Let's continue the conversation...
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
Exactly.
I suspect the usage fell out of fashion when we start mentioning the previously unmentionable - too embarrassing for families with the surname 'Bates'.
Coronation Day - I have the tickets for our our seats in the stand in Whitehall Gardens in front of me now - such a pity I stuck them into my scrapbook (messily) with Le Page's Gum as pristine ones are worth a small fortune, not that I'd ever part with them.
The price per ticket then was £4, that's equivalent to £115 today (or near enough) - total cost £230. I've no idea how large a chunk that took out of our savings. We were very much a lower-middle-class family of limited means. (We'd bought a house for £1800 pounds 3 years earlier, only to find that £600-worth of damage (dry rot) had been concealed. That hurt for years.) My gratitude to my father for such generosity is profound.
A military point - it wasn't until I watched `A Queen is Crowned' again, probably in 2012, that I noticed a visual expression of how slowly sound travels. Each block of marching troops was led by their own band - but those at the back were exactly out of step with those at the front, ie immediately behind the band. That is, each man was perfectly in step with the music as he heard it.
Ah, the military mind! At sometime, the length of each column must have been finely calculated to give the most satisfactory effect.
Link to Lady C's petition: tinyurl.com/7smn6wyr
@Hunter
You're the first to comment on the Yankeewally link that I posted. Not sure what to make of it myself - but interesting nonetheless! :)
<@JennS
I've read that you're due an operation. Wishing you all the best.
Thank you for the YouTube video of the Coronation. Such a beautiful reminder. The music was missing so I had to listen to it (Zadok the priest, Handel).
@Miggy
Thanks, I’ve just signed.
I was around the 49,070 mark,
watched it go up to to 49,099
then drop back to 49,070’s ?
@Maneki
Zadoc the Priest, glorious, magnifique 👌
Thanks for the info re New Idea magazine. Good to know.
Antighostish & All Washed Up are excellent and sum up those two. So well written. I hope you're never short of inspiration - those two are a rich source 😉
Sorry, Zadok 🙈
@Magatha
Yes, Zadok the Priest is beautiful. All Handel's music is. Another favourite is the Arrival of the Queen of Sheba.
Merci Maneki 😘
It’s getting harder as I’m thoroughly sick
to the back teeth of them,
that hinders my usual snark!
Feels like groundhog day rinsing, and repeating,
their dirty drawers 🙄
@Magatha
Yes, Zadok the Priest is beautiful. All Handel's music is. Another favourite is the Arrival of the Queen of Sheba.
(Forgot to send & have now seen your post @ 11.53 - yes, it's getting harder to find something to write/comment)
Maneki
‘Sheba’ to me is joyous, spring like,
thank you for reminding me,
was in need of an ‘uplift’
"Is it the case that the latest tot addition to the Markles will not be allowed to use a title at least in the USA because they will be born in America and the Constitution (they are already attacking) implies no one born in the USA can be given a title at birth?"
i don't believe the Constitution implies that and certainly doesn't say that.
US citizens working for the federal government can't accept foreigner titles without Congressional approval. So far as I know, there's nothing that says someone already holding a title can't accept a government job though. In reality, someone who uses a foreign title probably wouldn't get an employment offer but there's nothing barring that happening. But the point of the rule was to avoid foreign collusion while working for the US.
There was a Constitutional amendment seeking to strip citizenship from any US citizen who accepted a foreign title. (Titles of Nobility Amendment) It was approved by Congress in 1810 but never was ratified by 2/3 of the states as required for all amendments. So it is not in force. Even if peopke cared enough to bring it up again (i doubt people do) it never could be passed now anyway because it could render people "stateless" and we no longer do that (signatory to UN ban on reducing statelessness.)
Master is not a title as @brown-eyed correctly points out. My grandparents used to address birthday cards to my brother as "Master." Used to be fairly common usage. Female equivalent is Miss or even Mistress. Miss is more common now that mistress has other meanings.
@lizzie
My son, now 23, used to receive hospital
appointments addressed to Master...
when he was younger.
My mum always addressed his parcels,
pre 18, as Master.
Not so long ago, but now almost defunct.
Is Megs aware, hahaha.
Thanks, I’ve just signed.
I was around the 49,070 mark,
watched it go up to to 49,099
then drop back to 49,070’s ?
I've noticed that occasionally too... and wondered if maybe it recognises people who have signed twice and automatically deletes them?
Miggy - mebbe, hope it hits the million mark!!
🥳
A bit of fun, everyone?
Books that talk
Blubbering Heights
The C..t of Montecito
A Tail in two Cities
C’mon WildBoar!
There is something in that letter too that BW did not want public (although she had it posted on her website??) something within must identity ,or out a source. Not wanting to speculate but may be having to do with "EMIS"?
I haven't read latest comments on Twitter thread but few days ago, very interesting..
@JennS beaming healing thoughts and prayers your way! I hope surgery goes well and recovery even quicker. You will be missed. You are fun and informative. Get well soon 😘
The tumblr "@hellena" has an emerald crown as her picture. What crown is that? I am not really into jewels but that crown is stunning! I would like to see better picture of it.
I had missed a chunk of comments. But wanted to belatedly say good luck with your surgery. Take care.
Since you ask:
`A Palace Plagiarist' - with apologies to John Sylvester Fearis
Little Miss Goebbels
I'm very blue,
Hello
(Hello)
Hello
(Hello)
You're a right little fascist
I know by your voice,
How I wish you would go away!
@Lucy
Publish and be damned.
I doubt AoC has any clout
within the RF, or the Establishment.
If Bookworm has evidence, speak now!
Why forewarn?
The best I can come up with from Dickens:
`Great Expectations'
But then `Hard Times' and `Bleak House'
Also:
`The Nit-pick Papers' and `The Nitwit Papers'
Good question. Those with evidence are most likely bound by NDAs but are they not enforceable when involving a crime? (treason?)
Regarding AoC it doesn't seem to me a matter of clout. More like looking a fool as letting everyone believe he christened Archie. IMO it never happened and photo of RF is complete photoshop.
The downside of anything being exposed is how poorly it reflects on all involved. I know ithas all been discussed before but I stand by my belief that RF has enough plausible deniability in all this mess but they won't speak out. Is the letter insinuating someone is about to step forward?
as for archie. we no lo no we use master. it suggest a colonial patriarchy (i think i am learning woke! strange new language Babel doesn’t offer it on their app)
it’s june Mrs. where’s the kid?
The BBC has announced the plans for next year's Jubilee (God willing!)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57329680
Hahahaha, love you WildBoar,
and Dickens X
Good luck with the surgery. We look forward to your return here soon. :)
You win a refreshing glass of chilled pinot grigio for your response to using “Master” as a form of address!
JennS: I hope all goes well for you. We’ll miss you.
Re. a bit of fun, I think you forgot
- Hard Times
- Bleak House
- Little Doritta
- Great Expectations
- Meg the Obscure
- Book of the Duchess (Chaucer)
- Paradise Lost
- The Comedy of Errors
Etc.
Bookworm2 from YouTube confuses “of the body” with DNA proof of parentage in her letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is not going to do anything publicly. He is in an incredibly awkward position (like all people who have to deal with the Harkles) and they would probably argue he had broken the confidentiality rule priests adhere to.
The emerald Tiara in the big photo was Queen Victoria's, designed for her by Prince Albert. The small one in the middle was commissioned for the coronation of Empress Farah Diba of Iran.
http://www.thepracticalgemologist.com/jewelry-history-1/tag/diamond
What do you mean? What part struck you and where did you see EMIS? Do you have any idea what that may refer to?
@Magatha - I think Bookworm is saying someone ELSE will be outing the story, not herself.
brown-eyed - I don't think she confused the of the body issue with DNA parentage, the "of the body" issue matters MORE than DNA parentage.
Until very recently, witnessing the new born emerging from the mother's belly, via the vagina or by C-section, was the only sure proof of the child being hers and not an impostor who'd been smuggled in.
Only in my lifetime has it been acceptable to rely on the word of pre-approved doctors in attendance - but even that doesn't prevent attempts at subversion.
DNA evidence alone is not enough.
@Maneki
Lol 👏👏👏👏👏👏
@brown-eyed,
My supposition after reading open letter to the AoC is that the writer is conveying the gist of what he or she heard from up to two solid sources, or sources they consider to be excellent. I think the point I got from it is not the precision of details, but the larger idea that everything about Archie is going to come out soon, everything, as well as reveals of the serious lies of the AoC (about the false christening of someone in line of succession. (hmm, did the AoC ever actually christen Megs, come to that? If he signed up to a lie about that, and was silent for a long time about the secret wedding......he comes from a messy background and everything he does seems shady at this point, including his upcoming sabbatical in America — where the Sussexes happen to live, and his obsession with France). To me, at least, the letter’s greater impact us this: If I told you that your village will be attacked in under ten minutes by horsemen, tanks and Orcs, and I was unsure of the percentage of each, would it matter? You would need to get moving. The AoC and/or RF should probably take heed. I mean, all of this sort of thing is known to various people, and I know dribbles have come out at least in some connected corners (my contact hears things via his club and via an old important school friendship for example). Megs has someone powerful protecting her, but they can’t be everywhere or stop every wild hare from skittering out of the hedge.
.
@lucy
Here is the emerald Tiara, sorry, I should have included the link in my previous post.
https://www.katiecallahanandco.com/2019/03/royal-british-tiaras-queen-victorias-emerald-tiara/
My apologies, once again I posted (in reply to Magatha) without checking/reading all the new posts. We chose the same Dickens titles - great minds think alike.
