definitely think Archie is real but I'm starting to think Rache hides him because he did not come out the way she wanted. She was hoping for Harry's doppelgänger but he turned out to be Thomas Markle's instead.
Even if that is not Archie, I still think they actually have a son though probably not by natural fertilization.
I mean, to implicate the RF in a massive coverup is preposterous and makes zero logical sense.
I do not have any way of knowing for sure whose child it is.
Others on this blog also mentioned that MM's face looks different and there is a gap in her teeth that has not been visible for a long time.
@charade
I agree with you. There is something strange about the photo that to me, makes it look photoshopped.
Archie isn't biracial, Nutmeg is. Archie would be technically 1/4 AA, but I doubt his mom passed much of her AA genes to him; she seems to have gotten far more of her genes from Thomas.
Every child they have shown is adorable, except the christening baby who, in my humble opinion, was every bit as homely as Harry in his own christening photo, in addition to looking just like him at that age. But he got cute quickly, and so has this little lad. Lads? Does anyone think it's possible there are two?
While I do believe there is an Archie, and he is 100% theirs genetically, I am open to any scenario, including that the blind we figure is about Hilary Baldwin is about the Harkles.
But this little guy is cute as a bug's ear, regardless of who his parents are.
She was hoping for Harry's doppelgänger but he turned out to be Thomas Markle's instead.
*
Truth right there!!
Are you new? Because no one typically responds to me. I'm the red headed step child of the blog...
Archie isn't biracial, Nutmeg is. Archie would be technically 1/4 AA, but I doubt his mom passed much of her AA genes to him; she seems to have gotten far more of her genes from Thomas.
Yes you're right he's 1/4 AA. I hadn't thought about it because I don't care about Meghan's minutae (sic?)so I don't pay attention to her details :D
Great question! Why *would they delete if it's not Archie?
Yes @Ian'sGirl :) I don't know why people keep saying Archie is biracial. I've pointed this out before. He's technically white with black admixture. He's definitely more white passing than his Mom.
I would certainly expect it to have some texture, but mainly, well equally anyway, because Harry has it as well.
I know Nutmeg straightens hers (rant on: which annoys the hell out of me because she does it as a matter of course, not just as a style now and then; I have friends who put themselves through hell with their hair to make it straight and it would be nice if this self proclaimed WOC given the largest international stage on the planet would wear her hair naturally on occasion as an example! rant off) but even as a child her hair looks more frizzy than curly.
I am not new, I have been on the blog for well over a year, since when Elle was on, but I have mainly been lurking and not writing for quite some time. I got tired of writing about her antics. For whatever reason, I feel compelled to weigh in on all the drama going on now. So many people have posted so many interesting comments! I read everything and enjoy the posts very much. I wish there was a like button on the blog because I like many more comments than to which I can take the time to respond.
At one point since I have been on the blog, there was a TV show that aired here in the US that was not aired in Britain. I took copious minute-by-minute notes on the show and posted them here for everyone to read. Nutty thanked me for them.
Thanks. Mrs. Magoo is on her itty bitty font phone tonight.
Thanks for clarifying it was you who made the doppelganger comment about Archie.
Cool! Glad your back. I've been reading for quite awhile but I didn't recall your name. So many new names popping up randomly these days. Due to the Kracken I suppose... BTW, I think Elle is still among us ;) I will say no more...
Welcome back!
I find genetics fascinating, probably because I don't look much like either of my parents or siblings, lol. I have my red headed Norwegian maternal grandmother's coloring and build laid over my paternal Mingo great grandmother's facial features.
I thought that the hair on "Archie" in the photo looked like Harry's and it was photoshopped on "Archie's" head! LOL
The archie pic. I think it is partially photoshopped the meg in that one was at least two noses ago and the little girl is smaller and has on glasses from a few years back on the directors Instagram page. I think it was done to create a buzz. Getting us all off the bullying stories. A quick photo and then pull it. Have everyone looking for it and at it.
Now wouldn’t it be glorious for commonwealth days the Cambridges had their kids at their side and there’s a fourth. A little red headed toddler. They in fact are raising archie. Ok either I need to write a screen play or I need to get some sleep 😉
Thank you, I appreciate your welcome back :-) I sincerely love this blog. The comments on here are brilliant.
Love Elle! Her comments were so insightful and witty.
LOL!!!! Your Commonwealth Days comment is brilliant!
No offence was taken. I read a lot at LSA since Covid. Not just about H$M but about everything. There is so much yada yada yada there about one drop rule and who's really Black and who's not, that my eyes start spinning in my head.
That where I was coming from.
It's all good :)
@Charade
Wouldn't Archie still be called biracial simply because he is more than one race? Or would the correct term be mixed race? No matter what percentage of either race - he still is a blend of more than one race.
*
I was wondering the same. We Natives have "blood quantum" which is the same confusing
malarky as "one drop rule"!
Either you are or you arnt! Lol...
I could be absolutely wrong about that!
Mixed race annoys me as a descriptor for some reason, but is probably the correct term, if we must have terms.
Archie has three white grandparents, and one who I guess is mostly black but looks to me like she had might have had one non-black grandparent. Did I mention I dind genetics fascinating?
And while I'm on the topic of Doria, I thought she was by far prettier than her daughter on the wedding day. She looked so pretty and elegant.
Figuring out Archie's race is really more an American thing. Technically, he could be considered mixed race or white. If you use the one-drop rule, he would be considered black. How Archie self-identifies will be another matter.
As for Archie's hair, I don't know. I see soft curls/waves. There definitely feels like a lot of subterfuge around it which I think is being orchestrated by Rache. The plan was for Archie to be a redhead but I'm not so sure he is one.
Jewishness (religion not ethnicity) is determined by the mother, correct?
You said,
If you use the one-drop rule, he would be considered black.
This is hotly debated daily on LSA. Dark skinned Blacks do not accept White looking individuals like "Archie", as being truly "Black".
I agree with you that it should be about how we self identify but as you know, some ethnic groups can't accept this line of thinking.
To whomever stated that the Archie pic was dropped to muddy the water away from the bullying. Sorry my eyes are fried dont want to scroll. I think that's a valid thought. I did need a bit of a break from the many many repetitive articles rehashing the main story. That's why I mentioned the Archie pic.
Love your thought on bi-cycle. Yes makes great sense.
Kind of like bi- sexual. Likes two sexes. But what happens when the lines are blurred and we no longer see normalcy in male and female? We are sadly headed towards a non gender world. Same with race IMO.
A tough convo for a different blog.
That's why I say there's no little bit pregnant. Either you are or aren't.
Good nite y'all.
Jessica Mulroney is a rubber faced sad shell of a person who no doubt married someone who she thought would be the next prime minister (whats-his-name Mulroney... entertainment talk show guy. If only she had hitched her wagon to Trudeau [somehow even less qualified than Mulroney- Trudeau is a piece of sh*t party guy who had the last name of the last most destructive prime minister in Canadian history].)
I grew up in the 90s and we had a rhyme for Brian Mulroney (Ben's dad, Jessica's father in law).
Sung to the tune of the Tiny Toons (Tunes?): "we're tiny, we're toony, we can't afford a looney, since Brian Mulroney invented GST..."
(a looney is a Canadian dollar and GST is the "government savings tax" that adds 5% onto everything we buy. Plus my province charges 7% on top of that, so we pay 12% tax on almost everything we purchase. I don't know what the taxes are on other countries purchases so wanted to broach that subject here to learn.)
As a Canadian there are two names that stand out as destructive to Canada and those are Trudeau and Mulroney. FWIW. At least for those who are paying attention.
"I don't know what to make of the pics. One thing is clear they seem to be pre or early covid era."
Maybe. Close maskless contacts indoors between people who don't live together would suggest that.
The CDC began recommending masks in April 2020 after initially claiming they weren't needed outside of medical settings. M wore a mask and Harry a bandana when they delivered food for Project Angel Food in mid-April. But the Duck-Rabbit video was released in early May. Archie certainly didn't have that much hair then! So I can't quite see how Silver Tree's photo could be pre- OR early pandemic if that's Archie. I know bald kids can grow hair fairly quickly. But not in a month or two! There are no masks in sight in the belly cupping photo either. I suppose that one could have been taken during her Archie pregnancy.
Or they simply decided mask rules don't apply to them.
In the photo of M with the girl, it looks like she might be wearing her original engagement ring with her wedding ring. Maybe not though, it's pretty blurry. Definitely no infinity ring.
A poster on LSA said the Archie photo had to be recent because that carrot toy was new in 2020. She posted an Amazon link that did show a 2020 date for when a toy like tgat was first available on Amazon. But I'm not sure that particular brand represents the first "model" of that toy or is the one on the photo. I'm also not sure if Amazon stocked it from its invention.
As for the one-drop rule, many black Americans don't believe in it which is why for many Archie is considered white.
