New open post to discuss Meghan's upcoming NPR interview for "The Bench."
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
Once again, the living grandmother Doria is left out and forgotten.
Of course, once she or one of her hired hand reads this here, she will quickly send out an article to say her mother's fav flower was also depicted in the book - that will be the weeds.
It is actually Harry's time out bench.
What are they? Homeless?
Thanks for posting the text of the NPR interview.
• "Growing up, I remember so much how it felt to not see yourself represented" -- absolutely, especially if anyone else said this. There was huge underrepresentation, definitely. However...."not to see yourself" is a big absolute claim. Especially since she was an LA "tv" child, did she miss all this along with the fact America had Black men to date, and tabloids?
For our UK and EU nuttier, in the United States, in these years, Black television shows like enjoyed great popularity. Just to balance her total US racism/no representation trope:
The Oprah Winfrey Show. 1986-2011. <----oh yeah! oops! But no one watched that?
Julia (Diahann Carroll) 1968-1971
Good Times 1974-1979
What's Happening 1976-1979
[Movies 1970s: The Wiz, Mahogany, Lady Sings the Blues]
Dominique Deveraux is a fictional character on the ABC prime time soap opera Dynasty and its spin-off, The Colbys.
The Jeffersons, 1975-1985
Gimme a Break. 1981-1987
The Cosby Show: 1984-1992
227 1985-1990
A Different World 1987-1993
Family Matters 1989-1998
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air 1990-1998
Martin 1992-1997
Models like: Naomi C, Naomi S, Tyra, Veronica, Iman, Grace....Lisa Bonet....
singers, actors...two friends have YSL photos of Mounia framed on their walls.
For a list of 80s must-see Black films: https://melaninislife.com/blogs/lifestyle/80s-black-movies
And, sorry, Thomas Markle story, but: The first African American doll in the Barbie range is usually regarded as Christie, who made her debut in 1968. Black Barbie was launched in 1980 but still had Caucasian features.
First appearance: March 9, 1959; 62 years ago
• "hopefully can open this book and see themselves in it [...]. or a different body shape or"
What? You mean, like the portly dad you are ashamed of? The half-sister in her wheelchair? Like that?
• "that I wanted infused in there"
What?
"her mother-in-law's favorite flower, and, of course, the family's rescue chickens.
"I needed my girls in there," says Meghan.
Who are "my girls"? Diana and the chickens? Where's Doria?
Getting back to HAMS. I don’t know. I’m trying to catch up and the only thing I can figure is: none of this is new news. Is it? Also, how many times has this happened where it all sounds juicy and like it’s about to go down and then not one thing happens? Will anything happen this time?
A few thoughts though I’m not finished catching up on posts:
I do agree they should have moved closer to the east coast. If they had moved to a smaller, less glossy area, they could have gotten much more land and more privacy, etc: outside Atlanta or Nashville is sort of what I was thinking.
Chelsey and Cressida look nothing alike to me. Both have moved on and neither wanted to marry Harry.
I don’t think Harry or Archie will be removed from the line of succession. lily isn’t officially on the list yet, so I leave her off for now.
I agree Harry should just skip the ceremony for his mother. Just leave it alone. She is dead 20 years so either get your own statue commissioned and put it at Althorp or At their current house and they could move it if they move.
Does anyone know if the ceremony is public? It seems in comments I read, Brits suggest the public will be there. I have not read anything ro suggest it will be open to the public. I assume the committee and donors will be there— I’m guessing 25 people plus press? Any ideas?
Harry needs a Bench, as a place to call home? What are they? Homeless?
Exactly. It's a shameful, obvious comment for her to make. Lets us see directly into her game with Harry.
Someone in the last post thread pointed out cults do this:
First, separate their targets from family, talk them into feeling alone and lovelorn and without anymore home or family to break them down into absolute vulnerability and depression, a broken state.....then drip in "we are your new family now this is your new home now." The victim latches onto the cult as the new "family". The cult leader has control.
Megs is employing a combo of CoS techniques, perhaps, maybe rolled in with her usual Mean Girls control games with which she was said to have terrorized schoolmates. And perhaps skills she may have learned when allegedly recruiting vulnerable girls for a sex cult that has been in the news, Bronfman-related. Who knows. Harry is not a good person, but also weak of brain. If substances were involved along with sex, even weaker -- plus we noticed she dismantled his diet, his friendships, his exercise routines, his polo fitnesss and connections.
.
I’m like everyone else… just sitting back waiting to see if anything ever happens. Though as I mentioned before, I’m getting bored and tired of this other family’s drama…
So I take it there is a bench with inscribed plaque in the Frogmore gardens?
-----------
Ha! Good question! Maybe they took the bench to Canada and the US??
°°°°°°°°°°°
I had a quick look at a paragraph or two in the DM article and apparently, 6w 'today claimed that her two-year-old son Archie is a 'voracious' reader who 'loves' her new children's book, which she also said features a depiction of Princess Diana's favourite flower.'
A voracious reader! Is Archie as interested in the Bench as in Duck Rabbit? And she had to insert Diana when she mentioned the book.
~~~~~~~
Re the Bench, in the UK the only benches with an inscribed plaque are the ones commemorating a local citizen who used sit at that particular place, for instance, and who has died.
