I've often asked myself why I first got interested in Sussex watching.
I think it was because it was so obvious to me that Meghan was a fraud and a fake, and I couldn't figure out why it wasn't obvious to everybody.
In particular, why did both the celebrity media and the legitimate press so loudly adore Meghan? Why did they applaud her shabby wedding with its ill-fitting gown and tumbledown cake? Why didn't they notice her changing bump sizes in their own photos?
Over time, the celebrity media's reason for cooperation became understandable - they were being either pressured or paid by Sunshine Sachs, although it's still not clear to me who is funding Sunshine Sachs or why. And the legit press wanted to avoid being too harsh on the "first Black princess."
Since the release of the "Lilibet Diana" name, however, things seem to be changing.
Left-wing outlet loses patience
"Meghan and Harry's baby name Lilibet, Queen Elizabeth's nickname, is at best tone deaf" wrote NBCNews' THINK feature section on Monday after the name was released.
THINK is proudly left-wing: one of its previous articles was titled "Meghan and Harry experienced discriminatory gaslighting. Here's how you can tell."
But even its editors seem to have lost patience with Meghan.
Palace speaks out
Today's scuffle with the BBC and Palace sources on one side and the Sussexes on the other is another sign of changing times.
The BBC, citing palace sources, says the Queen was not consulted about the use of her childhood nickname "Lilibet"; the Sussexes and their expensive lawyers Schillings (and who is paying for them?) insist that she was.
Given the Sussexes' record, most people seem inclined to believe the BBC, the Martin Bashir story aside.
Does Baby Lilibet even exist?
As many readers of this blog have pointed out, there's not any evidence at this point that baby "Lilibet" even exists.
No photos have been released; neither has a birth certificate. A California hospital has been named as tje site of the birth, but they cannot speak out because of medical privacy laws. (There's also a good chance it has some ties to Sunshine Sachs.)
@Torontopaper1, which has had some previous "scoops" about the Sussexes, suggests that this is a case of a surrogate baby who has not yet been born. A
Tumblr blogger has posted images that suggest that photos of Meghan's various "bumps" in two different sizes were actually taken on the same day.
How tempting it must be at Kensington Palace or even Clarence House to release some information (or give the media the green light to release it) that would expose the Sussexes for who they really are.
Comments
If the baby hasn't been born yet, then there's something to what the anonymous commenter from the end of the last thread pointed out. Harry and his wife forced the date in order to overshadow the Jubilee celebrations next year. (I really can't imagine spending so much energy toward the goal of annoying people who just want to be left alone!)
But this just makes me more frustrated with the BRF for going along with the lie. It seems as if Harry was right about one thing. What his wife wants, his wife gets. At least in the arena of revenge.
GREAT topic; thank you for opening this new post.
I too felt like this, and this is why I got pulled in (after formerly thinking MM was a nice person and how nice Harry was in love -- oh my stupidity until the wedding week when I saw snips of the engagement interview): it was so obvious to me that Meghan was a fraud and a fake, and I couldn't figure out why it wasn't obvious to everybody
Everything you say -- HOW can people not see it? HOW! This is why I have landed on:
• serious backers with serious intent to harm something (the RF, the Monarchy, free speech, free thought); or,
• there are that many naricissists and innocents in the world who look at her & either see themselves or a tacky romance novel
* everyone in the Palace is now just a hologram operated by Jason on his computer, and H&M know it? (kidding)
Either the backers have gone cold, or backer needs shifted, or the media is up for new sport, or the Harkles have angered their masters by overstepping, because something is changing in the air. And may I say again, I have an eerie feeling about this "new baby" as being
a massive, emotionally abusive scam of some sort. I can't shake the feeling. it may be stupid, but my gut is on alert for further ugly shenanigans to come. I am mostly worried about the Queen. She doesn't need the stress of wrestling with "tradition" and "head in sand" and "the Orcs are on the wall" right now, but that seems to be where she is. The Harkles are evil and William or Charles need to take action. The world is really watching now, not just us. I have mentioned my connected contact a few times. I haven't spoken with him about Lilibet etc., but his prior consistent intel over the past year+ has been the RF have files, and MM is sliding off the cliff edge.
And....Love this point made at the end of last thread by @Hikari.....so bringing it here for discussion too, if that's okay:
Which is why it would be helpful, from a diplomatic standpoint, if HM could shed clarity upon Harry's current actual status as a Royal family member. Does he still merit diplomatic status?
THIS! Absolutely agree with what you wrote: the Palace "we were not asked about the name" was a brilliant move. It rings a bell that can't be unrung and the duo's brand partners all heard it: "They're not as royal as they say they are"
I can imagine deals being quietly pulled off the table for the duo. They are loose cannons, they behave in an unstable way....the RF are stepping away from them. Who will follow, or simply pay them off to go away, and never do anything with them?
My guess is that William would like to be more bold, but is being held back by his dithering father.
Interesting ideas about backers whose goals may have changed. When Meg came on the scene, Trump was in office, but that's no longer true. A backer with ties to the Democratic party might be getting what he wants now without having to deal with crazy Meghan.
Thanks for the new post, Nutty.
I'm with you entirely--how did it ever get this far??
At the start, the engagement, I figured that she was going to be unsuitable as a Royal wife, and that she'd get bored soon enough and divorce him, and go back to Hollywood. We didn't know at that point the depth of the surgery/whitewashing that had been done on her shady past, and we, at least I, accepted that she was a moderately successful TV actress with an interest in activism, articulate, media-savvy, and that she'd make a go of it for several years at least. I pictured a couple of kids, I suppose. The potential pitfalls were there for such a divergent couple, but we had no clue of Meg's sociopathy then . .or to be honest . . Harry's. They really and truly have brought out the very worst in each other. The wheels were already coming off the rickety bus only 5 months after their splashy wedding--the debut of Moonbump--and things have been deteriorating since. The wheels were never screwed on tight to begin with and I think this entire 'relationship' from soup to nuts has been for show.
I really thought, 2 years ago this July, when Markle dressed in a bivouac tent and dragged a plastic doll around the polo ground all the while staring down the cameras like Travis Bickle in 'Taxi Driver' that her 'Britney Shave the Head' moment had arrived--that the RF would intervene, have her sent to a restful residential facility and finally come clean about "Archie" and their level of knowledge about what was going on.
Absolutely nothing came of that. She got praised in magazines as a style icon for her 'fashionable' green tent and designer sunglasses. No mention of the abnormality of the whole infant situation. Not only did the RF not intervene and shut her down--The Queen rewarded her with a lavish tour of South Africa, during which the Harkles made Her Majesty and the whole of the UK look like right mugs, parading a hired actor baby in front of Bishop Tutu, spitting on Islamic worship traditions and local customs and merching a sleeveless top at a murdered girl's memorial.
If we are Nearing Something Big, it's far past time. Until then, like the ancient Hebrews, I can only cry "How long, O Lord'?
it was so obvious to me that Meghan was a fraud and a fake, and I couldn't figure out why it wasn't obvious to everybody.
Like @AnT, I thought that Harry's wife was a fake from the engagement interview. Some friends and I turned "Is he kind?" (said in a fake girly voice) into a running joke for a year. And it baffled us that other people saw a "whip-smart" woman with natural charms so powerful that any prince would have fallen in love with her.
I do have, however, some insight into what Harry's wife's fans see, as two of them are close friends of mine. These two had been in relationships with white men that hadn't worked out, and when they saw another interracial relationship on such a huge stage, well, it spoke to something in them. Both of them were also never "Team Catherine" in any sense. Until today, she is "Waity Katie" for them and it kind of disappoints them that someone with such a huge platform is clearly a country housewife at heart. When Harry's then-fiancée came on the scene, with glitzy career accomplishments behind her, they had another reason to feel she was "one of them."
3 weeks before the wedding, I had my big run-in with a narc and started researching.
Bingo! My new mental Narc-Warning Button came on every time I read about her, to say nothing of how she was at the wedding. The events of E's wedding (the Stare and Preggers announcement) confirmed everything I'd feared. I'd already decided to take action against narcs whenever possible - a least to warn others that such horrible people really do exist.
Still only one episode of the "Archewell Audio" Spotify podcast. The first one was released in December 2020.
$25 million deal with Spotify, huh?
It's all fake.
But perhaps now Prince Charles has finally had enough of their drama, excuses and public comments of anger directed at him, his mother plus all the other royals so the tide/pressure will shift internally against them. He didn't even rank as the first call about the baby.
Or maybe what we are seeing is the increasing pressure upon 6/6w to produce what they received money for, pay the bills and so on. This is the throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick in hopes everything they have lost will start flowing toward them again.
As a side note, I read somewhere that 6w was greatly relieved or happy that her mother was not there for the delivery. All I could think was that I would not have phrased it that way if it were my mother if I wanted her to help me in those first few days after the birth.
and the media image slipping. i think all the antics. never just saying something and moving on (how many stories do we have back tracking on the baby name) have really done them in. so hoisted by their own pitard
The denial of permission to use name Lilibet to BBC is greatest signifier this is indeed the beginning of their end. Those few sentences instantly squashed their Royal connection. Regardless of what happens that statement cannot be undone.
In one fell swoop the use of Lilibet lost their royal connection and connection to all those that supported the fake racism. Not only did they name their child after 2 of the most iconic white figures in history they completely snubbed Doria not only in name but any lack of mention in birth announcement. Cue popcorn!
So, Clinton is involved I believe, as would be all those involved in Epsein’s group: Obama et al.
There were many comments on the previous thread which I cheered, but can’t recall specifics unfortunately. I agree with all those (AntT, Hikari, that there never has been a child held in Smugsy’s womb. Everything continues to be smoke and mirrors with them. It is so exhausting, would that the press would do some honest journalism. But I guess those times are gone.
Can’t recall who said that the birth date was selected to highjack next year’s jubilee. Very true, and possible. HW is nothing if not a scheming, manipulating, conniving B$tch.
She’s the Queen of running a fake business. All smoke and mirrors and money sloshing around guised as ‘brand building’ and ‘pr’ and ‘attention’ and ‘ad revenue’.
There’s no product other than the storyline of Crazy Duo in Windsor, and I recently came to the conclusion she just doesn’t care about selling anything at all what so ever other than herself for attention, good/bad/whatever. She just wants her soulless existence plastered on the front of every paper and you can sell anything you want behind her facade. She will bring the attention, and never do anything illegal (except we could find her eventually convicted of fraud if she drops one of the many balls she has in the air) and keep the ‘status’ structure around her if possible (ie pandering to Harry’s narcissism at all costs and keeping their Royal titles).
This woman is a bonafide fame whore. Her picture should be in the dictionary. And that’s literally all she stands for whatsoever. Remember, there’s no one home.
In short, one part of the University administration had put out a document to condemn staff who committed `micro-aggressions' against students, such as looking at someone in `the wrong way', or raising an eyebrow at the wrong moment, or anything else that could be perceived as a slight by those of a highly sensitive disposition. To say nothing of opposing the `no-platforming' business or cancellation.
This itself provoked such a reaction that the parties concerned have had to back pedal.
____
Apologies for posting this here. I'm not sure if anyone goes back to an old thread. I rarely do. I've opted out of emails.
In reply to above post by WBBM,
This:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9665947/Stasis-despicable-torture.html
Article on East German secret police and use of Zersetzung comparing to social media.
Very interesting! I have Zero doubts Mrs. Spare is a big part of perpetuating the wokeness that is now a cancer on our societies.
Because she turned on them. No one knows what side she’s on. She went pandering back to the Royal family after calling them racist like two months ago. She’s named her child after the racist matriarch.
The left wing media is all she had left to given her good supportive positive press, so she doubled down. Then she realized the deals are tied to the $$$ and the status, and went right back to being perfectly fine with the Royals. She’s also gaslighting the RF. The press can’t keep up and are finished with her.
We saw today Harry and Meghan’s narcissistic response to the negative backlash over lilibet. They legitimately thought the world would think it’s cute and sweet and play along with the happy families narrative.
Saw this on web too
LIZZIE CUNDY CLAIMS FORMER FRIEND MEGHAN MARKLE NAMED BABY AFTER HER
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's daughter wasn't named after Queen Elizabeth, Lizzie Cundy has claimed - saying the baby is named after HER.
The red-carpet favourite, who was once friends with the Duchess, said: "Maybe that’s her way of reaching out."