As I said, race is messy. All humans are technically mixed which is why I think there is a better way at looking at people. IMHO culture is a much better lens.
Just south of the 49th parallel. 12% tax. Hefty. In our state, we pay no tax on food or medicine and about 8 % on other items, but more on fast food (alas, does not deter me as it should). Also, no income tax.
Just read the article in the Toronto Sun re the fact that some want the elder Trudeau's name cancelled on the Montreal airport, Cancel Culture Comes for Pierre Elliott Trudeau next to the Meghan vs. The Firm article.
There's no federal "sales tax" in the US. State sales tax ranges from a bit over 2% to over 7%. States vary on what is included/excluded. (Food? Medicine? Service fees?) Local governments often tack on a bit more.
There IS a federal gas tax. Around 18¢ a gallon. States add more there too. California adds over70¢ a gallon. My state levies a 15% tax so the amt varies with the price of gas.
So much tea, and so many great comments.
Thank you Nutties,
I’m savouring every last drop!! 🥰
"Archie is two different races no matter what the percentage is. It doesn't have to be 50/50.
I thought you were the one that was trying to define it further."
And that makes perfect sense, because you're right, it need not be a perfect split!
Every time I decide Archie is real, one of you super-sleuths manages to change my mind. If they have really been faking him all this time, the pair of them are clinically insane.
Yes, I see what you mean. Hmmm.
In the photo of M seated and SilverTree leaning over, what's out the window? Is it people? Or is that a mirror reflecting people and maybe the kitchen and range hood? If these ARE current, and even more people were present, pretty irresponsible COVID-wise. Maybe it's ST's husband/partner? (Although if that's still Abe Levy I don't think he wears a long braid)
Maybe those 2 were actually taken at Nott Cott? When she was "heavily pregnant" with Archie and the 5 friends were supposedly in and out?
Odd. Just odd.
It seems like Meghan has called out her flying monkeys to defend her.
Flying monkeys can be people who actually know the narcissist, or in the case of a famous person such as Meghan, they can be fans who feel a need to defend the famous person, so they also take up for their hero/heroine to defend or attack on their behalf. Meghan has both types of flying monkeys at her disposal.
This articje is a good explanation of flying monkeys by Claire Jack, Ph.D. that appeared on psychologytoday.com. Posted Oct. 07, 2020.
I have inserted notations in [brackets].
Title: Are You a Narcissist’s Flying Monkey?
Subhead: Are you caught up in a narcissist's emotional abuse of others?
Anyone who remembers watching the Wizard of Oz as a child will probably remember how horrifying the Wicked Witch of the West’s flying monkeys were. These monkeys were sent by the witch to do her dirty work, and the phrase has since become synonymous with people who end up doing the dirty work of a narcissist.
Flying monkeys get caught up in a narcissist’s plan — often to damage the life of another person. [Meghan’s FMs are defending her and lashing out at the royal family, the staff members she allegedly harassed, and anyone who believes the accounts of the bullying reports.] The narcissist may use their flying monkeys as piggy in the middle, carrying information from party to party. The flying monkey may use gaslighting tactics, open aggression, and guilt-tripping in order to make another person feel bad and weak, whilst shoring up the narcissist. And they’re often involved in pleading the case of the narcissist. [Omid and Harry] Narcissists love having at least one flying monkey, as it makes them feel important and means they can appear to be above the people below them (on both sides) who are caught up in the messy parts of the drama.
The narcissist often recruits his or her flying monkeys from among other family members, such as siblings, spouses [Harry] or children. Close friends [Jessica] or work colleagues [Suits cast members] may also become flying monkeys: I’m sure we’ve all come across bosses or political leaders who wouldn’t be able to function without a band of helpers prepared to get their hands dirty.
Rosie described how she had been her brother’s flying monkey up until the point she realised she was involved in a potentially illegal action. “I felt very threatened by my brother”, she told me. “He is extremely aggressive and emotionally abusive and I felt safer keeping in with him. [I wonder if Harry fears her] That might involve picking on our other sibling, sending emails and generally defending my brother whenever he’d acted out of line. I’d got to a point where I was blinded as to what was right or wrong. I just wanted to be his best friend because I saw him as the strongest in the family, and it stopped him turning on me”.
Piersed Adams Apple
Patrick J Adams
Known intimate of madams
Should learn to shut his cake hole
His rants clearly suited
To someone he’s rooted
He’s desperate to grab a new role...
Jocelyn, I too love Piers Morgan!
Flying Monkeys, continued.
Some of the reasons people become flying monkeys include:
Self-preservation and protection. Rosie’s motivation to become her brother’s flying monkey was understandable and was based on self-preservation. Like other people who do a narcissist’s dirty work for them, she didn’t pay much, if any, attention to the impact of her actions. Her need to look after herself was far greater than her need to protect anyone else. Forming an alliance with the person perceived as the strongest member of a family or organisation is one reason people adopt this role. Telling tales, spreading misinformation, and using gaslighting techniques against anyone who dares to question the narcissist might just mean you get to keep your job and don’t find yourself on the receiving end of narcissistic rage.
Rescuing the narcissistic "victim." If you tend to fall into a rescuing role, you may feel compelled to jump to the defence of the narcissist who blames everyone and everything for whatever is going wrong in their life. [Harry could easily fit this role] Sticking up for the narcissist meets your inbuilt need to feel valued and needed because of your rescuer role. [Meghan’s Sugars]
A loss of sense of self. Some flying monkeys are so browbeaten by the narcissist that they have far less capacity than otherwise might be expected when it comes to knowing right from wrong. They may have experienced years of emotional abuse at the hands of the narcissist and have lost a sense of self and independent decision-making along the way. [Harry]
Loving the drama. Some flying monkeys really thrive on the drama. When you’re involved with a narcissist, it’s almost inevitable that you’ll be involved in a few dramas along the way. What can beat the adrenaline of being caught up in lies, secrecy, and deception?
Being a narcissist. Flying monkeys often have strong narcissistic traits themselves, including a desire for attention, a lack of empathy, and a desire to bully and manipulate others. They may be involved in a family, work, or other situation in which they know that their best opportunity to fulfill their narcissistic desires comes from allying themselves with a more powerful narcissist. [Meghan’s showbiz friends]
If you have had your fill of being a flying monkey, the narcissist in your life is unlikely to be happy about it and, at the least, may not want anything to do with you once you cease to be of use. Being used by a narcissist to take care of some of the least desirable aspects of their business is always going to place you in a compromised, stressful environment and you should ensure that you have the appropriate support in place when you choose to change your role.
Take a look at Princess Tiffany's Youtube video, the last one she posted today. Check out Harry's photo at 4:38, and you'll see a good photo of it.
Let me know what you think.
Regarding the photo, I think it's Archie. Silver Tree posted that photo with Meghan's permission or she was instructed by Meghan to post the photo then delete it. It was released because Meghan wants to divert the bullying stories coming out of the media. I too believe there's a real Archie with Harry and Meghan's DNA but he was carried by a surrogate.
Jen, I see the ‘daubed’ stomach image,
strange? Her face in the earlier photo
with ‘Archie’ looks more like my new avi?
The Firm that Turned
To those who’ve been bullied
By Meghan the Sullied
So Timely to speak up now
Bring it on, and stay Firm
It’s now time for the worm
To turn round, and cancel the Cow
Your new avi is actually frightening. That photo always gets to me. Compared to what she looks like today, what part of her is the original model? Those teeth are perfect for Halloween!
Nobody has brought up that Thomas paid for her very expensive orthodontia. I'm sure she didn't pay for those pricey new chompers.
I perhaps wasn't quite clear enough - yes, we've long know she presents herself as a global saviour.
My point was that Wotisname's comment was paraphrasing the verse in John 1, vv 1-7, about the Logos/Word of God and the Incarnation. It's not so obvious with the KJV/AV translation - `and the darkness comprehended it not'.
Other, modern, translations use much the same words as the weepy make-up bloke.
It looks to me that she's now posing, not just as a global saviour, but the Light of the World/Saviour of the World and claiming to be one of the persons of the Trinity.
Is WM-UB reciting her script?
Somebody else asked if she was the Antichrist - one does wonder.
It's clear evidence to me that she is going public on her Messiah complex - problem is, to say someone is insane is to ask to be called mad oneself. It has to be wrapped, as someone suggested, as concern for their wellbeing.
---------------------
I'm going to take a breather until the balloon goes up - the rest of life needs attention and being glued to this not good for my own sanity.
Glad you're back Ava C!
For Whom the Bell Trolls
She’s going to go down
That Twat, and her Clown
Despite what Oprah may think
They’ve rung their death knell
With this latest bombshell
As Megs is pushed into the drink
Us Nutties will cheer as they sink 🍹
Could he (tho' that pointed chin gives pause for thought) possibly have been conceived and delivered before they were married?
Hence the `procreation smirk? Why they got the go ahead to marry? Why HM seemed to confirm the existence of a child?
