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
Helium Lol Jaws Again!
CRAIG BROWN: 'My truth is that she bit me first!'... Great Oprah Interviews of our time Part II - Jaws
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9366027/CRAIG-BROWN-Great-Oprah-Interviews-time-II-Jaws.html
Hugs
Part 1
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lilibet-is-a-power-play-many-will-recognise-zdns6q9jt?shareToken=edb0ac8812f53fcd538314db8519f19b
"Lilibet is a power play many will recognise
Names are personal and the Sussexes’ misappropriation of the Queen’s moniker is manipulative"
Melanie Phillips
Tuesday June 15 2021, 12.01am BST, The Times
Keen supporter as I am of the monarchy, it’s not often that I find the home life of our own dear Queen actually mirrors my own.
Yet Her Majesty’s apparent irritation over the gesture of giving baby Sussex the name Lilibet has struck a personal chord.
Nicknames or diminutives can be used for very different purposes depending on the context. What is a term of affection in the mouths of some can turn into something less pleasant in the mouths of others.
Our names are personal to us. We may call ourselves what we want; and if others call us by names we don’t want, either because this is inappropriate or disobliging or worse, this is tantamount to treating us with disrespect. It can also be a way of cutting someone down to size, which is a form of aggression.
Such a tactic is sometimes employed by powerful people. The US president George W Bush bestowed endless nicknames on world leaders, politicians and journalists. Thus, the White House correspondents for NBC, Bloomberg News and The Washington Times were, respectively, dubbed “Little Stretch”, “Stretch”, and “Super Stretch”, according to their height. They were put in their place, literally.
I once worked for an editor who used nicknames as a manipulative means of control over his staff. Some of these nicknames or diminutives were his own invention, while others were ones used by the individual’s friends. When this man used them, in meetings or within the earshot of others, this often created a faint but perceptible feeling of unease and discomfort.
This was because it felt inappropriate. He was our employer, yet he was presuming a familiarity that did not exist. The nicknames sought to mask that difference in rank and create instead an impression of mateyness, of being one of us. But he wasn’t. Moreover, the jocular way he used these nicknames often had an element of mockery, which felt like malice. All this vaguely disorientated us. Were we his friends or his employees? Was he being affectionate or undermining us? It caught us off balance. And that was the point.
He didn’t throw his weight around by shouting or rows; indeed, he tended to avoid confrontation. A subtle kind of guy, he used more manipulative means of control. Catching us off balance, even mildly, was a way of keeping us guessing about his meaning and motives, and thus preventing us from presenting any challenge to him or disruption of what he wanted to do. Using the terms of address of a close relationship which didn’t exist was a way of owning us. It was a power thing.
To that editor, I was always Mel. Some of my friends called me Mel, but in his mouth it felt as if what was intended by my friends as a sign of affection had been hijacked and used for a different purpose altogether. Subsequently, this nominative hijack developed a life of its own. I am repeatedly addressed as Mel in print by people I have never met but who take issue with my opinions, and who use this presumptuous familiarity as a weapon of insult. Affection has thus been repurposed as aggression, all in the deployment of a name.
So when it was announced that baby Sussex was to be called Lilibet, it felt to me as if the Queen had been punched in the stomach. Lilibet was what she was called by her family as a child — arising from how she had mispronounced her name when very young — and in later life by her husband. It was a nickname borne out of her unique experience and her relationship with those closest to her, and it was particular to her alone.
Yet now it had been appropriated for use by someone else, denuded of the personal associations it represented for the Queen. This amounted to the theft of a private part of herself and its redeployment as an exhibit, or trophy, in the public arena.
Of course, it’s possible that the Sussexes believed they were paying the Queen the highest compliment in choosing this name. But it’s hard not to conclude that at least one of them was doing something similar to what my old editor had done — unconsciously and almost reflexively using their baby’s name as a form of manipulative power-play.
For by choosing this particular name, which purported to be an act of homage, the Sussexes snatched part of the Queen’s most private self into their own orbit. By this stroke of appropriation, they sought to own the Queen herself and thus effectively wipe out their own loss of status within the royal family.
Except it hasn’t quite worked out like that. The gesture appears instead to embody arrogance, insensitivity and insult in equal measure. After all, true homage would have been to call the baby Elizabeth. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” said Shakespeare’s Juliet. Well actually, not always. Juliet may have wanted Romeo’s identity as a Montague to be irrelevant to their romance, but names matter.
Our names and nicknames anchor our biography. They are markers of our individual personhood and our sense of me-ness. They are how we think of ourselves. If people get them wrong, misspell or mispronounce them, this can make us irritated or angry. We are entitled not to have them weaponised against us. We are entitled not to have their unique significance for our own lives appropriated for someone else. We are entitled to retain a part of ourselves that is entirely personal and protected. Even if one is the Queen.
END
You're welcome!
And that's a great article. Forcing a nickname on someone is manipulative, as is addressing someone by a nickname before one is invited to. (When I first read about the baby name, my mind immediately went to Wallis Simpson presuming to call the Queen Mother "Cookie.")
This is something more and more people are starting to realize. Where I live, there's a growing trend of workplaces banning all nicknames except for those an individual explicitly allows. And by "explicitly allows," I mean they are put down in writing in the individual's employee file.
Perhaps I read it wrong.
Thank you for copying and posting the BG item.
One would hope that Bill Gates has enough common sense to stay away from Meghan, but you never know. Like all men, part of his brain is kept in his pants.
If Harry and Meghan eventually divorce, most of the men on this planet that Meghan would be interested in will see the giant flashing sign that will be flipped on to warn them away, but there will always be a certain number of interested idiots.
Thank you for posting the Melanie Phillips article about the Sussexes’ appropriation of the Queen’s personal nickname. Ms. Phillips’ article is spot on, and I hope that due to this article appearing in The Times, it finds its way to the scrutiny of the Queen’s inner circle, including her courtiers and other key staff members, to Charles and Camilla, and the Cambridges.
I hope this gut punch of the Queen by Harry and Meghan is the last straw for HMTQ, Charles, and William, and that when Harry departs the UK after the unveiling of the Diana statue and his lunch with Granny, he leaves with all his titles in abeyance and his name becomes Mr. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor. Period.
I also hope Harry and Meghan are privately forced to change this baby’s name on the birth certificate.
Not only did the Sussexes abuse the Queen, they have abused their daughter by hanging a millstone of controversy around her tiny neck on the day she was born. They have started her out with a toxic cloud that will hang over this child and follow her for life. She has been opened to bullying, ridicule, and sideways glances forever.