Adorable Father's Day photos of WILLIAM with his children -- enjoy!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9705987/Prince-George-Princess-Charlotte-join-Prince-William-Sandringham-Estate-Fathers-Day.html
.
She comes across as a fantasist and deluded.
Perhaps this is why Meghan sounds so clingy and desperate at all times?
Archie is a 'voracious' reader who 'loves' her new children's book
hahaha I just saw this and was about to post.
Such findings could change when children start to read. Currently, children on average learn to read at 5-years-old, but the experts believe that 3-year-olds should be tested to see if their language skills are developed enough to start early..
she probably showed up at the airport with the bench harry carrying it in tow. demanding to use it as one of her checked bags 😉
As far as I’m aware it is a private affair. The unveiling was moved to private area (I believe due to the public fallout of the brothers) so I doubt it’s for public consumption. 🤗
-- I do believe a Kraken is being slowly released. For there suddenly to be so information coming out about her bullying (Lacey's new chapters, etc) there MUST BE A VIDEO.
-- She might have had her "spouse visa" cancelled...but MM could still possibly get in the country as a "tourist." Wouldn't it be hilarious if she comes full circle...enters in the UK...and walks around the DM offices again trying to get papped?!
-- I think the relief and joy we are seeing on all shows that they have finally decided to be done with the Harkles and are settled on a course of action. Since HM changed the law before the birth of the Cambridges first child to allow a female firstborn to immediately inherit the throne, PC might update the Letters Patent similarly. In order to "inclusively deny" titles, he will say offspring of women of royal blood (i.e. Eucenie and Beatrice) will also not be given titles. Then it wouldn't be solely focused on Harry's offspring.
Best to all Nutties! May there be many more Kraken parties ;)
also saw a pic of william with george and charlotte. all very cute.
@WBBM, I've been doing geneaology research lately, too. It's been great fun for the ones I could find, and disappointing when I hit a brick wall. Found we go back to Ballaugh & Lezayre on the Isle of Man, a little town called Newburn in Fife just south of St. Andrews, and Kendal in Cumbria. Hope to be able to travel to these places some day. The rest of my family doesn't seem much interested in what I've been digging up, sadly, so I've no one to share it with.
actually for the unveiling they should have reps from diana’s patronage’s and people and family members of people she touched. i keep think of the AIDs patients many of which tried but to have their family members there would be nice. and letting the press know who all those attendees are will help mute any of the antics she will do that day. i am still thinking it’s pap walk picks of her and a baby and archie and at least one break in at the compound.
******
Remember when the Harkins had to escape from Canada in the middle of the night, with only the clothes on their back?
So....how exactly did she get that bench to California? Or did she abandon the bench (much like her dog)?
Did she leave it at Frogmore? Or wherever they were living when the pillow manifested itself?
Back to HAMS, I wait to see if anything shakes out with evidence. I’m willing to bet they either drop a Father’s Day pic or Harry shows up with Archie at the unveiling….
your husband may be right. I think it was in CDAN that I read that Harry has been enjoying the nightlife in LA when he is able to, and all that it has to offer.
Re: the statue ceremony-- it appears to me outdoor gatherings are still limited to 30 people.
https://www.london.gov.uk/coronavirus/coronavirus-what-you-need-know
When I read the transcript of MM's NPR interview, besides throwing up in my mouth, I found the use of the word "infused" particularly irksome. I think she's still stuck on her ex-chef with his rosemary-infused roasted chicken. LOL
Sit down Meg, you're basic. Keep your holes shut until you can come up with something original instead of stealing from others.
AnT- very very funny about the typical reading age, haha.
All I think about this bench stuff is ‘wtf is she talking about?’ No one, and I mean no one can relate to this nonsense. More long term mind control of Harry!
You just reminded me: WHY did they have to escape from Canada for the pandemic, exactly?
Lots of Canadians stayed there, I think, even those without giant Russian mansions on secluded areas with staff. And Canada is In the Commonwealth, and where her best pals live.
Oh that’s right — the freebie Tyler Perry mansion. Because they are poor.
Well done on the pup rescue.🥰🐶
Doesn’t leaving Canada coincide with the revoked security and privileges (loss of international HRH recognition)? During the time, even Trump weighed in and said the US would not cover their security costs (I assume from the media briefings as well as security briefings).
I read somewhere that Tyler Perry either picked up the tab or they paid him? If they were paying him for the rental, wow they got out of it fast.
I do believe their entire M/O is a race against time on their bills. Meghan comes forward to hawk things and Harry comes forward to boast of the ‘la la land’ his brain resides in.
Though I can imagine a million or so Crocodile Dundees in the outback with multiple dogs. Using Dogs for their sheep herders/protectors too. Can a pack of their dogs make a crocodile retreat? My guess is yes, but YouTube has no examples of this.
Tatty - bravo for the puppy run.
@jessica,
That is why I am perplexed — Canada said no, and the Canadians had a public fit about the mooching Harkles.....but the US didn’t say yes. Was it to be near Oprah and her riches, and other pre-arranged deals....probably so. Something is in LA that Megs needs. Her expectations of starring movie roles or something else?
Room 222, yes!