NB I'm still not suggesting she had been pregnant.
I don't know if she looks that much younger to me in those pics.
She definitely looks very different from the "Archie" striped blouse pic. And definitely younger than the still photos from the Oprah interview that have been released. But younger than Harry days/Archie pregnancy? Not sure. Her nose seems to shape shift to me so that doesn't help me (More shifting than can be explained by surgery)
The reason I thought the ring in that pic was her old engagement ring is because the band looks yellow gold. I know the redesigned ring is too but those teeny diamonds hide the band color.
The table in the "seated M with girl child" pic and the table in the "seated M with leaning over ST" look the same. So if it's studio.....and indoors....why is M wearing sunglasses?
--------
DIfferent topic....Abigail Spencer's essay (Gag. It is "savior-like" @WBBM)
http://www.justjared.com/2021/03/05/abigail-spencer-shares-lengthy-essay-on-friendship-with-meghan-markle-defends-her-character/
How were M and her Suits castmates in Austin TX in 2015?
She also writes:
"A few years ago, Meg and I were at a Sentabale (sic) Charity polo match H was playing in. There were no photographers. No “coverage.”
What kind of successful charity event isn't photographed? When Prince Harry is playing? And an expensive one that requires horses to be shipped long distances even to different countries?
She goes onto say M spoke Spanish to a young girl there who was "in awe" of Meg. Yeah, I guess. Pretty narrow range of time for this to occur. M has to be famous & with Harry. Harry's Sentebale Polo appearances back to 2015 according to the court circular:
May 2019 Italy
July 2018 Berkshire
June 2017 Singapore
May 2016 US (Florida)
Nov 2015 South Africa
Florida's about the only one I'd guess Spanish would be an obvious choice. But M&H weren't supposed to know each other then. Maybe there was another charity game so secret it's not in the CC. Right.
In the photo of the woman with her arm around a seated MM, I see through the window to a woman on the right of the photo, who is wearing a white shirt and has her strawberry blonde hair in a single braid down her back. A chef?
You can also see that the woman in the white shirt is in a kitchen. There is the range hood at the left of the photo and a bit of tile showing.
I think the "window" is one of those which have the fake black plastic lines in between the panes.
Thanks for the flying money article. It's spot on to me. I'm glad that I now know the real name for those die-hard "friends" of hers.
I've been watching Believing Bruce (body language) on Youtube. He says that MM's "tell" that she's uncomfortable in an interview is when she sweeps her hair/long bangs back with one hand. He just put up a video on the interaction between MM and Oprah in the promos. Very interesting, especially near the end when he says MM is losing it and is very uncomfortable.
@jenn,
Thanks for putting up the photos!
@lizzie I feel the same way you do about Rache's noses. She has to be Photoshopping them in addition to surgery to explain the whole range she has just in these set of pics.
Bullies Beef
Megs latest schism
Watch and see, Pregnantism
Yet another desperate plea
It’s not to replace
Her blames about race
Just more ‘Silent’ claims of Poor Me
Thanks. A kitchen is what I thought I saw initially. So not anyone's home with that type of window. Kind of looks like a "break room" in a restaurant. Odd place to be during a pandemic (assuming the belly-cupping image of M shows her current pregnancy and was taken at the same place.) Odd also the table looks the same as the table in the M and child pic.
I’m hoping some of the government representatives from Australia will be interviewed about Meghan’s reported bullying and general diva behavior while there in 2018.
..............
THIS!
There is NO reason for them to stay silent.
I'll check out Believing Bruce! I used to like Bombard's Body Language, but after she was taken in by Meghan in the engagement interview, I've had a hard time trusting her judgment. Interpreting body language isn't a precise science, of course, but her reading was just too far off the mark.
All your predict will happen. You just need a few more days/ Sunday nite for them to (ignite) make jakasses of themselves
This article contains Silver Tree's photo - the one with the covered belly. Although not as clear, you can see the photoshop work here too!
Fascinating detective work. I don't quite understand exactly the technical terms you're describing, but yet another photoshopped "candid" shot? Was it also "accidentally" released?
Sounds like MM is very worried about the surrogacy rumors then. Hmmm.
Jen 😘
Locked Down/Blow-by-Blow Account
When told, Whore in sight
Haz said, I’m in, right
Thinking ‘twas just for one night
Lo and behold
The Slagger was bold
And Haz ended up in the Shite
I mentioned this item in PART 2) from Quora earlier this week as the reports of Meghan being a bully broke in The Times . This is one of two reports about her sorority bullying in college at Northwestern.
The woman who wrote this is not complimentary at all in the first part, but then she makes excuses for Meghan during the last part by saying she could be nice. Well yes, Meghan CAN be nice, but it’s usually because she thinks you can be useful to her, which she said in the first part.
She also used the phrase “very cruel” to describe Meghan, which to me is far beyond being described bitchy, a snob, off-putting, or impolite.
To me, describing someone as very cruel is a quite a step up from being described as “mean,” which most people would shudder at if they knew someone had used that as an adjective to describe them.
Cruel is much worse than mean, but this woman apparently felt ok using it to describe Meghan. She also said Meghan bullied two girls in the Northwestern Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority chapter so fiercely that the one of the girls nearly quit the sorority.
This is abhorrent behavior that is a possible indication of a personality disorder or other psychological issue in Meghan sometime between age 18 to 22. Without treatment, personality disorders don’t go away. They usually get worse.
Since then, she seems like she hasn’t gotten better, only worse. Now that she’s a duchess in the BRF, I shake my head at how mean and nasty she must be, especially in private to Harry, and one day, to Archie and any other children who have the misfortune of her as their mother.
From Quora:
Question:
Is Meghan Markle a nice person?
Anonymous
Answered March 27, 2020
I was friends with Meghan Markle in college (Woo go Northwestern!) so I can answer this one.
My personal opinion is that she could be very nice but also very cruel. It all depends on who you were. To her “crowd” or friends like me, she was very nice and friendly.
But to people she disliked or did not care for, or people who displeased her in some way, she could turn like a switch and become very mean.
At one point, her bullying of two friends of mine ( I will call them “Sam” and “Katie” ) became so bad, that both friends would refuse to come to events if they knew Rachel was there. One of them considered quitting the sorority because of it.
However, even though Rachel could have a few bad moments, I do not think she is a horrible person. She could also be very nice and friendly, which is how she was most of the time. What people need to realize is that most people are not 100% kind, compassionate people. Most people are not nice to every single person they meet, and I do not believe it is fair to put her on a pedestal and expect her to act perfectly 100% of the time.
Was what Rachel did to my friends wrong? Yes. But most people I knew in college could be quite mean, and could bully others at times, and I am willing to bet the person reading this has been mean to people as well.
So who are you to judge?
So while I do not think Rachel is the next Mother Theresa, I do not think she is a horrible human being either. What I think she is, is normal. And I think she should be treated like a normal human being.
P.S I would like to say I was never a “best” friend of Rachels, though I was involved in the sorority she was in and knew her well enough for us to call each other friends. Also, Im going Anonymous so I dont get death threats or nasty comments from anyone. Sorry, but I will not be answering any questions/comments. And no, Rachel and I are no longer in contact with each other, we went our separate ways after graduation.
I just started watching Believing Bruce. He's quite a character, but he seems to know his stuff.
I also watch The Behavior Panel. Four of the best military and intelligence experts discuss body language, interrogation, etc., and it's just fascinating! These guys mean business! I'd be terrified to have any one of them try to interrogate me.
They don't do MM, but they go into famous cases in detail. A friend told me about them last night, and I just thanked him for keeping me up until 3 a.m., watching them. I've learned a lot from them already, and it helps me to look at MM with new eyes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9331729/Harry-Meghan-say-relentless-negativity-forced-pages-prove-opposite.html
So sad that we're on opposite sleep schedules because I'm missing out on 'beauty sleep' that I really (really really) shouldn't be missing. I'll be shambling about, vacant eyed and slack jawed with HUGE under-eye bags, mumbling about getting more sleep in the morning.
Thanks to all the people here for such interesting commentary that's made me lose sleep time!
Thanks so much for the flying monkeys article, as it helps to put the weird media response in context.
That Suits actor viciously attacking the Royal family, when it was former staff making the complaints, reflects a disturbing trend .... The View hosts, her Instagram friends, Chrissy "pay attention to me" Teigen ... This view that the Royal Family has conspired to bring down the Duchess.
They will run with her narrative (Camilla, Kate, the "grey suits" and all of British media were out to get her) without any attempt at checking the reality of the situation. Very sad. Hopefully it's a small segment of folks, but it does seem more like the latest "branding" launch with Oprah's enviable resources ....
Meghan as the Joan of Arc of the Wokeratti, fighting for justice in an evening gown. Eeergh.
I agree wholeheartedly. "Cruel" is an extremely strong word, far worse than mean or even bully. Cruelty, according to the Oxford Dictionary, means somebody who causes physical or mental pain to make people suffer, especially DELIBERATELY.