Parents who will stoop so low as to use a newborn as a weapon because they perceive they have an axe to grind against the Queen and others are inflicting nothing less than an insidious, overtly two-pronged extraordinarily cruel form of child abuse and elder abuse.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mom-faces-backlash-over-her-142500662.html
Well, okay, maybe there IS a baby, somebody's baby, but she is just a terrible narc of a mother, worse than we've even imagined.
A mother's entire instinct is to protect her child from pain; there will be inevitable pain some time, but you hope to delay it and deal with it as you can -- but to start out with it, to initiate it?? No. You are so right.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9691889/Meghan-Markle-support-Prince-Harry-unveiling-Princess-Dianas-statue.html
sorry if duplicated
Don't answer that.
Can anything be done using the current regulations?
Quarantine her the moment she sets foot here?
`No spouses or offspring'? Tough on Catherine.
Make her wear a mask so nobody can see her face? Something like a black balaclava with only eye-holes? She's quite a terrorist after all.
Cancel the whole thing? Plead crowd control problems outside KP - hostile ,not adoring.
Hide the statue?
Claim it's been stolen and melted down?
Or just pray that Wm can persuade Gan Gan to put her foot down?
I am not sure how much of "the public" would be attending the unveiling anyway. I'm not picturing crowds being allowed to gather given COVID is still an issue.
At this point IMO the ball is in Will's court. Personally I think the preferably short ceremony should include only Diana's sons, a few Spencer relatives, and the committee that raised the money from the public for the statue. But we'll see, I guess.
Maybe the BRF are using spy apps but I hope not.
My money's on the strapless black cocktail number Diana wore after That Interview, aka the Revenge Dress.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9400223/diana-almost-wore-valentino-revenge-dress/
If she is not invited to the ceremony, it will still be something about her and what she is doing at the moment she was heartlessly not invited to the ceremony.
If she doesn't fly over, she will still be creating an upheaval about her possible showing. And what she is doing to mark it stateside.
Add on the layer of bringing the kids? What a circus.
Sounds like someone is throwing weight around. Or at least trying to.
How could Prince William regain some control in this?
WhatsApp? This is not the first time I read of the cousins having a group one to stay in touch. Long time ago.
I thought the loosening of COVID restrictions had been postponed until July 19? She must be very worried that the claw is slipping if she insists on accompanying him where she is clearly not welcome. I would have expected that she would welcome Harry's absence and would immediately begin calling paps for pictures and sniffing around rich men.
This may just be her PR keeping her name on the front page of everything. IMO, though, she wants to overshadow Diana's memory, statue, sons, and Spencer family.
I'll be checking in periodically to see what their big strategy will be, wasn't it going to be yesterday or today? I hope that her showing her butt at the Diana statue unveiling isn't it.
I don't think M will turn up for the unveiling of the statue. She has that habit of announcing something in the hope it will materialise, like the Queen throwing her a birthday party or making her a birthday cake, Kate organising a baby shower for her etc.
This is billed as M 'will fly to London to support husband Prince Harry'. Support H? When has she ever supported him?
And if 'family relations have 'worsened' since Prince Philip's funeral', the floozy turning up is guaranteed to make things worse, not better. In any case, I read a while back that Kate wasn't going so why should M? She can't let go of her prisoner.
We know they are being ignored by the BRF.
We know Kate was surprised to be asked about them.
We know The Palace will no longer ‘play softball’ with them.
We know Oprah has distanced herself.
So, was Harry uninvited? Will Charles be taking both sons’ place instead?
Were they told their titles were going to go?
"So was Harry uninvited? Will Charles be taking both sons’ place instead?"
I cannot imagine Charles unveiling the statue of his dead ex-wife. I know everyone looks at this differently but I can't imagine anyone in the RF going to the unveiling except Cambridge and Sussex members. Why would they?
Just me?
How fascinating that Oprah so publicly took herself out of the running to be godmother! I personally think she would have been all for it, had the baby not been named for the Queen. If it raised eyebrows that Harry's part-time black wife named her baby after the supposedly racist head of a supposedly racist family, imagine the reaction if Oprah, who got to hear the racism accusations in person, agreed to be the godmother. I wonder if she feels played for a fool.
It had not occurred to me that O's *primary* reason for declining to be godmother to Meghan's purported child would be due to her namesake the Queen being accused of being a racist--though that would be a convenient cover story. However, I think that topic is too incendiary even for Oprah. Frankly I was surprised that *Oprah* expressed surprise that Markle 'went there' with the racist allegations. I thought raising that bugabear was the entire point of the interview and would have been egged on strenuously by O. But maybe once she was actually doing it, O. began to feel that Markle had gone too far. After all, it was only three years ago that O. was given a very high-profile seat at a Royal wedding.
In general I have no use for Oprah any more, having admired her once upon a time in the late 1980s. She seemed much more humble and human-sized then, more genuine. I'm sure that ambition was always in there but we didn't get to see the Demigoddess Complex in earnest until about 2000, when she launched her eponymous magazine so she could provide her readers more directly with the Gospel According to Oprah and put herself on every month's cover. That is when I went off her. It's like the current O. and the woman who played "Sophia" in The Color Purple in 1986 are two entirely different people. I miss the other one, if she ever actually existed.
That said, I have to commend O. on her smooth side-stepping of the Godmother Question with a diplomatic answer. She blamed her own age, not anything to do with the Queen's implied racism. I don't think H$M are the only ones trying to do damage control.
Surely the velociraptor realizes if she does go, even with baby, the press will have a field day reminding her that Archie was too young to travel to Balmoral, back to the UK from Canada, etc all when he was older than Lili is. Well, of course there is that Elton John chateau getaway but that's allowed because it was free.
I don’t know that I would have wanted to fly from California to London, but if I had a rich friend’s private plane….. maybe?
" I've just gone on OW & GK Twitter and everything that was on about MM & H is gone!
The only thing that's left on OW is about the 'ME you can't see' with #6
Can't believe they've removed every trace of MM"
Anyone here who has given birth: What state were you in a month later? Nice firm tummy, able to squeeze in anything you want? Feeling clean and fresh? Got an okay to travel from your doctor? Able to squat with ease? Milk all dried up, if not using it? Able to sit comfortably for hours, even on a private plane? No feeling like, oh, I've forgotten to bring something with me, someone who might need me?
Just me?
Okay, I'll play! I was in my early 20s when mine were born, though, and extremely fit. I did the natural childbirth thing. I left the hospital 12 hours after youngest, my daughter, was born and only stayed that long so that the blood tests, etc. could be done on her. Then I played badminton with husband and 3-year-old son when I got home while baby napped and tore my stitches. I was not happy for a couple of weeks after that. I could wear my pre-pregnancy clothes within a month with the last baby and when going home after the first, but I was *very* active. I would *not* have gone on a trip without babies. I nursed, so no dried up milk for over a year. I didn't make any long trips to introduce babies to family for @ 3 months.