Hangin’ with Mr Cooper (1992-97)
Roc (1991-94)
The Wayans Brothers (94-99)
Moesha (1996-2001)
Living Single (1993-98)
I work with a trap, spay/neuter, release group that traps feral cats and has them spayed or neutered and releases them back to the same place they came from. We also find homes for younger cats and kittens that aren’t feral yet. We have covered feeding stations for food and water and shelter boxes they go into when the weather is cold or otherwise bad. It is sad to have all these feral cats, but spaying and neutering helps the situation.
Three cats that were all born feral have found their forever home at my house. Two were kittens and one is an adult that was probably hit by a car that has a crippled front leg that can’t be fixed (a veterinary orthopedist who examined him and did x-rays said it had fused in a manner that is not fixable). He never would have survived much longer out on his own with a bad front leg. He couldn't hunt or compete for food or defend himself with a bad leg. He turned into a cute love bug after about 6 months in my home and gets along great with my dog and the other two formerly feral kitties.
I think that on some level, all rescued pets know they hit the doggy or kitty lottery when they get a forever home.
@Tatty
Good work on behalf of the cats & dogs by both of you
Apart from Hollywood, does it have the highest concentration of super-rich men?
I remember Julia
What is the LA draw?
Perhaps wanting to come back and show off to all the people who hadn't given her a role she thought she should have gotten? She left LA for Canada and that did not lead to bigger and better roles - wasn't she written out and the engagement made that easy for them?
Thinking along the lines of something similar for her father. Maybe she asked for something and he couldn't do it. Not convinced she takes a no well and is able to move up to rise above.
I am a foster mom and transporter for several rescues, but with my basically 2 years of orthopedic issues, I had been benched. 😁
I wound up taking two lab puppies back home with me because the shelter in TX decided the Foster group was sketchy and they had no names so I named them Lily and Lottie 🤪🤪. The hound/beagle mix was named Tucker but I kept calling him Trevor 🤪🤪 and I kept thinking to myself that I have surely lost my mind. 🤣🤣
Thanks Ant. Xxxx I would like to think everyone likes dogs. Happy days, kudos to you because trap spay and release is hard, I find. DH is deathly allergic to cats so no cats for us. Feral cats are also really hard, so thanks for helping in that area.
Thanks, Sylvia.
So the little black labs are with me until they get vetted and old enough to go on transport I guess in a month or so. We weighed them today and they weigh 9 pounds and are around 8-10 weeks old. I’ll attach a pic when I can. Im exhausted.
Getting back to HAMS to make this post relevant, I can’t think of anything. I assume they are going to drop something large soon.
Here is a photo. Lily has the white on her front paws and Lottie has the black front paws,
https://ibb.co/bQ7SxTD
And here are the huskies, but these are the only pics I took because it was chaos. https://ibb.co/7pc5QLg
Someone in the last post thread pointed out cults do this:
First, separate their targets from family, talk them into feeling alone and lovelorn and without anymore home or family to break them down into absolute vulnerability and depression, a broken state.....then drip in "we are your new family now this is your new home now." The victim latches onto the cult as the new "family". The cult leader has control.
@AnT:
You are spot on. You’ll find cult recruitment, manipulation, and control behaviors all through Meghan’s strategy to initially hook up with Harry and then quickly get him into her steely grip. Harry was ripe for a narcissist like Meghan to target him and spend two years after her divorce from Trevor stalking him.
The only difference between joining a cult and getting caught up into a relationship with a narc is that a relationship with a narc is a cult that has only two members. Meghan leads and Harry obediently follows.
I can only guess at the amount of emotional and perhaps physical abuse masquerading as love that Harry has been subject to since Meghan came into his life. Their children will be subjected to the same treatment from her. Poor kids. That’s why if they split, which may happen if the kids do not get titles (they will be much less useful to Meghan without titles) the kids will be better off if they are removed from her control abd raised in the UK.
Check out these two articles and one blog post that describe the striking ways narcissistic relationships resemble joining a cult.
Psych Central 14 Ways Narcissists Can Be Like Cult Leaders
https://psychcentral.com/blog/narcissism-decoded/2017/03/14-ways-narcissists-can-be-like-cult-leaders#1
And
From Psychology Today, 9 Ways Many Narcissists Behave Like Cult Leaders
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/narcissism-demystified/202103/9-ways-many-narcissists-behave-cult-leaders%3famp
And from the After Narcissistic Abuse blog:
Narcissists stalk their prey as a predator does but with the intent to extort what they can from ALL people.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/afternarcissisticabuse.wordpress.com/2019/05/23/narcissists-stalk-their-prey-as-a-predator-does-but-with-the-intent-to-extort-what-they-can-from-all-people/amp/
Great work on your cat rescue work. They all need our help.
For black TV shows Sanford and Son always got me laughing. Red Foxx was great. He knew and associated with Malcom X before Malcom x became (renamed himself) Malcom X. This was in the biography of Malcom X which I read years back. In Sanford and Son The blacks were portrayed as clowns. So this show would never made today.
But the white flipside of this was the ultra clownish Dukes of Hazzard which I always watched. So whites and blacks wanted to see TV that made them really laugh.
Unlike today with all the vicious twitter mobbing of those who deviate from the Woke party line. We see how even ultra-lib Chrissy Tiegan (she and Legend always were posting viciously anti-Trump material on Twitter) got wasted by these ghoul-Woke twitter mobs
Another you missed is "In Living Color" The Wayans brothers starred in this. J-Lo got her start there as fly girls dancer. This 1992 era show allowed skits that made fun of gays. That I am sure the 1992 gays also got many good laughs from. Jim Carrey was the token white boy they needed for some skits.