Lizzie, ex-wife of former Chelsea star Jason Cundy, told OK!: "I was called Lilibet. It's short for Elizabeth. It was my nickname at school!
"Thank you Meghan. You ghosted me – and now you're calling your child after me."
She added: "I appreciate it. But yeah, my name was Lilbet at school. When I heard it on the radio, I kind of turned and said, ‘That’s my name! I haven’t been called it for years."
Regarding media not calling Meg out. In UK you could kind of understand due to loyalty and relationship to monarchy. But in US? After O show? When everyone ran with unquestioned narrative it was glaringly obvious all of this is much bigger than H&M. It is political and whether one leans left or right or left really need to take time out and give real thought to what is going on in world today. IMO mankind literally depends upon it.
@Hunter from the previous post - I loved the Kimmel clip. Really captured the s***storm M brought to the UK and has now brought to the US. Do we want to go on living like this? With things getting ever tackier and more preposterous? Hopefully Kimmel is an early sign that the tide is finally turning.
@Opus from the previous post - wokery seems to be trashing everything I care for. I have 10 years or so of working life left and, having spent several decades in university administration and having watched student power grow, with increasing dismay, I wonder how I will get through that time. It upsets me terribly. I agree with you Opus - when I was a student all I did was study, gossip with friends in the evening working our way through entire packets of chocolate digestives and go to discos occasionally (yes it was that long ago). I did go on a demo outside 10 Downing Street about student budget cuts (some things never change) and went on CND marches, but I wouldn't have dreamed how things would change. Cancel culture horrifies me. I did my History degree thesis about Anne Hutchinson, who was persecuted by the Puritans of New England. That's what cancellation culture is. Call it by it's true name. Persecution.
I still say one of my worst nightmares is waking up in 1630s New England. I feel we are on the same road. It makes me feel utterly hopeless at times, as if I don't want to be here any more (I don't just mean on Nutty). I fervently hope that the majority of people, who do NOT support all this, will finally rebel. At the moment it seems to be only the DM consistently trying to counter it, and they are the worst organisation to be seen to be doing so. We need a civilised, humane, informed, enlightened movement to stand up and be counted. For myself, I am still working from home on temporary contracts for a previous employer, but if I go to a new organisation or a new company and am put in the place of having to agree with unconscious bias training or accepting critical race theory, I have to prepare myself. Am I prepared to stand up for my principles and therefore lose my job? In my 50s. I think it could easily happen.
All this is tied up with M as she is exploiting these forces and I find her frightening enough on her own. It's as if she is unleashing the dogs of war on us all. As @Hikari said, she is so relentless. It's the relentlessness I find so dreadful. As if I can't bear it any more. If I feel like that, and we feel like that, total strangers to M, what on earth is it like for the 95-year-old Queen? Caught in the endless glare of controversy. That's just building and building and building.
Can you please get a name as Unknown generally is deleted.
These directions are from Charade to help you do this:
Instructions:
- Click on your "Unknown" name where you last posted.
- You should arrive on your profile page where you can then click the "B" icon; once clicked, you should arrive at the blogger info page
- Next click the dropdown menu to the left of the "B" icon and click on "Settings" and then click "User Profile"
- Scroll down to "Display Name" and type your name
- Hit "Save Profile" at the bottom
- Finally, you can add an image/avatar on this page if you wish
Alternative Instructions:
- Get a gmail account, preferably unique to this blog for extra security.
- Google the phrase "Google Accounts." You will land on the page where you can sign into and make updates to your account. If you don't have a gmail, you will be prompted to create one.
- Go to the Personal Info tab. In the Profile section, you can click on "Name" and change to whatever you like.
Thank you.
Try following https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo - you don't have to sign up for Twitter, you can just bookmark his page.
Chris is working to fight Critical Race Theory and has achieved a lot of victories. Might make you feel more hopeful.
“Had child” at 11:40AM on Friday.
By 3:30PM Friday they had the domains registered lilibetwindsor.com, lilibetdiana.com, lilibetdianawindsor.com, and swooped back two days ago to pick up lilibetdianamountbattenwindsor.com
I’m sure every new mother is rushing to buy domains or directing their staff from their mobile phone in a hospital bed, prior to showering off.
LOL.
Several people have said Charles is holding Will back and maybe he is. But Charles was reportedly held back after the Oprah interview. Personally, I can see none of the RF wanting to do something that will later hurt "Lili" if she actually exists.
Meghan and Harry Make Legal Threat Over Palace Briefing on the Naming of Lilibet
The Harkles are threatening to sue the UK oapers fir reportingbtye palace spyrcevsayingbthe Harkles didn’t specifically get permission from the Queen to name the baby Lilibet.
From what I’ve read, Harry supposedly told the Queen they planned to name her after the Queen, but my guess is he withheld they were going to name her Lilibet, which probably never crossed the Queen’s mind, and she likely would have had reservations about it.
I am guessing the queen thought it would be Elizabeth, Eliza, Liza, Beth or something on that order but, Lilibet was the last name she likely would have guessed. So they mislead her, which is a form of a lie of omission and manipulation.
They will use that name as a marketing tool. I believe I read they have already copyrighted it. If so, this is a new low.
IMO, their money is running out fast. I hope and pray that PC and ERII let it run out because, when it does, MM will be out the door. I think they both know that; I'm just scared they'll give in to Harry again because of his threats of releasing more dirty laundry or self-harm.
Harry really is Diana 2.0.
Martha – verrry interesting on the background of Sunshine Sachs. No offense to WBBM but this sounds far more in line with what is observably true than potential Scientology connections (too cheap to back anyone anyway).
Ava – Yess, the Kimmel bit tells me a couple things. I believe his attitude is likely to reflect a greater Hollywood opinion, given who he is friends with and the things I’m sure he hears about behind the scenes. Let’s not forget crew members in film & TV work on many different projects and have a broad network amongst themselves as well. Jimmy seems pretty affable so I’m sure he gets the good gossip.
Kimmel has been a bit snide/dismissive of Meghan before. I remember being a little surprised he wasn’t as fawning as everyone else. Maybe he knows some things we don’t know.
The Daily Beast
Meghan and Harry Make Legal Threat Over Palace Briefing on the Naming of Lilibet
BAD RELATIONS
Tom Sykes
Royalist Correspondent
Lachlan Cartwright
Senior Reporter
Updated Jun. 09, 2021 12:12PM ET
Published Jun. 09, 2021 7:47AM ET
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have insisted that they did ask for the queen’s blessing to name their child Lilibet, the monarch’s childhood nickname, after palace sources briefed British journalists that they had made the announcement without getting permission from the queen.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the former royals issued a legal threat after the claim was published by the BBC. A British newspaper source told The Daily Beast that a rare legal warning had gone out to the papers advising them not to repeat the allegation that Harry and Meghan had named their second child after Queen Elizabeth without asking her first.
The couple are now engaged in yet another full-scale briefing war with the palace in an episode that once again exposes the mistrust which seems to characterize the Sussexes dysfunctional relationship with the monarchy.
The couple were prodded into making an official intervention after BBC Radio 4’s flagship breakfast news program said Wednesday on its 6:30 a.m. bulletin that the BBC had been told Harry and Meghan “did not consult the queen about using her childhood nickname Lilibet for their baby… a Buckingham Palace source says she was never asked about it.”
The key briefing was apparently given to the BBC’s royal correspondent, Jonny Dymond.
Dymond’s report tallied with a report over the weekend in The Times that said that the queen had merely been “informed” about the choice of the name rather than having had her permission explicitly sought.
Indeed, it appears from the couple’s own statement that they only sought the queen’s blessing after the child had been born—having already decided on the name they wanted to give her.
The couple’s spokesperson said, “The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called. During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.”
Rumors about the queen’s supposed unhappiness with the name have circulated for several days along with stories that the palace was blindsided by the announcement of the birth, as it took more than an hour and a half for Buckingham Palace to issue an official statement of congratulation.
In the interval between the Sussexes publicly announcing the birth and the royals officially congratulating them, the royal family’s official Twitter account posted a series of messages about an official engagement carried out by Princess Anne, suggesting, at the minimum, a lack of co-ordination.
Omid Scobie, the journalist and writer who penned the sympathetic biography of the couple, Finding Freedom, and has become an unofficial mouthpiece for the couple, disputed the BBC’s claims in tweets Wednesday. His language, citing a source, seemed to echo the official statement received by The Telegraph, saying, “A Sussex source says that the Queen was the first family Harry called after Lilibet’s birth and during that conversation, he shared the couple’s hope of naming their daughter in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.
“Those close to Prince Harry confirm that he spoke to close family before the announcement so perhaps this report highlights just how far removed aides within the institution (who learned of the baby news alongside the rest of the world) now are from the Sussexes’ private matters.”
That may be true, but this new controversy will do little to encourage the view that the birth of the Sussexes’ second child will lead to a new era of harmonious relations between Montecito and London.
I felt like I could see some of them with their hands on their chests and the tucked chin with side-eye. I wondered if a few of them finally saw what she really is.
The whole world can see what she really is now. I also cannot imagine the delusion with which she thought this would be well-received by ANYONE.
Here’s the thing about the Sugars both on Twitter & Celebitchy – (and this fascinates me) – they are CONVINCED the Queen has a burner phone with which she takes calls from Harry (and Meghan) because they remain quite close this whole time and they believe (!!!) the Queen does not keep her aids/spokespeople informed of this.
They suspect she giddily withheld this information from her Men in Grey since Friday and that she knew and supported it all along. They believe there is an entire secret relationship between the Queen & H&M she is hiding from her advisors.
They believe this the way we take it for granted Archie doesn’t exist. It’s madness.
He says that's why they announced the birth when they did if the surrogate is still pregnant.
However, it is true the UK will have a special 4-day weekend to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee the first week of June next year, where she can throw a Kardashian-sized party for little Lili.
It isn’t just that thought...it’s the absolute non logic of naming your only daughter after your Grandmother who you’ve publicly slated for her parenting skills and whose family you now despise. Any normal balanced person just would cut all ties with said family and name their child after someone they admire etc. So it’s all odd juxtaposition and I think this is what people are now seeing. 🤔
https://www.businessinsider.com/prince-harry-beat-paparazzi-using-gdpr-law-new-royal-weapon-vs-media-2019-5
As I said in an earlier post, The Queen is nothing and nobody to Markle other than a rich and very old woman she thinks she can bully into compliance.
I doubt with every fiber of my being that anyone from the RF has had any communication with the Sussexes about their naming plans. Did H say something to Dad when he was in Windsor to the effect of "We want to name the baby after Granny?' and that's what passes for 'having received permission/told the Queen their intentions'?
The logical assumption in that case would be 'Elizabeth', right? As Harry and Smeg damn well know. Lilibet isn't so far off either Elizabeth or Lili--but if they had announced that the baby's name was either Elizabeth Diana or Lili Diana, there wouldn't be this fracas. But subtle differences meean a lot because Lilibet is proprietary to the Queen as well they both know.
Reposting a link that AnT provided on the last thread--can't find it now. Re. Mugs' choice of 11:40 am for the birth time.
Number 1140 is made up of the energies of number 1 (appearing twice, doubling its influences) and the vibrations of number 4 and number 0. Number 1 encourages self-leadership and assertiveness, initiative, taking positive action, new beginnings and taking a fresh approach. Number 1 also relates to motivation, striving forward and progress, and reminds us that we create our own realities with our thoughts, beliefs and actions. Two number 1's appearing together relate to the Master Number 11. The karmic Master Teacher number 11 relates to the principles of spiritual awakening and enlightenment, illumination, high energy, creative idealism, inspiration and intuition, self-expression and sensitivity, and mysticism. Master Number 11 tells us that to connect with our higher-selves is to know and live our Divine life purpose and soul mission. Number 4 relates to practicality and application, hard work and responsibility, traditional values, honesty and integrity, diligence and determination to successfully achieve goals. Number 4 also relates to our drive, passion and purpose in life. Number 0 magnifies and amplifies the energies and attributes of the numbers it appears with, and resonates with the Universal and ‘God force’ Energies. Number 0 stands for potential and/or choice, and is a message to do with developing one’s spiritual aspects and is considered to represent the beginning of a
spiritual journey and highlights the uncertainties that may entail. It suggests that you listen to your intuition and higher-self as this is where you will find all of your answers.