@brown-eyed,
@Magatha
@hunter
I read it this way:
* the of the body is a sham (the child did nit emerge from MM’s body)....
* and even if it had, a DNA will show it contained zero RF or Spencer DNA.
A friend of mine has been speculating for ages, since polo baby, that she uses a plastic doll in public to prevent anyone from somehow (god knows how) snatching a bit of ‘Archie” DNA for testing. If she is right, well, here we are.
👶🏼
Over on the “you have been Markled” tumbler, they are posting a current property tax bill for the Montecito house.
The tax bill: over $288k for one year.
@JennS
I wish you a successful surgery and a very speedy recovery. May you get well soon and be better than ever. Take good care.
Handel would be honored.
I hope your surgery goes well and you have a speedy recovery.Lots of virtual hugs
Over on the “you have been Markled” tumbler, they are posting a current property tax bill for the Montecito house.
The tax bill: over $288k for one year.
@AnT: The 288k+ is just the tip of the tax iceberg for the Harkles. Cali has a high state income tax too, then there will be federal income taxes and all of Sleepy Joe Biden’s proposed tax hikes. For example, the top income tax rate will go from 37% to 39.6% and the capital gains tax will nearly double for people earning more than $1 million.
Harry’s inheritances will likely be subject to all the new taxes including his trust from Diana when he is able to access it, money from Elizabeth’s mother, and whatever he might receive, if anything, from Philip’s estate, or eventually from The Queen’s estate when she passes on. But at the rate of Harry’s rock-throwing, he might find himself left out of her will and get nothing.
But back to my original point, even with a foundation, the Harkles will likely have hefty tax bills both here in the US and in the UK. And due to their high profiles, I can’t help but think they will be under close scrutiny of the tax officials in both countries. Their Delaware corporations can’t hide everything.
To add to it, they likely have tremendous overhead for staff, public relations and other costs.
Re: King's College London
Agreed!
Next to Her Maj, Prince Phillip was my fave royal. He was spunky and quite the badass. It sickens me to see how certain ideologies are trying to destroy his legacy. I rest assured knowing that won't happen with William and Kate firmly in place.
His legacy lives on!
The Queen 'finds Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's behaviour deplorable'
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/queen-harry-meghan-expert-deplorable-24234885
I put that in italics rather than bold as I don't want to headline it to my fellow Nutties.
Why does my body fall for it every time? My mind knows better. After all we've all had more than enough experience to teach us! However my body doesn't know better and my heart always lifts and my pulse always quickens. Thinking that justice is finally arriving.
Just how many royal experts are there? In my far-off youth I only remember a couple. Now there are legions of them.
@AnT, that is eye watering-$288k. And for that giant house for just two people. $288k could buy a nice house(or 2 depending on the area) outright for a housing insecure family. No wonder she's been scrambling for every penny. I wonder how deep their hole is.
I think of the utility costs, too. Yikes. Just the cost for keeping that place mowed, trimmed, and maintained must be enormous (if they are actually living there). I would probably plotz at the insurance bill. Having to come up with over a million dollars EVERY FOUR YEARS in cash for the tax bill for just the state government (which will only increase because after all, rich people should SHARE generously with the government) is difficult.
@AnT, re your DNA comment (or lack thereof of the Sussex heir to the throne), that would seem to indicate that they couldn't have any inside help with the house or the children in case somebody would be sneaky stealing DNA. No going to restaurants. Being EXTREMELY careful with the trash. No play groups. No public parks. No sleepovers. I don't know that they have what it takes to be that careful long-term. Eventually the kid will be curious enough to do his/her own DNA check.
The lead actress was magnificent but reviewers' observations that Henry was 'underpowered' were bang on. Physically insignificant. Ordinary. I hate Henry VIII as much as the next person but I'd never deny his physical magnificence, which he still had at that stage. Later on he was just plain terrifying. One reviewer said the mystery was how they had the nerve to execute this Anne Boleyn, as she was infinitely more powerful and charismatic than the men around her. In this version. Cromwell was a nothing too.
The reason I mentioning this here is that the whole thing seemed mischievous in the extreme. A reddish-bearded waste of time called Harry by lovers and by the people (unless he was there). Royal but not deserving that distinction. Being manipulated and controlled by a more intelligent woman of colour - usually in bed. Anne being a 'gentle sadist' and Harry being a masochist as one review noted.
When she was not having adventurous sex with Harry, Anne would sit thinking and planning and stroking her moonbump. It was all too much. Though as my mother observed, you would stroke your unborn child (assuming there was one in there) if your life literally depended on it. This time around it's the bank balance that depends on it.
I've never got over the Sussex wedding day being the same date as Anne's execution.
My favourite Daily Record story was a few years back, when they `outed' the painter Jack Vettriano - he of `The Singing Butler'.
His figures are all based on a copyright-free Dover book of the 1950s/60s, with photos of people for amateur artist to copy. Hence the charge that JV `just colours in'. Poor bloke!
Maybe that is why they are presenting a bevy of babies and tots for photos.
Someone turns in what they hope is a strand of baby hair, or bottle or cup for testing. Ta da! It comes out it is not royal DNA!
Megs just has to say smugly, “well of course not — that was from one of the darling Security Stunt Baby Team! Our own precious never leaves his room, there are too many security issues, twelve people guard him!”
And on and on she and the fake babies would get to roll.
..
England's official swing to Protestantism happened in Edward VI's reign, after HVIII's death. Almost as difficult for the bewildered folk of England as sister Mary's reign - there was a massacre at a village just outside Exeter, for example, and much of the iconoclasm laid at the feet of Oliver Cromwell happened a hundred years earlier under Edward.
Yes, all that. I was just endeavoring to add an actual number into the chart of Harkle Finance Woe. 😁
And once the retroactive tax rule goes into place in a few months to collect more on past earnings and property above already-paid bills, the Harkles will be facing about 50% in taxes, unless they are giving a one-off break by Washington for being abused royals.
..
I’ve been trying to figure out the numbers behind the duos attempts at biz. They’d need quite a lot just for their lifestyle alone, not to add in a staff of 10-30 and all that accompanies their idea of biz (multiple contracts and obligations, a foundation, a tech side, etc).
Any ideas? I can’t see them like living on less than $650k per year. AnT pointed to their tax bill alone at around $250k. They probably need more like $1mm income per year. I guess if we start seeing Harry do random gigs and Meghan merching, then we know they have bills to pay. (Betterup looks to be a part of that grab and go)
Snitching DNA - by going through the bins for dirty nappies perhaps?
Lovely idea but they'd have to get it from each of the Harkles as well - I'm sure H would only be too happy to oblige. Not sure how they'd get it from her - using hairs from a hairbrush would reveal that the female parent was equine, bovine or caprine even (you'd know better than I if ovine was a possibility!)
Sneakily stolen DNA evidence is inadmissible in English Courts - they'd have to try to extract a confession by legitimate means as well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9642249/Very-old-human-remains-just-yards-away-Meghan-Harrys-California-mansion.html#reader-comments
It must have been infuriating to be an intelligent woman then. I remember how difficult it was in 1980s offices when I was told I couldn't be promoted (after my male manager won an award for my own work) because I wasn't a man.
Catherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr were also very intelligent women and over and over again they had to play that down to stay in Henry's favour. Hide it. Disown their own intelligence in order to survive. I admire Anne's refusal to play the game, even though I'm Team Aragon.
I was pleased they brought in Anne Boleyn's concern for religious reform in last night's drama. I can't really recall that happening before. Of course that applies to George Boleyn too, and should be remembered when people get carried away with lurid theories about George and Anne conceiving a child together out of sheer desperation.
It was when Anne Boleyn sensuously kissed Jane Seymour that I bailed out last night. I saw on Twitter as it happened, "Did I just see Anne Boleyn kiss Jane Seymour? I'm out of here." What an unpredictable world we live in now. British history is so familiar to me after decades of reading about it, but watching historical drama now is like living inside a kaleidoscope. Anything can happen.
If I was Harry I'd be feeling completely trapped now. His previous adult life was one long holiday compared to this.
Interesting. Discarded DNA is fair game here. I don't believe it would be too difficult to obtain (for example, from COVID masks). Samantha or other half siblings would probably part with DNA for purposes of DNA comparison with the children. Probably would be able to get some Ragland DNA for a price as well, and it would not have to be from Doria.
Blogger Christine said...
So far the commenters worked out that the remains are one of the following: One of Meghan's skeletons that fell out of her closet, one of Meghan's family members, one of her ex husbands, one of her assistants, Harry's balls, Harry's soul or Harry's dignity.
ROFL! Thanks for sharing that!
I was thinking and there is one thing that Markle could do that could possibly start to warm her to the public. Or I should say, warm the public to her. She should invite Thomas over, reunite with him and take a bunch of pictures of Harry over the grill, Thomas holding Archie and Doria and Meghan slaving over the picnic food. OH I forgot why she doesn't do that...narcissism. Plus frankly, she doesn't want poor Thomas in her life. Ah well, sad for Thomas but he's better off. And someday Arch and his sister may choose to want to see Thomas, if he's alive yet. This thought process is making me mad, because I'd give anything to see my dad again so nevermind!
I recall discussing `transcoding' in a film course once ie making a film of a book or theatrical play. It was reckoned that theatre audiences were `more sophisticated' than cinema ones (different demographic) and less likely to confuse performance with reality and to be more aware of what happened in history. Back then, one could `get away' with pushing the boundary in theatre but not cinema.