That's exactly what she's doing to the BRF and her own family.I'm sure that Harry gets part of her wrath, and hope that Archie, if he is real, can escape MM moods and her cruel punishments.
We all have seen that Mm has no connection to any child that has been purported to be aArchie. the Tutu video and the Duck/Rabbit video show that clearly.
********************************
That redheaded child looks nothing like the photo of Harry, by the water, holding the child who has the pom pom hat on. The one whom we think looks like a little girl. How do the Harkles explain that photo?
Way past time for bed. Nite, everybody!
@JennS While pinpointing race is convoluted, my personal experience has been that biracial implies 50-50. I know people with similar racial and ethnic background to Archie. They usually call themselves mixed or identify as one race while acknowledging they have ancestors from a different race and/or ethnicity.
This reminds me now I think on it of my friend who was taking his son round Madam Tussauds and they came upon a wax-work of Michael Jackson. My friends son was confused because (not being that old) he had only ever known a white Michael Jackson and was puzzled as to why the Tussauds Jackson was black.
I am pleased to see the return of Ava C and before I had the stupidity to here throw my hat into the ring became far more interested in AvaC's gazumping misery than the antics of the DoS. Don't disappear again.
Back atcha Swampie 😘
Sorry to wake you!!
You don’t need the sleep, beautiful always.
So many great comments to get through,
I’ll be going to bed before I’ve finished!!
Love your grandson banter, more X
I've tried watching a movie on Netflix the other night. The main character, who could be the sister of MM, is going through high school, being bullied because she's mixed race, black father, white mother. The movie really isn't worth watching, but I'm sure it will rile up high school students.
It's an obvious attempt at portraying a young MM. You're not fooling anybody, Netflix.
Dropped Archies/Flat Foot Sue
Megs will be Busting a Gut
Fighting claims of Surrogate
We all saw the cushion drop
Too many times, surely a prop
From what we all saw
The RR’s saw much more
It’ll all come out, that’s to be sure
Pus’y Galore
She’s an ulcerous sore
Always oozing pus, more
Nothing will fill her big hole
The RF must now
Take a stand, make a vow
That she’ll never again darken their door
Cheers charade 😉
@xxxxx fingers crossed 🤞
What a way to start the day, lost count of how many times I had to pick my jaw up off the floor.
Thank you very much for all the articles posted.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Murky__Meg/status/1368135827205816321/photo/1
@Ava C
How is Scotland?
Silver Tree's Linkedin Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/silver-tree-3453871b0
Loved all your poems 👏👏👏, particularly 'Locked Down/Blow-by-Blow Account'. Like you, I hope They’ve rung their death knell and that the 🐄 can be cancelled. Thank you for your humour to keep us sane during this mad time.
Like Jocelyn'sBellinis, I find your avatar scary! (as I said when you first used it).
Jocelyn, Thomas paid for her ‘teef’
No amount of money could fix her feet!
No worries, as she was always on her back 😉
@xxxxx I hope I see more of your word-smithing.
“. Kind Loving Empathetic people rarely put themselves first, they don't spend absorbent amounts of other peoples money on themselves, they don't make people cry, they don't try and hurt others, and they WOULD be at their fathers or grandfathers side when they are ill. I have never known an Empathetic person to play the victim, they are normally the carer. MM is a Narcissist through and through.“
“ This is becoming embarrassingly hilarious (for her)! The friend who Rachel threw under the bus has something 'nice' to say. Oh please, can it because we know the truth.”
it’s hard to believe a “Bully” like JM has the nerve to comment on this.
Ah Maneki, thanks, glad to give you a bit
of a laugh during lockdown 😘
I know it’s not easy, my mum’s struggling.
Megxiled
Go forth, and multiply
Said the Queen, with a nod from up on high
And take your baggage with you
You’ve embarrassed your country
With Malice, Effrontery
You’re no longer a part of the crew
God Save the Queen
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1406401/Queen-Elizabeth-II-news-Meghan-Markle-Oprah-Winfrey-US-The-View-celebrities-latest-vn
Queen urged to 'publicly apologise' to Meghan amid Royal Family backlash - celebs hit out
US CELEBRITIES have rallied around Meghan Markle ahead of her interview with Oprah Winfrey, with co-hosts from popular US talk show The View calling on the Queen to publicly apologise to the Duchess.
Thanks. Actually, when I wrote 'this mad time', I didn't have lockdown in mind but the current Harkles saga! It's been a whirlwind of articles and my head's spinning 🤪.
I hope your mum is soldiering on x
Whaaat? The Queen apologise to that harlot? Never! Anyway, the Express has always been very sycophantic towards Megalo. The harpy would love that. To be taken with a pinch, nay, a bucket, of salt.
I think I need a Markle detox now.
I know we can all say things in the heat of the moment without thinking, but they really are taking the biscuit.
interesting commment and a possibility. maybe it’s somewhere in between a Dumbarton hatchet job and a BRF hatchet job.
O has been an over the top ‘friend’ to the Dumbartons in order to get access to them/ BRF for an interview. She’s greased many a wheel for them. I don’t see her throwing them totally under the bus.
She’s a permenant A+ but certainly doesn’t have the public sway she had during her talk show days. she’s a friend and will throw them alot of softball questions. and cultural has changed the couple of years and is much more divisive, Oprah lives in the woke CA world, I think she’ll want to push that current narrative.
Maybe she does phrase a few softball questions as “ some of your detractors would say, you claim to want privacy and not be hounded by the media, yet you are here doing this interview that will air globally and call inordinate amounts of media attention and paparazzi to yourselves.” how do you respond to that?
MM looks awful in the stills i’ve seen. she’s puffy from hormones ( pregnancy or other) and lining her eyes with black only makes them look smaller and beady in the CA sunshine. maybe she wants her crocodile tears to show up?
and that horrid dress! ...was it an homage to the way RBG dressed for work? other than that i can’t imagine what she was thinking.
D1, I’m disgusted.
Just watched that clip from the Express
Sunny Hostin? commented on the
Racial Hatred Meghan received??
Utter Bull Shit!
I'm deeply grateful to be away from the mainstream Cult of Celebrity American culture. It's appalling what this is escalating into.
Awhile back I mentioned a possible diplomatic disaster. It was tongue in cheek but maybe now not so much...
I'm doing the same; taking a break. Ugh!
CT is so annoying and a bully for trying to silence/shame peoples voices.
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/05/chrissy-teigen-defends-meghan-markle-from-tabloids/
excuse me , MM choose to do a Global well publicized interview with an internationally known talk show host Oprah, at this exact time. MM knew she was pregnant because she’s already announced it to the world. MM isn’t a victim, she’s supposedly a responsible women power adult. she made the decision to attract attention to herself through this self promotion..
Exactly the phrase I was going to use, that takes the biscuit, and it went out of my mind.
Never mind, keep calm and carry on 😬
@LavenderLady
I’m truly saddened.
The world is fecked!
God Save the Queen
Yup. Truly fecked.
I support your Queen.
LIZZIE:
Florida's about the only one I'd guess Spanish would be an obvious choice. But M&H weren't supposed to know each other then
WBB:
Could he (tho' that pointed chin gives pause for thought) possibly have been conceived and delivered before they were married?
Put those two comments together, and this story could make a whole lot more sense.
It would also explain how they didn't seem to know when or how they met.
One night stand a year earlier than they said, during which she got pregnant?
Maneki, Metoo!
Thanks, mums now got vertigo.
On medication, getting better.
I just want to go home, to be with her.
You were braver than me to watch the video clip.
Wondering when/if this s*** show is ever going to end.
It would make a lot more sense that Silver is into photography than Doria. We haven't seen anything from Doria as far as pictures. Where we know Silver is into pictures from her Instagram.
@mel - quite possibly, or the trollop collected his `excesses' and toddled off to the clinic with them. I don't recall any photos of her from the pre-nuptial period where her waist seemed to be `thicker'.
That greyish furry halo in the `carrot photo' is strange - you can the dark of the T's clothing showing through it - it it a trick of the light (the difference between seeing the hair by transmitted or reflected light? Or ham-fisted photo manipulation?
I shall have another obsessive distraction soon - there's a eruption on the way in Iceland, between Keflavik airport & Reykjavik. Oh dear.
Harpo’oning
Oprah is out on the hunt
Anything for a big stunt
Her reasonings are stale
Take down a pale, male
Whilst living the life of a c..t!
Take note, folks:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/14241679/iceland-volcano-erupt-earthquakes/
The map's wrong - McGarvie would never have produced that. Reykjanes is the bit that looks like a small Italy, running E-W, not N-S. And btw, Heaven help Naples when Vesuvius goes up...