"In Living Color" was exactly that. It was not just a black show. They had Hispanics too, and other people of color. MM was too young but if 18 or more she would have fit in, if she had the talent. I am positive that the "Living Color" auditions were overwhelmed by those who wanted to get on this ground breaking show.
See YouTube for some excerpts from "In Living Color"
I can’t believe I forgot In Living Color! brilliant. A lot of comedians and actors got their fame-start there, too.
He deserves his success
For his sake I'm glad of the book exposure
There is a Q&A interview with a person called Craig online
iImagine C.R's experience 'collaborating 'with #6w
Especially with #6w ' input?'
Will they collaborate on another book together after this ?
This extract from the radio interview today
Chrus6ian Robinson recalls being emailed this question
'Would you like to work with #6w ?
His response
I'm like, in complete disbelief and excited," Robinson says. "For me it was a no brainer."
It was also a creative challenge — Robinson usually works in acrylic and cut-out pieces of paper. But for The Bench, he did the illustrations in a different medium.
"I wanted him to just try something a little bit new and work in watercolor," says #6 "And that was specifically because I just felt that when you talk about masculinity ...'
Q&A from.a previouse online inerview with Christian Robinson
Q Which of your books to date have you most / least enjoyed creating and why ?
A .For some reason I almost want to reject this question I think it’s like asking a parent what child is their favorite and why. I will say it takes a team to make a book, and often the experience is more enjoyable based on how well you get along with the art director and editor. Sometimes there is a shared vision, and other times it takes a bit of push and a pull to either have your point of view come through or to compromise with theirs. Either way the goal is the same, to make the best book as possible"
What do other nutties think was #6 book The Bench a
Shared vision? Or a Compromise?
That information on narcissists and cults is horrifying. Reading that seems to check lots of boxes in what we are watching here. Truly, the extortion element too seems to fit.
Once again I hope that the children are purely imaginary PR inventions.
When I read this my mind jumped straight to when her name on the birth certificate got altered. Not entirely sure why, I can't think up a logical reason to connect the two further than someone needing an official document with that exact name arrangement/spelling on it, but I don't know how that would translate to copyright/trademark. The only scenario I could think of is someone wanting to change their name and needing to prove it was used previously on an official document (I have no idea if that's a plausible scenario or not, I know about as much about changing your name as I do about trademarking stuff - I could probably fit my knowledge of both together on the back of a stamp with plenty of room to spare lol).
The same sunken gardens where the engagement photographs of #6  w taken?
https://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/whats-on/the-palace-gardens/#gs.4dq68d
Is this place also where the suposed since refuted secret nuptials also took place?
A push, and the sort of “compromise” that Harry's now living.
Christian probably knows he will prosper long past Megs. His Market Street book (*Last Stop on Market Street) is lovely, our nephew and niece really enjoyed it, as it has a good story (Matt de la Peña) versus boring gibberish written to an adult. Her nonsense won’t phase him, he is an award winner and certainly onto the next project.
WBBM said…
Why move to California/LA?
And
abbyh said… What is the LA draw?
Perhaps wanting to come back and show off to all the people who hadn't given her a role she thought she should have gotten? She left LA for Canada and that did not lead to bigger and better roles - wasn't she written out and the engagement made that easy for them?
@WBBM and abbyh:
Meghan had multiple reasons why she returned to Cali, but aside from California being where she grew up and was based as an actress before Suits, I think Meghan has had it in for a business that she perceives as not recognizing her massive talent, which forced her to go to Canada to achieve the modest success as an actress that she had by being a cast member in Suits.
I believe Meghan thought of her return as an “I’ll show YOU.” type of return. Triumphantly returning to LA as a Meghan Duchess of Sussex meant she would no longer be a mediocre-at-best aging actress who would likely not be able to compete with hundreds of far more beautiful, exceptionally talented, and MUCH YOUNGER actresses.
By marrying Harry, she catapulted herself from D-list to A+-list not just in Hollywood, but in terms of instant worldwide fame and status.
She likely thought that Hollywood studios, directors, producers, writers and other actors and actresses would be immediately lining up around the block to throw massive amounts of money at her to agree to work with THEM, the people who formerly disrespected her by not hiring her for plum roles and development projects that as a narcissist, she probably felt entitled to get.
But alas, the pandemic came along just as she was preparing to make her grand return, shutting down Hollywood abd the rest of tge entertainment business around the world.
Remember all the blind items of her thinking she would only work with certain directors, be cast as a superhero, and that she truly thought she had a shot at being an E.G.O.T., the acronym for people who have won an Emmy, Oscar, Grammy, and Tony award?
Well, that quickly fell by the wayside as she and Harry turned to big tech companies to mine for money along with casting herself as a world-changing activist by hopping the bandwagon on any social justice and general political or social cause of the moment?
At the same time, as the pandemic threw wrenches into all of her carefully laid out plans in America, which meant a huge lack of control, Meghan’s narcissism could not resist turning her need for control back to the UK by lobbing an endless barrage of bombs at Harry’s homeland, members of the royal family, who also just happen to be Harry’s family, and the institution of the monarchy itself.