My favourite example is Shelagh Delaney's `A Taste of Honey' - Jo, the protagonist in the play is a 15yr=old pregnant by a black sailor from Liverpool. In the film she was depicted as a 16-yr old, by the expedient of putting her in the uniform, like the grammar-school one I wore (blazer,shirt, tie, beret) leaving school the moment she was 16. In the play, Jo presumably left school at 15 ie not grammar school (different school-leaving ages).
This got around the difficulty of a mass audience seeing an underage pregnancy and being outraged.
In the Boleyn case, I'm sure there are those who now believe she was African. It must be true - they saw it on the telly.
BTW, if anybody recalls the scene in the English class, the mistress gave me the hab-dabs - so much like the teachers I had. I got to know the actress some years later, in reality a lady of great warmth and humour!
Good.
Best wishes for your surgery and speedy healing. Your contributions here will be missed.
✨✨✨
@AvaC, about the $288k....the Harkles as we’ve talked about moved to a place where people who have already proved their skills and made their pile go to relax and breathe a bit, while making even more for kicks, off their famed talent, names, accomplishments, style.
By comparison, Meghan was a minor cable actress and forgettable bit player for a short time. Harry is a second son with no education and few skills. Both exhibit serious life-hampering issues. They are stalled also-rans, nearing age 40, milking the old cow of royal name and tragedy for its last drops. They should be living in quite a different world, in LA, if they aren’t already.
Lol! The missing MA! Wouldn’t that have been something. With a telltale dirty suede dressy heeled shoe still in his grip.
Unfortunately, this buried body event may have planted new ideas in Megs’ head.
Either:
* how do you solve a problem like Mountbatten? 🎶🎵🎶
* “Under the Bench” A BetterUp Pop Up Story when we bury problems they pop back up, so fix em!
.
It was pure selfish egotism, narcissism and being raised as an extremely spoilt pampered boy whose every friend, relative, sycophant, courtier etc had petted and coddled as the most handsome, talented, wonderful, gifted boy that had ever lived.
His brother Arthur was raised for statecraft as the heir and his mother over-compensated for Henry to the ruination of his character. In an age of absolute Monarchy.
Catherine of Aragon was wise enough to downplay her talents against such an absolutist, but between Worseley, Anne and Cromwell he was taught how to be a tyrant whose every word came with the sceptre of the tower or else. It soon came to bite them all.
Plus there is also a theory that one of his falls during a joust contributed to the downturn in his behaviour and attitude to absolute tyranny.
Anyone and everyone who disagreed with him after that had to go.
While it suited his purposes, he was pretty happy with Anne's display of intelligence. He was happy to engage her in intellectual discourse and wasn't threatened at all. Ditto Katherine Parr.
And when he wanted to get rid of her (and others who disagreed with him) suddenly the very same intelligence that he'd admired was a negative and a reason to kill her (and them)
The sexism developed over several centuries, but became inflamed in late middle ages due to theologians and preachers like John Knox who wrote and preached against the role of women in public life culminating in his infamous treatise published in 1558 on what he described as the "monstrous regiment of women" which was inspired by Elizabeth 1, Mary Queen of Scots, and Mary de Guise, Dowager Queen of Scotland.
Afew decades later, the King James bible instituted this sexism by positioning men and Kings as anointed by god and head of a household whilst demoting or erasing women's contribution unless the woman in question was useful to the cause in service of men.
That's not to say that women weren't overlooked prior to the middle ages because there are examples of this in placed, but it wasn't to the degree it became during the late middle ages and afterwards.
Unfortunately, as history is primarily written by men and commemorates men's contributions, women have been easy to erase from the story.It's easy to accept sexism ( and any other -ism) if entire society has been indoctrinated whilst earlier history is erased.
"Where is Scobie these days?"
Trying to resurrect his failing career by reporting on the hated real royals.
His twitter is exhibit A in parody lavk of self awareness.
Has he seen a decline in interest and towing the RF line again?
Is he still a Meghan mouthpiece?
Law enforcement can collect your DNA without the target person’s permission. The California killer who was arrested a couple of years ago dropped an empty soda cup in a public trash container and a police officer retrieved the cup and they ran his DNA from that. They also documented the chain of custody.
I doubt any if us can legally collect other people’s DNA without permission.
Off topic:
I think the “out if the body” requirement to inherit a peerage will be changed as people get more comfortable and knowledgable about DNA. If a child’s DNA matches both parents DNA, then they are his biological parents. A simple DNA test provides that information. (And a surrogate (gestational carrier) may share no DNA/biological relationship with the child.) The irony is that some peers haven’t always been the fathers of their heirs, but until DNA testing became available, no one could prove it.
Thank you for correcting any erroneous impression I may have given. I could have written a disquisition on any of the following:
-subsequent developments in English ecclesiastical life;
- how the dissolution of the convents had a harmful effect on the education of females in England;
-on the Marian burnings;
- on the development of the Protestant denominations and sects in the 17th century;
- on the Westminster Confession;
-on the Apotheosis of James I, to say nothing of his statements the `Divine Right of Kings;
-on protests against the Prayer Book, including how Jenny Geddes vented her wrath by chucking her stool at the minister's head;
- on the Huguenots and the options they were offered in England;
-on the disabilities suffered by Non-Conformists & Roman Catholics in the 18th & 19thC;
-on the resistance to the higher education and enfranchisement of women in the 19th and 20th centuries.
I simply decided against it.
Yes, in English Law a married woman's child is assumed to have been fathered by her husband unless there is reliable evidence to the contrary.
I'm not sure what the law currently is on getting a DNA sample direct from the subject - it may be that refusal to comply is itself an offence and meaning may be read into it.
//twitter.com/scobie
2 Most recent tweets - revelling in success of FF abroad & gloating over recent Guardian report about employment policy in BP in 1960s
Yuk!
@Maneki thank you so much for tiara links! I was eyeing Queen Victoria one. It really is beautiful. Bit different than I expected in full view, but still lovely. Difficult to find an actual photograph of it being worn, rare even, from what I read. Is that the tiara M originally wanted?
@jessica I recently read your post regarding your brother and I am so sorry for your loss.delayed but wanted to offer my condolences (and giant hug)
The 2022 Jubilee was just announced, and I am sure the Harkles were NOT given any advanced notice! Does this mean they were able to get a phone call into BP? Or is it straight to a "Royal Expert" with their demands? F-off already.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15140773/prince-harry-meghan-markle-queen-platinum-jubilee/
What do you mean? What part struck you and where did you see EMIS? Do you have any idea what that may refer to?
In the letter BW states a search was made through EMIS and no known birth was recorded (paraphrasing).
EMIS seems equivalent to database of medical records (U.S) it seems huge violation of privacy (if not illegal) for someone to be scanning and relaying information from that source . But I am guessing as I am an unfamiliar with foreign law
BW may have caught heat from source for stating said info. That is one "identifiable" source that could face repercussions. She also makes mention of a clergyman's niece that states AofC was indeed present at synod in York. Perhaps she voiced concern over being "outed"
It's all a bit wacky for BW to begrudge the sharing of letter she herself released to internet. Only knowledge I have of her concerns is 5 minute youtube video she posted days ago. Regardless, I applaud and support her for writing letter in first place .
As sidenote I did sign Lady C's petition (even though felt weird as American) but I did it long ago when link first shared here. It was around 20,000 signatures then. Seems so long ago that nearing 50,000 now seems low. I hope it gets more exposure.
https://www.change.org/p/the-public-invitation-to-prince-harry-to-request-the-queen-to-put-his-titles-into-abeyance?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_28949031_en-GB%3A8&recruiter=1205195839&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition
Wifey=where's that baby = its june 2!!
@lucy
Not at all, pleased to help. I can't find any pix of the Queen wearing that particular emerald tiara but here you can see it better in the link below.
https://royalwatcherblog.com/2019/05/09/queen-victorias-emerald-tiara/
Queen Victoria wearing the tiara:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/408983209910450994/
I don't think this is the one that M covered for her wedding.
Demonstates how much religion has harmed women.
There are many, many more events in a similar vein of course.
It's always amazing to me how half the world's population subjugates the other half and we happily submit!!
* coveted
When I was getting ready to move to Scotland, less than a month before the first lockdown, I took a tour bus around Edinburgh. When we passed John Knox's house - announced by the guide with a flourish as if we should be impressed - I reacted like a cat seeing its worst rival across the street. Involuntary hissing and if I'd had hackles they would have been vertical.
***
I agree with so many that the Montecito bones are a gift to humourists and satirists everywhere. Many have skeletons in their closets but in M's case everyone already has a good idea what they are before they come tumbling out. I've been immersed in 23(!) series of the BBC drama series about pathologists who seem to have parallel careers as police detectives. Watching their regular efforts to find evidence that will hold up in court, all I can think of is M. Will this be the clincher? Is this enough to bring this to a satisfying conclusion? Will justice be done or will she get away with it?
Re DNA and the “out if the body” requirement: the 8th Marquess of Bath has two children with his wife Emma. Both are genetically theirs but the second one was born of a gestational surrogate as Emma suffered a bleed on the brain in her first pregnancy. As far as I remember, the second child will have no title.
https://mercatornet.com/assisted-reproductive-technology-could-undermine-inheritance-rights-of-british-aristocrats/70583/
"When I was getting ready to move to Scotland, less than a month before the first lockdown, I took a tour bus around Edinburgh. When we passed John Knox's house - announced by the guide with a flourish as if we should be impressed - I reacted like a cat seeing its worst rival across the street. Involuntary hissing and if I'd had hackles they would have been vertical."