@Magatha Mistie - Scotland is great thanks but the employment situation is not! The world changed during our house move last year. Signs things are picking up a little now though. For this Oprah interview I'm placing a lot of importance on the fact that nearly everyone must know people who are struggling in the pandemic, if they're not struggling themselves. To say nothing of losing people we love. My tiny village here has just lost a beloved character to Covid. Head of a big family. Meghan is about to do the Western version of her South African debacle.
We Proved Royal Experts Lie About Harry and Meghan.
Personally, I think they, (the royal reporters) have either seen the video...OR...somehow or other these 2 young men have manipulated this to paint them in a bad light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_j35t3GCsk
As an aside, Richard Palmer is threatening to sue a foul-mouthed Meghan supporter who 'claims' to be a journalist.
https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1368163591153741826
Hypocrisy:
4 of the 5 from the People magazine article that revealed the letter have taken to social media to defend Meghan, using remarkably similar text to that used in the article or word salad very similar to the FF text. Of course it is a PR drive, but here is the hypocrisy ... the same women had to be protected by anonymity for the court case because they are vulnerable young mothers. Now here they are openly posting as themselves and even posting photographs of their children.
The little girl hasn't had those bangs since 2019. Instagram photos show her in that shirt and that haircut in July 2019. And also February 2019.
The jean jacket and that haircut are from June 2019.
Based on that, I would say the 'Archie' picture is probably from around Christmas time 2020. A year and a half for her to grow her bangs out seems about right?
The little girl is younger in the black pregnancy photo than in the 'Archie' photo.
The fact that both older children are in pajamas in the 'Archie' photo would seem to indicate Christmas time.
Tis interesting. In the Oprah photos, Mm looks like she's much older, late 40's. The outfit and hair say 50's. In the Silver Tree photo she looks like mid 30's.
I wonder what she was going for in the Oprah thing.
You'd think it would have been in her best interests to look young and vulnerable. Being a garden setting, something colorful, youthful, innocent, defenseless, unprotected, helpless, a waif.
Instead she looks like an old spider preparing to bury her much older husband. She radiates battle-ax. A nagging old dame.
She looks like H's mother or aunt, he looks like a 20 year old wearing his suit from his teen years that he's outgrown.
Can't figure out the look Mm was going for there. All too weird.
Queen urged to 'publicly apologise' to Meghan amid Royal Family backlash
Good grief. Apologize for what exactly? For taking Meghan with her on an engagement much earlier relative to time since the wedding than she ever took Catherine, who will one day be crowned? For allowing Meghan in Sandringham on Christmas, although fiancées normally don't get invited? For allowing a million-pound wedding in a historic chapel to take place and be televised live, at taxpayer expense? For making Meghan Vice-President of the Queen's Commonwealth Trust less than a year after the wedding? For giving her four patronages straight out of the gate, including the highly prestigious Royal National Theater, essentially honoring Meghan as a serious actress?
Jeez, I wish a head of state would "offend" me this way. I promise not to send third parties to demand an apology for me while I sit serenely botox-faced in some corner, admiring the chaos I have caused!
Now I 'm spent and video is drag,good time for break
Great reading! Hi Ava! Hi Lavender Lady! Hi all! Bye all!
JennS I look forward to checking out the pics. At first glance Meg looked 12 to me . Thankful when I return they are easily accessible
I read about Doria and the million somewhere yesterday. I will try to track down link
I also fell asleep last night listening to Tudor's latest analysis. Thanks for sharing link. I remember his voice. I watched him long ago. I agreee on the transcripts but he did lull me to sleep:)
Part of me is beginning to believe Oprah may launch some daggers and really tear it up , that would be AWESOME! But letting it go for now as if it turns to be all fluff it would be crushing blow
Thank you for all the articles!!
You'd think it would have been in her best interests to look young and vulnerable. Being a garden setting, something colorful, youthful, innocent, defenseless, unprotected, helpless, a waif.
It is an incredibly unflattering look and her worst one in a long while. Especially compared to Oprah, who comes across as elegant yet serious, in light colors that look wonderful against the spring garden backdrop. (I'm no fan of Ms. Winfrey, but I can give credit where it's due!) Heck, Meghan's rumpled, dressed down appearance in the Duck, Rabbit video was superior to this, in terms of making her look sympathetic. If you see stills rather than watch the video, you could believe that she was thrilled to leave the restrictive royal world of designer clothing and perfectly coiffed hair for a more relaxed suburban life. It at least fit her narrative. Her interview outfit and makeup, on the other hand, fit the new bully narrative.
I'm a little surprised that the producers didn't suggest a wardrobe change to make Meghan look more sympathetic. Then again, maybe they did and she just shot their expert advice down. Nobody knows better than Meghan, of course.
Below if a story from Carter Gray's ( former legendary editor of Vanity Fair who did not know of MM)
Is Meghan More Bully than Bullied?
A “very concerned” Palace and “humiliated” staff surely aren’t the pre-Oprah headlines Mr. and Mrs. Markle expected
By Stuart Heritage
As we arise from our beds this Saturday morning, the world does not yet know what galaxy-destroying revelations will be detonated when the much-chewed-over tête-à-tête between Meghan Markle and Oprah Winfrey is broadcast to 68 countries tomorrow night. Anyone looking for insights will have to make do by guessing the context of Winfrey’s overwrought responses in the interview’s trailer. “Almost unsurvivable!” she gasps at one point. “You’ve said some pretty shocking things here!”
How shocking are we talking? Again, nobody knows. But it has made Buckingham Palace jumpy enough to launch a pre-emptive response to what they must imagine Meghan will say about life in the Firm. All week, the British press has been breathlessly relaying accounts from a brace of Palace staff who have trembled before Meghan’s wrath.
The meat of the accusations comes from a group that’s been called the “Sussex Survivors’ Club,” made up, partially, of aides who ran screaming from the Palace after allegedly being subjected to Meghan’s dismissiveness and endless demands. The claims came to light after an old e-mail resurfaced, written by the Sussexes’ then communications secretary, Jason Knauf, in 2018.
Meghan claims that royal aides listened in on a telephone conversation she had with Oprah back in 2018 and describes it as “liberating” to now be able to speak without involving Buckingham Palace.
“I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two P.A.s out of the household in the past year,” Knauf wrote to Prince William’s private secretary. “The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying [name redacted] and seeking to undermine her confidence…. I questioned if the Household policy on bullying and harassment applies to principles.” Through a spokesperson, the duchess denies the allegations of bullying.
A report in The Times contained a seemingly comprehensive list of confrontations, with Palace staff—and, on one occasion, Kate Middleton—sometimes reduced to tears by Meghan’s behavior. The Daily Mail’s Rebecca English also reported that one member of the staff had “sobbed down the phone” to her after a “particularly harrowing day” and “clearly felt emotionally broken.” She also points out that all the victims of Meghan’s alleged bullying were women. “People have been broken by this, genuinely so. Absolutely traumatized,” an insider told her.
The cherry on top is that his "chunky" photo was from the Harkles' wedding!
What was it he said about Meghan's "deep sense of morality"? How would he even know what that is?
It should be no surprise that he (eventually) stuck up for her, though. They seem like two peas in a pod.
Ironically, although Knauf’s e-mail made it all the way to H.R., some are suggesting that the lack of a formal response on the part of the Palace signals a cover-up. In other words, the claims were overlooked to help preserve Meghan’s public reputation.
Although many specifics are left vague, possibly for fear of identifying the victims, the Sussexes’ 2018 trip to Fiji has come under particularly close scrutiny. This is, in part, because after seeing branding for U.N. Women, an organization she had come to have reservations about, Meghan was so affronted that she subsequently visibly upset an aide. The duchess denies the source’s claims about the event. It is also because Meghan wore a pair of earrings that Kensington Palace claimed were “borrowed,” despite actually having been a wedding gift from Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Blood diamonds: on her first night in Fiji, three weeks after the journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, Meghan wore earrings given to her by Mohammed bin Salman.
It’s nasty stuff, and starkly at odds with the Sussexes’ tendency to self-identify as barefoot, sub-Goop empaths who amplify universal compassion while shooting rainbows from the palms of their hands. However, it does seem slightly strange that the bulk of the accusations have landed at the feet of Meghan, when anyone capable of reading between the lines would have noticed that Harry was often just as much of a destructive brat.
The meat of the accusations comes from a group that’s been called the “Sussex Survivors’ Club.”
Nevertheless, so numerous were the accusations that Buckingham Palace has now launched an official investigation into her alleged bullying. “The royal household has had a dignity at work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace,” it said in a statement.
If these accusations sound familiar, it’s because they do seem to fit the profile of Meghan, who appears to be a bit too pushy and a bit too sensitive in equal measure. Last year, the New York Post’s “Page Six” claimed that Meghan had a habit of holding up production on her TV show Suits whenever she felt like she wasn’t the star. “She was always having to be coaxed out of her dressing room during promotional shoots because she didn’t think she looked pretty enough, or her outfit wasn’t right,” a source told the publication. “There were always tears. Every time.” Meghan did not respond to the Post’s request for comment. A videographer also referred to her as “very high maintenance and rude” and “difficult and demanding” in the Daily Mail.