Angel Number 1140 encourages you to put your efforts and focus towards your long-term goals and aspirations. Your thoughts, feelings, emotions, actions and overall outlook are being boosting by your angels so that you can continue to manifest all that you want and need in your life. Building strong foundations from well-laid plans ensures future progress, stability and success, and your angels encourage you to work with your passion and drive.
Angel Number 1140 encourages progressive change, growth and development, and asks you to share your knowledge and wisdom with others. Begin worthwhile projects now that will bring long-term benefits and future success. If you take action with caution and wisdom you will be successful in business, money matters and life in general. What you put your efforts towards will reap long-term rewards.
Angel Number 1140 may suggest that your desired outcome and/or result will occur in the very near future. Have faith, trust and patience, and do not try to force things to happen. Allow the angels and Universal Energies to work things out for your highest good.
Angel Number 1140 is a sign from your angels that they are there to assist you with manifesting your true desires. You have worked hard and you deserve them.
What is Little Lilibet Diana but the manifesting of her true merching desires?
I haven't had a chance to read everything today but I wonder if Harry is splitting hairs and claiming to have asked the Queen when he actually informed her.
I hope they can't make a case for a lawsuit out of such a distinction.
Not only do the women on Celebitchy think this, the sugars on Twitter have the same core beliefs. I was shocked to see everyone suddenly believing and embracing this secretly chummy narrative. Their position right now is that the "Palace Source" who released the comment to the paper didn't know what he was talking about (and made the release behind the Queen's back).
Check it out. Now who could have gone through the process of registering this domain name before the child was born? Odd coincidence isn't it?
Looking at the nearly 22K DM comments on H's latest legal threat, tempers are running high. I think it was there I saw the comment about how the Sussexes were spending their leave for the baby. Something like - 'Week 1, accuse the Queen of lying and sue the BBC. Only 19 more weeks to go.'
I wonder if the BRF ringfence an increasingly large sum each year for expected legal costs? Anyone who gets into the Sussex orbit certainly needs the best on retainer.
Must be tremendously stressful for those running the royal households. Coping with the Sussexes and famously explosive royal tempers at the same time. Apart from the Queen herself of course. I expect she can wither someone with just a look. Speaking of which, is H's tea with the Queen still on I wonder?
RICHARD KAY: Only Harry and Meghan could call in lawyers over a baby's name
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9669927/RICHARD-KAY-Harry-Meghan-call-lawyers-babys-name.html
Is there nothing Harry and Meghan do that doesn't involve a row? How desperately sad that even something so uplifting as the birth of their new baby is accompanied by thundering controversy.
My thoughts exactly and that's what thousands are writing online. Who on earth will want to go to them for mental health support? What does BetterUp make of all this? Hardly the harmonious paternity leave they thought they were supporting.
🦶
Ava C - seeing as they are taking 20 weeks off I am thinking that he is no longer working for ButterUp? (although he is still on the website)
Cant wait see what week two of little beta's life brings.
Meghan and Harry’s privacy is irrelevant when they are putting their newborn on blast in newspapers across the world. If they had a private birth without releasing the news to the press, no one would be talking about them nor care. Not even the aids.
I wondered this because I read somewhere that BetterUp give 8 weeks paternity leave, after I'd read it is Archewell giving 20 weeks. So how does that work, as there's been no indication H will be spending some of his leave working part-time? Of course Netflix and Spotify have already been told not to expect anything for ages. I guess they should all be proud just to be associated with H.
Of course really both Sussexes are working full-time all the time making everyone's life a misery. I agree with one comment I read that their plan is to finance themselves by suing people. Hopefully this time will be different, though so far they have been very lucky with technicalities.
If her sugars believe they are very close with the Queen that would idea have been started when Meghan pretended that the Queen is this little old damsel in distress in the Castle. It was the story she she propagated on national television with oprah. She kept saying the Queen is lovely to her, and it’s the mean men in suits that prevent contact and further cancelled their Megxit meeting the Queen was going to have with them. She had Harry next to her during the Queen turned down Megxit, no it wasn’t her it was the staff, back and forth with Oprah.
I have no doubt Harry is (was) close with The Queen. It was written about throughout his life. She was supposedly a mother figure to him. We’ve now learned he is no longer happy with her parenting style and she caused him genetic pain (lol) via Charles. Wah wah, cry cry.
Meghan and Harry can’t read the room. They cannot convince most people there is an ‘institution’ portraying and exploiting a weak-willed elderly woman and that Royalty is a fantasy and Elizabeth and Charles are just regular people who they happen to be related too and care about.
The Royalty Vs. Reality is the storyline Meghan has been able to use to manipulate Just Call Me Harry to the nth degree. She tries to do it with the public, but it’s only the idiots that believe her nonsense.
No? Royal protocol made them all do that?
Absurd thought process of the sugars. Anything to excuse the Narc. It’s amazing to me how much people will defend a narc. They go all-in and start to take it personally.
E Mails please
Go past the bottom of your comment box where it says>>>>>
"(Google Account) – Sign Out"
>>>>>>>> go sign out
>>>>>>>> now sign back in
>>>>>>>> make sure that the box is ticked for >>>>>>
"Email follow-up comments to ....(your google email address)"
^^^^^^^This should get comments emailed to you
BeverlyHills 1140
Li’lbetbooty and Archie.zz
Coming soon to Apple TV
Usual merde, wrapped up in oblique
Made to merch, poor little tots
Anything, Just to cover their bots
On sale now @Li’lbetbootyque
@Sandie
Good to see you back
@Sylvia
Cheers
Prince Philip would have turned
100 today (10th)
Harry’s gift, to sue the Queen
via the BBC
...I went on Celebitchy to see what the Sugars thought of the name...Here’s the thing about the Sugars both on Twitter & Celebitchy – (and this fascinates me) – they are CONVINCED the Queen has a burner phone with which she takes calls from Harry (and Meghan) because they remain quite close this whole time and they believe (!!!) the Queen does not keep her aids/spokespeople informed of this.
I'd never been on Celebitchy before so I went over there. WOW and double-WOW.
They actually have commenters saying that the Queen could be in mortal danger as she sleeps in her bed at night because that's how desperately some within both her family and the palace want her gone. "Who would question the death of a 95-year-old?"
I hope we don't come off that crazy to visitors to this blog. And I'd like to think if anyone here sincerely thought HM was in mortal danger, they would go to the cops with what they had.
But they do believe every statement that Harry's wife makes. It reminded me of the power of a single lie --something sociopaths know so well.
I feel like I just got back from the Twilight Zone.
Here’s the thing about the Sugars both on Twitter & Celebitchy – (and this fascinates me) – they are CONVINCED the Queen has a burner phone with which she takes calls from Harry (and Meghan) because they remain quite close this whole time and they believe (!!!) the Queen does not keep her aids/spokespeople informed of this.
I know why some of us believe Archie doesn't exist. It's a conclusion we made based on photos of the bump, photos of different babies, and numerous other anomalies. The case isn't 100% watertight, of course, which is why there are also Nutties who believe there is an Archie and not multiple baby/child actors.
But on what do the sugars on Twitter and Celebitchy base their own conclusion the the Queen is squirreling away a burner phone just for Harry and his wife? It seems highly unlikely that a 95-year-old woman would do that.
This reminds me of the days right after Harry's wedding, when there was still a honeymoon period with the media and his wife's PR was working 24/7 to promote the idea that she was "more popular than the Queen." (I will never forget overhearing that very quote, uttered giddily, in a conversation between someone at work and his relative who lived in the US.) Another oft-repeated phrase was: "modernize the monarchy." And there were sugars on Twitter predicting that Harry would be the king someday, not Prince William. Parliament would be convinced to change the order of succession and/or the country would simply split itself in two, depending on which brother they wanted to recognize as king! It was demented . . . and yet I could see the sugary PR it was all based on. But what in the world is the burner phone hallucination baed on?
They actually have commenters saying that the Queen could be in mortal danger as she sleeps in her bed at night because that's how desperately some within both her family and the palace want her gone. "Who would question the death of a 95-year-old?"
The Twilight Zone indeed! All signs for the past three years at least have pointed to the great affection the Queen's children, grandchildren and other subjects have for her. And the sentiments have only intensified since Prince Philip's death.
I just asked what the burner phone idea was based on, but now I have to ask the same about this. Surely we all have access to the same media. Which articles or photos make them think she is in danger from her own family? (Or am I looking at the wrong scapegoats? Do they think the courtiers will off her?)
And second, shouldn't they want the Queen to die off as soon as possible, so that Archie and Lili can receive titles under King Charles?
JennS, The HotRob photo!
.......................
@AnT
I finished all my chores early today so have some time to check in again...
Glad you liked the latest photo of our Montecito Source! Do you remember him from his brat pack days?💋
I’m finding this legal threat over the name to be interesting! I posted a DM descriptive timeline on my blog showing the reports on the delivery and how the 'Name Controversy' developed. It’s enough to make your eyes spin in your head to read all the different claims from various sources.
From what I can make out, a palace source spoke to the BBC but there was no formal statement from BP. Is this how you see what happened this morning?
Between social media, the destructive woke agenda, evil forces backing an anti-monarchy campaign and the bizarre and dangerous Sussexes I think the RF has to start formally addressing more serious issues every time they come up. The amount of conflicting info released for every problem is frustrating and makes them look foolish. No other company or institution would allow this to happen. The Firm needs to find a way to reply with dignity. They will be the means to their own end if they don’t.
I don't understand why the firm would not want to straighten this current issue out - although I'm sure they will end up saying the name is fine since placating the Harkles seems to be the direction they are heading in lately. But they need to do something.
I post in the Times comment sections and to my surprise, there are quite a number of anti-monarchy people there. Many of them champion the Harkles and believe they have been victimized by the press and disloyal palace staff. I blame this not only on the shady machinations of the vile pair but also on the lack of clarification from BP.
There seems to be a change in the Times attitude towards the Sussexes lately. I don't know if it's because the woke culture is currently on top or if there is a fear of a very litigious pair of ex-royals who seem intent on earning a living out of lawsuits...
There are no more Kraken-level articles exposing Markle for the bullying grifter she is. Instead, the stories seem to be more careful. Even today the article about the legal threats seemed one-sided - the only thing said that cast the Harkles as the possible wrong/guilty party was a mention the palace seemed caught off guard when first hearing/responding to the baby news.
I have also noticed the Times is limiting the negative comments about the Harkles. They haven't done this to such an extent before. So many comments were deleted by the publication on the last two Harkle stories that everyone was commenting and complaining about it.
Times reporter Valentine Low - someone I thought was on board to expose the Sussexes, wrote a terrible anti-monarchy article dredging up how the Firm banned ethnic minorities from office jobs in the 1960s. WTH!
In today's article about the legal threats, the publication ended commenting after only a couple of hours and I'm guessing it was due to Harry's threats.
And actually, there were a lot of supportive posts for the Harkles from 'real' Times readers, not bots and not sugars.
Here are some examples of what some Times readers were saying:
It’s not Harry and Meghan at fault here. It’s the spiteful, point scoring palace aides and mysterious sources who have a constant stream of untruths to tell. They don’t like being called out on their petty behaviour which Harry and Meghan have every right to do.
I have no sympathy for the couple but they should continue to object to and limit the media's now routine defamation of them.
Neither the British press nor the anti-Meghan people look good with the constant snide and bullying remarks about this couple. If they are a bit self-obsessed, this is nothing compared with the national bullying campaign against them.
What do you and the other Nutties think about all of this? While much of the press seems to be sick of the Harkles, the Times appears to be letting up on them.
@JennS
I’m hoping the Times etc are sugaring
them before taking them down
ButterUp then smear...
Cain and Fable
Ever since madam
stamped her hooves on the floor
She’s been begging to go down,
in the annals of wokelore
She thinks of herself
like the God’s of Norse
Or Pegasus, the Flying Horse
She needs to trot on,
she won’t be mythed
Take Hazza too,
as he’s constantly pithed
Let us join together in a rousing Encore
Sod off Megasuss, the Lying Whore
#6 reminds me of a very few third grade, very damaged students I had who would repeat a lie because they didn't have a way out of saving face, staying out of trouble, or trying to make things right. #6 repeating his lie will get him nowhere. The Palace spokespeople can simply say, "No, The Queen was never consulted. It simply isn't true. We're sorry that recollections may vary."