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I hope he is in hell presided over by women!!!
--
Add to it the Rolls M rode in to wedding was same one used to transport Wallis Simpson to Prince Edward's funeral 😏
Regarding taxes on home. No way do they own that home. Always believed they didn't, this nearly proves it. They simply cannot afford it. Their PR alone is probably 6figures a month.
Regarding DNA. Even with surrogate the baby will have both their DNA (provided her egg, his sperm). Bigger question is how did she get Harry's sperm so quickly (in medical sense..)
What I find interesting is after the recent chatter of photographing M with heat camera (to prove or disprove baby in belly) she has been MIA . Maybe a stretch but funny nonetheless..
Lastly, I heard nothing from H's latest therapy session via Oprah. Not much written up anywhere. Is that by choice?
Did Gayle's Queen special air yet? No word on that either. Not really caring of either just find it interesting that none of it has shown up on newsfeed as before.
My experience of male chauvinist piggery suggests that it originates in the young male’s need to separate himself from his mother and her influence.
I have observed , when leading mixed youth expeditions, that adolescent males will be full of their achievements and boast extravagantly about, say, climbing a particular mountain. The moment a party of similarly -aged females does the same, the activity is immediately devalued, not worth doing, appropriate only for sissies. I’ve seen it in other contexts too.
In my view , religion is not the root cause but but an effect of this aspect of something that lies deep in male development.
That's my last word on the subject.
@Ava wrote: I've never got over the Sussex wedding day being the same date as Anne's execution.
--
Add to it the Rolls M rode in to wedding was same one used to transport Wallis Simpson to Prince Edward's funeral 😏
Regarding taxes on home. No way do they own that home. Always believed they didn't, this nearly proves it. They simply cannot afford it. Their PR alone is probably 6 figures a month.
I read an estimate in the Daily Mail that the upkeep including maintenance, staff, etc. would be in the vicinity of $4.4 million per year. That would leave a mark! I concur; they cannot afford it.
In the old Soviet Union, the profession of medicine was considered very prestigious until the majority of physicians were women. Then, the status of the profession was downgraded.
To however asked about EMIS, sorry can't find the post right now to respond directly. EMIS is an NHS programme(National Health Service for non UK Nutties). It has hugely confidential data and anyone found abusing it, or indeed even looking at it for no reason will be reprimanded even sacked. An example, my daughter is a nurse, if she was to be found looking at my medical records, when I am not a patient of hers, she would probably be fired unless she could prove a reasonable explanation. I would be surprised if professional health care workers are using this and publicising it on social media, it is regulated
I talked with a family member about how secure our infrastructure is because his job is to break in (both physically and through computer hacking) and to assess the security of various corporate headquarters and government entities around the world. I was concerned about the pipeline hack and, if that was extremely vulnerable, what about the electrical infrastructure? He said that *nothing* is secure and we should be prepared accordingly. I believe it.
If information is on a computer, it is not secure. If information is on the web, it is not secure. There are a lot of sneakers and peekers out there that leave very little, if any, trace that they've been there. Some of them are children.
Yes, the second son won’t have a title. That child is the biological child of the Marquess and his wife Emma. I’ve been following that and I believe he is in court. The House of Lords voted not to change the law a couple/few years ago. It seems really unfair to me to the second child. An aristocrat in Scotland also could not inherit a title there recently, also, because of DNA. I think a cousin? challenged him and they were ordered to have DNA tests. Pretty interesting to watch how the DNA issue will play out.
*traditionally in western movies, the bad guys wore black hats.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2021/06/blind-item-6_2.html?m=1
Blind Item #6
Several months ago, this north of the border celebrity mentioned to the alliterate one that the alliterate one should publicly put it out to the world that she was trying to be a peacemaker, but the other side was being unreasonable. Even if she didn't mean it, the north of the border celebrity said, at least it would put the other side in a no win situation. The alliterate one decided to go with burning bridges. The other side now though is using the peacemaker strategy and using language that which shows if the alliterate one doesn't accept the peace offering then, it really isn't about mental health, but just playing whatever cards will make them the most money.
If that were the cause, the arrangement of society would always be permanently and accepted as females are always beta second class citizens ( assuming they are granted any sort of recognition by their superior male counterparts - like Afghanistan is currently arranged.
These things are nurture and societal indoctrination.
And like all things that are indoctrination, the system eventually fails and the subjugated rebel and demand their rights.
Lainey is predicting publicity appearances for MM's new book, a scaled-down Trooping of the Colour (Sussexes probably won't attend), the arrival of their baby, and the unveiling of Diana's statue.
Nothing terribly ominous.
I tend to doubt that Harry will attend the Diana statue unveiling. Call it a hunch.
.
@WBBM: Male traits are not the cause of the subjugation of women. Just as female traits can't be blamed for female submission.
If that were the cause, the arrangement of society would always be permanently and accepted as females are always beta second class citizens ( assuming they are granted any sort of recognition by their superior male counterparts - like Afghanistan is currently arranged.
These things are nurture and societal indoctrination.
. . .
So, nurture and indocrtination.
I think we can agree that nurturing and indoctrination don't occur in a vacuum. Who does the specific kinds of nurturing you are talking about with WBBM? Would that be men, or women? Who designs and formats and actions the nurturing that subjugates women? And societal indoctrination....who is in the society? Would that be men, and women? Who then is devising and implementing indoctrination that makes women second class? Would that be women somehow eager to be second class, or would that be men? If men, why men? Why would more men seek power through history? What activates that? Any personal traits?
Why would that power seem to make women less empowered (apart from queens) historically? And what made women allow it? Which traits? Traits from historic cultural experience, or that helped them and their progeny survive?
What are the traits that make a majority indoctrinate and nurture a minority, society by society? And the traits that made the groups in the minority accept? Which traits run commonly in the dominant group doing the nurturing and indoctrination, and how might they vary from those accepting second class roles.
I can list warrior queens, and we can look at Finland or Merke,l or Elizabeth I or St. Ursula. We can talk economics and rank or connection. We can say Anne, Philip and William share more traits with each other than with Charles, Edward, and Eugenie.
But can we also ask, for example, which traits of men created rape of women as a war tactic to bring down societies in chaos. What is the equivalent female tactic? Did those male tactics arise from the air, or were they devised from human traits, and are the traits traceable to gender or society? Why do male gangs seem to roam parks more than female gangs?
Something in humans creates "nurture" behaviors and "indoctrination" behaviors. And yes, these may generally be traits common to each gender, then re-expressed. To overlook this and dismiss @WBBM's comment seems to be missing the core of her point.
Finally,
• Mission Australia’s large-scale annual Youth Survey of young people aged 15-19 revealed that even during the pandemic year of 2020, students at girls’ schools obtained higher scores than the female average in the key areas of physical and mental health, overall life satisfaction, and educational and career aspirations (Mission Australia, 2020).
• A Jordanian study found that 4th grade girls slightly outperform boys in maths overall, but that girls attending single-sex schools show the biggest advantage in Jordan’s national maths exam outcomes (Al-Bursan, Kirkegaard, Fuerst, Bakhiet, Al Qudah, Hassan & Abduljabbar, 2019, p. 71).
• A 2017 study of Year 3, 5 and 7 numeracy and literacy (NAPLAN) data by Dr Katherine Dix of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) found that even when socioeconomic status was taken into account, Year 7 girls at single-sex schools were 4.2 terms ahead of co-ed students in reading and 2.8 terms ahead in mathematics (Dix, 2017).
• Data from the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) for 2013 to 2017 found that girls from single-sex schools in Jamaica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago “consistently had a higher pass rate” in mathematics, as well as a higher percentage of distinctions, than girls in co-educational schools, as well as boys in both single-sex and co-educational schools (Spencer-Ernandez & George, 2016, p. 96).
@Maneki thank you once again! Looking at tiara makes me want to search through them all and find my absolute favorite! Love the band of Queen Victoria's but bit tall for this pretend princess 😉
However I would graciously accept whatever offered. How horrible of M to demand specific tiara. Seriously that is ridiculously horrid, add to it the "what m wants ,m gets" 😒. Sadly, mild altercation compared to current events . Wedding was allowed in lieu of fallout of not and yet same result. Remember those choose your own adventure books? "Turn to page 6 if you turn left at street, page 9 if you turn right.." etc. Would really like to know today's status quo had they refused.
Lol I read like dummy with my "adventure book" reference considering great works of literature quoted on blog. It does however offer a positive, this mess led me here to great mix of people I more than likely would never have encountered otherwise 🙂
@Nutty can we have another poll? I am very curious as to how many who visit here believe Archie exists. If M gave birth..surrogate..etc. Something I hope you would consider, or not. Thank you!
#6 and TW - I doubt Archie is real, he is definitely a Reborn Darren doll(s) or a paid actor, for those times they need to be seen with a live child. I think their charade is probably the reason they were asked to leave their roles as Senior Royals. TW announced her "pregnancy" days before their Pacific Tour. I feel the family closed ranks while they were gone and made some major changes during their absence. This is why she became so distraught during her third trimester and became a major control freak about Archive's birth details. It is all so bizarre.