But she is apparently so profoundly narcissistic, grandiose, and entitled that she figured burning those bridges beyond recognition would never come back to haunt her.
But with Charles deciding there will be no titles for her children and her own titles in jeopardy, her life plan to return to LA and rule the roost there is not turning out as she imagined.
The only roost Meghan will likely rule is the coop of chickens that populate her back yard.
Your so right .Christian Robinson is a success in his own right he doesn't need #6w
He seems so gracious I'm so glad it's onwards and upwards for him.
O/T
@Ant Thank you for the very useful information you shared a whike back about your lovely NFC cat now thriving thankfully .The received I will use for the future health my own rescued at 7 months NWF cat (now 12)
Thank you 😻
'Hurt William threw Harry out': Royal author reveals true depth of fallout between warring brothers and says it was William who split the households amid 'bullying' allegations against Meghan Markle
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9705641/Hurt-William-threw-Harry-Royal-author-reveals-true-depth-fallout-warring-brothers.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field
⭐Also an article about her Bench interview:
Meghan Markle reveals 'voracious' reader Archie, 2, 'loves' her book The Bench which features Diana's favourite flower - and says she bought Harry a bench for his first Father's Day in US radio interview
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9705407/Meghan-Markle-appears-radio-talk-childrens-book.html
No wonder they have such an issue with Will and Charles. Meghan hates boundaries.
Also, masculinity being too harsh and softening it with *watercolor* LOL girl just say what you mean- you wanted to control the artist completely. That’s why it looks rubbish.
Tons of Meghan laughs today!
Wow. Just wow.
Our NWF cat turned 16 three months ago and is nestled here on the sofa with us. Our sweet, bossy girl is doing well. cheers to yours!
Excellent point. Today is not about Harry or fathers at all. It’s about MeAgain!
Someone else who would understandably want to play down her paternal connection today is Princess Eugenie. I noticed that her Father's Day post is all about Jack being a father to August. But we know why this must be so and no one thinks poorly of her as a daughter for it.
@Karla
@Puds
And everyone else discussing the with us on Kraken Night:
Just seen on LSA:
Anon
“Tom Bower was on GMB interviewed by Kate Garroway. He said Meghan wasn’t honest about Archie’s birth. Garroway changed the subject very fast. So, yeah, his book will shake the rafters.“ 📕👀
.
Perhaps the July 1 Queen and Harry showdown is the Queen giving Harry the opportunity to announce himself that they used a surrogate. This also destroys their entire racism claim.
Harry and Meghan have messed absolutely every opportunity up.
And I wonder if the BRF will counter that with some hard evidence of Harry's wife being racist herself.
If M wasn't honest about Archies birth, neither was H. Don't let that low lufe garbage off the hook. He knew what was going on in his own house,bed, wifes crazy head.
I think GMB is afraid of getting sued. These are the same cowardly producers who saw fit to sack Piers Morgan over what he said about Maggot Megsy. 😟
Who is Tom Bower? Biographer to write Meghan Markle story for six-figure sum, says source: 'She'll dread it'
'If Markle doesn’t stop pontificating and protesting, I give the marriage three years,' the writer said.
" Bower, who is renowned for his unsparing, unauthorized biographies of well-known figures including Boris Johnson, Prince Charles and Robert Maxwell, will embark on a full year-worth of meticulous research, talking with friends, foes and associates of Harry and Meghan so that he can tell the Duchess of Susex's story, the Daily Mail reported on Wednesday. "This is the book Meghan will be dreading," a source told The Sun"
https://meaww.com/biographer-tom-bower-to-write-meghans-life-story-for-6-figure-sum-says-source-shell-dread-it
Phil Dampier (Phil is a journalist and author who has been writing about the British Royal family for 35 years).
"Blimey! If this is what Robert Lacey comes up with, wait until Tom Bower gets stuck in."
Loved the story of how you both met.
When she considered your offer then jumped in your car.. Mine too coolly weighed me up at our first meeting at his foster home . He is very inclined to bring home stray cats .
So at this point, I'm assuming there will be no picture/tribute to Harry as a father (as there was none in previous years, no pictures etc) except for HER book that SHE interviewed for today Father's Day. And no mention of HER father or HIS father for that matter.
Ain't that the truth! What is funny is that she has *no idea* that we silly people would even notice a teensy little detail such as that.
I feel bad for Archie and Lili. When they get older all of these shenanigans will be forever on the internet.
Imagine if their 'parents' are as abusive as they appear to be, children were purchased from surrogates and handed over anyway, and the agencies that *should* have been protecting them turned a blind eye to the situation.
I find it highly disturbing she shares so much personal information about ‘Archie’ publicly, after claiming to want privacy and protection for him. We all know why she’s doing it (abusers love control).
Another poster has already mentioned the problem of being a `narc magnet'- I believe that has applied to me in the past.
I went to a counsellor, following the last narc incident. She reassured me that my perception of the situation sounded accurate, then told me that the first thing I needed to do, in order to protect myself in future, was to recognise my part in the process.
Of course, I didn't like hearing this but when she explained more fully, light dawned. She asked about my relationship with my parents when I was young, and suggested that my mother was a narcissist and had in effect trained me to comply with her narcissism.
It was a matter of boundaries, apparently. I'd been brought up to accept her dominance over me, to comply completely. It seemed normal.