I suspect that had I been 30+, I would not have bounced back so quickly.
I had some friends that were my age, not as fit, that did not bounce back as quickly.
Daughter had C-sections, was 5 years younger than 6w when her last was born, and was not a happy camper for at least six weeks after youngest granddaughter was born. Now SHE would probably have liked to have traveled to a resort and left her husband as well as four young children behind but, sadly, she didn't have that option.
@victoria_ward
Senior news reporter/Acting royal correspondent at the Daily Telegraph.
London, England. Just tweeted today.
"The Duchess of Sussex will not fly to the UK to join Harry for the unveiling of a statue of his late mother, sources confirm, after a US website claimed she would join him. She’s just had a baby, they point out"
So the information appears to be true. I know that Press Gazette was requesting Oprah to withdraw the fake news stories she used in the interview. The ITV TV network withdrew, but Oprah was refusing.
My boss is a very dominant person in many ways. A good person in other ways too. He uses nicknames. I haven't received one (thank God) but other employees have, particularly females. I have always felt it is a weird mix of control and admiration, but more on the controlling side. Markle has given us such a weird psychological topic for us to stew over with this name.
What exactly is missing? 🤷🏼♀️
Have to wonder if the radar plant was The Palace to force Meghan’s hand early and prevent a surprise arrival?
But yes, that!
The only thing that's left on OW is about the 'ME you can't see' with #6
Can't believe they've removed every trace of MM".
https://iamkateshaw.medium.com/oprah-with-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-interview-transcript-30071fdb2c00
About 3/4 down H discusses, the decision to remove titles and role as well as funding for H$M. Stating they would still be with the RF if they could get everything they want, etc.
Blogger SwampWoman said...
I would have expected that she would welcome Harry's absence and would immediately begin calling paps for pictures and sniffing around rich men.
This.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-publisher-attacks-oprah-over-faked-meghan-markle-headlines/
some claim "Anyone else notice that besides the big interview, Harry’s wife has been scrubbed from Oprah’s feed. Happened soon after the palace said they would be clapping back at any lies said about them"
Meghan Markle fails to make top 50 bestsellers with her children's book as she loses out to high-flying Marcus Rashford
Meghan Markle’s first children’s book has failed to hit the UK Official Top 50 after selling just 3,212 copies in its first week—being beaten by footballer Marcus Rashford’s self-help guide.
Hopefully she didnt pick up a bug from one of those politicians she met this week.... she should take it slow and easy getting back into the face to face meetings.
Politicians arent worth it!
@JennS,
Regarding the Queen's absence from Royal Ascot: I've read a few articles about a small Covid infection outbreak in Cornwall attributed to the G7 conference activities, G7 police teams, delegate teams, and surrounding areas, so I'd assume they decided she should stay home for now, simply out of an abundance of caution. See:
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/covid-outbreak-during-g7-summit-5523079
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1448449/g7-angela-merkel-coronavirus-outbreak-germany-delegation-security-cornwall
https://www.politico.eu/article/potential-coronavirus-covid-19-outbreak-g7-police-ship-uk-cornwall/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-57469306
@Elsbeth1847 said,
If she shows to the ceremony, it will spun into her somehow. [...] How could Prince William regain some control in this?
Elsbeth, in William's shoes, I would
(Step One): have guests at the Polo Baby match drop to the press or twitter what they saw: MM erratically walking about with a plastic doll or whatever it was that caused looks of horror and shock to cross their faces in time for camera clicks.
(Step Two): then put out a caring statement to the press saying, "due to the RF's ongoing concern that MM may have personal well-being issues after the births of her children, and to avoid further situations that might cause her to resume her suicidal tendencies, we have strongly the young couple to stay in America for treatment and to care for their child and newborn. Her appearances and conversation on Zoom have greatly worried the Queen, who hopes professional help will be sought in California.
.
As you may well know, if she does choose to seek professional help, it is not considered appropriate to have a family member (ie her mother) offer the guidance (if she has the licensing to do so). Applicable to 6 as well. Degrees of separation.
Since I wrote that, it seems that concept was shut down (Oh dear. Probably for the best for her so soon after the baby. So sad. Maybe another time?)
@Rebecca,
That's interesting about the poor UK books sales.
Which makes me remember this story from a few days ago in the Express...which made me think. "Why would a publishing house rush out a first book when its author is so indisposed she can't even do a 10-minute phone-in interview from her mansion? Why not just wait til Christmas season? Why was it timed to her due date in the first place?"
Meghan Markle shelved plans for tour to promote first book The Bench 'Too tough!'
MEGHAN Markle had a "very valid reason" not to participate in promoting her new book The Bench as she was heavily pregnant with daughter Lilibet Diana
June 11, 2021
Meghan Markle decided against any self-promotion for her new children's book The Bench, as she was heavily pregnant with her second child Lilibet Diana. According to royal sources, interviews and press calls have been "too tough" for the Duchess. The Bench was released on Tuesday, June 8, whilst Meghan Markle gave birth to her daughter a few days previously on Friday, June 4.
Royally Obsessed hosts Roberta Fiorito and Rachel Bowie discussed Meghan Markle's new book and her reason for declining to participate in promoting the book's release.
Ms Bowie said: "I feel like maybe she would have done one interview but she was so pregnant, if she hadn't have had the baby, it would have been too tough."
"It would have been good timing so that it doesn't look like she's saying no to interviews. She has a very valid reason as to why not to do personal promo.
She added: "We've seen Christian Robinson do promo for it and we saw that they sent out copies to influencers."
READ MORE: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1448411/Meghan-Markle-news-The-Bench-promo-pregnant-Duchess-vn
@JennS,
Great article find on the Queen and Royal Ascot this year, Jean! So glad to read it, as I was a little worried when I saw your comment about her lack of attendance, and recalled seeing the G& covid stories. She has her tiny feet up and a nice pink gin, good for her!
1. UK Nutties: ANYONE CATCH THIS ON GBNews tonight:
Robert Jobson
@theroyaleditor
·
3h
Will be talking “Royalty ” on our regular slot #CrownDuels with presenter
@danwootton on his @GBNEWS show tonight at 9.30pm - please tune in
2l. Something funny from Tourre's twitter:
Megalomaniac exports her latest husband all the way from the UK to California so as to use his money to pretend she's a superstar Democrat bigshot, while dissing the Royal in-laws...Then she sees them literally working with the Bidens in England. Got to laugh.
and
America's First Lady & the Duchess of Cambridge working for good causes infront of a worldwide audience at the G7 in Cornwall....Have the Markles issued a writ yet?