Couple days ago I looked at pictures from polo day . I originally believed baby was doll as he just did not move ,but in some photos I do see his fingers splayed then not. It is almost worse for me to believe she was holding live baby. Someday I am going to create some time to further look into scene
That dress tho 😳
maybe that women's face was reaction to nothing but that 😁
Wonder what Charles' bill was for that monstrosity 😒
So vain regarding her face yet willingly paraded around in whatever paid her the most. She is really twisted.
It's called Human nature...
I hope this isn't too much, but I'd like to add BookWorm's letter to the blog. It's very hard to read in its original format. This is a rough transcription, but please refer to the original for any exact quotes.
Page One
Your Grace,
I am aware that in your position you may not have the influence to make the decisions and take the actions required, but as the most senior member of your church and having the Queen as the head of your church, I do believe you have Her Majesty's ear and that she may take your advice seriously. I therefore beg for your patience and time in considering the contents of this letter.
Her Majesty has been respected and revered the world over and has reigned longer than I have been on this earth. At 95 I respect that she may not have the strength or the health to control every aspect of her extended family's actions, in particular those of them who are no longer residing in Britain. However it is of the utmost importance that action is taken as soon as possible pertaining to Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle's actions.
Certain things have come to my attention and I have kept it private out of respect for Her Majesty and my loyalty to the monarchy, but it had also come to my attention that the same information will be used against the monarchy in a warped and untrue version if and when the need arises for the couple to do so. It is therefore my opinion that it would be less damaging to the Queen, Prince Charles and the monarchy as an institution should they address the matter in an honorable, calm and decent manner and admit to mistakes made during the past three years.
I couldn’t believe what I was seeing/reading. Jimmy went IN on Meghan. Lol. Very funny.
I wish he’d interview her!!!!! How is Meghan going to cope when these people will probably only talk to her if she answers their questions. ‘So you planned to try to topple the monarchy eh? Is it going to plan?’ Haha.
Page 2
As you may be aware social media had been speculating about the circumstances surrounding Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor's birth since before he was born and that the speculation had not died down since. I myself had been one of the people who had been doing so for the past two years and who had been doing so publicly via a YouTube channel. I can only surmise that it is due to my location that I had been taken into some people's confidence and as such had been passed on particular infirmation. The information I had learned are as follows:
That Archie Mountbatten Windsor had not been born to Meghan Markle at the Portland Hospital on 6 May 2019. Neither was he born to Meghan Markle at St. Mary's. There was no VIP delivery at either hospital between the period 1/4/2019 and 1/6/2019. As you may or may not know, there is such a thing as a midwife registry and no midwife attended to a delivery to a woman named Meghan Markle / Duchess of Sussex / Meghan Windsor or any name which could identify Meghan Markle as the birth mother. As you may or may not know, there is also the fact that midwives have to register a birth on the EMIS system on the day of the actual birth -- no such registration was made on 6 May 2019 for anyone with any combination of names who can be identified as Rachel Meghan Markle.
All media platforms as well as the book "Finding Freedom" identified Dr Penelope Law as the OBGYN who delivered Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, yet her husband the Earl of Bradford denied this on a public platform and it has come to my attention that they may even have been away on holiday at the time.
Page 3
The birth announcement at Buckingham Palace was unsigned.
The copy of the birth certificate put out to the media contains a number of anomalies: the same misprint as a sample on Pinterest and other websites, gives the father as "Harry" etc. And then there was the alleged change to the birth certificate which had Rachel Meghan Markle's name left out as the legal mother, but instead just gave a title. This is suspicious as there is no reason for this change to be made other than the possibility that she was not the birth mother.
The christening: According to the church's own website there was a synod meeting on the weekend of 6 July 2019, one which you yourself attended. There was also a meeting of senior clergy until 12:30 on that particular Saturday. I have also received a letter from a niece of a member of the clergy stating that you were seen at the synod meeting. A number of enquiries to your church had failed to explain how you could have been in York and conducting the christening at the same time. Similar to Ms Markle's allegation that you married them three days prior to the official wedding, this places you in a very difficult position and I recognize the fact with empathy for you. However the truth prevails over all else and in my opinion it is not befitting of the most senior member of a church to allow for these lies and deception to be perpetrated on the public.
It is thus my opinion that Ms Markle and Prince Harry had a surrogate to birth their child and that the child was not born "of the body" of the lawful wife of the 6th in line to the throne. It is therefore also my opinion that Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor should not be included in the line of...
Page 4
...succession as that would be contrary to the current rules of succession. It is my opinion that he could only be included should a full DNA test reveal he has both the DNA of Prince Harry and his wife and that it would then further require a letters patent fron Her Majesty to change the current laws of succession. As Prince Harry no longer resides in Britain and does not intend returning it is my opinion that this would not be necessary but that the child should be removed from the line of succession forthwith.
Furthermore, it has also come to my attention, via fairly prominent people in the US, that Ms Markle will find a way to blame the Royal Family for perpetrating a fraud on the people of the world by pretending to carry the child herself. It is also my opinion that the truth of the child's birth will be made public before the end of this year and that Ms Markle will then find herself in an embarrassing situation where she will certainly, judged by her previous conduct in the Oprah interview, tell 'her truth'. This will paint the Royal Family in a very bad light as well as incriminate them as co-conspirators in this lie and fraud. It is in my opinion that it would be in their best interest to make known the absolute truth -- whatever that may be -- in a proper statement. Should this be done in the way the Royal Family had to date conducted all their proper and decent statements I am of the opinion that they will be forgiven and will even have the empathy / sympathy of all their subjects and loyal supporters. With the knowledge I have I am sincere in my belief that the truth will be made known within the next few months and that it would be of...
Page 5 [Final]
...the utmost importance that the Royal Family preempt this in a truthful manner and not wait until it is revealed via other sources.
I trust that you will take this under advisement and will discuss the matter as well as your own position in this regard with her Majesty and /or her son Prince Charles as soon as possible.
Kind regards and blessings,
####
I'd like to think that had the RF had pushed her into it, they'd have made a damn' sight more convincing job of it than she did!
I'd like to think that had the RF had pushed her into it, they'd have made a damn' sight more convincing job of it than she did!
Agreed, WBBM. She really didn't do a very good job at all. But even I hadn't put all the pieces of the puzzle together until I found this blog.
I still have a problem with Harry's going along with a surrogate and keeping it secret from his family for most of her pregnancy, as Blind Gossip described. How could he have not known that what they were doing could potentially be treason?
I hadn't put all the pieces of the puzzle together until I found this blog.
Glad you found us! Trying to work out what's going on is, I'd say, the driving motivation here - but we're not there yet. Many of us have had experience of coping with somebody with similar traits to MM but she goes way beyond anything I've had to deal with - and beyond anything I could imagine!
To bring JFK Jr into this again, still mourned nearly a quarter of a century after his death, one of the key aspects was that the nation had seen him grow up. That was when he was cemented into national life and memory. Well the Sussexes have had ample opportunity to make up for Archie's initial obscurity (which was their own choice and no one else's). They haven't taken it. Thanks to the behaviour and actions of the respective parents, the Cambridge children already have a huge reservoir of public affection to draw on. Archie has derision, irritation, suspicion or boredom and indifference. That child who looks so sad and isolated, the prisoner of a tacky celebrity life, hasn't done a thing himself. His parents' stupidity, vanity and arrogance have stacked life's cards against him and only his own efforts in later life can rescue him.
Some say it was because Archie isn't sufficiently marketable in himself (I hate to put it like this for a defenceless child but that is the reality). This time will be different. Why should it be? The M we see now is a product of plastic surgery. Neither M nor H would have won beautiful baby competitions. The only way M could be sure this new baby will be a goldmine she seems to be expecting is if she has genetically ensured that it will be in some way.
The Sussexes are intent on playing this horrible popularity contest. The Cambridges are forced into playing despite their own best efforts and I have just had to play it to make a valid point. Comparing children as marketable commodities. This contest will be continued by mass media into the next generation. The strategy Catherine has followed is a clear winner. She invites the public to share in key milestones and provides beautiful photographs to mark those milestones, giving her children blessed privacy and space the rest of the time. Thanks to President Kennedy (not Mrs Kennedy), the public were given a legacy of wonderful photographs of little JFK Jr that are still valued. My 17-year-old niece spied the cover of a beautiful coffee table book of mine, of Mark Shaw's photographs of the JFK family in the White House and Cape Cod, and grabbed it exclaiming 'Oh I love these photographs!' Those photographs retain their power. The Sussex children will have none of that.
There are of course two halves to the explanation why M is failing with the first child and will continue to fail with the second. First is her model of celebrity. Overwhelming secrecy and control. She fails to see why 'A' listers are 'A' listers. She has all the accoutrements of major celebrity, thanks to her hijacking of a prince, but they encase a hollow shell. Everyone can see that apart from her and her deluded apology of a husband.
The other half is M's ravening jealousy of Catherine. She will continue to do all in power to do the opposite of her sister-in-law and therefore she will continue to fail. Catherine is inclusion. M is exclusion. People don't like to feel excluded unless they are the next generation of Harkle hustlers, who daydream about being able to do the same one day.
Thank you for the letter to Welby, it says what is needed. Let's hope he acts on it 🙏.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9646493/CRAIG-BROWN-Meghan-truth-path-victory-President-Markle.html
"Books written by Meghan Markle include her early works for children, The Bench (2021) and The Drench (2022) along with ventures into the fruitier field of adult fiction, The French (2023), The Clench (2024) and The Wench (2025), as well as an unsuccessful foray into cookery books, The Stench (2025)."