I do hope they sue the BBC; popcorn time for the rest of us.
1. I always think of St Elmo’s Fire’s HotRob! Brat pack era Rob is great!
2. So, about The Times....once a few years ago, Murdoch complained in a speech that he is often out-voted by the boards of his various papers, for whatever reason, and that this meant his papers didn’t always reflect his position in the moment. I will add to that, I have never been sure what to make of Valentine Low. Many a journalist can be “gotten to” unfortunately. Especially now perhaps, when they hear about things like that English journalist/editor in Rome facing three years in prison and a million euros in lawsuit fines simply for printing the truth about some officials adjacent to the UN.
Apart from that, with the G7 in the UK in Cornwall, maybe the Times has republican editors trying to display side by being bolshie to the monarchy. Again, we have no idea who the Harkles backers are. We have no idea what influence they have, what pressure they use. I have an idea, based on my contact’s thoughts. But, apart from that, I think we will see more buckle to serve the Harkle rage, For now.
.
Recently
1) palace refused her request for off site mental health treatment. Thinking this was a request to spend weeks at a very high end European health spa. She was told no (its an extravagance and wouldn't look good for a royal to be spending that kind of money after such a lavish wedding and wardrobe)
2) told Queen they would like to name baby after her, no mention of "Lilibet" so HM assumes Elizabeth, as we all would.
3) she mentions a hospital this time but no easel with Dr. names and technically neither child can be in line of succession without verification by a Royal (or Royal approved I suppose) physician.
What if Archie was by surrogate and Lili was by 6w? that would really put the RF in a spot--Archie in line of succession but shouldn't be, Lili. in line and should be. BUT now you can't say Archie can't and Lili can?
Your offerings to us today have been wonderful!
Cain and Fable now takes its place among my favorites 👏👏👏 .....feels so much like a Shakespearean Prologue in tone. Perhaps one day your collected verses will grace the Globe stage in a live reading. A celebration of The Stripping of the Sussex Shrew.
🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹
@AnT
The Shaming of the Screw
Trolledus and Cesspita 😳
This tweet shows the Godaddy registration of the domain name princesslilibet on 30 May.
https://twitter.com/JennyBronx81/status/1402688030226497537?s=19
Wouldn't it be customary to speak with the namesake prior to the birth of the child, especially when the sex of the baby is known.
We lose the immediacy of the "Cain and Fable" biblical allusion, but gain an extra layer of satire!
@Henrietta
@Enbrethiliel
I knew Celebitchy was wacky, even ultra crazy. I had friends who were working in an agency who had down-time fun a few years ago “poking the Kaiser” with nonsense posts. There is even a reddit sub or two devoted to people banned by the site for not being rabid sugars about Megs and various celebs. Others claimed their posts were stolen or something. It Sounds like a looney bin there. Lots of steaming hate for certain celebs etc. lots of hating on women celebs they dislike and disparaging men in the name of feminism, while also drooling like weird preteens over certain male stars. I read that the main poster is some tech worker in her parents’s basement in West Virginia. There have been rumors the last few years that Celebitchy has a very low readership now and only functions by selling itself as a place to spout whatever stories the Kardashians or the Harkles want... like a sort of fomenting, hate-skewed version of Kneepads.
So, weird pack. Trying to sound righteous for their sugars, but very much for sale. Sunshine Sachs?
But to go as far as to write horrible stuff about the Queen being under literal threat is so incredibly sick of them. Dangerously so. I hope someone looks into it. They are thugs,
I believe that one day, the sickness and goals of Meghan, Harry and their backers will be exposed to the world, and the world will gasp.
....And “lilibetdiana.com” was as we know registered on the alleged day of the baby’s birth, June 4, 2021.
@Enbrethiliel
🤣👏👏👏👏👏👏. I think you’re onto something! “Coming soon to the West End!”
.
@Enbrethiliel
@AnT
I like Pain and Fable 👍
How about Gain en-Able
off Broadsway
Leg-end of a Milehigher 🧛♀️
Scooby’s next book
@lucy
Working my way backwards catching up,...great comments. I think Chris’ twitter posts are fascinating and remind me of the apparent disturbing revival of “colour revolution” going on.
Nutty, you bring up an interesting theory: Meghan was launched during the Trump years, and she may not be viewed as a necessary agent now that Biden is in office. Be it her royal hostage taking, or games of distraction, or her role in screaming racism to try to take down the royal family and help split people in nations (“divide, and conquer”)....You think she is losing her importance to the backers?
Her increasingly frantic and sloppy behavior of late would support that...as would the lack of any Harkle content from Netflix or Spotify since Inauguration Day. After Oprah, she disappeared except for her goofy book and “every day is the 8 month mark” pregnancy. He disappeared except for his Chimpo role in a silly company where he has nothing to offer except mentioning his first mommy died, and his second mommy leaves bruises. I think the Chimpo job was their consolation prize, because of the dumbing-down work BetterUp does. Just as the stupid book was, “here’s 750k, here are your copies w your name down the spine, now, get lost.”
If the Harkles get abandoned by the backers on the shores of Montecito, it could be that:
1. Weak, wish washy Charles is fully hooked by the G7 and/or China (CCP), so the dumb second son is no longer needed. There are reasonable concerns out there about Charles + China, or Charles and the big secret backers who ran Camp Google in 2019, so....
2. Megs’ contract ran out the second Kamala stepped in, and Megs is the last to realize that even another “royal baby” won’t help.
3. Megs went rogue with the baby fakery, the kids don’t exist or one soon won’t, and backers are as put off as we are and are distancing before the rest gets out
.
Gain en-Able is so close to the bone for the Harkles, isn’t it.....love Leg-end of a Mil-higher too....very Scobie! Ah, what will become of little Scobie if the truth tumbles out, dozens of big scathing things he, author, and expert, missed? Lol.
How many marked-for-clearance Harkle books can any book shop hold?
Would the American Nutties kindly explain this a bit more to me, please? Last year, I saw Harry's wife wanting to ingratiate herself with the US Democratic Party, and the latter willing to take her or leave her. Sure, she was useful for stirring up ire against President Trump -- but so was, say, Chrissy Teigen. I didn't see how Harry's wife was any different from any other celeb who happened to be in the media a lot. Did it appear otherwise in the US? Was she actually significant in getting them votes?
@JennS
I’m hoping the Times etc are sugaring
them before taking them down
ButterUp then smear...
................
@Magatha
LOL! Oh, I hope so!
I love Cain and Fable!!!
🤣🤣🤣
BTW lucky you w/ a hubby resembling a young PP!
///////////////////////////////////////////////
@Ant
🤔🤔🤔
Thanks for the response...
Now I have questions about Theresa Longo...🤣
Do you know if she believes Markle gave birth to her kids? I don't know why she doesn't think AngryHarry was related to the "delivery" - especially when we don't know if the baby is here yet or even real. Did you see the tweets I got from her timeline?
////////////////////////////////////////////
@Martha
Thanks so much for the comments. I always look for feedback to see if any research I find has had any value to anyone so I appreciate the response. I'm not always sure what might be worth reporting on. There were some other things I picked up in the Times comment sections that I will have to put together when I can. It's a very different vibe in there compared to the DM.
🤪🤪🤪
But the vitriol over at CDAN got me interested. Lady Colin Campbell's book was also enlightening.
#6wife is a monster of proportions of which we have no clue, no clue at all. It's worse than any of us can imagine. I'm telling you.
@JennS
Hahaha, Master Mistie, my son,
resembles PP 😘
Mister Mistie ‘used’ to resemble
Elvis in his younger days,
as seen through my wine goggles!
Elvish 🥴
Camilla Tominey
Palace frustration over Lilibet name choice is part of wider annoyance over Sussexes’ departure
Courtiers appear increasingly concerned the couple are attempting to draw a distinction between the Queen and the institution she represents
Amid the briefing war that has broken out between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Buckingham Palace and the BBC, what the Queen actually thinks about Harry and Meghan naming their newborn daughter Lilibet has become rather a secondary issue.
The palace’s refusal to deny BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond’s report that Her Majesty was "never asked" her opinion on the couple’s decision to name the baby after her childhood nickname speaks volumes about the ongoing disconnect between the institution and the Sussexes’ stateside operation.
Royal aides have become increasingly vexed by Harry and Meghan’s representatives - both official and self-appointed - claiming to speak for the 95-year-old monarch when they are in no position to do so.
Claiming the couple would not have called their second child Lilibet without the Queen’s backing, their LA-based "global press secretary" Toya Holness told The Telegraph: "The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.
"During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name."
Yet despite the Sussexes' lawyers, Schillings, accusing the BBC of defamation, the statement does not contradict the thrust of Mr Dymond’s report that the Queen was told, rather than asked, about the baby’s name.
The suggestion that she might have voiced disapproval when presented with the news of the arrival of her eleventh great-grandchild has understandably raised eyebrows behind palace gates.
Not only is the great-grandmother renowned for her tendency to avoid conflict, but there is also the small matter of her actively trying to bridge the gap between the monarchy and its former "much loved" members.
As such, the general consensus appears to be that while she probably would have felt "uncomfortable" about the royal couple appropriating her late husband’s pet name for her - after everything that has happened since Harry and Meghan dropped their Megxit bombshell in January 2020 - she would hardly have been minded to rock the boat.
The suggestion that she might have voiced disapproval when presented with the news of the arrival of her eleventh great-grandchild has understandably raised eyebrows behind palace gates.
Not only is the great-grandmother renowned for her tendency to avoid conflict, but there is also the small matter of her actively trying to bridge the gap between the monarchy and its former "much loved" members.
As such, the general consensus appears to be that while she probably would have felt "uncomfortable" about the royal couple appropriating her late husband’s pet name for her - after everything that has happened since Harry and Meghan dropped their Megxit bombshell in January 2020 - she would hardly have been minded to rock the boat.
As one put it at the time: "It’s all very well blaming the staff when you haven’t got what you want. They are working for the boss, first and foremost."
Equally problematic are the couple’s frequent public references to "conversations" with the Queen, which would ordinarily remain private.
From confiding in James Corden that "granny" bought Archie, their two-year-old son, a waffle maker for Christmas, to the revelation they "spoke to the Queen to express their sympathies" in the wake of the Duke of Edinburgh’s death in April, there is a sense of cynicism around the couple repeatedly name-checking the monarch amid briefings that calls with other members of the Royal family have been "unproductive".
This perhaps explains why sources close to the Prince of Wales have been so keen to brief this week that he is in "regular contact" with his son - in the absence of such information emanating from across the pond.
Curiously, the Sussexes tend to shy away from discussing private exchanges - unless they involve HM. It is therefore understandable that the palace may be minded to intervene when, to coin a phrase, "recollections may differ".
Palace refuses to back Sussexes in row over baby Lilibet’s name
Royal sources fail to deny that Queen was ‘never asked’, as lawyers for couple say it was 'false and defamatory' for the BBC to suggest this
Buckingham Palace has refused to back the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in a row with the BBC over whether the couple sought the Queen’s permission to name their daughter Lilibet.
Lawyers instructed by Harry and Meghan said it was “false and defamatory” for the BBC to suggest the couple did not ask Her Majesty if they could use her highly personal pet name for their second child.
The Duke and Duchess claimed they would not have used the name if the Queen had not been “supportive” of their choice.
But rather than confirming the Duke and Duchess’s version of events, the Palace refused to deny suggestions that the Queen was “never asked”.
The Telegraph understands the Queen was “told” about the name after the baby was born last Friday, rather than her permission being sought in advance.
It suggests that if the Duke and Duchess chose the name to curry favour with the Queen and the wider Royal family, the tactic has backfired badly.
It also left the Queen, 95, in the unwelcome position of being at the centre of a row between her grandson on one side and the BBC and her own officials on the other.
Although there is little formal protocol around choosing baby names, particularly with great-grandchildren of the monarch, royal sources suggested there was a difference between the couple choosing to name their daughter Elizabeth, in tribute to the Queen, and using her pet name, which had only ever been used by her parents, Prince Philip and a handful of her closest friends and relatives.
I'm glad we've thrashed out the Scientology non-possibilities. Strangely, I did suggest right at the start of my engagement here that I suspected an American source for the subversion/ backing - something to do with 2020 being a significant anniversary over the water and the mentions of `regime change', so often mentioned with regard to non-western sovereign states. I just never it thought it could come from so high up. Both Obama & Biden are said to bear us some ill will, the one from events in Kenya in the 1950s, the other about Ireland.