As usual, this week’s reports were blasted into smithereens by Meghan’s trigger-happy legal team, who increasingly seem to be basing their entire methodology on that of Baghdad Bob. “Let’s just call this what it is—a calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation,” her lawyer’s fingers snapped at The Times in response.
Harry was often just as much of a destructive brat.
“The Duchess is saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma. She is determined to continue her work building compassion around the world and will keep striving to set an example for doing what is right and doing what is good.”
Certainly, holes do deserve to be picked in some of the Palace’s claims. Wearing Mohammed bin Salman’s earrings is plainly a tone-deaf move; even before he was expressly linked to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, you didn’t have to be a genius to realize that he was Maybe Not Such a Great Guy.
That said, Buckingham Palace should probably go back and re-read that saying about stones and glass houses. After all, not only was it revealed this week that a full sixth of the racehorses carrying the Queen’s silks last year were given to her by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Dubai ruler with an unsettling propensity for imprisoning members of his own family, but if the royal family as a whole were to remove all the accessories acquired under the auspices of less than perfect morality, the Queen would have to resort to wearing a bankruptcy barrel like someone from a Depression-era newspaper cartoon.
Still, the Palace is probably right to be a bit tetchy about this weekend’s interview, because Oprah is anything but an impartial inquisitor. She was a guest at Harry and Meghan’s wedding, for example, invited after meeting the pair only once. Even before the ceremony had begun, Oprah welcomed Meghan’s mother into her house to practice yoga and lavished her with kumquats from her personal tree, in an effort to score an exclusive interview. (Oprah denies this last part.) When the couple released a video of their young son on his first birthday, he was reading a book given to him by Oprah, complete with a bespoke “Archie’s Book Club” sticker. And let’s not forget that Oprah was willing to shill for Meghan’s super-latte start-up on Instagram. As interviews go, this is bound to be less Frost/Nixon and more Frost/Frost’s Best Friends Forever.
One thing is certain, though. This is all just the start. You might suspect that the Oprah interview was conducted in order to draw a line beneath the mess of Megxit. However, given the febrile, thin-skinned environment it’s being released into—and given the results of recent royal interviews—there’s a good chance that the troubles are just beginning.
Love your poetry today! Laughing!
Sending well wishes to your mother 🌻🌼
It's nothing we haven't known for years, of course, but it's all very vague so far. Nothing like the story of her throwing a teapot at someone or making staffers bake banana bread and then taking credit for it, which are all the more believable for their detail. But if this is the PR offensive I think it is, then what we're seeing is just the "teaser." Kind of like the interview teaser clips, come to think of it! We're going to get a real story, with details and maybe even the name of a traumatized victim, very soon. Possibly the morning before the interview airs, for maximum impact.
I love Meg and Harry, they are THE most entertaining celebrities of 2020!!
The world is being devastated by a pandemic, millions are facing unemployment and evictions, and I consider myself fortunate to be working in a hospital and hoping the supply of PPE will last... and those twats expect the world to be sorry for them because they had to deal with the horrors of bad press, in adequate free mansions, poor tiara service, and occasional possible snubs!
The website can be vicious and I don't also agree with them, but with regard to the Sussexes they are hilarious.
I will post some Telegraph and Wall Street Journal stories in a couple of hours if anyone is interested,
Maybe it's a sign the Oprah team are allowing Meghan to spectacularly self-sabotage, just like Prince Andrew's BBC interview.
However I've read in several places now that this interview will actually be a damp squib. That the trailers have given a misleading impression. They actually have nothing major to say. Just the same old stuff. If so, it seems a bit risky to build this up so much.
Maybe Oprah hasn't been paying attention the past few years as we have done, so she thinks this is more groundbreaking than it is? What infuriates me is journalists in our liberal UK press, like the Guardian, being loftily above reading about the latest Sussex iniquities, then rushing to defend them in Olympian tones, as if their judgement should never be questioned. Never allowing comments of course. If they're not going to do their homework, stay out of it.
Good morning, Nutties,
The only bit of Suits I have ever seen was 15 minutes of the first episode on Prime when I was in lockdown and bored out of my mind. Even then, 15 minutes was absolutely all I could stand. I just wanted to get a taste of Rachel’s acting, if we can dignify it with the term, in character. I IRC from those painful 15 minutes, “Rachel” as played by Rachel is introduced rolling around in bed with her lawyer boss. Foretaste of things to come. Even without the horrendous posturing of Markle, this show looks like a waste of anyone’s time. How it rated eight seasons and and 90% Fresh rating is beyond me. Gabriel Macht is a bit of tasty cake But I did not have a good impression of PJA, latter day Markle defender. He’s a bland presence that does not have star quality, Which may be why the show lasted for eight years without me noticing. I’ve vaguely heard of it but I thought it got canceled after three seasons.
My main objective in visiting this page was to verify the date of Markle’s last appearance. The season ended to S7, “Goodbye” aired in April 2018, just a month before Markle’s glittering Royal wedding. But I had read elsewhere that production on that season wrapped the previous fall of 2017, meaning that H&M wasted no time in announcing their engagement. Probably as long as it took for Markle to put her stuff in storage and fly to London. Of course, being unemployed and homeless...Her apartment in Toronto was studio owned... will motivate a gal to glom onto her next sugar daddy tout suite. But I was trying to figure out if there were any gaps that could lend credence to the suggestion that Rachel, our Rachel, got pregnant by Harry and gave birth secretly prior to the wedding. While that would explain a lot of things—All the secrecy surrounding Archie’s actual birth And why we have been recently presented with photos depicting a child who appears to be three years old—I don’t see how Rachel could have snuck a pregnancy under the wire. She was actively working on Suits Until mere weeks before the engagement, and she was too visible in the media and taking those sunny holidays and etc. on the Tig from 2016 onwards. As a royal fiancé, she was highly visible, and stick thin for a year until she pitched up at Euge’s wedding a year later. If at any point she had gone into seclusion and not been seen For several months, maybe. But our girl has obsessively documented herself And never gone anywhere.
There were rumors that the costumes apartment on Suits was having difficulty with her expanding figure during S3, but that was several years prior to Harry. Then apparently, she returned to set after a long weekend and the puffiness was gone. A termination was implied, but the timeline also fits for a fertility treatments/egg harvesting which she was alleged to have done around that time. So I don’t see how a child of three or four could be Harry and Meg’s together. There is that Scott all that about Harry having gotten another woman pregnant in 2016, and Markle essentially being an arranged marriage to raise the child as legitimate—Happy family optics in exchange for Meg getting a title. What a rabbit hole this f*ckshow is.
This may have already been mentioned, but this Silver Tree directed 10 episodes of Suits, 2-3 per season starting in 2015. So I guess it’s no surprise if she turns out to have been one of Markle’s flying monkeys all along.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Suits_episodes
We might even get a USO story soon from one of the entertainers who blatantly ignored her on stage, in front of a live audience!
(I believe another Nutty has already shared the same article on this thread. At the time, I was focused on replying to other comments and overlooked the points in the article. I just wanted to acknowledge the commenter who was first, because I know Nutties can feel a little hurt when their contributions seem to go unnoticed and then someone else with the same info gets the attention. That's not how I mean it. The article just didn't click with me yesterday, but did click with me today.)
Chrissy teigen thought she was good at attention whoring. She's been shown up.
I love that MSM is writing stories about everything we've known here for years.
That was a fantastic read, thank you for posting it! Love the humor + pointedness of its approach.
It also contains the stories of the Suits era photographer and videographer, which i have been trying to find. I think those early examples of her unprofessional behavior during that era are telling. It reminds me also of the story Ninaki told of her early arrogance, acting like she was too big a star to go out in LA when she was just beginning as a bit player in a barely known, Canadian-made, C-list cable channel drama.
She is what she is. People show you who they are, as they say.
These rallying “friends” are simply a mix of a good director she hoped to keep sweet, to get work from, an actor she is said to have slept with, an obnoxious rich connected Toronto socialite who she used and mimicked and marched with for cash, who is a recently proven buily and got a tv Style segment job off her even though she has terrible style; a makeup artist she pays who still can’t apply false eyelashes or bronzer properly; etc....it is a incestuous circle of pay-for-play we are supposed to believe as a character reference.
If no subject is truly awful limits in Oprah’s interview, I would hardly think the Harkles’ son isn’t going to be mentioned over the course of two hours. But it totally depends on whether Oprah is going to continue to play sycophant, or if she’s going to go into James Frey/Tom Cruise evisceration mode. With Markle hell-bent on throwing the Queen under the bus and rolling her into pulp, she might even release the Kraken on herself. I really think she has nothing left to lose. If the Queen is implicated in a coverup to defraud the succession, That would be the biggest grenade in Markle’s arsenal. She would twist things to suit her victim narrative—Could even imply some form of sexual slavery and or sexual improprieties toward her By high-ranking males—William and Charles principally. Who knows what desperate lies she will tell to deflect this bullying narrative about herself? “Archie is really Charles’s son and the had to silence me about that!” ?