They were black and white often which is more interesting than all color as we all have become quite used to color (so they stand out).
They don't feel/look forced. They are active/not passive. The kids were often playing. People were doing things and not a sense of posed/staged for the camera (or social media). You had a sense of feeling a part of activity instead of looking at it and thinking "How arty. What feeling am I supposed to feel from seeing this?".
The other thing is that they appeared frequently enough that it wasn't over saturating the market of interest but just enough to keep the interest (because, well, they were interesting people who were doing interesting activities and yet sometimes quite normal things we did in our live > with their life while we were able to follow along with it in pictures).
Prince Harry Is Contradicting Himself
An examination of interviews that Harry has given over the years shows inconsistencies and omissions in the story he is now telling the world.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/prince-harry-contradictions
BuzzFeed is mainstream news in the U.S. with readers that skew younger and woke. The fact that Ellie Hall has shifted from a sugary stance to skeptic is interesting. I noticed a lot of bots in the comments. There were some good reasonable comments too. My fav: criticism is not persecution.
My gf told me I was a chauvinist and I had to look up the word in my dictionary but I do not think I am at all pro-French. Funny chaps women.
Those are great points! I've long thought that the one thing that would have really redeemed Meghan after Megxit was a narrative that she was a loving mother to Archie. And perhaps that's what she was going for with that "hanging baby" hiking photo, the loaded diaper Duck, Rabbit reading, and the paint-by-numbers Christmas card with the playhouse. How she flubbed all of those as badly as she did is still a wonder to me. Either Archie doesn't exist or she is hiding him because she loves her image more than she loves him.
It's possible to be thought of as a good parent even when you're really intense about privacy. Andy Samberg is so private about his daughter that the public doesn't even know her name. When someone was able to take a photo of them and put it on the Internet, Samberg's own fans, whom you'd think would be the most curious, demanded that it be taken down. The general perception is that he is a loving, protective father.
Yes, I know that he's not a royal. And that he actually has the talent necessary to make it Hollywood, among other differences with Meghan. But he is able to balance privacy and perception thanks to a bedrock of goodwill that he spent years laying down. Had Meghan not been a Bridezilla, had she not goaded her father into revealing what a poor writer she is, had she not worn that coat to Princess Eugenie's wedding, had she conducted herself with class and dignity at every tour and engagement . . . then everything she hoped to sell us later would at least be halfway believable!
What Prince William and Catherine are doing with their children now may not be as "private" as they themselves would like, but it will return in dividends of goodwill for decades to come.
I think there is a simple reason why M flubbed all that so badly. There is a void inside where a human being should be. She can only act love and because she is a bad actress, she acts 'love' badly. I find her a profoundly disturbing figure for that reason. Frightening. I felt that way when I saw her meeting children as a working royal and when I saw her meeting the elderly. There was nothing there. There was only a spark when they were people who fitted her strategy and her narrative, such as the Grenfell cook book or Smart Works.
Do you know, I've just had to search for the name of Smart Works as I had totally forgotten it. All I could think of for a Google search was 'Meghan Markle working clothes' and that sounded highly dubious!
I was very aware when she was still a working royal that she only wanted to represent particular people and interests but the whole essence and meaning of our royal family is that they work for the whole country. It all falls apart if they don't. Yes they can have specialisms, like Princess Anne for Save the Children and Catherine's early years child development, but there must never be a feeling of exclusion. There it is again. That word I used in my previous post. Exclusion. M didn't just exclude people in her independent PR activities relating to her family as a royal. She excluded people and organisations in her work as a royal. You could see it and feel it. It was getting to be a real concern of mine. One of the many reasons why I was so relieved to see her leave our shores.
The actress who is currently playing Anne Boleyn on Channel 5, Jodie Turner-Smith, lambasted the royal family this week for not embracing and protecting M. Firstly, they did embrace her, giving her privileges at a speed denied to Catherine or indeed anyone else marrying into the royal family. They embraced her blindly, out of love and empathy for Harry and what he wanted, and look what she did. What she has done. The damage. Who in their right mind embraces a viper? Secondly, they did protect her. And why did she need protection of that kind? Because she persistently and wilfully broke the rules, spent outrageously and offended people far and wide. If you were in a race to become the most hated public figure in the country, you couldn't do better than she did. Now we're watching her do it all again but this time in America. It will take longer but it will end in the same way.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-make-20727450
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle reportedly "want to be at" the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
Buckingham Palace has announced further details of the plans to mark the monarch's milestone during a special four-day Bank Holiday weekend from Thursday June 2 to Sunday June 5 2022.
On February 6 2022, the Queen will have reigned as monarch for 70 years - the first time a British sovereign will have been on the throne for seven decades.
An insider told The Sun : “Harry wants to be there. It is already causing a headache and is going to be very awkward.
FAMILY FEUD Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘want to be at Queen’s Platinum Jubilee’ in ‘fresh headache’ for royals after Oprah rift
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15140773/prince-harry-meghan-markle-queen-platinum-jubilee/
PRINCE Harry and Meghan Markle want to be at the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in what would create a “fresh headache” for the Royal Family following the couple's controversial interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Hopefully they will have imploded long before then. We already know H would be booed if he came to Diana's statue ceremony (not at the actual ceremony itself I trust). I can't imagine how much they would be booed by the time of the Platinum Jubilee. Anyway M is fundamentally a coward. She'll be scheduling another baby as we speak and this will give her plenty of time to arrange it. She'll then sit back and enjoy all the chaos and rows about whether they'll attend. Her favourite game. Will they? Won't they?
The only way they would be safe from open public hostility would be if they were glued to the side of H's grandmother at all times. A woman in her nineties. Pathetic.
Thanks for the information on Buzzfeed. I hadn't got as far as the comment section at the time of posting here, so I went back to have a read. Some of the excuses made for H's *inconsistencies* are simply mind blowing. How dumb can some people be!
I also liked the criticism is not persecution comment. It was one from only a few people that actually agreed with the article. Far too many sugars on there for my liking!
BUT... it's a start! :)
Harry and Meghan forced to respond as US finally cottons onto Duke's inconsistencies
https://newsnationusa.com/news/world/uk/harry-and-meghan-forced-to-respond-as-us-finally-cottons-onto-dukes-inconsistencies/
The article just follows the same as Buzzfeed really, but the more headlines like this we see the better.
Daily Express has same headline:
Harry and Meghan forced to respond as US finally cottons onto Duke’s ‘inconsistencies'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1444869/prince-harry-meghan-markle-buzzfeed-inconsistencies-mental-health-oprah-winfrey-spt
An older story from mid-May in the Daily Mirror:
'Prince Harry's contradictions are coming thick and fast - does he know family can hear him?' [Nice one!]
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harrys-contradictions-thick-fast-24131634
Every time this comes up, Oprah is in the frame. Tap, tap, tap goes the chisel, damaging her brand.
June 3 is the day Wallis married Edward in 1937.
At least the Windsors didn’t attempt to take a wrecking ball to the monarchy and spend their lives whining to anyone who would listen.
Has anyone else had this?
Comment about supporting Jodie Turner-Smith (the Anne Boleyn actress) and that the BRF should have done a better job of "protecting" her.
No. She sounds like she had the intelligence of a parsnip....
BTW:
Nutties may recall that I once describe my narc ex-husband as `the human equivalent of a tapeworm’. I am pleased to report I have now decided what sort of deeply unpleasant parasitic creatures the Harkles are the human equivalent of.
They are a couple of hagfishes, sometimes called `slime eels’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
These are jawless craniates/vertebrates, thought not to be primitive agnathans but animals which have degenerated into scavengers and parasites. They are totally repugnant and are known to enter vulnerable prey through the mouth and eat away at them from the inside, leaving just the skin when they’ve finished.
Remind you of anyone?
#6 and TW - I doubt Archie is real, he is definitely a Reborn Darren doll(s) or a paid actor, for those times they need to be seen with a live child. I think their charade is probably the reason they were asked to leave their roles as Senior Royals. TW announced her "pregnancy" days before their Pacific Tour. I feel the family closed ranks while they were gone and made some major changes during their absence. This is why she became so distraught during her third trimester and became a major control freak about Archive's birth details. It is all so bizarre.
That could work as an explanation. Because they may have made some changes, she may have been running into details about how this would get pulled off she hadn't anticipated or that were just not completely nailed down the crossed T.
ALL HARRY'S TITLES will be suspended; he & Meghan no real comparison with the Windsors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_X02WZr4Ww
I think there is a simple reason why M flubbed all that so badly. There is a void inside where a human being should be
So true! I know this -- and indeed, have known it for some time. The last time I recall discussing it here, the topic was Harry's wife's odd habit of laughing at seemingly nothing, when no one else in the group was. Our consensus was that she didn't understand true happiness, so she had to ape it. And ended up aping it very badly. So I know it . . . and yet the void inside narcissists still blows me away every time I see new evidence of it.
You express my feelings exactly here. There are some photos of M I find too scary to look at. I can't look at her eyes. As if she would steal your soul if you looked for too long. I find it scarier than any horror film because from a distance she looks like a normal person. It reminds me of a nightmare Agatha Christie had as a child:
My own particular nightmare centred round someone I called ‘The Gunman’. I called him The Gunman because he carried a gun, not because I was frightened of his shooting me [...]. It was his mere presence that was frightening. The dream would be quite ordinary–a tea-party, or a walk with various people. Then suddenly a feeling of uneasiness would come. There was someone – someone who ought not to be there – a horrid feeling of fear: and then I would see him – sitting at the tea-table, walking along the beach, joining in the game. His pale blue eyes would meet mine, and I would wake up shrieking: ‘The Gunman, the Gunman!’ [...]. Later the dream varied. The Gunman was not always in costume. Sometimes, as we sat round a tea-table, I would look across at a friend, or a member of the family, and I would suddenly realise that it was not Dorothy or Phyllis or Monty, or my mother or whoever it might be. The pale blue eyes in the familiar face met mine – under the familiar appearance. It was really the Gunman.