An example: we were at a family wedding, I was 26 at the time, there with my no.1 husband, chatting in the churchyard, when she leant over, snapped `Get that hair out of your eyes!' and pushed my fringe to the side, as if I were a small child.
She crossed a boundary, one just doesn't do that to an adult child, especially in public.
I believe that was tantamount to an assault. I was dumbstruck, even though I felt like hitting her, I was paralysed, I'd been conditioned to accept such behaviour.
Yet I didn't recognise the narcissism in my mother until I carefully read the appropriate chapter in Terri Apter's book `Difficult Mothers'.
I could see at last that I'd been hopeless at setting my personal boundaries all my life. Also, never having felt good enough, I put up with bad behaviour from rotten `friends' believing I deserved no better and all would be well if I were `nice enough' (in a way that's a form of narcissism, thinking you can cope with `difficult people'.).
It doesn't work. Narcissists can spot people like me a mile off, as I can see them now. The difference was that then they homed in on me but now I've set firm personal boundaries I clear off in the opposite direction.
are her delusions of grandeur about how her little book will change the world - is that a sign of bipolar disorder or narcissism or both?
there is an author who specialises in the issue about people (mostly women) who are narc magnets. It's true that some people attract narcs but within that group, there is a subset who stays with narcs.
I forget the guy's name but if I ever come across it, I'll be sure to mention it here.
,
Princess Diana died 'trying to avoid Tory mines fury': Backlash over landmines campaign prompted the princess to make fatal decision to delay return to Britain from Paris before her death, former aide reveals
Tory backlash against Princess Diana prompted her to delay returning to Britain
A row over her landmines campaign fatally convinced her to stay in Paris longer
The revelation was made by Diana's ex-driver Colin Tebbutt in Mail investigation
He said she wouldn't have been in Paris if it wasn't for criticism from politicians
Diana then died with Dodi and chauffeur Henri Paul in a crash on August 31, 1997
By RICHARD PENDLEBURY and STEPHEN WRIGHT FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:03, 20 June 2021 | UPDATED: 22:21, 20 June 2021
A Tory backlash against Princess Diana over her landmines campaign prompted her to make the fatal decision to delay returning to Britain before her death, a respected former aide has revealed.
Diana's ex-driver and minder Colin Tebbutt said a row over her call for the mines to be banned convinced the princess to stay in Paris with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed longer than she originally planned.
That set in motion a chain of events that resulted in her dying with Dodi and their chauffeur Henri Paul in a horrific crash in a tunnel on August 31, 1997. The revelation by Mr Tebbutt is made in part two of the Daily Mail's landmark series investigating the princess's death.
I'll leave it to someone else to post the whole thing - I'm off to bed now.
@Ant, Why are ITV so in bed with the Markles? Is seems more than a fear of getting sued.
Tom Bradby holds a lot of sway and is anti William, is Carolyn McCall the CEO of ITV a sugar? ITV really should be giving a balance report and are not doing so. I posted a piece yesterday about Dan Wootton who said
"There would be hushed conversations with executives outside the ITV studio at Television Centre that always started with something like: 'Dan, we’re under a lot of pressure. Do you think you could just be glowing about Harry and Meghan today?" He felt this was an attack on freedom of speech. But who was putting the pressure on to go easy on Neg and Harry.
Good question. Is it simply a huge fear of being labeled "racists"? I have found that the people that are quick to take up the racist hue and cry are simply people that want to bully others into submission when they do not have a cogent argument to back their side. As for the people that meekly bow to the bullies, maybe they think the bullies are far more powerful than they really are. Maybe they are frightened because they have no intestinal fortitude and the crybullies tend to be, shall we say, mentally unstable. Maybe they are afraid of boycotts or late night comedians saying cutting things about them.
It was a matter of boundaries, apparently. I'd been brought up to accept her dominance over me, to comply completely. It seemed normal.
Yes, this. My brothers and I appear to have developed immunity to people trying to manipulate us from childhood. I don't know what quality that we have that made us stake out our territory/beliefs, dig our heels in, and refuse to be moved by threats or actual physical violence.
I/we react with rage against somebody that threatens us either overtly or covertly and we immediately push back. I see other (adult) people start trembling at the very thought of confrontation. They are both ways that children react to abuse, learned helplessness or self defense mode. You had to learn to set boundaries; we had to learn that we couldn't (publicly) beat the crap out of people beating children or helpless animals.
As the Sun article mentions but way at the bottom. Hapless retains all rank, titles and medals that he earned while in the UK Military. The Queen revoked only what she bestowed onto H. The honorary military titles and positions. Honorary elevations in rank. And his military connected patronages. Also the medals that go with the above.
H must have kept these medals. But they are no longer valid. He will be mocked and ridiculed if he wears them. In the UK that is. Wearing them in America, yeah he might be able to pull that off in Los Angeles.
These Queenly revocations are what made the Poster Boy For Petulance throw a conniption fit.
'are her delusions of grandeur about how her little book will change the world - is that a sign of bipolar disorder or narcissism or both?"
Grandiose thinking is typical in narcissism.