Spare a thought for HM - isn't it today she meets Biden? As well as it being PP's `centenary'?
2 thoughts to hang on to -
Even if the 6s' children exist (and one has been legitimised by adoption, the other being born under favourable legislation) they would be debarred from the throne by the `out of the body' rule. Even if she had birthed both, what evidence could she produce?
This rue was made over 300 years ago, to circumvent the possibility of a cuckoo being brought into the RF's nest for political reasons. Little did anyone imagine that it might be still relevant.
I have heard that it is impossible to sue the Monarch, at least in British Courts, because the Law is administered in her name, although I wouldn't put it past them to try the European Court of Human Rights.
We just need them to foul their Californian nest some more and totally destroy their own credibility.
Oh I'm sorry!! LOL I thought you were referring to the mister!
Elvis!!! that's nice too!
Well bless my soul - I'm all shook up🤪
🎸🎶🎸🎶🎸🎶🎸
And on a day of extraordinary claim and counter-claim, each side hardened its position rather than making any attempt to agree on a settled version of events.
The Duke and Duchess’s daughter was born in California on Friday morning, and it is understood that the couple told the Queen about their choice of name between the baby’s birth and the public announcement of it on Sunday.
On Monday reports in US publications including the New York Post claimed Prince Harry called the Queen and “sought permission before his baby’s birth” to use the name Lilibet.
On Wednesday morning, BBC Radio 4’s Today programme reported that the Queen “was not asked” about using her pet name.
Within 90 minutes of the report being aired, the author Omid Scobie, a high-profile cheerleader for the Sussexes, rebutted the BBC report after being briefed that the Queen had supported the decision to use the name Lilibet.
Then, shortly after 8am (or 1am in California, where the Sussexes live) the row escalated as the London law firm Schillings, acting on behalf of the Sussexes, issued a warning to media organisations not to repeat the BBC’s claims, which were “false and defamatory”.
Crucially, however, Buckingham Palace refused to deny the BBC’s version of events, meaning the Duke and Duchess’s libel claims were ignored by the media at large.
Some within palace walls are said to have taken offence at the claims made in the US and attributed to friends of the Sussexes that the monarch had been consulted about the use of her name.
It emerged on Wednesday night that the internet domain name lilidiana.com was registered on May 31, several days before the birth, raising questions about whether the couple had already settled on the baby name by that stage.
She said: “The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.
“During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honour. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.”
Royal sources drew a distinction between being told of the name and being asked. It suggests the Queen was put in a position where she had a choice of either giving her approval, tacitly or explicitly, or ordering the couple to change their daughter’s name.
Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, who will be known as Lili, was born at 11.40am on Friday June 4 at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in California weighing 7lb 11oz.
The Queen was introduced to her latest great-granddaughter on a video call when the Duke and Duchess returned home from hospital. It is not known when the Queen or other members of the Royal family will meet her in person.
@JennS
With the Times comments
section being smaller than DM
the sugar bots are able to make their
markle more pronounced?
Ok, tin foil lining from their rain clouds 😜
`(Biden) had ordered his officials to issue a rare diplomatic rebuke to the British Government for its continued opposition to checks at Northern Irish ports. Yael Lempert, charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in London, told Brexit Minister Lord Frost the UK's stance was imperilling the peace process. She had been ordered to issue the diplomatic rebuke, known as a demarche, a step rarely taken between allies.'
----
Cecil Rhodes triggers Oxford civil war: 150 academics write petition to Oriel College REFUSING to tutor its students or collaborate on work until it topples statue of the donor that 'glorifies colonialism'
----
RICHARD KAY: Only Harry and Meghan could call in lawyers over a baby's name
RICHARD KAY: Is there nothing Harry and Meghan do that doesn't involve a row?
`How desperately sad that even something so uplifting as the birth of their new baby is accompanied by thundering controversy. The brusque public statements and angry threats of legal action that followed claims by the BBC that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex did not ask the Queen about naming their daughter Lilibet - her childhood nickname - now seems depressingly familiar. But even allowing for the couple's inflated sense of grievance that their every action is wilfully misconstrued, there was something intensely unedifying about this latest incendiary development - not least the fact of the timing.'
----
'Typical f*****g woke snowflake': Noel Gallagher SLAMS Prince Harry for 'dissing his family' and declares Duke of Sussex is like his own brother Liam and needs to 'shut up'
-----
`Relative of Meghan Markle says she 'won't ever talk to her family again' because she acts like she is 'in a different social class' and like she 'is above them and where she came from'
----
`Harry wages war with BBC: Furious prince threatens legal action over claim he did not consult Queen before naming his daughter Lilibet - as extraordinary briefing row breaks out between Sussexes, Palace and broadcaster'
----
`Prince Harry announces when the 2023 Invictus Games will be held in Germany in video message recorded prior to his '20 weeks off work' after the birth of daughter Lilibet'
----
`Queen plants a newly-bred 'Duke of Edinburgh' rose at Windsor castle to mark what would have been Prince Philip's 100th birthday today... and the flower was a gift from Mr Weed'
----
JENNI MURRAY: We women must stand up against Stonewall zealots...'
/////////
Phew! I haven't read them all yet (can't face it) but there is some hope - other dons are objecting to the action against Oriel students and Jenni Murray is sticking to her guns.
Off now for an eye-opening shot of caffeine, having woken before dawn, over 2 hrs ago.
With apologies to US Nutties, whom I hold dear, with friends like these...What might the reaction be if a Limey did a parallel thing in the US?
Also, even Churchill College, Cambridge, is considering changing its name - but at least it's for a valid reason (Money! They don't criticise the man they honour with the name but wonder if it puts off foreign applicants)
This is behavior they exhibited during Archie pregnancy and right after his birth when they started to get SUPER paranoid and decided to sue everyone that existed.
This behavior makes me think the baby is real, and once again being Narcisissts, they cannot handle a new life being around that’s more important than them, so suddenly they plotting and lashing out and seeking attention and importance again. Their egos are too fragile to provide stability for a baby.
I bet we can expect more antics and negativity (self victimization) around the corner.
I just responded in the Times comment section to an article about the portrait removal.
I wrote that I didn't understand why this action was initiated and followed by an American - a non-UK student.
I'm American but I 100% agree with you and find it even more upsetting that this was done on the suggestion of someone who is NOT British. The woman in charge is a disgrace.
Older adults should remember that younger ones at times need to be prevented from making mistakes. This is being portrayed as the Queen being cancelled and that is absolutely not right.
I must say that most of the other Times commenters are upset for the Queen and are also not happy. That is at least a relief after the commentary over Harry's baby naming spat.
I wonder if there is a way to get the portrait rehung?
Betty Boob
Little Betty Butter Up
Was purchased as a merching prop
I’m sure the Queen was unaware
Of her name being used,
by him, and her
A Travesty
Lese-majeste
Do you know what the lawyers have been up to besides threatening the media over the claims that Harry didn't ask his grandmother's permission to use her pet name?
See my post at 4:10 am about the changes I've been noticing at the Times. Something "legal" seems to be hovering in the air.
@WildBoar
Yes, dangerous times.
Feels like were spiralling ever
deeper into the abyss.
To Hell in an accelerated handcart.
Check out this post from a commenter in the Times forum:
Magdalen College. Established by a bloke who hanged peasants for having the temerity to protest about corruption in government.
If we're worried about the Queen and her connection with colonialism (keeping in mind that during her reign, there were no new colonies, just lots of colonies becoming independent states) then the college should be equally worried about William of Waynflete, and his connection with debt bondage and indentured servitude.
Did you see this post from Snarky? Do we have a new case for Prince Charles' Angels?
Remember I get to be Farrah, I think Hikari said she wanted to be Jaclyn Smith, so that leaves Kate Jackson for you...
😇😇😇
@Snarky
Let's do it!!!
..............
snarkyatherbest said...
Hikari - we are americans and we are up for a good fight. Bring it on. The British fight differently by rarely if ever acknowledging the duo they are doing their version of ghosting them. Maybe the BRF has their own pr spies offering up tidbits behind fake twitter/dm/nutty accounts. (i would want to be that intern; i would gladly sign and NDA and be a anti-Harkle bot) My theory was it could have been you but alas it is not. maybe Ant? JennS? Princess Eugenia? Somehow some of this drama gets out and riles the masses against the duo and the BRF keeps themselves clean. Great strategy and they keep the door open if suicidal number 6 ever leaves and wants to come back
They won't bother with `William of Waynflete, and his connection with debt bondage and indentured servitude.'
He was active in the 15thC, when there were no black slaves, only white ones (aka serfs, bound to the land). He oppressed the lower orders, hanging them and appropriating their land - English, perhaps almost like him, apart from being poor and in Hampshire, rather than being rich, well-connected and from Lincolnshire.
Serfs, villeins, cottars and perhaps modest freeholders don't matter to the Woke, as they were white, being persecuted by another White - class, not race, war.
@Jenn
The photo you posted of H&M at Ascot...
Get a load of this one... https://www.chatelaine.com/living/entertainment/meghan-markle-kissed-by-another-man/
There are lots of photos from that day where it was clearly not a good day for Harry... You can dismiss one as a simple bad change of features caught in a wrong moment, but not all of these... Sheesh.
................
@Kate Kosior
Oh thanks so much for those links - what memories they bring back!🤣😲
I do recall the story about Harry supposedly being angry over the jockey kissing Markle's claw. I watched the clip and didn't see any sign of H looking jealous or mad. Guessing the Sun was trying to drum up some intrigue but it was too silly.
She is definitely annoyed about something and he just looks so beaten.
I think this was the event that Meghan turned her back to the Queen while they were gathered in a small group, and left Her Maj standing alone facing MM's posterior. Maybe someone tried to correct Markle's behavior and she was peeved?
//////////////////////////////////
DesignDoctor said...
@JennS
Thank you for posting the photos on your blog. The crouching down/standing up bump expansion one is amazing.
You asked if we thought they might change the baby's name due to so much negative press.
NO! Narcs do not admit their mistakes.
..................
@DesignDoctor
Those belly pics were from her time with Vogue when she guest-edited. I don't know if they make inflatable false pregnancy bellies but those pics make me think of a balloon. The standing one has got to be the oddest shape I ever saw her belly take.
And yes she would never admit to a mistake. Maybe they will tweak it somehow?🤔🤪
I think the poster was being sarcastic, but I thought you might like to see that a lot of folks there are sticking up for the Queen in one way or another.
With apologies to US Nutties, whom I hold dear, with friends like these...What might the reaction be if a Limey did a parallel thing in the US?
I saw the articles yesterday but I didn’t post anything. I knew it was pretty inflammatory 🥺especially as it was his woke opinion and not the mindset of our American Nutties nor what the majority of Americans think (I hope).
For those interested, I’ve posted the links for the original article and for Dan Wooton’s article about the matter. 🤗 MP’s are also on the case ....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9667433/American-scholar-tabled-motion-cancel-Queen.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9668689/Would-American-student-cancelled-Queen-disrespected-country-like-that.html
Sorry - last post...
I think he was also trying to make a point that if certain old crimes are being relooked at then the crimes against the peasants that actually took place at that school location should also matter to the woke-folk.
Quite a lot of people are angry over HM's portrait.
My brother named his baby after me but didn't use my name or my nickname. He used a 9th century version of my name. A lovely name. That was very moving and made me deeply happy because I can't have children myself. Yet if he'd used my own name - or somehow even worse, my nickname - I would have felt robbed. Diminished. Pushed out a bit.
So I'm sure using the name Lilibet was wrong. It's not rocket science. It's our innate understanding of human nature that only people like the Sussexes fail to understand. They are raging and bitter, in a glass box of their own making, because they can't understand the people outside whom they can never join.
Their attempts to control everyone need a more disciplined response from BP. The kind of media relations control the Labour Party used to such effect in Blair's early years. Strict rules about who briefs and when. A formal approval process before briefing. Speak with one voice. No gossip. No innuendo. Be rock solid from the start so they can stick to their guns. Be consistent. Speak firmly. No gaps for misinterpretation and alternative scenarios. Be strong. This goes against hundreds of years of rival royal households briefing at odds with each other, but the Sussexes make it necessary. It's later than the Palace thinks.