P.S. I don't care for Agatha Christie's writing but her autobiography is superb. I've read hundreds of biographies and cannot think of a better one. Highly recommended.
(about Jodie Turner-Smith): She sounds like she had the intelligence of a parsnip....
---------
I saw the article yesterday. The only reason she defends her 'sister' is because she's black and M is bi-racial. She doesn't know M, has never met her.
It defied analysis - it's as if she can see me, was my first thought. Is she trying to control me? Is she mad - or am I? Being given a look like that gave me a chilling insight how some people believe the TV is watching them.
I'll see if I can find it on You Tube.
Happy Wedding Anniversary to the late Duke and Duchess of Windsor......married on June 3, 1937. 🎩💍🥀
.
They will have imploded by then, or be close to it. Why would they risk being booed everywhere they go?
@Fifi, the RF comes out looking good and inclusive by saying "Sure they're invited!", while knowing the duo wouldn't dare show up to anything.
MEGY'S EXTRAORDINARY PLAYBOOK
The strangely familiar tale of Wallis and the Duke....things that may make you go "hmm"....items from wiki, cross-referenced.
• An only child, Bessie Wallis.....
• ....was called Bessie Wallis until at some time during her youth the name Bessie was dropped
• between 1912 and 1914 her uncle paid for her to attend Oldfields School, the most expensive girls' school in Maryland.....
• fellow pupil at one of Wallis's schools recalled, "She was bright, brighter than all of us. She made up her mind to go to the head of the class, and she did....
• ...later biographer wrote of her, "Though Wallis's jaw was too heavy for her to be counted beautiful, her fine violet-blue eyes and petite figure, quick wits, vitality, and capacity for total concentration on her interlocutor ensured that she.....
• .....Wallis remained behind, continuing an affair with an Argentine diplomat....
• ...toured China, and while in Beijing stayed with Katherine and Herman Rogers, who were to remain her long-term friends....
• ...existence of an official "China dossier" (detailing the supposed sexual and criminal exploits of Wallis in China) is denied by...
• .....Wallis met Count Galeazzo Ciano, later Mussolini's son-in-law and Foreign Minister, had an affair with him, and became pregnant, leading to a botched abortion that left her infertile...
• ...By September 1925, she and her husband were back in the United States, though living apart.[32] Their divorce was finalised on...
• ...Ernest was beginning to encounter financial difficulties, as the Simpsons were living beyond their means, and they had to fire a succession of staff....
• ...Prince distanced himself from a former lover and confidante...
• ...By the end of 1934, Edward was irretrievably besotted with Wallis, finding her domineering manner and abrasive irreverence toward his position appealing; in the words of his official biographer, he became "slavishly dependent" on her....
• ....before her divorce from her second husband, Wallis reportedly said, "Soon I shall be Queen of England"
• Edward showered Wallis with money and jewels
• ....again later in the year, he holidayed with her in...
• ...courtiers became increasingly alarmed as the affair began to interfere with his official duties
• Wallis was also having an affair with Guy Marcus Trundle, who was "said to be employed by.....
• The King's desire to marry a woman who had two living ex-husbands...
• British media remained deferential to the monarchy, and no stories of the affair were reported in the domestic press, but foreign media widely reported their...
• She was perceived by many in the British Empire as a woman of "limitless ambition....
• ....Wallis and Edward married one month later on 3 June 1937 at the Château de Candé, lent to them by French millionaire Charles Bedaux.[75] The date would have been King George V's 72nd birthday; Queen Mary thought the wedding had been scheduled for then as a deliberate slight......
• ....her ghost-written memoirs.
• ....with close friends Herman and Katherine Rogers....her confession that Herman Rogers was actually the love of her life
_______
+ THE PARTS THAT HAVEN'T WORKED OUT:
• Wallis was always immaculately dressed and pushed herself hard to do well
FINALLY....if you read all this put together (as we knew lots of this but in a list, it is a head smack, at least for me) and didn't get shivers or think "yikes!!!!!!!!", I want some of your lovely composure! Now, where's my cross and garlic?
.
Happy anniversary to your dear distant cousin! Hope you enjoy the shivery list above!!!
Agree with you -- invitations for the public charm; but I think they know H&M won't show up. She'll never set foot in the UK again and risk the tomatoes and eggs being tossed her way. And my understanding is he won't dare attend without her, knows he is not allowed to attend with her, and now feels the compelling force and intent of the royal iceberg all the way in California.
ConstantGardener33,
One more goody for my Wallis list in the Megy's Playbook above:
• Wallis spent over a year in China, during which time—according to the socialite Madame Wellington Koo—she only managed to master one Chinese phrase: "Boy, pass me the champagne"
.
Oh great thought - the surrogates and the two kids could be there. Now that would be a show.
ConstantGardener - I fear at this point since she wont get a pay out on a divorce she wants widowhood. the jackie O veil and center of attention at a very public funeral of a prince. Stage moms will charge extra for Archie and Doriana to be present in london. Elton john has already been booked for the service.
HENRIETTA IS TODAY’S MVP (!!!) wooooo!!! Thank you for typing that up. JennS should add it to her blog collection, let’s remind her when she’s back.
So if the "truth" about Archie's origins come out, Meghan will say “The BRF made me do it so the kid would be white and THEN took his title away too!”
Opus, thanks for keeping it real. We need one or two people around here without a front hole. Very insightful – men compete with each other, not women.
AnT said “If I told you that your village will be attacked in under ten minutes by horsemen, tanks and Orcs, and I was unsure of the percentage of each, would it matter? You would need to get moving.”
So funny – you really crack me up. Love that.
As for the annual Mudslide Manor tax of $288k, wow – it never ceases to confuse/amaze/anger me how much additional money one must pay even after “buying” and owning a property. I see the same for apartments in NYC – you can buy one for millions but you still end up paying thousands a month anyway? Whole thing chaps my hide so I keep my millions, ladies, that’s what I do.
I suspect that’s how lottery winners and insta-rich people (singers/actors) end up losing their money too quickly, poor long-term planning.
Lucy & Pantsface – thanks for the EMIS reply, that makes sense. While it is true the information and access to it is confidential, the utter lack of entries supporting the Harkle story is telling. Someone can access it and tell their friend who can then know this to be true but never post such a primary claim and therefor not be legally liable but still know it to be true.
Swampwoman is right about hackability but it’s far more likely a number of healthcare people have possibly taken a good look for themselves by now. Certainly WE are not the only ones into this story, right?
Where’s the baby indeed? It’s June. I don’t believe Archie exists and can’t wait for them to explain his continued absence once they have real baby Flower to showcase - this is why I still predict a tragic death in Archie's future.
And this later Charlene stuff (and speculation) shows just how to make a big splash. Mrs Harry could never keep up with that ;-)
Baby watch - are we having a pool on when? and how will it be announced?
JE1983, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
The woke book-burners are now just making up history. Boleyn was now bl.ack and battling 'patriarchy'. Also have to get in a kiss between Boleyn and Seymour to show their rainbow flag credentials in an era where that was not ok. Next week's episode, expect Henry to have a gender-identity crisis before divorcing Rome for not allowing him to have a g.ay marriage to tra.ns man Anne of Cleeves. Please leave history alone you lefty brainwashers!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9642369/Anne-Boleyn-viewers-left-unimpressed-bored-episode.html#comments
_____________________
From the DM article-->>>
Anne Boleyn viewers were left 'unimpressed' and 'bored' on Tuesday night as they pointed out 'historical inaccuracies' during the first episode.
The new Channel 5 three-part drama re-imagines the final months of the doomed queen, played by Jodie Turner-Smith, 34, as she struggles to secure a future for her daughter and to challenge the powerful patriarchy closing in around her.
The first episode saw Anne share a tender onscreen kiss with love rival Jane Seymour, played by Lola Petticrew, while it also featured several racy sex scenes between Anne and Henry VIII, played by Mark Stanley.
Yet despite viewers praising Jodie for her 'brilliant' portrayal, show watchers were left 'unimpressed' by the 'historical inaccuracies' in the script during the first instalment and claimed they were 'expecting more' from the show.
One person said: 'Just watched the new #anneboleyn programme and i'm really not sure yet.
'There are certain parts I love but certain parts that seem quite out of character. I'll reserve judgement until i've seen it in its entirety but for now..i'm unsure.'
A different account put: 'Really wanted to like this as I'm an avid Tudor era fan.....but after 30 mins I'd had enough. Henry too feeble, the court felt very flat & boring and no depth to the characters. #disappointed #AnneBoleyn.'
@Swampwoman - i totally forgot about hackers, yes I guess it's possible/likely, I tend to judge tings on what I would do and that's a huge mistake :) However, if all this information is correct, why is no one calling it out, either the press or dodgy people who could blackmail - or are they ?????
Often, the details about the hacking are covered up by the institutions that were hacked. Sometimes they decide that losing the public's trust may be more expensive than admitting hacking. Some of the attacks can't be covered up, though. Did you read about the world's largest meat processing company that was hit by a cyber attack?