.
I read somewhere- and no, I don't remember where- that the queen will attend on the two days she has horses running and would not be there everyday because she is in mourning.
she wasn't too pregnant to do the interview with Oprah, or the endless number of Zoom calls, or visit the daycare, or hand out food, or put out endless PR articles, or hire an all new staff, or start a new charity, Spotify deal, Netflix deal, or Proctor and Gamble deal....
We all know Madam's propensity for over-egging the (vegan) pudding . . a hallmark of liars: providing too much embroidery of what should be simple facts. Hence, Madam cannot ever simply be 'pregnant'. Nope, she's had to be HEAVILY PREGNANT in every single mention of her gestation since she released that Tree of Life photo. That was four full months ago and she was HEAVILY PREGNANT then too. A normal woman gets to be 'heavily pregnant' maybe in the 8th or 9th month, not that she would tend to describe herself that way. Such is the profundity of Markle's gestations, carrying the FUTURE of Wokeness as she does that she has to be ponderously gravid the whole way through. The only woman in history who gets to beh HEAVILY PREGNANT for 11 months at at pop.
Elephant gestation is 18 months long. Markle can't wait that long for the merching but insists that she's HEAVILY PREGNANT for half that length.
HEAVILY PREGNANT has such a Mills & Boon vintage ring to it, no? What other Millennial (which Markle squeaks by in the last possible month going by her published age) would describe her condition in language that was sounding old fashioned in 1961, never mind 2021? Why does Markle, who wishes to be thought of as eternally young, sexy and desirable describe herself in language more suitable for the Queen's grandmother's era?
If I NEVER hear the words HEAVILY PREGNANT again, it will be too soon.
@SirStinxAlot,
But......but.....you are using logic! 🤪.
And you forgot when she draped a large child actor in a winter hat across her bump on April 22/23 and walked him to a school.
Which was precisely 6 weeks before Princess Diana returned to earth in Santa Barbara as Baby Lilibet.
Anyway she wasn’t “heavily pregnant” until her fourth month photo shoots, for fifth month PR.
So, maybe those other activities you list preceded the point in time when all women must don the satin robes of silence and peace and leave their desks, to retire to their silk-draped fainting couches with bowls of ghee and platters of salmon to await their infants.
MEGHAN Markle had a "very valid reason" not to participate in promoting her new book The Bench as she was heavily pregnant with daughter Lilibet Diana
Or--she hid from public view for the duration of 'her pregnancy' (except for Oprah) becasue she was never pregnant. It's one thing to smugly rest your hands on a moon pillow when seated and never having to move. Quite another to have to walk in and out of events in full view of audiences, many of whom would be experienced mothers or even pregnant themselves. Too risky. She walked that high wire the first time as part of the RF and she couldn't risk another 'drop to her knees scenario' particularly since a book event would be longer than one of her drive-by 20 minute Royal appearances.
@Hikari,
Cover your eyes! I used the H——- P——— words in my previous comment.
(I know what you mean, though!🤣😂)
.
.
That's what set me off! Haha. It's OK--it's not like you're the only person to use that odious phrase. I see it everywhere I look.
Maybe more of Markle's Narc baiting of the Queen, who is said to detest the word 'pregnant'. She can *do* it, did it four times. Just doesn't want to endlessly talk about it.
We know how Markle loves to rub it in.
@Hikari,
Risky? But she says she was pregnant, so did Harry, so she must have been.
We even got to see her bump grow in a single one-day b/w photo shoot, remember? The beautiful poses under a tree. And Oprah shouted something like “what — you’re really pregnant?” in a natural way at the start of the tv interview, which everyone saw. Why would they have shown that, if she wasn’t pregnant? What did Oprah have to gain?
That is all the proof I need to know Meghan was pregnant, both times. She is probably pregnant again now too, with a son, and that is why she can’t travel. I am so excited she is having a third baby! She is wonderful mother, you can tell.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I just to see how it felt cognitively to write that, sorry.)
From the DM:
Meghan Markle fails to make top 50 bestsellers with her children's book as she loses out to high-flying Marcus Rashford
Meghan Markle’s first children’s book has failed to hit the UK Official Top 50 after selling just 3,212 copies in its first week—being beaten by footballer Marcus Rashford’s self-help guide.
Does the 3212 include the 2000 they are donating to other charities amd libraries?
@CookieShark,
It is my opinion that either she thinks
(1)she is more special than anyone on Earth, so sugars needed to see her royally cosseted versus behaving like the common employed and busy women of life, or simply that
(2) she has no idea how pregnancy works, or how working women deal with being pregnant.
This from the wigged woman who expected pregnant and post-partum Catherine to guide her and take her places and scrabble about for her wedding, of course.
.
Rebecca said...
From the DM:
Meghan Markle fails to make top 50 bestsellers with her children's book as she loses out to high-flying Marcus Rashford
Meghan Markle’s first children’s book has failed to hit the UK Official Top 50 after selling just 3,212 copies in its first week—being beaten by footballer Marcus Rashford’s self-help guide.
Does the 3212 include the 2000 they are donating to other charities amd libraries?
______
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
Whew! For a moment, I thought you may have had a stroke. Did something tear in your brain when you wrote that statement? LOL
Seriously, other than writing really bad verse And recycle dispatches to her PR firms, including pictures of “four-month-old arch” When he’s had two birthdays since then, allegedly… What does she DO all day? Stroke her heavily pregnant moonbump collection? She must shop like a maniac online, but since she never leaves the house, where does she wear all the designer shoes and the trinkety ass jewelry?
Maybe she’s a phone sex operator.
Lol! It actually did feel a little like I was splitting off into a weird crazy place.....you know you are fabricating while typing, right, but you are forcing yourself to go all the way with the assignment. Kind of creepy, actually. Is this how paid bots and delusional buns feel? Yikes.
Okay, you bring up the ten million dollar question! I cannot fathom what she does, because I feel sure there are no kids there. Shopping online seems like a solid guess. So I sat down to think.
Reading DM comments,
writing “calligraphy” notes to Bezos and Gates,
going through the hair swatch samples of third world girls
Going through child model headshots
Deciding who to plagiarize next
Taking bikini walks past HotRob’s house
Writing her Presidential acceptance speech
Leaving phone messages for Biden
Trying to get Trevor to call Marvel Studios
Trying to Canada to make her a Princess
Making waffles for vacationing Archbishop of Canterbury
Chasing Archbishop of Canterbury around the yard In her walking bikini
Having Archbishop of Canterbury sign documents pretty please
Calling for “deliveries”
Calling for more “deliveries”
Taking joy rides with Markus past Oprah’s
Yelling at the rescue chickens who she’s named Catherine, Catherine, Catherine and Charlotte
Watching Harry dig the new “bill collectors tunnel”
Several people called it: the illustrator has a following and the company would want her to be #1…. I asked if there was an aggregate site to see actual sales numbers, but no one replies so 🤷🏼♀️
https://mol.im/a/9691889
Comment in DM article:
Ace of Wands, Oxford, UK
Ms Kitty Kat, you just nailed this better than anyone. Harry is already in the devaluation stage, being mocked constantly by Meg the narc. Apparently their loud arguments are horrific. I expect him to meet his breaking point soon.