Just wanted to remind everyone if they want to check out the pics I uploaded on my blog that I can leave them up for one more day.
I forgot to mention that they will enlarge quite a bit if you click on them.
They include the two pregnancy photos for comparison plus some other assorted pics.
I'm curious if anyone can determine anything from the landscape including the amount of foliage on the tree to help confirm they were shot the same day.
Can you access `Fawlty Towers' in the US? I keep thinking of when Basil was trying desperately not to upset some German guests (`Don't mention the War!) and making a complete mess of it. Strange that we can make peace with a nation that committed appalling atrocities within the life time of many still here but something we began to deal with in the late 18thC, and were done with almost 200 years ago, is still held against us.
Of course, we now recognise that there was also mishandling of the countries of the Commonwealth until 60 years ago, since when we have not pressed anyone to stay with us but we do defend those who prefer to stay with us, whether remote Atlantic islands or within the UK. We believe in self-determination.
There are frequent complaints about the magnitude of our Overseas Aid budget - which is intended in part as compensation for past actions.
It reminds me of a Roman Catholic friend explaining the `Sin Against the Holy Ghost' - the pride in our sins that says we are so awful that we we cannot possibly be forgiven even if we truly repent. Critical Race Theory has created a secular equivalent - we cannot possibly be forgiven, even though we had no more choice as to our skin colour than anyone else, black, white or anything else. Today's individuals have had little part in these matters but that seems to be irrelevant.
If we're so bloody awful, why do so many people want to come & live here?
Thank you again for your literary efforts. Cain and Fable! I love the last line 😁. As for The Shaming of the Screw (shrew is also apt) and other plays, it certainly won't be All's Well That Ends Well, or As You like it. The Comedy of Errors, however, is apt, as is The Merry Wives of Windsor.
The photos:
I'd say there's been fiddling around with the background to suggest change, particularly in terms of the big strappy-leaved plant (Agapathus). There's something funny going on in the `earlier' photo where the leaves seem to be in front of the branch. I think the light on the grass has been altered too.
To me though, the give-away is that the light falling on the tree looks the exactly the same in both case. It's a low light, from the same direction and I think the sun may be at the same elevation in both.
Hello-o? These shots are intended to be seen as having taken at different stages of the pregnancy, some time apart. Even if they were photographed at the same time of day, I'd expect there to be a difference in the pattern of light and shade on the tree. Or am I not making allownance for Montecito being further south than where I am?
I don't believe that w6 (as we're now calling her) has any political influence, nor that she had any effect in the last election--that was basically your question, right? She may have made her leanings clear, sure, but I can't point to where or when or anything specific took place. However I'm a cord cutter (no TV) so only have print media and internet as sources.
Possibly correlated, I don't believe that there's a worldwide political cartel behind her (and him) trying to overthrow the throne, although possibly there may be nasty stuff based in Soho House. That's ONE American's beliefs. Oh, and I'm not young, either. Far from it.
Now -- the rubber doll, the lies, the yachting, the plastic tummy, Oprah's money-driven shenanigans, the merching, his lifelong intellectual and moral failings, everything else we talk about here -- definitely, yes, I'm a believer.
@Maneki
As you like it 😉
Coming soon:
The Merchants of Venice Beach 😜
@WildBoar
Nelson Mandela was happy to rejoin
the Commonwealth, we can’t be that bad.
@Sandie would know more about that.
@Teasmade
I too don’t believe she has any
political clout.
As for backers, not sure.
But, I firmly believe that madam
has never experienced a contraction
higher than her nether regions.
She was never preggers!!
@JennS
After removing said wine goggles,
noticed Mister now looks nowt like Elvis!!
I perused your fine collection of photos.
What I can see,
are the same patches of pee
And the same rolled up sleeve
on Harry
@Swampie
What offends me, no disrespect
to you, or US Nutties,
is your President
preaching on N. Ireland.
Uncalled for, unwarranted
and totally unfit.
@Swampwoman
Dunno.
There's tension over the end of our present, more relaxed, lockdown between those who prefer caution (the medics) and would rather to extend the current rules beyond 21st June and those who are prepared to risk it, like Andrew Lloyd Webber with his current show.
There's been mention of quarantining Bedford but don't know how much substance there is to it.
Just keep digging, Harry and Meghan!
They make it too easy.
Just three months after Harry and Meghan sat with Oprah to tell the world that the Queen’s racist palace drove Meghan to suicidal impulses — then denied her help she begged for, along with Harry publicly blaming the royal family for inflicting him with decades of “genetic pain” — these two go and name their daughter after the 95-year-old Evil Queen.
Plot twist: The Palace denies this. And this denial isn’t coming from some random blogger or blind item website. These are Palace sources talking to the BBC. After a year-plus of these two and their shenanigans, accusations and outright whoppers, who are you inclined to believe?
Casting aside their choice of Diana as a middle name (who could possibly begrudge them that?) naming their only daughter after the woman who they deride as the epitome of racism, colonialism and, by extension, mean mommydom is odd, right?
Except when you consider the Palace’s recent demotion of Haz and Megs on the official royal website. Once listed just below William and Kate, Harry and Meghan were kicked all the way to the bottom, below even the Epstein-associated Prince Andrew.
Quietly but clearly, the Queen is making it known she has no more tolerance for these two.
It’s long overdue. Here’s Meghan just three months ago, to Oprah and an audience of 17 million, melodramatically claiming life as a duchess meant she was locked up in the Tower of London.
“When I joined that family” — the Queen must have winced at “that” family, how pejorative — “that was the last time, until we came [to America], that I saw my passport, my driver’s license, my keys,” Markle told Oprah.
Except for those 13 overseas trips Markle took, including one to New York City solo so Serena Williams could throw her a lavish baby shower costing a reported $430,000, with $125,000 of that for the private jet alone.
“Finding Freedom” indeed. How did poor Meghan ever survive?
Meanwhile, Harry, once the Queen’s favorite grandchild, never visited with her privately before or after the recent burial of her husband Prince Philip.
Whether he asked and was denied or never even tried, the public perception is the same. Harry’s relationship with the Queen, once so close, has been grievously harmed by his and Meghan’s repeated public betrayals.
And for two people who can’t shut up about how much they hate royal life, how it nearly drove a pregnant Meghan to kill herself, how “trapped” Harry felt by it all till Meghan came along — well, they sure don’t want to let go of those titles or connections or any halo effect being royal might grant them in the Hollywood/Silicon Valley circles to which they aspire.
Not that they’re taking calls at the moment. Capping off this latest absurdity, Harry and Meghan — famous for being famous now, otherwise underemployed — have announced they are taking “several months” of parental leave. Joining, perhaps, with that other leave — of their senses.
ENDS
At the same time Swampwoman enquires as to the Wu-flu and how that will affect the average Briton. In my view the country is split: there is a certain portion of the country who see BoJo as the second coming and who believe that should they remove their masks they will soon die. There are another group of people who see BoJo as a con-artist who is relishing his self-appointed power and refuse to wear face nappies. Then we have Andrew Lloyd Webber saying he is prepared to be arrested as he IS going to open his new show whether the government like it or not, at the same time English soccer fans boo their own team for genuflecting to or on behalf of Negroes. Million strong marches in London are failed to be reported by the MSM.
Finally and unusually I disagree with just about everything WBBM wrote at 10.41am.
@Opus
Million strong marches, where?
Very good article from the NY Post and let's hope this is the beginning of the end.
I think there is a shift in the attitude of the Palace. The old 'never complain, never explain' has served the BRF well up to now but is not enough to fight the duo. First we had the memorable 'recollections may vary', so subtle but effective and now the Palac is refusing to deny anything, which it would if the allegation was an outright lie.
I hope the Palace stick to their official line, i.e. the Queen was informed of the name after the event, not before, which only shows it wasn't discussed/the Harkles didn't have the courtesy to ask. What an unedifying spectacle from Montecito!
---------------
OT
@Magatha
Absolutely right about your post to Swampie at 1.37 pm. Also shades of Obama and Brexit. The words mind and own business spring to mind.
OT
Absolutely right about your post to Swampie at 1.37 pm. Also shades of Obama and Brexit. The words mind and own business spring to mind.
Absolutely agree and glad someone said it out loud. 😐
with the domain name registry timing coming a day or so before the birth (particularly the princess ones) a lot are pointing out how couldnHarry have called granny after the broth about the name where the domaine as already registers. we know because we figured this out last thread!
this group is really great!
When I was a child, many homes had a picture of JFK prominently displayed. I'm sure now it's considered blase to do so given his reputation with women. The Queen has never been disrespectful and yet she's being trashed. It saddens me. She's a great Lady. She should be honored.
That person comes across as one of those who wants notoriety.
That's all I have.
Thanks for answering my question! I also thought Harry's wife was a useful idiot for those who wanted as many "glamorous" people as possible on their side of the political divide -- but hardly a strategic asset. Yet the sense I was getting from upthread was that she would have more backers under a second Trump administration, and I didn't really see the rationale behind it.
Was it just a case of getting a level of media "protection" for being vocally anti-Trump? One that wasn't limited to Harry's wife but enjoyed by other flying monkeys? To take another example, if Trump were still President, would the bullying tweets of Chrissy Teigen never have blown up into a PR disaster?
@Raspberry Ruffle
Exactly....
At first she didn't think there was anything at all "off" about the name. It was exactly what a "social climber" would do (her words) and you've got to respect the hustle! She just thought it was a little awkward to have two cousins very close in age share a second name, referring to the "Diana." When she learned that Princess Charlotte's full name is Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, which meant that Harry had taken two of her names, her jaw dropped.
She could understand Lilibet. She could understand Diana. She could understand Lilibet Diana. She could not understand Lilibet Diana, cousin to Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. That is, she couldn't square it with the idea that Harry and his wife were simply picking a name they liked that also let them suck up to someone. Lilibet Diana, cousin to Charlotte Elizabeth Diana could only be the choice of a crazy person.
Glad we're on the same wavelength :-). And the same person mentioned by Magatha called the Royal Air Force the 'RFA' while addressing US military personnel at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk.
Thank you@LavanderLady
What are your thoughts on
N.I.?
@Maneki
Not sure what you are
talking about?
RFA Mildenhall?
I’m ex Army
I haven't followed the Biden trip. I'm sick of politics.
Biden's mother is a Finnegan so he will have been raised with the typical fervor concerning the "Brits out of N.I" and will no doubt have something to comment on. I understand that. My heritage is similar. I think most all of us are proud of where and who we hail from. And we get our backs up when someone insults our heritage. It's very typical. This is one reason why I admire the Queen and their stand on politics.
I'm not as radical as I was twenty five years ago. I was influenced by my partner at the time who was a child of the troubles- from Antrim. He was a Republican through and through. Now I'm much more indifferent about Everything. This comes from Covid, battling two serious health conditions, seeing the world changing so fast, the aging process etc. I've been traumatized into silence lol.
The Brit's out of Ireland and Die for Ireland thing is promoted by the movies and romanticized. I did see some of that in my late partner. He was angry and I can understand it. Now, I am working on my own anger. I have heard when we don't transform our pain, we transmit it. So true...
I've recently binged on all six seasons of Downton Abbey. I loved it. Of course my fave character was Tom Branson the Irish Republican chauffeur who married the aristo daughter. I was impressed how he transformed his pain for the woman he loved, and for her family who took him in and who cared for him (after many trials!). I could relate to him. He saw the Granson's as good people not as "Prod" aristocrats. That was massive...
When I worked on the Shankhill, I was neutral even though I was raised in a Catholic home. I too grew to love my colleagues who were reformed UVF and PUP etc. In their hearts they were good people. I still support the many efforts to integrate the communities. It starts with the children as sectarianism is generational, as are other social ills and ideas.
I'm am now down to the essence of asking myself "am I a good person?" This is what is important to me now.
I view Mrs. Spare as THE poster person for entitled, obnoxious, mouthy yanks. I agree with all you shared.
I have that side too, my evil twin, but I am not liking her very much these days. She's on her way out thank God and Greyhound.
Perhaps Mrs. Spare will chill when she gets older (though I doubt a malignant narc can improve with age, welp!). The aging process tends to have that effect.
In the mean time, it's hard to watch.
@Swampie
What offends me, no disrespect
to you, or US Nutties,
is your President
preaching on N. Ireland.
Uncalled for, unwarranted
and totally unfit.