I expect that people have friends and relatives working at the hospitals that talk to each other even though it is not supposed to be done. (Yeah, salaries are not supposed to be discussed either, but everybody knows, along with who is knocking boots in the linen closet and who is having drug and alcohol problems.) Say somebody that works OBGYN at one hospital knows that the child wasn't born there and asks his or her friend working the OBGYN at another hospital that supposedly may have been used and friend says "No, I was working that shift and it didn't happen. The people on the other shifts said that it didn't happen during their shift, either!" I don't think records would necessarily have been accessed since the people working the hospitals would know that it didn't occur on the date and time specified, but the electronic records could be blamed to cover the actual leaker(s).
However, if anything is in electronic records, it is not secret.
She enjoys making people feel uncomfortable and uses that discomfort to control them. Her intense staring into cameras makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up and triggers my fight or flight response, much like coming face to face with an apex predator.
We have all known someone like her, at least peripherally. Your subconscious inner voice sets off warning alarms and flashing lights. Poor Harry couldn't believe his luck when he met her and admitted it. He clearly has no inner self to warn him that wearing a Nazi uniform or hooking up with a succubus is not safe.
She has zero parenting instincts and has no idea how to even act like one. The awkward baby holding skills, along with the cheap onesie over a soaked diaper footage provide the evidence.
It's the train wreck phenomena - we can't stop watching this mess and trying to make sense of it.
Say somebody that works OBGYN at one hospital knows that the child wasn't born there and asks his or her friend working the OBGYN at another hospital that supposedly may have been used and friend says "No, I was working that shift and it didn't happen."
This is one of the reasons I found BookWorm credible when I first found her 'shares' on Yankee Wally's site. She seemed to be very careful about only drawing the same conclusions that her sources had.
The letter could have been better written, but I'm guessing all the "it is my opinion" sentences were because an attorney advised her to couch it that way and she didn't have the money to get an attorney to look over her final draft.
The letter also made me wonder about Markus Anderson again. If we're all speculating that MM is getting ready to dump Harry after Diana is born, then it's entirely possible that MM's creditors (i.e., her blackmailers) are thinking the same thing. They might very well be making their own plans for later this year, especially if MM has been telling them, "Wait until I get back to work. I know I have something Netflix will love."
There is no doubt in my mind that her creditors just are not going to let her or Harry get away from them until Prince Charles pays them enough to settle. His pockets are probably the only ones deep enough to pay her debts, and that might be what this is all about. "Settle the debts or we'll really make a scandal."
She should be more cautious with that. She doesn't know how dangerous the people that she is trying to dominate may be or what they may be capable of.
My husband's estranged brother has similar issues, so I empathize with anyone who has to deal with someone like this. It is exhausting. Trying to predict responses and wanting to believe in their "good" side is futile.
Oh my goodness — great call! I totally forgot about the Megs appearance as the unwanted plus-one at Harry’s friends’ wedding, with her Claw and the Bore-hole eyes! You’re right, that’s like that Duchess of Windsor’s awful “...champagne, boy!” requests during her Chinese sojourn (which I equate to MM’s time in Canada glomming onto the Mulroneys). Isn’t it bizarre? There were so many similarities.....I looked it up for fun, after reading something else, and was gobsmacked.
——✨✨✨✨✨—--
@Henrietta,
I agree with you about bookworm; I had the sense she (or he) was carefully recounting something she was made privy to, and not trying to embellish or overstep her intel. And may I add my thanks to the others for posting the letter here.
——✨✨✨✨✨——
@Puds,
Hi! Always glad to see you turn up when I am checking this blog.....so speaking of funds and Harry’s inheritance....every so often I read that Anne is in charge of his funds and moved the Cash-out date a few times to keep his hands off it (assuming due to his behavior issues). Do you recall reading that too, ever? If it is accurate, Megs may be waiting a long time for payout. She might be able to last because I think I can see her having a secret affair or continuing her hunt for status to kill time as she waits for the cash. As many have said, I can imagine her hoping for a widowhood fame payday instead.
While I can imagine the use of false names in a hospital check-in record to obscure a royal birth, especially as a game played by the immature, tricky little Harkles, how does that explain why no paparazzi managed to note any movements or cars? The assumption she stated elsewhere would have also resulted in location tip-offs for hungry paps, so..... I still think the birth never happened unless it happened in Hoboken, NJ, was delivered to Misha’s NYC townhouse during the days right before the $500k baby shower, since MM was staying there with MA before everyone moved to the hotel suite rented by Serena for the party.
TheresaLongo Fans Twitter said the intel is baby #2 would be “born” around the end of June/start of July. I think M is getting more cosmetic surgery, and deciding which child she wants to “off” via press to teach the royals a lesson while securing her next Oprah cry fest. It is my opinion she, MM, is that cuckoo and that hungry for press.
.
I think Camilla had MM’s number from the start, and shared those strong feels via humor with Catherine to help take the edge off.
Wasn’t the story that MM was bitching about having to be there (at the garden party) whilst grabbing gifts meant for Charles, and he heard one of her negative (perhaps substance-provoked) comments to a guest and decided she and her appalling manners had to go. To me, her laughter as bees stung her new husband was enough to send her packing.
I think after the wedding antics and wedding party antics, Charles knew he had a big psychological problem in a dress to deal with. And he didn’t want it to snap open and ruin his garden party,
Agreed....just because she has been successful at bullying and terrifying schoolgirls, set crew, palace staff, marketing wonks, Harry and similar, doesn’t mean that someone who won’t give a great good F isn’t out there ready to laugh in her face, bark at her, stare her down or out-predator her.
I truly think she is just nasty little coward who throws down while hiding behind the curtains, via puppets, press, anonymous “friends”. It’s all we see. She ran out of the UK as fast as her stick insect legs would go, leaving Harry to face it all alone. She has to maintain control and only work through users like Oprah. Because deep inside her husk if evil, I think like most bullies, she is scarred. She knows people are laughing and Hollywood doesn’t care, and there a few young tough Democrat women in office who will kick her square ass off their turf.
My feeling is she is scared of Sophie Wessex, Anne, and even Zara in addition to William and Catherine. But somehow I think she fears Camilla most of all.
Just me.
“never touch the capital” is the one rich person saving-spending iron-clad maxim I know! I actually had a super rich employer say that to me, too. I was 22....”Ehrm, what capital, sir?” Lol. I can imagine Harry heard it, but hasn’t worked out exactly what you have to do to not touch the capital..... “don’t touch grindy greedy broke ho’s either, son!”
Agree with Fifi—- “Harkle years” is so damn good, I want someone to use it here in a sentence at least once a day, please!
.
yeeks!
She wants to be Diana 2.0
But she is Wallis 2.0
Something we all knew, but that list proves positively
And yes! That evil stare triggers a fight/ flight response.
That look told me something was very very wrong with M
Somebody posted here a while back that the non-event came to light during social meetings of nurses who had trained together?
Some worked at the Portland, others at St Mary's and between them they let it be known that no such birth took place at either hospital (no midwives on duty at the time,) on that date either, though of course the aristocratic obs/gyn credited with the delivery isn't a midwife!
The H$Ms did admit they'd fudged some detail, was it the time of day?
Don't forget that weird comment of the happy father, made at the stables, about babies changing so much over 2 weeks, when the child was allegedly only a few days old. Was there a real baby, albeit one `delivered' in the other sense a fortnight earlier?
We notice how much the child `changes' over a few months - did she send the first one back back because she didn't think it was attractive enough and H didn't notice that it was a different baby?
harry in the mean time will have to get a weekend job to pay for all these “kids”. for his sake i hope mcdonald’s is still hiring.
@Snarky:
The big question is Does Harry have the intelligence to work at McDonald’s? He might have to take remedial burger flipping classes from Meghan.
Friday night Singalong 🎤
Apologies to Stockard Channing
Grease’D’
Look at me I’m Megsie ‘D’
Lacking in integrity
Won’t go away
Till all of you pay
Beware, I’m Megsie ‘D’
I latched onto Red
Turning tricks in his bed
I lie without care
As I feather my lair
I’m plain ho Megsie ‘D’
To answer your earlier question about birth/medical records:
It sounds to me that that information would have come from the Registrar General, responsible for Birth Marriage and Death Registration. These are public records which may be searched for legal or genealogical reasons. These aren't medical records within the sense of being covered by patient confidentiality, although a Death Certificate will show the cause of death as ascertained by a doctor.
As I've said before, when I applied for Letters of Administration for the estate of my intestate cousin, a complete family tree had to be submitted to the Court, showing how those who believed they were entitled to inherit were related to the deceased. It also meant discovering about my cousin's relatives on her father's side - if her father had more than just one sister, and if she/they had married and produced legitimate children. It all had to be done through public records - cousin had destroyed her copies of all relevant papers - and this information had to be verified independently before the application went before the Court. I'd had my fill of copy certificates (BM&D) by the time it was over, each of which bore the authenticating stamp which was strangely absent from Archie's BC .
On the face of it, there should be a record of the `birth certificate(s)' we were shown. I think they could be `adoption birth certificates' (ones which serve to keep the information from the adoptee until they reach 18yrs old when the true certificate may be unsealed.)
That is assuming there's no out and out fakery.
@Snarky@Ant
Markling Time
Living their life in dog years
Added speed in confirming our fears
Since her hoof hit the door
Got the ring on her claw
Markle time appears more
In Harkle years