This could get bad, and I mean really bad, since the pro Markle contingent is prepared to believe anything she says.
I'm still waiting for the A listers that know her -or knew her- to step up and say anything positive, which would jeopardize their position amongst the elite. If George Clooney would say something- as he attempted to do once- it would be amazing. James Corden supposedly just saw them...and silence.
Until then, it's all hot air and play to pay.
Nutties be sure to tune in and send in your lots of cash to the Megsy connected charity mentioned below---
MegsCOMPASSION.COM
Here's George Clooney's interview where he compares 7 months pregnant Meghan to Diana, claims she is kind, intelligent, and treated unfairly. Also, Harry and Meghan are 'very fun.'
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a26837437/george-clooney-meghan-markle-unjust-treatment/
The difference now is that she quit the RF/Firm and if she didn't want any attention she wouldn't be getting it. This flies in the face of George's previous argument, and Tiegens that she is a victim. It creates more confusion in her brand message, if I'm being simple about it. She's just hoping people don't take notice to the fact she is now full on attention seeking.
I guess the only way to approach this is to draw a line and say that in today's world, such behaviour is unacceptable, even from senior royals. That would be in keeping with changing social attitudes in general.
Our famously bad-tempered royals tend to be either dead or of the older generation. MM has no such excuse. She prides herself on being in the vanguard of social change, is of the younger generation, and yet seems to be easily as aggressive, unfeeling and intolerant as the worst of the old school.
You never know, she might actually end up genuinely being of service to others for once, as her treatment of her staff could revolutionise the royal palaces in a way that has been long overdue.
One of the Sussex favourite phrases is 'shine a light'. Well, they've shone a very bright light on how NOT to treat people. The end result will be improvements in working lives but this time the parasitical Sussexes won't be able to hitch a ride on the backs of those doing the work.
__________
And just a copy and paste for her latest and wittiest. Didn't Jeff Beck have a blow by blow album?
Magatha Mistie said.
Locked Down/Blow-by-Blow Account
When told, Whore in sight
Haz said, I’m in, right
Thinking ‘twas just for one night
Lo and behold
The Slagger was bold
And Haz ended up in the Shite
I also think MM/ Dumbartons specifically timed this interview to occur AFTER the conclusion of her DMSunday lawsuit was concluded ( in her favor). had they done the interview prior to the judgement, the judge may not have believed their BS story about wanting their privacy and media intrusion.
they have been laying, relatively low during the pandemic, mostly popping up for occasional charity things. - and it fit their privacy narrative. but the judgement is over and now they can use all of their delusions to get ratings, publicity, media attention, so they can merchandise their ‘Brand’
BP taking action against bullying and humiliating staff is highly problematic for them as there are numerous documented instances of other senior royals doing the same thing
That's a really good point. People in glass palaces and all that.
But if Prince Philip, Prince Andrew and Princess Margaret are the main ones whose past behavior will be held up to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to worry about. Princess Margaret has passed away. Prince Andrew is already universally disliked. And Prince Philip . . . Well, I think people will be inclined to forgive him. He staunchly did his duty by family and country for longer than most people have been alive. That kind of steadiness won't be eclipsed by what are (hopefully) occasional incidents.
And this is just my impression of the man, but this side of him reminds me of that time on Celebrity Apprentice when one of the competitors was complaining that she was being unfairly smeared by comedienne Joan Rivers. She happened to be talking to another comic at the time, and he said, trying to diffuse the situation, "It's kind of an honor to be dissed by Joan Rivers." I imagine it is also "kind of an honor" to be yelled at by Prince Philip!
You're also right, Ava, that these bad manners seem to be a fault of the older generation and/or those who aren't direct heirs.
The future King Charles, for all his faults, at least seems to have been consistently mild-mannered and courteous around everyone. And apart from the moments Prince William has been "incandescent with rage," he and his generation of royals seem to be a lot more agreeable and approachable. (And to be fair, even his angry moments don't come with stories of him taking things out unfairly on staff!) It is the actions and behavior of this younger set that will really win the PR war.
Lots of people not coming to Markle's defense...the silence is deafening.
I think George and Amal Clooney are big enough players to have received the message that anyone siding with Meghan now can count on being booted from elite society forever.
Brilliant.
First "bully" and now "hostage"! Whoever is running this PR campaign is on fire!
KoffieMix, Creamer, Antigua and Barbuda,
Errol Webber mentioned on Twitter that Meghan Markle is a complete sellout. She stalked Harrys tailor and thats how she REALLY met him, no one set them up! Whoa. now some tea.
And here it is>>> https://twitter.com/ErrolWebber/status/1368136156097900549
WOW!!!
"BP taking action against bullying and humiliating staff is highly problematic for them as there are numerous documented instances of other senior royals doing the same thing....Prince Philip and Princess Margaret's bad tempers were legendary.
True. But Margaret has been dead for nearly 20 years. And while what you say about Philip is true, there are also articles like this one periodically published saying he's a favorite of staff.
https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/people/prince-philip-most-popular-royal-612841
At 99 PP's had time to generate both good and bad feelings but in her short tenure M seemed to generate only bad feelings among "underlings." While KP sometimes issued "nothing to see here folks" statements, we've never seen true "liking" once she became a working royal. While sugars claim that's because of racism or xenophobia, there's no evidence of that. And the positive stories have been obvious plants like the ice cream one. Even when I was very young and very broke, I wouldn't have been THAT giddy over free ice cream at work as stories claimed her staff was! ("Best day of work ever!" Right.)
On Silver Tree's IG sugars and non-sugars were commenting after she published her M support. One person kept posting about M's outbursts and a sugar kept saying "Did you see those outbursts? You are just jealous." While we don't have proof of some stories (egg in that recipe, banana bread, tea tossing) we all saw her callousness in the South Africa documentary. We've all seen her bat Harry's hand away at events. We all saw her laugh when the elderly man fell off his horse. We saw the photo of her sticking out her tongue at that Christmas walk. We've all seen her push in front of people. We've all seen her physically pull Harry away from conversations. We all saw her make women sit on the floor in their best clothes to be gifted old baby clothes, clothes that were given to her! We've all read her decidedly non-lawyerly drivel in court filings. We've all read the retorts to the Queen.
the crown is an old institution now run like a “Firm” and bad behaviour is no longer acceptable. they need to follow the rules of employment like everyone else and I think HM / PC know that..... or the people will revolt - literally or figuratively.
The email that started this came from an American who has worked in US business long enough to know there needs to be HR policies in place to manage complaints like this.
The Firm is huge employs.. 1000’s?, and they can’t just send people to the tower anymore or say off with their head.
The need to establish policies and the Principals need to be held accountable like anywhere else.
(although, apparently MM was in the Tower because she had ‘no voice’ or and was kept prisoner) or perhaps her neglecting her mental health resulted in her not being able to distinguish delusions from reality?
I erased an Oprah story I wrote, meaning to repost with two additional facts included, and will do that later 🌾— @snarkyatherbest, so glad you were in Chicago at the same time and remember it too! I mentioned this to someone last week and they thought I was joking! It was erased .as I said from news files. I didn’t realize a reporter was fired for it! Well, that tells you a lot! 🌾
@JennS, no I am in the US! My family is a UK and UK mix, but some of us live in the US at this point. My family lived all over...uncles and great uncles were architects who got to live everywhere, marrying and raising families and settling around the world as their firms won assignments, so we spread out a bit. My grandmother and great aunts lived in different UK/EU cities and NY too, due to fashion businesses they had, extremely independent for their time and hardworking. We spread out right into the 1990s. While I spend lots of time back and forth, I was raised here since childhood due to my parents’ work. Our houses tended to be hives of overseas relatives whenever they had US business or holidays so that was always fun, as you might have a London aunt who moved with an Egyptian businessman but now they live in Prague. Same kind of thing for Mr AnT, though his 100% Irish family are now in NY/Long Island in addition to County Tyrone. Sometimes I need to flip to UK “hours” to accommodate projects, and pre-pandemic I would be on site w clients in UK for regular two week meeting pods, and I often spend vacation breaks with family and friends in Germany, but no, my home is in the US!
I am 50/50 on watching tomorrow by the way. If a client gets some info to me by tonight I can possibly finish a deadline project by viewing time, fingers crossed.
PEOPLE now has Abigail Spencer defending Megs! More blather that sounds like Megs wrote it, same old “flowers, perfect” thing!
They might not be getting any "appearance fees" but they have to be receiving some kind of financial gain from this interview.
Thoughts?
Apologies if someone has mentioned this upstream.