Well, that completely describes Joe Biden. I haven't been following his trip because I know that, considering his mental disabilities, the media would be in full cover up mode. They won't ask him a real question because they know that he can't answer it.
If he hasn't peed in the houseplants and mumbled unintelligibly the entire trip then I suppose that he will be lauded as a great success. Hopefully his handlers are keeping little girls out of his clutches.
O/T
Maneki was referring to Joe B who called the RAF the RFA. 😟The same man whose mentioned NI, that’s why she mentioned it etc.
O/T
The address by Joe (RFA and not RAF) was made at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk . 🥺
hmmm g7 going on and there is a meeting with the queen. where is the harkles drama or is she smart enough to know that it will be lost in the weeds today. maybe tomorrow? baby pick. or pick of the mrs in bed holding baby$2 meg merching a bed coat on Meghan’s mirror. she has to release a pic soon or we are going to be suspicious. yes let’s keep goading her into overtime photoshopping.
*sigh* I suppose we all know that ethics will never enter into anything that they do.
"Meghan Markle announces 2,000 copies of The Bench will be sent to libraries and schools across the US for 'no cost' - after experts estimated Duchess had netted £500,000 advance for the book"
Snip:
"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have announced plans to distribute 2,000 copies of The Bench to libraries and schools across the US for 'no cost' - amid ongoing questions over whether the profits from the book will go to charity.
The debut book by the Duchess of Sussex, 39, was released earlier this week on sale for £12.99, and was inspired by a poem she wrote for Prince Harry's first Father's Day the month after Archie was born, and explores the 'special bond between father and son' as 'seen through a mother's eyes'.
In a statement posted to Archewell, the couple said they had 'received the support of the publisher of The Bench to distribute 2,000 copies at no cost to libraries, community centers, schools, and nonprofit programs across the country' to 'help nourish the community through through learning and connection.' "
@Magatha,
P.S.
I've taken a look at the hoohaw concerning Biden and his view on the NI issue.
That bunch have been brawling for 800 years now. It won't change drastically. The frukus always needs a New issue to keep the fire burning bright-as well as instigating. It's like the Dems and Repubs here in America. One unproductive fight after another...
As long as people collectively refuse to transform their National-and personal pain-which stems from unmitigated anger- countries, communities, families, etc. will never find any form of peace.
Like the crazy making song Sherry Lewis used to sing, "this is the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends...
PART ONE
@JennS,
Snarky's comment! Sure, we can be Charlie's Angels again. (I mean, Sophie, we may as well! As Mumsy says, get on the horse & ride!)
NOW ABOUT THE LITTLE AMERICAN CREEPER WHO TOOK DOWN THE QUEEN'S PORTRAIT.
HE HAPPENS TO BE A POSTER BOY FOR RICH, WHITE ENTITLEMENT & PRIVILEGE. HE IS LIKE
A SORT OF U.S. PAMPERED (BUT STUDIOUD) PRINCE HARRY. HIS RICH DADDY WORKS IN
Washington DC WITH A HOST OF INTERNATIONAL CLIENTS
• Matthew Katzman is 25 and “the son of a top lawyer from Maryland.” [For Nutties who aren't familiar with Maryland, it is basically the bedroom community for the DC power base and lobbyists. Daddy Katzman works for a power base law firm in DC that does work for the gov.]
• The DM noted that Katzman is “the son of a top lawyer at international firm Steptoe & Johnson. His family live in a £4million mansion in Washington DC.” He is the son of commercial lawyer Scott Katzman...
So, OKAY, MY NOTES ABOUT DADDY KATZMAN, who works in Washington DC / his bio on his firm's website:
"....Scott Katzman represents privately held and publicly traded companies in domestic and cross-border merger and acquisitions, joint ventures and investment transactions. His recent transactions have involved cybersecurity, government services, aerospace and defense, energy telecom, satellite services, autonomous flight systems, technology, hospitality, travel, information technology and professional services. Scott also acts as general outside corporate counsel to several companies including the US businesses of several multinational companies." FURTHER, the firm has over 500 lawyers in London, NY, LA, Beijing, Hong Kong, Washington DC.....
NOW BACK TO LITTLE PRINCE MATTHEW:
• Matthew Katzman says he’s a part-time lecturer at Jesus College Oxford for the past year and nine months.
• He grew up in posh, gov-adjacent Bethesda, Maryland, bedroom community for DC players and lobbyists
• “One of three academics selected to lead undergraduate computer science tutorials for Jesus College pupils,” he wrote. Before that he was a micro-intern for Wattson-Blue in London...."dove into existing codebase to understand which algorithms were relevant to the tasks I was assigned." He also taught a course on Artificial Intelligence for Oxford's Dept of Computer Science.
• On his LinkedIn page, Katzman noted that he attended Stanford University, receiving both a masters and a bachelors degree.
• He previously worked as an assistant trader intern at Susquehanna International Group LLP in 2017, and for the American Institutes for Research in Washington DC.
• Katzman went to high school at the exclusive private Sidwell Friends, which is where the Obamas sent their daughters. President Clinton sent his daughter to the school as well, which costs $48,000 per year.
I seem to recall that back in the 60s the airbase at Mildenhall was actually USAF Mildenhall but it's certainly called RAF Mildenhall now - I have friends who live just a few miles away from the end of the runway and I've met some of the US personnel through her. I think I once told my pal's story here about a brutally frank estate agent advertising a house uncomfortably close to the take-off path as suitable for ` a deaf Russian spy'.
Also. I have fond memories of an excellent lunch of roast lamb at the Bull Inn, Barton Mills in about 1960.
PART TWO
Okay, now, a POSSIBLY GERMAINE TIDBIT:
WE'LL CALL IT,
"SOME AMERICAN STUDENTS ARE UNUSUAL!"
A friend co-manages an overseas program in Europe for a top, high-priced American university. She has done this job for nearly 20 years.
She has expressed surprise since about 2013 that many of their American students (who come from well-to-do families who pay a high five figures for their kids to attend the 6-month program abroad) who arrive for this program no longer seem to do as much work as the students from other countries who enroll. In fact, she is required to hand out $$ thousand to many of the American students who prefer to fly to other countries or even back to the US to take part in protests.
Those American students are given air tickets and stipend, from the university petty fund, and do not have to do the assigned work while gone, yet receive top marks and glowing assessments for projects they did not do. Additionally, since 2016, the students (of all nationalities) were encouraged to take part in odd things like joining in a group painting of a mural of a US president being burnt, knifed and xxx-d upon, led by a specially brought in US female artist who was paid nearly six figures for two months' "work". I saw a photo of the "art work" they did.
They were also led in creating stuffed "voodoo" dolls of various presidents, PMs, corporate leaders. Pins and all. Again, I was sent photos. Several students became very upset, as this is not the work they came to do, and they felt uncomfortable, but were told by two professors and the program head back in the US that they had to take part, or fail. A number had nervous breakdowns and she had to secure mental health care for them, or arrange to send them home as they were being bullied in the dorms if they preferred to do the regular syllabus of education they'd paid for. They were told they had to take part or would be said to have failed the program. Since 2015, she has simply kept a roster of mental health care providers in that European city "live" on her provider file. A couple of older "students" were allowed to live on in the dorms, for a few years, though they were not enrolled, did not attend class, were traveling around Europe, popping in now and then with various men who stayed too, given cash. She is highly uncomfortable about all of this, and was relieved when people left the school due to the pandemic.
Draw your own conclusions.
"Baby $2" is really fitting, isn't it? But the real credit for the nickname must go to another Nutty from the previous thread. I'm sorry I can't remember who it was! Maybe he or she will stand up in this thread and be applauded?
@Ava C
It is the action of the crazy person to effectively take two of her three names. Well, two crazy people.
And if the stories about Archie being Prince George's nickname for himself are true, she took his name, too! Never mind that she (reportedly) used to own a dog with that name.
It still bowls me over that it was more important to her to grab other children's names for her own rather than choose names she genuinely liked or that were meaningful to her. Don't women who (claim to) want children have dream names already picked out for them?
Perhaps this merely more evidence of the bottomless void within a narc. She genuinely doesn't like anything, so she has to copy what other people like. And for the rest of her life, she'll at least have the pleasure of knowing she ruined it for them.
PART THREE
And, in reply to those discussing Biden's comments about Northern Ireland, let's not forget this happened:
Hillary Clinton Appointed Chancellor of University in Northern Ireland
January 3, 2020
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has been appointed chancellor of a university in Northern Ireland.
Clinton, who ran against Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, will be the first woman in Queen's
University's 173-year history to hold the position, according to the BBC. The term lasts for five years.
Clinton will succeed Tom Moran, an American businessman who died in August 2018. The chancellor is chosen
by a special committee, which receives nominations for the position, according to the university's website.
The role of chancellor at Queen's University, located in Belfast, is largely ceremonial. Clinton will act as an
ambassador for the university as well as an adviser for the vice chancellor, and she is expected to participate
in graduation ceremonies.
Clinton received an honorary degree from Queen's in 2018 and took the opportunity to speak out against
Brexit. She also participated in the peace process in Northern Ireland along with her husband, former
president Bill Clinton.
I am a person who sort of believes that sometimes, life is more than mere coincidence.
.
I agree.
Good day all.
@Enbrethiliel wrote:
And if the stories about Archie being Prince George's nickname for himself are true, she took his name, too! Never mind that she (reportedly) used to own a dog with that name.
What's scarier to me, actually, Enbrethiliel, is that the name Archie was actually that of her pet cat, the one who died by choking on frozen grapes she was feeding it. As a person who has had both pet cats and pet dogs, I feel confident in saying there is no way a cat would attempt to eat and swallow a "frozen grape" unless forced. Cat owning Nutties can chime in on this? I think we discussed it once last year. Anyway, this Archie the poor cat story is another subtle reason I fear for "Archie" and "LIli" if they exist. Narcs who are sociopaths/psychopaths can choose to harm things, even people, without a care.
Enbrehiliel also said,
Perhaps this merely more evidence of the bottomless void within a narc. She genuinely doesn't like anything, so she has to copy what other people like.
Yes -- we see her whole life is built on things that she saw in the 1990s, things others have worn, written, said, done. The question remains, of course: what about Harry? Where is he on all this bizarre copying and name mimicry? He must be in on the madness, or share a low IQ with her (The Bench text tells me she's not very bright, and Northwestern U should be embarrassed. She may be as crafty as a fox and as sly as a snake, but she's intellectually drifting at low ebb).
...exactly, hence my post about him and his background, above.
@LavenderLady,
Yup.
So what's been going on at Magdalen?
Katzmann says he's a Jesus man - so why's he interfering with internal matters at another College?
Also, if, as he says, he's a lecturer, I'd expect him to be in a Senior Common Room, not meddling in a Middle one (that's for those who are working for second degrees, post-BA, Masters up to PhD level. not staff. He may have `supervised' (to use the term from the Other Place) small groups of undergraduates but that doesn't make him a `lecturer'.
Does he need to `check his privilege'?
Or am I mistaken?
Fascinating when the missing pieces are pulled out of the cupboard, isn't it?
• ...the portrait will be replaced by "art by or of other influential and inspirational people" reported The Sun.
• ...students reported to remove the portrait with one student saying, "patriotism and colonialism are not really separable"
More about historic removals of art:
• ...Soviet art is the visual art that was produced after the October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in ... In the spring of 1932, the Central Committee of the Communist Party decreed that all existing literary and artistic groups and organizations should be disbanded and replaced with unified associations of creative professions.
• The Nazi regime in Germany actively promoted and censored forms of art between 1933 and 1945. Nazi art policy. How do you destroy an artwork? You can hide it, scratch it, tear it, put a slogan over it, burn it, or, as the Nazis did in 1937, simply show it to millions of people.
If you visited Munich in the summer of that year, you could see two spectacular exhibitions that were held only a few hundred meters apart. One was the Great Exhibition of German Art, showcasing recent leading examples of "Aryan" art. The other was the Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) Exhibition, which offered a tour through the art that the National Socialist Party had rejected on ideological grounds. It was made up of art that was not considered "Aryan" and offered a last glimpse before these works of art disappeared.
(from khanacademy.org)
The question remains, of course: what about Harry? Where is he on all this bizarre copying and name mimicry? He must be in on the madness, or share a low IQ with her
When the news first broke, I was of the opinion that taking the Queen's special nickname was, even for Harry, a bridge too far. So his wife had to release the name behind his back. With the fait accompli staring him in the face, he realized he had no choice but to back her up.