Hugs
https://mol.im/a/9681213
Comment in DM:
Ace of Wands, Oxford, UK
A palace source revealed that Her Majesty's nickname for Markle is "H," after her duplicity, conniving, lying and theft of HMQ's own nickname for her baby.
“Author” hahahaha!
I predict her next book will be
“The Breach”
followed by
“The Reach”
LOL. I too read "Leaving phone messages for Biden" as something like she's leaving Harry for Biden or she's leaving Trevor for Cory or.....so who is the "Phone Messages" person.
LOL! 🤣 Or the other!
Having won His artistic disciplines 2 top prizes at a young age, Why Mr. Robinson would want to get involved in this mess is beyond me. Does he want his career Markled? To those who are saying that megs current vanity project is top of the list for children’s books right now, let us remember two things: 1. That spot can be purchased, and not by numbers of copies sold by to actual customers and 2. Finding freebies was tops of the lists For a few weeks last summer also, until it was relegated to the $5 bin. I am Magine and intrepid shopper could find a few dusty copies for one dollar at their local dollar store if they go look. It’s called novelty factor, and it’s the same reason why people like to watch traffic accidents. Doesn’t mean that it’s good—Only that Many people might be shelling out some hard earned money just to see how bad it actually is. Buyers remorse will swiftly follow, and anyone interested in a copy of the bench super cheap she just wait a few weeks and then check your local Goodwill. Markle has not yet met an opportunity that she can’t turn to dung.
On LSA, p 8724 of the Unpopular thread, someone posted a photo of The Bench on a sort of wood display table in what seems to be a convenience store, in the soda aisle, and marked with a sign saying, Buy One, Get One half price.
M's is not appearing on TV to promote Bench. This would have helped, she could have done interviews from Montecito. Such as on the Today show. My guess is that 20 shows asked her publisher and agent to get M on their show.
Same as Spotty and Flix, there was no follow through. Even after the "birth" of #2.
Unbelievable!
@JennS
Oprah isn’t daft, she saw through
madam from the get-go, as did we.
Oprah knew what “bombs” were
going to be dropped, all part of the deal.
Megs used Oprah for her “platform”
Oprah used Megs for ratings$$$
Megs forgot “Never try to hustle a hustler”
#metoo JennS
Oprey does not like the monarchy, don’t reckon
she likes megs much either 😉
But she doesn’t, and never will, have access to BP,
so uses the prats to get at them, score points,
and the scoops.
As for the Kate snippet, she’s made a sly dig at Kate
whilst stroking megs feathers, killed two birds
with one stone, sneaky, will keep madam happy,
ready to do O next bidding…
But, O may be wondering if there’s much more
to made from these two,
especially after the Queen’s rapier Touche
En Garde 🗡
Oprah might encourage megs
to divorce, promise her that she
would finally break the internet!
And O would get the Sale of the Century!
There do seem to be mixed signals in Oprah's first gracefully declining to be a godmother and then continuing to promote the Harkles on social media. With only this to go by, I'd say she wants to profit professionally from the Harkle connection as much as she can, but doesn't want to develop anything more personal. She's telling Mr. and Mrs. Harry that all they're worth to her now is ratings -- and if those fall, then they will mean nothing.
A likely story! Where do they get their `facts' from? Out of a bottle of something potent?
@Enbrethiliel
Yes! you’re right. That’s what I was trying to say,
and failed 🥴
You’ve perfectly summed up the Harkles/O
tenuous relationship’ Cough, or Drop!
She smiled sweetly and said she looked forward to meeting her.
Nice one!
@WildBoar
“You can catch more flies with honey
than with vinegar”
Thanks for the ‘Wovember Wool Witties’
loved ‘em 🐑
@Puds
A barrel of ink, and a sharpened quill
Best defence, against that ne’er-do-well
Can you open this link --> https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/a36698188/kate-middleton-cant-wait-to-meet-lilibet-video/?utm_campaign=likeshopme&utm_medium=instagram&utm_source=dash%20hudson&utm_content=www.instagram.com/p/CP_GMvFA8KP/
Or this: LINK
God Save the Kween
Meghan Markle and the new age of deference.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/06/16/god-save-the-kween/
So Enid Blyton’s been blighted, again!
What next, the bible?
Flash backs to the burning bush?
Gospel according to Marxists
@Enbreth@JennS
Noticed the article mentions her
aunt Catherine, urghh!
Does manage to mention ‘Early Childhood’
being a cause close to Kate, and Jill.
I regress….
https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/a36674991/prince-harry-meghan-markle-say-queen-elizabeth-supportive-lilibet-name/?utm_campaign=likeshopme&utm_medium=instagram&utm_source=dash%20hudson&utm_content=www.instagram.com/p/CP5_cy4APCA/
Basically more fluff.
@Enbrethiliel
Thats even worse!!
Condescending fluff served with
a side of tripe.
“In choosing Lili… they have
breathed new life into a name
once only associated with the Queen,
and her past”
Followed by:
“The palace has yet to make any
official statement, and given their
precedent of commenting as little
as possible on personal matters,
it seems unlikely they will”
Bloody cheek!
Unleash the hounds Ma’am!
Death and taxes,
and meggers never preggers!
If anything, it's a very clear look into the mind of a sugar. Yes, that really is how they see the name grab for Baby $2!
@Miggy
Brilliant article, thanks.
I defer to the Queen,
and Brendan O’Neill 😘
Isn't that really her MO? She & Gayle got what they needed from the JH and the claw.... lots of money and media relevance again.
Now that they see, in spite of their efforts, the tides in the US are turning against the Harkles, they are stepping away a bit from them.
And if Oprah hadnt been the interviewer, it would have been someone else raking in the money....the claw was determined to throw bombs at the BRF ...I guess to blackmail them into continuing to finance them.
@Enbrethliel
Demerara’s cube will dissolve,
pretty soon…
Why H won't leave her:
From:https://medium.com/narcissism-and-abusive-relationships/understanding-the-mind-of-a-narcissist-a0bd36832203
`Their anxious partners pursue them, unconsciously replaying emotional abandonment from their past. Underneath they both feel unlovable.'