HG Tudor has finally updated Meghan Markle: A Less Than Royal Narcissist Part 16.
On YouTube yesterday.
Harry on a work visa?
Thanks for that Australian tidbit — at least others see it now!
Artemis Goog has a funny new illustration up on her Twitter showing Megs and Oprah in interview discussion mode.....as rats. She often depicts Harry and Megs as the rats of Montecito, consuming, sneaky, lying, thieving, being trashy. 🐀
The Oprah rat is asking a bump-clutching MegRat, “Lemme get this straight, you were trapped in the Palace dungeon and ate corgi leftovers?”
The MegRat is saying, “Yes yes! That is the construct!”
I grew up at an Outward Bound school (climbing, sailing etc.) in the 1960s and Prince Philip had close ties there. He was held in great respect but also affection. If you were on the ball and interesting he was good to meet and he kept everyone up to the mark. So yes, he was and is very different to Meghan. Even her redeeming qualities (being nice and giving presents) have ulterior motives.
I’m of the firm opinion that they were in debt to Oprah. They owed her and she could finish them in HW if she wanted too. They’d rather have Oprah on their side as Megs is an obvious fangirl. Megs thinks she can launch her career stateside from this interview, and merch her poo funeral dress and jewelry. What other interview host would command as much attention as Oprah at this stage for the declining Meghan?
She was in a bad spot all the way around, and jumped to do this. They both seem desperate to tell the story that the big bad Palace preventing her Oprah stardom interview 2 years ago. Why should anyone, but them, care about that? Out of touch, self congratulatory bs.
Meghan realized if she played nice with Oprah, Oprah hooks her up - see, Tyler Perry’s house and jet.
Oprah has all the power here. She doesn’t need to pay Meghan for anything. In fact, Oprah’s handling Meghan better than the BRF ever did. And I know that’s quite the statement to make, but looks to be that way.
I have been pondering the same thing ... Meghan copyrights everything (now even a photograph a friend took that featured Archie), not only for control but also because she really resents others profiting from her.
Some examples I can think of:
* If she wears designer clothes, she is advertising the brand so they must 'pay' her with freebies.
* Especially for tabloids, photographs increase the popularity of articles for the majority who do not want to read or think too much. So, she copyrights photographs.
The millions that Oprah is making from this one interview probably equals total assets for the Harkles, or close. Meghan only agreed to such a deal (Harry has no say in the matter) because she has probably fantasized about an interview with Oprah since she was a child, and because Oprah guarantees major exposure and major promotion. That kind of attention is like a drug for a narc.
But, in my opinion, there will be underlying resentment and that might play out in future, specially if something in the interview harms her. If she thinks Oprah makes her look bad in this interview in any way, the resentment that Oprah profited and she got nothing will build up in her.
Oprah’s handling Meghan better than the BRF ever did.
I think you're right. Oprah is very deftly giving Meghan the impression that "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets," when it's actually Meghan who is giving Oprah everything Oprah wants.
Well, almost everything. But if you can't get an interview with Prince Charles or Prince William, I suppose a revenge interview with someone who can bash them and their spouses is ample consolation.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ErrolWebber
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Interview With Oprah Fetches at Least $7 Million From CBS
Talk isn’t cheap when it comes to Oprah Winfrey, Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle.
CBS VIAC 3.28% is paying a license fee of between $7 million and $9 million for the rights to air Ms. Winfrey’s interview with Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex, according to people familiar with the pact.
The two-hour interview is scheduled for Sunday on CBS at 8 p.m. ET, after the network’s popular news magazine “60 Minutes.” Sunday is one of the biggest nights of television consumption.
As part of the agreement between CBS and Ms. Winfrey’s production company, Harpo Productions, the network also has rights to license the special in international markets. In the U.K., the interview will air Monday on ITV. CBS is a unit of ViacomCBS Inc.
A spokeswoman for the couple said they are not being compensated for the interview.
CBS was seeking roughly $325,000 for 30 seconds of commercial time during the program, according to ad buyers, about twice the normal price of ad time in that time period.
Harpo also pitched Comcast Corp.’s NBC and Walt Disney Co. ’s ABC, people familiar with the situation said.
Ms. Winfrey has ties to CBS. She had a brief stint as a member of the “60 Minutes” team and has been longtime friends with CBS News anchor Gayle King. In addition, CBS owns the company that distributed Ms. Winfrey’s daytime talk show.
Prince Harry and Ms. Markle said last year they would step away from Britain’s royal family. Their departure has been rocky. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as they are known, wanted to trademark the brand “Sussex Royal” but officials at Buckingham Palace said no.
The Sussexes moved to Montecito, Calif. and have focused on various ventures to create audio and video content, including a five-year pact with Netflix Inc. that is valued in the $100 million range, according to people with knowledge of the deal.
The couple no longer receives a stipend from Prince Harry’s father, Prince Charles, or funds from the U.K. taxpayer.
Interest in the interview has heated up in recent days after clips promoting it were released in which the couple talked about why they wanted to leave Buckingham Palace.
Big ticket TV interviews used to be a staple of broadcast television. Networks would battle each other to land top newsmakers or celebrities. While TV news divisions say they are loath to pay subjects for interviews, they often end up licensing footage or paying consultants high fees to land the subject.
In this case, CBS News isn’t involved in the interview, nor is it being promoted as a news event. The special is being programmed by the CBS entertainment division.
I can see Andrew being arrogant, though count me as one who is sort of underwhelmed at the knowledge that he slept with 16 and 17 year old girls. I have heard the Bea and Eug are especially nice people, so it must be tacky old Fergie who taught them their manners. (I say that tongue in cheek, as I always liked her better than Diana and remain fond of her, despite her appalling scandals)
As for PP, I think we all have a grandfather or older uncle like that; a different generation who says inappropriate things now and then, and quite cranky, but rock solid as to duty and character and support when needed. The Greatest Generation indeed. As we lose them, the whole of society is falling apart.
* a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable
* one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable
* Bullying is an ongoing and deliberate misuse of power in relationships through repeated verbal, physical and/or social behaviour that intends to cause physical, social and/or psychological harm. It can involve an individual or a group misusing their power, or perceived power, over one or more persons who feel unable to stop it from happening.
Note that the behaviour must be habitual to be defined as bullying.
I think that MM is a cold, hard (cash due on services rendered) woman.
@lucy
Agreed, if H is a producer, then he gets $
I agree this interview is bad optics when looking at it for what it is. Which most will do. A Royal duchess crying that she can’t have her cake and eat it too? Spare us.
Well, used to the behaviour, at least!
The rooftops.
AnT the reporter was Ann Gerber. Had to look her up. She died a few years back but she was a gossip maven in Chicago.
Like the poster that questioned does PH have a work visa. And any money made hello IRS
As for Oprah. Isn’t it interesting it’s Tyler Perry’s house and jet. Not Oprah’s? Courting them but it actually shelling out any of her own money on them. Hmmmmn
jennS. Eagerly awaiting your commentary. I won’t watch cnn has a fabulous series on Italy with Stanley Tucci. I will be “traveling” at the same time 😉
I’m going with soft ball questions but Megs will look whiny and desperate. PH only at the end gives him a smidgeon of an out over what is said. After Oprah will make her a Hollywood nobody. And cbs will not be happy if they lose money on this. They may blame Oprah a bit but more likely will blame the dynamic (or is that dynamite) duo.
As for archie since they look to profit (produce) from this copyright and filming he will be a no show and it’s to protect his privacy. This will renew speculation archie is not with them or there is something very wrong with him (I’m going with the former). If he were to appear Oprah would dangle a clip with the back of his head or a gesture from the parents but she hasn’t so I doubt he’s gonna be there. Will be curious if the interview has a walk around the house and little tour of how they made things there own. Usually that takes place in these types of interviews. If it doesn’t it, Megs will look less approachable and open up questions as to the living situation. (Rent. Room for filming). In fact this whole interview may be all about what is not asked asked and what is not seen That’s were the juice will be
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-interview-with-oprah-fetches-at-least-7-million-from-cbs-11614987461
We don’t think that’s Archie as it would have to be recent and her plastic surgery hadn’t been done and no wedding rings.
I want to see Meghan have to sue people/corporations in the Manhattan district where fees start at $400 an hour and cases go on forever due to the pandemic. Do it Megs. :)
Harry and Meghan do not carry themselves as people who are getting amazingly lucrative deals and are on their way to success in the US. They are entirely too downtrodden, if their ‘mega deals’ were real. They’d also be busy working on those deals and not whining.
100% agree.
Blogger lizzie said...
Supposedly M's lawyers (Schillings) are threatening newspapers that publish the "Archie" photo. Say H&M own the copyright. Of a picture M certainly didn't take. Of a picture with other people's kids in it. Right.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Murky__Meg/status/1368135827205816321/photo/1
And Charade pointed out, via LinkedIn, that Silver Tree works for Netflix.