Well, I'm no longer so convinced.
What are Harry's likes and dislikes, anyway? Does he also just copy what other people (in this case, his older brother) love?
If this idea about the name came from her, the thinking might be that if it works, we have an in with the Queen over Catherine. If it does not, it allows us to continue the victim narrative that we were trying to make amends and they didn't appreciate us yet again. Plus, the pot is still stirred and maybe 6 can take the fall?
From this, then the thinking can go in a number of directions:
6 knew and implied what the name would be when talking with the Queen.
6 didn't know and said or implied less controversial. He may then have also been blindsided by the announcement. He might have been asked about the idea and told her that wasn't a good idea and she went ahead with it. Or maybe he thought it was a good idea.
My feeling is that she may do some form of blindsiding a lot to him which leaves him feeling caught by the need of supporting her as a dutiful team player versus being able to look at the pattern of increasing separation from his family. It would keep him off balance which would be a good thing for long term controlling.
He/they called and told, not asked or didn't make the call.
Or he didn't care about the name.
I don't know, but....apparently the message in 2021 to all of you in Britain is, please hide your traditional historic figures, or yeah, we'll send over our pampered white professional students from Washington DC to do it for you? I mean, this happened too this year:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/winston-churchill-bust-oval-office/index.html
(CNN) It had once been a transatlantic art scandal -- or at least various actors of questionable intent would have you believe it was.
Overheated, confusing and laden in the end with blatant racism, the case of the White House bust of Winston Churchill still persists.
President Joe Biden has removed it from the Oval Office after four years standing sentry under his predecessor, who thought he looked something like the wartime prime minister.
An Oval Office redesign brought in new busts instead: Latino civil rights leader Cesar Chavez, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt.
Some British tabloids deemed it a snub. The US Embassy in London put out a video Friday morning underscoring the special relationship between the US and the UK -- emphasizing that it is not about a piece of sculpture.
"We've seen some discussion about the Churchill Bust, so we just wanted to remind everyone what the Special Relationship is truly about," the embassy wrote on Twitter along with the 30-second video, noting other areas such as trade and security.
##
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/10/uk/prince-edward-interview-philip-legacy-sussexes-cmd-gbr-intl/index.html
Hey -- maybe they can replace the portrait of the Queen with Beyonce and JayZ's video portrait of Megs shown as Queen?
Let's keep our eyes on the future promised unveiling of new art in that student lounge, shall we?
.
Theresa Longo Fans (BarkJack) twitter is now saying this:
citing those who work with those very close to HMTQ. No drama about the name. HMTQ does not give a flying filly about how big a hole #Sussex duo keen to dig themselves in a public arena. Not her concern, not “hurt” or feeling “violated”. #BBC report not accurate! #Megxit BUT...
NOT every family member is impressed. The Firm is in agreement that continually over time, nature will take it’s course regarding the #Megxit pair.
It’s futile to go around saying the sky is blue, since we can all clearly see it.
there is a report they hid the “nickname naming” from HMTQ. This is simply not true. She was made aware of the full legal name of the child in advance of the birth.
Don't know what to think. But I can imagine #6 thinking the baby would be named Elizabeth, then finding out his wife had reg'd "Lilibet".
.
O/T
Re RAF Mildenhall. I live nearish now (over the county border - Norfolk), and have an American friend who was based there some 20 years ago, he absolutely hated his time there 😁but he’s back home in the US now. I can’t imagine anything worse than living at the edge of a runway...😂 I think it was referred to as USAF during his time there too. 🥴
Ah, Edward! Delicately weighing in, as you say, but got some points across with the strength of understatement.
In fact, sending him out to speak on this is quite a big RF rebuff to Harry, isn't it? Basically, "Keep whinging, you're already replaced."
All that needs to be done is the official transferring of Harry's military role to another family member.
Then, onto the the Game of Titles and Styles.
Ruth Dudley Edwards, herself a Catholic, had some astringent thinks to say about Queen's last year:
https://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/2020/03/its-about-time-the-university-authorities-addressed-the-sectarianism-in-their-midst/
Queen's was founded for both sectors of the Irish people - hmm.
I've tried to get a handle on Irish history for many years now - what I have learnt is that it is rarely what most people assume. They are too ready to preach their simplistic solutions - when it's more like a case of `If you're not confused, you don't understand the situation.'
I can think of at least 3 sensitive questions I could ask about `what happened and why?' and I'd expect 3 set answers, all of which are at variance with how I see it.
It's so sad. There was a ray of hope in the mid-ish 1960s but it looks as if that was extinguished by the knock-on effect of the US Civil Rights movement. Might something similar happen yet again, throughout the UK this time?.
Just bringing this lovely tribute to Prince Philip over from Artemis's twitter (where she has a lovely portrait sketch too):
May you always know the truth
And see the light surrounding you
May you always be courageous
Stand upright and be strong
May you stay forever young
Bob Dylan
And he was.
Happy 100th Birthday Sir
HRH Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark, Duke of Edinburgh, husband, father, legend
.
I take it we're talking about what his name suggests. I've known many people of that origin and although they included communists of all shades, I never heard criticism of UK `colonialism' - it was remarkable how many had fled Cape Town to settle in West Hampstead!
Well, get out your porridge bowls and wooden spoons!!
(But, no nourishment for you, U.K. even though it says Sussex in blood red on the book spine):
Meghan Markle aims to 'nourish communities through reading' with free donations of her book 'The Bench'
Meghan Markle announced on Wednesday that 2,000 copies of her new children's book will be given out "at no cost" to communities in need.
The 39-year-old Duchess of Sussex released "The Bench" on Tuesday. The price of the book is currently listed as $13.16 on Amazon for a hard copy, $6.95 for an audiobook (which she narrates) and $11.99 for the Kindle version. Markle said previously the book was inspired by a poem she wrote for Prince Harry on his first father's day in 2019.
On Wednesday, Markle and Harry's charitable organization Archewell announced the former American actress received support from her publisher to donate the 2,000 free copies "to libraries, community centers, schools and nonprofit programs across the country." It appears the donations will only take place in America and not Harry's native United Kingdom, despite the book being available worldwide.
Archewell says the donations will help contribute to its overall goal of "nourishment through learning and connection." The announcement, which commends the duchess' Save With Stories initiative from 2020, also stresses the free copies will be distributed at a unique time for kids given the coronavirus pandemic posed "unprecedented challenges for kids" over the last year.
The release also praises Markle for believing in "nourishing our communities through food, education, and emotional and mental health support."
"Those receiving free copies include vital organizations like Assistance League® of Los Angeles, which has served the local community for more than 100 years and which The Duke and Duchess visited twice last year to spend time with the children at the organization’s Preschool Learning Center," the announcement continues.
Archewell teamed up with the nonprofit First Book for the initiative.
News of the 2,000 donations of Markle's book come amid a flurry of questions surrounding the bidding war that potentially took place among publishers. At least one expert has estimated Markle may have pocketed over $500,000, according to the Daily Mail.
Meanwhile, it appears the duchess already gifted copies of "The Bench" to her star-studded close circle. Photographer Gray Malin promoted the book on his Instagram on Friday while Heather Dorak, Markle's close friend, reportedly posted her copy online too along with a message Harry's wife wrote that reads, "From one momma to another - for the love of our boys."
Markle, who gave birth to daughter Lilibet on June 4, previously stated that "The Bench" will explore the "special bond between father and son" as "seen through a mother’s eyes" — and has dedicated the book to Harry and Archie, writing in the inscription in her famous calligraphy: "For the man and the boy who make my heart go pump-pump."
Indeed, the book features an illustration of Harry and Archie, recognizable with their red hair, sitting on a bench feeding the family’s rescue chickens, which the couple house at their $14.5 million mansion in Montecito, Calif.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.
Dickie Arbiter, who was previously the press secretary for the Queen, said the couple needed to "put up or shut up".
He told The Sun: "They left this country because they wanted privacy.
"They wanted away from the publicity. And since they left this country, the UK, they’ve done nothing but seek publicity.
"Now they are saying Harry is taking five months paternity leave and hopefully he will stay quiet in those five months.
"Quite frankly, to put it simply they need to put up or shut up."
I will lend you a "W" for today, and I concur with your thoughts on dear little Matthew.
.
Lilibet SCANDAL grows/Harry's attacks/Meghan payback time 2 The Queen 4 Sussex Royal/name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J1QF2tvUPU
https://doublebaytoday.com/dymocks-donates-its-stock-of-meghan-markles-book-to-ease-melbournes-toilet-paper-shortage/
20 hours ago — Queen Elizabeth “was a sort of stepmother for both Harry and William” after the 1997 death of their mother, Princess Diana, Robert Lacey tells PEOPLE.
The name also signifies the closeness that endures between Harry and the Queen - even amid the ongoing tensions Harry, 36, has addressed with "The Firm" and "The Institution" (as he has labeled his family's complicated dynamic in reconciling their personal relationships with their roles as public figures).
"The remarkable bond between Harry and his grandmother" has been a critical, royal historian Robert Lacey tells PEOPLE exclusively in this week's cover story.
During a conversation with the Queen, Harry "shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor," a spokesperson for the couple tells PEOPLE. "Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name."
https://people.com/royals/baby-lilibet-name-proves-remarkable-bond-prince-harry-queen-elizabeth/
@Karla,
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Enbrethiliel said - I didn't see how Harry's wife was any different from any other celeb who happened to be in the media a lot. Did it appear otherwise in the US?
No, the only issue in the US was “why is she speaking to us about this?” and then nothing, so basically no, nobody cared and likely the general American public didn’t even notice. She is nothing here.
The ladies at Celebitchy are wondering why the queen doesn’t put out a statement to clear things up. I wanted to tell them the palace already released a statement so it was not necessessary to release a second one, but I didn’t because it would probably be deleted.
From Rebecca’s post – “Crucially, however, Buckingham Palace refused to deny the BBC’s version of events, meaning the Duke and Duchess’s libel claims were ignored by the media at large.” HA HA
WBBM – if a Brit took down a revered picture of an American icon (Abraham Lincoln perhaps) in an American institution I think they would be largely ignored unless they did it in a black eating hall in which case it may gain some attention.
I definitely think this baby is real – she has to be for the obvious reason it is difficult to have TWO fake children. I’m dying to know where they will keep finding an Archie for family photos.
JennS – yes those pics absolutely appear to have been taken on the same day within the same sun-window of time, it’s unbelievable.
I’m with Teasmade that I don't believe that there's a worldwide political cartel behind them, but I also can’t explain where they seem to be getting their leverage from.
Perhaps this merely more evidence of the bottomless void within a narc. She genuinely doesn't like anything, so she has to copy what other people like. And for the rest of her life, she'll at least have the pleasure of knowing she ruined it for them.
I just had to repeat your words here again as I couldn't agree with you more. I can't imagine anything worse than being inside M's head. One day we may be free of her influence but she will never be able to escape herself.
I can still see a possible scenario for H as a dishevelled Deliverance-type character in a cabin in a remote corner of the Balmoral estate. He's already on the way to that now. In all the speculation about those two photos under the tree, taken the same day but different size bumps - I did wonder how we could tell with H. He has so few clothes and looks as if he sleeps in them. Quite plausible he'd look the same, weeks apart. That's probably why no effort was made for him in the photos. Only for M. What else is new?
Does the ideal of a prince mean anything now? H degrades everything in his orbit.
Hi! I continue to hope you are feeling better day by day and receiving effective help — please let us know. I am wincing just thinking about what you’ve been enduring.
🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
If you need a smile, I had an aunt, a tall, beautiful, dramatic woman from Prague, who was bedeviled by terrible back issues after having four children. She found relief by hanging upside down an hour a day in some sort of contraption her doctor got for her. We kids might run through the solarium where this contraption was housed, and see her hanging there, upside down, hair in an elaborate red beehive, red lipstick, Leopard-print slIm pants and black bodysuit, padded neckbrace, smoking away on a cigarillo with er long multi strand “diamond” or gemstone earrings brushing the tiles. Her big Florentine pottery ashtray nearby. Opera whispering from a speaker. After her session, she would right herself, slip on her gold mules and saunter off, saying “Mary of god! I live another day!” An unforgettable image.
.
Be well!