While people with Bipolar Disorder may become delusional, paricularly during periods of mania (grandiosity or paranoia may occur along with other symptoms like not sleeping, pressured speech, reckless activities, unusual irritability, and so on) being delusional is not an essential or defining characteristic of any mood disorder including bipolar disorder. Not that I think M has either but delusional thinking is also seen in schizophrenia (persecutory and grandiosity common) and delusional disorder (non-bizarre delusions only including erotomanic delusions)
I can't really say though that the stated belief about her book is a delusion. I do think it's objectively false, a necessary condition for it to be a delusion. And if it's a delusion, I'd say it's a non-bizarre delusion. (Non-bizarre means it's something that people of the same culture would think could happen. Many people of my culture [and presumably my culture is M's culture] do believe a book can potentially change the world. Bizarre delusion means it's something people of the same culture don't believe could ever happen-- e.g., "reading the book will make people fly" would be a bizarre delusion.)
But I don't know if Meghan really believes what she says about the book changing the world or if it's mere marketing in service of "her brand." A delusion must be a firmly held, unshakeable belief. I don't know what M truly believes.
That's my take on it.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/
JUNE 20, 2021
The Optics Versus The Reality Of The Sussex Saga
thank you for that analysis.
"I don't know why they waited so late in the day to print these."
I think they run them late evening/early morning UK time so they show up in the next morning's news, especially for those that have print editions.
Harry Markle blogger relates how easily this can be done--->>
"The US tabloids seem to be written by simpletons, and read by a similar ilk, who keep banging on about ‘The Child With A Stolen Name’ as a princess. While that is possible when Charles takes the throne, who knows what is happening behind closed doors? There is nothing to stop them issuing a Letters Patent, restricting the title of prince and princess only to those who reside in the UK, and the HRH style to those who are UK citizens and residents, and to make it law that any issue must have the birth witnessed by at least two medical professionals on record.
The above has never been an issue before as members of the RF have always respected and abided by the rules, and have not taken advantage of their titles or status. That was until now, and BP must be seen to be taking steps to protect the Monarchy"
*****She does not allow copy and paste from her blog. But I have never seen this take on stripping the M/H titles. My apologies to her, the owner of the Harry Markle blog!
It's another excerpt from Lacey but appears to be more favorable to the Harkle side this time.
Ugh
there is also a valentine low piece
i'll post them now if folks are around otherwise I'll wait until tomorrow as I'm a bit tired
Robert Lacey's new book chapters are being serialized in the Times. Here is the second installment:
Part 1
BOOK EXTRACT
What went wrong between Prince Charles and Prince Harry
In his new book, Battle of Brothers, Robert Lacey unpicks the Sussexes’ Oprah interview — and says Meghan was right to cry foul when she discovered her father-in-law might not make Archie a prince
Robert Lacey
Sunday June 20 2021, 10.00pm BST, The Times
In November 1961 Queen Elizabeth II, then 35, shocked the world by dancing the “high life”, a popular West African reggae shuffle, in white gloves, tiara and sash in the arms of the controversial President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, 52. The couple boogied and joked happily together for the best part of ten minutes in a striking image that challenged bigotry around the globe.
“This spectacle of the honoured head of the once-mighty British empire dancing with black natives of pagan Africa is extremely scandalous,” complained the apartheid newspaper Die Oosterlig in South Africa – “a pitiful outrage of the dignity one associates with a white royalty”.
No one in America ventured openly to criticise the Queen, but the picture must have shocked more than a few. At that date interracial marriages were still prohibited by law in 31 of the 50 states.
In a racially prejudiced world, Elizabeth II stood for diversity before her time.
Now one single person, Meghan Markle, had brought the same multiracial dimension into Elizabeth II’s own blood family. This was one of the reasons why the Queen had welcomed Meghan so warmly into her grandson Harry’s life early in 2017 — and why she was alarmed to hear two years later that her granddaughter-in-law was not settling into the family as smoothly as had been hoped.
Love it or loathe it, the mass-audience confessional TV interview is a modern art form. Oprah Winfrey has made herself the ultimate grand master of the genre with her mixture of personal empathy seasoned with forensic analysis – and her Meghan and Harry interview of March 7, 2021 would surpass all others.
It was a coordinated theatrical production from the get-go, and at the heart of the interview’s credibility lay the variable nature of “Meghan’s truth” — abetted by the failure of her interrogator to probe the factual basis of the succession of explosive stories being produced.
Oprah’s concern, though, was not to recount banal details of what did or did not happen. Her objective was to lay out the fairytale of what her friend Meghan felt — and felt very intensely — about what had happened when she entered the palace of her beloved prince. And on the delicate question about Archie’s skin colour — well, on that subject, Oprah did do her job quite forensically. Meghan was telling “her” truth again, after Oprah had asked her “why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince” — thus depriving the baby of both status and security protection, as Meghan and Harry saw it. “I can give you an honest answer,” replied Meghan. “In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . We have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security. He’s not going to be given a title’ — and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he is born.”
What went wrong between Prince Charles and Prince Harry
Part 2
“What? There is a conversation?” Oprah asked. “Hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now . . . There’s a conversation with you?”
“With Harry,” Meghan admitted. Here was the first moment of truth-truth — so let’s go over to Oprah now. While sympathising with Meghan’s vulnerable feelings at that particular moment, the interviewer also established quite clearly that what Meghan was saying was not actually true. Meghan had certainly been in the advanced stages of pregnancy sometime early in 2019, and she was apparently scared at that time about the safety of her baby for complicated reasons of royal precedence. But when questioned by Oprah, Meghan admitted that no one in the royal family had ever asked her personally about the colour of Archie’s skin — neither then, when she was pregnant, nor at any time.