Mummy deserted him by dying in a car crash.
He married another `Mummy' and is now terrified she'll abandon him too.
He can't see he (was persuaded to?) set himself up to repeat history.
The Great Pudender
The tales we’ve all heard
About how she was shared
I won’t repeat, far too vulgar
Let’s take a look
At her second book
“The trials, tribulations, of her vulva”
@Magatha
So Enid Blyton’s been blighted, again!
-----------
Yes, I saw that earlier. I absolutely adored The Famous Five and also The Secret Seven. These books fuelled my love of reading (I always loved reading anyway from a young age) and helped me write too. Sadly, they're not woke enough these days so will have to be consigned to the bin. The Nazi book burnings of the 30s spring to mind. Hopefully, history will not be kind to these woke morons.
“The trials, tribulations, of her vulva”
-----------
Possibly a bit too close to the bone, in a manner of speaking... Careful she doesn't sue you, you know how litigious she is 😉
Todays is Iceland's National Day - Þjóðhátíðardagurinn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_National_Day
---
That compound word reminds me of the English gag about what Icelanders call Batman:
After listing all the many languages which call `Batman' `Batman', I should say,-
`In Icelandic it's Leðurblökumaðurinn - Now ask me why I haven't learnt Icelandic!'
Even that's less of a mouthful than today's name!
@Maneki
I adored the Famous Five/Secret Seven.
But Malory Towers ❤️
I wanted to be Darrell Rivers.
Plus boarding school,
and midnight feasts.
Gwendoline Mary Lacey, is megs!!
A beast..
@Maneki
Didn’t mean to offend yer
Wi megs great worn pudender 😜
Didn’t mean to offend yer
-------
No, I'm not offended, that was funny!
/Giggle. Too late!
@Swampie
Could a been worse
Megsies faux placenta…
Sadly, The Famous Five (and others), which have been translated into various languages, seem to have been bowdlerised in the French version and brought into the 21st century (mobile phones) 🙄
https://actualitte.com/article/69948/jeux-video/le-club-des-5-la-nouvelle-traduction-qui-laisse-sans-voix (English version available, see bottom of screen).
Rather like the modernised versions of Agatha Christie. This is sacrilege.
Just spotted on Newzit (flashed up on DM site). They claim PC is stripping H of titles & forcing him to divorce the wife.
A likely story! Where do they get their `facts' from? Out of a bottle of something potent?
I'm not sure how Prince Charles could force anybody to divorce their wife. Now, I could see 6 whining to Daddy for the 347th time that 6w made him do and say all those mean things, and he really wants to come home but she won't let him. I could also see Daddy Chuck snapping "Well, that is what divorce lawyers are for, you twit! If you are that unhappy, get a divorce. You could be a man and renounce your titles so 6w isn't parading around as the royalest royal ever in America. Otherwise, your grandmother is going to have to take a hand, and you don't want that. When she heard the report about the name "Lilibet Diana", I quite thought it was my father cursing. Don't even think about visiting her, I believe she still has that sword handy."
@Swampie
Could a been worse
Megsies faux placenta…
That tears it! I will have to fly to Australia and drink away that memory, and you are buying!
/That is a big memory to erase right there.
Meghan Markle reveals VERY lofty ideas for her new children's book The Bench claiming it could help 'model a new world' and shows 'another side of masculinity'
'Lofty'? Arrogant and delusional more like.
'In many ways, pursuing a more compassionate and equitable world begins with these core values.'
Meghan even went so far as to suggest that her book could be part of a blueprint for a new world, saying: 'To depict another side of masculinity — one grounded in connection, emotion, and softness — is to model a world that so many would like to see for their sons and daughters alike.'
This garbage is in the DM is any of you is interested. The two above paragraphs were enough for me.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9696425/Meghan-Markle-says-childrens-book-Bench-shows-masculinity.html
I thought madam was in purdah before the birth and now ('maternity leave') but she can't keep quiet.
Thanks for the narc link and connection "Why H won't leave her"
Holy Moly, just last night I watched the 90's Jude Law film "Wilde". I was very struck how Bosie's behavior was identical to what is described in this article and how Mrs. Spare also has the same behaviors as Bosie's (as depicted in the film).
Law was evil scary in the role. I've read often about Oscar Wilde but never put it together that Lord Alfred aka Bosie was a raging narc until this film. On Hulu currently.
I found it helpful as some one I love is in the grips of what Oscar Wilde experienced with Bosie. It's sad to watch the decline of such a talented person as Wilde.
H is getting what he deserves but I wonder if there's any glimpse of hope for him.
@Swampie
You fly, I’ll buy
Cheers 🥃
I can see why 6w would want a weak, effeminate soy boy that she can bully (as she is dipping Diana V. 2.0 in paint and pressing her firmly to the canvas). Harry is crying in the corner awaiting his likeness being immortalized in paint.
I want a manly man with a deep voice and furry body that is willing to battle dragons (and an occasional spider) on my behalf. I do NOT want to hear male shrieking "Not going near that Spiderzilla! HELP! OMG, is that a DRAGON on the roof? Call the HOA, dragons are specifically prohibited in the by-laws. You get up there and distract him before he destroys the roof; he looks hungry. Throw the spider at him!"
Well, art is one area she hasn't dipped her toes into yet! (Unless we count the "paint" job on that Christmas card.) The modern art world is also quite possibly a front for a lot of money laundering. Nice and shady, just how she likes it!
@SwampWoman
Well, art is one area she hasn't dipped her toes into yet! (Unless we count the "paint" job on that Christmas card.) The modern art world is also quite possibly a front for a lot of money laundering. Nice and shady, just how she likes it!
I will not say out loud that the first place my mind went to re Hunter Biden's prices for his paintings was more bribes being taken but, if you sit there quietly, you can probably hear what I'm thinking.
I'm surprised 6w didn't do the illustrations for her book herself. Think of the value added that would have been! (Perhaps her sugars should take up a collection for art supplies.)
Maneki Neko I saw this in the DM. I confess, I didn't read it! I was sure it would upset me. Meghan will overcome Cleopatra and poison the snake.
In my best Mr. T voice "I pity the fool snake that bites that woman!"
Oprah honestly needs to stop now. Harry needs to be saved from Meghan.
Indeed.
If I were not easily upset by details of the raging narc, I would read the biography by Douglas Murray, Bosie: A Biography of Lord Alfred Douglas.
Here is an excerpt from an Amazon reviewer. In light of the discussion on The Bench, who does this sound like?
"Murray does, however, raise a valid point. As with Douglas's life so with his poetry; the man was his own worst enemy even when it came to his literary reputation. While Douglas was threatening, cajoling, and suing most of his enemies and many of his friends, he also spent three decades inveighing (rather vituperatively) against modernism. Auden, Eliot, Isherwood, Pound, Yeats, H. G. Wells, D. H. Lawrence--he regarded them all as barbarians at the gates. His taste proved to be obstinately backward-looking, and his outspokenness not only brought into question the relevance of his own verse but also helped to reveal him as a bit of a dinosaur. In many ways, his verse was a hundred years behind the times, but had he been born a century earlier, his meager output still would have been eclipsed by the poetry of Wordsworth, Byron, Keats, Shelley, and even the lesser Romantic poets..."
Yikes!
In America we say money grubbing. In England they say money grabbing. As in M/H are money grabbers. I like the English/UK way better. I see it in DM comments all the time.
All--- Check out "Flack" series season one and two at Amazon Prime. Very funny, loaded w witty dialog and clever characters. This is Madmen set in today's London. An all female PR firm is always having to put out fires that their clients create. To spin spin spin their client's chaos into a good public image. This PR firm is actually a damage control firm. In Season one they even lift some of M's exploits such as surrogacy and moon bumps. If you do not have Amazon Prime you can sign up for one month, then cancel in the middle or end of the month.
This series is not politically correct. UK Daily Mail gets some mentions.
SHIFTING facts 2 blame BLAMELESS/CANCELLING The Queen & Free Speech/Meghan & Harry's part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Gy7T2kWUg
I certainly use the term `money grubbing'! It conveys the idea of scratching around in the dirt/gutter for any odd pennies that might be lying around. It's what the H$Ms could one day be reduced to. Not necessarily immoral/against law, just below most people's sense of self-respect.
In the meantime, they're certainly up for grabbing any money from other people that comes within their reach, tantamount to theft, modelled on a `smash and grab raid on a jewellers - chuck a brick through the shop window, grab whatever one can before anyone intervenes, then scarper.
What we've seen so far looks like blackmail/obtaining money by false pretences.
I am a money grubber in that I like to go metal detecting. Sadly, I usually find people's modern loose change, spent bullets or pieces of old stills. Still hoping for pirate treasure, though.
Part 1
Daniela Elser: Did Queen's subtle dig at Ascot send a message to Prince Harry and Meghan?
17 Jun, 2021 06:51 AM8 minutes to read
news.com.au
By: Daniela Elser
OPINION:
Back in the day if the Sovereign was unhappy or peeved with a family member, there were easy ways to demonstrate One's displeasure: having their head removed from their shoulders (which King Henry VIII did to wives Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard); literally locking them out of Westminster Abbey during their coronation (King George IV was being crowned, Queen Caroline was not allowed in) or forcing them to live in France (King George VI sent brother the Duke of Windsor – better known as Edward VIII, to France, though to be fair he had abdicated the throne.
Indeed, what greater punishment could there be than consigning a Brit to a lifetime of "foreign muck", not a spotted dick in sight).
Her Majesty the Queen has none of those options these days but that doesn't mean there aren't ways that she can subtly communicate her feelings about her various family members.
This week Ascot kicked off, an event which is usually the highlight of the Queen's calendar thanks to the preponderance of horseflesh and chance to see One's fillies run. (You'll be hard-pressed to find more photos of the 95-year-old smiling than at the exclusive race meeting.)
But this year, for the first time in her 69-year reign, Her Majesty was absent from the famed race meeting, which was taking place with extremely reduced crowd numbers and pandemic-related restrictions.
However, take a look back at Ascot 2018, the one and only time Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex attended and there is something of a red flag that was largely overlooked, which might have suggested that all was not hunky-dory behind the scenes.
The clue lies in the annual day one carriage procession.
In a normal, non-pandemic year, the Windsors arrive en masse at Ascot in a series of horse-drawn landaus, with the Queen, for obvious reasons, always taking pole position.
In June 2016, there alongside his grandmother in the first carriage was Prince Harry. (Coincidentally, we now know that was the same month he was set up on a blind date with Suits star Meghan.)
That year his stature in the royal firmament grew, with the Duke being tasked by his grandmother to undertake his first solo overseas tour on her behalf several months later.
Harry's star was wholly on the rise and he earned rave reviews for his two-week trip around the Caribbean, establishing his chops as an exemplary ambassador for the royal house.
(Don't lose sight of the fact that neither William nor Kate, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have ever been granted the honour of riding in the number one carriage with Grandmother.)
The next time Harry popped along to Ascot was 2018 when he was newly married and with wife Meghan on his arm, the freshly minted Duchess donning the requisite four-figure Philip Treacy hat for the occasion.
The Royal Ascot horserace meeting at Ascot, is Britain's most valuable race meeting. Photo / AP
But, there was one marked difference between this and the previous time Harry had attended: no longer was he in the first carriage. This time, he and Meghan had been shunted to the third carriage, alongside Prince Edward and his wife Sophie, Countess of Wessex.
Ahead of the Sussexes in the second carriage were Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall along with cousins Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.
At the time reports were breathlessly focused on Meghan's outfit for her debut Ascot outing but, in hindsight, could Harry and Meghan's lowlier spot in the carriage procession have been an early warning sign things were coming unstuck for the newlyweds?
By that point in time, the fairytale had already begun to fracture – the world just didn't quite know it yet.
Later reporting would reveal that there had been an incident involving Meghan and her sister-in-law before the couple's wedding that had left an "emotional" Kate in tears, according to the Telegraph.
This year Meghan told Oprah Winfrey that in fact "the reverse happened".
"It was a really hard week of the wedding, and [Kate] was upset about something. But she owned it, and she apologised, and she brought me flowers and a note apologising."
Meanwhile, longtime royal reporter Camilla Tominey, who authored the original Telegraph story, after the Sussexes' Oprah appearance wrote of the contentious incident.
"What actually happened was that the dress itself did not fit Kate's then nearly 3-year-old daughter. According to a well-placed source, 'demands were made about when subsequent fittings would be, and Kate left sobbing'."
Harry and Meghan recently welcomed their second child, a girl. Photo / AP
So too did reports later emerge that there had been drama involving a tiara in the lead-up to the Sussexes' big day.
The Sun later reported: "The Queen warned Prince Harry over Meghan Markle's behaviour and attitude before their wedding following a row over the bride's tiara."
The paper cited a well-placed royal insider saying: "Meghan had her heart set on this tiara with emeralds and Prince Harry hit the roof when they were told it was impossible for her to wear it."
Last year's biography Finding Freedom framed the situation differently, denying that Meghan had wanted another tiara. However, it did say there was a "dust-up" between the Queen's longtime dresser and confidant Angela Kelly and Harry after the LA-native was denied access to the diamond topper for a hair trial, leaving the Prince "furious".
(A source close to the Duke told the Telegraph that allegations he had shouted or sworn at his grandmother were "totally untrue".)
We now also know that by the time Meghan and Harry said "I do", the relationship between the Wales brothers had deteriorated badly. Things had reportedly gone off the rails after the elder Prince urged his younger sibling to "take as much time as you need to get to know this girl", Finding Freedom revealed. Harry reportedly took offence to the phrase "this girl", viewing it as snobbish and condescending and after the conversation, the brothers "hardly spoke".
The wider world, of course, knew none of this back then (ah, to be so young and innocent again) and in the week before Ascot in June 2018, Meghan undertook a solo overnight engagement with the Queen, travelling by royal train to open a bridge in Merseyside. It was an extraordinary and unprecedented gesture from Her Majesty towards the family's newest recruit and they were photographed laughing and smiling.
Again, reporting since then has cast the engagement in a grimmer light with the Daily Mail's royal editor Rebecca English saying that that it offered "one of the earliest signs that Meghan was determined to do it her way".
English reports that in the run-up to the jaunt, "the Queen's powerful personal assistant, Angela Kelly, sent a ¬message that Her Majesty would be wearing a hat – polite Palace code for 'You should be wearing one too'.
"The message came back that Meghan preferred to go bare-headed. The new Duchess was clearly unwilling to acquiesce."
Anger. Tears. Fury. Defiance. This was the emotional backdrop against which Harry and Meghan found themselves in that third carriage trundling along the famed Ascot turf.
If alleged wounds hadn't been quite so raw, might they have found themselves enjoying a loftier position?
Contrast all of this with the experience of William and Kate. In 2011, her parents Michael and Carol were invited and took part in the carriage procession.
When the Cambridges made their own Ascot debut together in 2016 they might have been in the fourth carriage but it was with their old friends, Wentworth Beaumont, heir to Viscount Allendale, and his wife Vanessa, the Cambridges seemingly "gifted" a carriage of their own.
In 2017, William and Kate were in the third carriage with Edward and Sophie but come their next appearance in 2019, they were in the second with Charles and Camilla.
Today, Harry and Meghan (along with son Archie and newborn daughter Lili) are living a life a world away from one of carriages, tiaras and rigid hierarchical adherence.
Still, might there ever come a day when we see the Sussexes back at Ascot? All I know is, the house of Windsor loves a good bet.
• Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles.
- End-
Gosh! A `slight' the Sussexes missed!
Oh, Magatha, you're a caution!
So fitting, though.
Oh oh, Megsy! Stop digging that vineyard. Dump the Tig!
The World Health Organisation has just put out a proposal stating that women worldwide who are age 50 and under (“child bearing age” as they also phrase it) should be “banned” from drinking alcohol.
None. We are banned, ladies! Put that rosé down right now! Don’t even look at that Malibu or cooking sherry!
Hmmm, maybe the U.K. has been practicing for this with their Pandemic pub rules? Hospitality industry just got slugged again.
Anyhow, the Harkles need to ditch the vineyard plan, and get back to writing awful bestsellers, I suppose. Or making fizzy apple juice, so brides can clink something in a glass at their own weddings.
☄️🍷🥂🥃🍸🥂🍷🍸🍹🍻🍸🍺🥃🍷🥂🥃🍺🍸🍹🍻🍾🧉🥃🍷🍷🍷🍷🍸🍸🍸🍸💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻☄️
The World Health Organisation has just put out a proposal stating that women worldwide who are age 50 and under (“child bearing age” as they also phrase it) should be “banned” from drinking alcohol.
Yes, the WHO, who refused to pronounce "pandemic" until COVID was out of control. I also suspect that they were heavily involved in the cover up. Since their reluctance to anger the Chinese led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, I would say that they have no credibility whatsoever.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/galleries/article-9669213/Fascinating-photos-Queen-year-reign-celebrates-95th-birthday.html
I was wrong. So you use "money grubbing" and "money grabbing" in England/UK. "Grubbing" does sound lower. Like an animal grubbing around for tasty insects. Who would want to eat an animal that eats some or mostly insects? Ducks and chickens should qualify.
Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Day for June 17, 2021:
harry
verb | HAIR-ee
Definition
1 :
to make a pillaging or destructive raid on : assault
2 :
to force to move along by harassing
3 :
to torment by or as if by constant attack
Did You Know?
Was there once a warlike man named Harry who is the source for the English verb the name mirrors? One particularly belligerent Harry does come to mind: William Shakespeare once described how "famine, sword, and fire" accompanied "the warlike Harry," England's King Henry the Fifth. But neither this king nor any of his namesakes are the source for the verb harry. Rather, harry (or a word resembling it) has been a part of English for as long as there has been anything that could be called English. It took the form hergian in Old English and harien in Middle English, passing through numerous variations before finally settling into its modern spelling. The word's Old English ancestors are related to Old High German words heriōn ("to devastate or plunder") and heri ("host, army").
I hadn't thought about this particular usage before.
Let's see - may I add:
Wm I's savage campaign against the northern English who rebelled against him is called the `Harrying of the North' see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North for details.
Is it related to `Harassing'? Or the small hounds called `harriers'? Or the `Hen/Marsh Harrier' a specimen of which protected bird H was suspected of shooting.
Then again, there the Harrow Way, and ancient track thought to be a herepath in N. Hants.
We've also mention Hereford(shire) in the past - that = `army ford'(shire).
BTW, I spent yesterday afternoon, trying to follow the boundaries of a local parish according to a Charter from the time of Ethelred (early 11thC). Was fairly successful but I still need to fill some gaps!
My OHG is even more limited!
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/harridan
Indeed, they can all suck it - totally ridiculous, any female of childbearing age can range from 13 ish to late 30's/40's in some instances, totally ridiculous statement!
Puke!
Scroll down until you get to this heading>>> The Markles of Downing Street
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9698593/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Krays-blush-Stop-Funding-Hate.html
@WBBM
Is it related to `Harassing'? [ harrying]
---------
It can't be as harass has one r and is a different word.
1610s, "to lay waste, devastate" (obsolete); 1620s, "to vex by repeated attacks," from French harasser "tire out, vex" (16c.), which is of uncertain origin; possibly from Old French harer "stir up, provoke; set a dog on" (according to Watkins, from Frankish *hara "over here, hither," from Proto-Germanic *hi‑, from PIE *ki-, variant form of root *ko-, the stem of demonstrative pronoun meaning "this"), and perhaps blended with Old French harier "to harry, draw, drag" [Barnhart]. (www.etymonline.com)
I also don’t know what she is smoking about Clinton but we can agree to disagree on that point.
I'm going to check out that show Flack, thanks for the suggestion!