This delicate question had not been put to Meghan but to Harry, and when Oprah later put it to him directly, he almost shrugged his shoulders. Pushed for details, he admitted: “That was right at the beginning . . . Right at the beginning.” The skin colour conversation, as Harry described it, had actually taken place before the couple had even got engaged, at quite an early stage of their relationship — and it had been in general terms. The question had not been asked specifically about Archie, but about any babies that Harry and Meghan might possibly produce. “Yeah,” said Harry, repeating the question that some unnamed person had put to him years earlier — “What will the kids look like?”
“What will the kids look like?” repeated Oprah, emphasising the plural, and the striking difference between Meghan’s reporting of an Archie-based conversation and what Harry was now telling her. Nobody had had “conversations” with Meghan about Archie while she was pregnant, nor asked her “how dark his skin might be when he is born”. She made that up — though that is not to say that it did not matter.
The problem lay in Meghan’s having linked the question of her son’s skin tone to the question of his royal status. Had racism played a role in whether Archie was or was not a royal prince? At the time of Archie’s birth in May 2019 both Harry and Meghan had been refreshingly dismissive about royal status. But by the time the couple were talking to Oprah in 2021, their thinking appeared to have changed. “There’s a convention,” Meghan explained to Oprah. “I forget if it was the George V or George VI convention – that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch . . . automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess.” Archie was not a prince at present, in other words. But he would become a prince — a full HRH — the moment that his grandfather Charles became king. The convention went back to 1917 when King George V was trying to limit the hitherto traditional profusion of princes and princesses. Meghan insisted that “all the grandeur surrounding this stuff” did not matter a jot to her.
But the duchess seemed to have acquired quite a concern about the grandeur “stuff”. In pursuing his own cause of the slimmed-down monarchy, Prince Charles had been making noises about limiting the number of HRHs created by George V’s 1917 convention still further, thus cutting out Archie from his future prince-ship — and Meghan took that personally. Declining to accept that this might be for reasons of modernisation or to save money, she came to believe it was because of the colour of Archie’s skin — and she explained to Oprah why this worried her. It was partly a matter of Archie’s title and status, but it was also because of “the safety and [physical] protection” that went with Archie being called a prince.
It just makes me disgusted all over again.
What went wrong between Prince Charles and Prince Harry
Part 3
It seems likely that Meghan’s thinking had been affected by her early months living in the Kensington Palace compound in a veritable rookery of the Queen’s cousins and their spouses who were all royal highnesses under the 1917 convention. The “junior royals” enjoy such royal perks as KP’s prestigious, if sometimes cramped, historic palace apartments, and those who choose to carry out royal work also receive a financial subsidy from the Queen. Harry and Meghan seem to have viewed this profusion of HRH-titled relatives as an option that Archie might choose at some time in the future if he was so inclined. It was certainly the model of what they thought they might negotiate for themselves when they had first thought of stepping back — but when they were not, in those early stages, planning to go abroad or remove themselves entirely from royal life. Meghan and Harry were particularly focused on the question of security and “protection” — a word that, with “protect”, came up no fewer than 19 times in the course of their conversation. The problem is that royal protection is paid for by the British taxpayer, and it is not related to royal inheritance or title. It is strictly a matter of royal work. If you are carrying out royal duties at the Queen’s request, the British taxpayers will pay for your protection. If you are not carrying out such duties, they will not — and they will certainly not pay to protect you or your children if you choose to go and live in Canada or California, whether your son Archie is a prince or not.
Harry appeared to have some difficulty grasping this. “I never thought that I would have my security removed,” he confessed to Oprah, “because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk.” It was a fair point. Meghan seemed to suffer from the same confusion when it came to Archie — no title, no security — and in this context, of course, it seemed to her particularly unfair, and even life-threatening, that Archie’s title and status should apparently be a matter of his skin colour.
Oprah’s precise questioning — and Harry’s evasive answering — about when and how the poisonous issue of race entered this complicated equation made clear that while somebody’s query about the possible skin colour of any Sussex offspring might have been offensive, it had not been linked to Archie’s princely status.
Prince Charles’s thoughts that he might alter the so-called 1917 convention about his HRH grandchildren, however, did have a bearing on the situation.
Charles seems to have shared with them the plans he was nursing for changing the rules. For Archie to be saddled with an elevated HRH title could be “just a burden”, explained one senior aide who was close to the couple. The possible abolition of Archie’s future HRH was all part of Charles’s mildly obsessive desire to create a slimmed-down monarchy. His moment of triumph had come when, in the absence owing to illness of his father Prince Philip in 2012, the Prince of Wales had managed to clear all the Kents and Gloucesters — not to mention his own sister, two brothers and all their families — off that Diamond Jubilee balcony.
But to what effect? Many royal fans said they rather enjoyed seeing all those uncles and cousins and aunts — and especially the children — lined up and waving cheerily along the balcony. And who wanted to look at no one but Charles and Camilla?
there is quite a bit more
notice he says she lied - i think there are some bits of kraken but I haven't been able to absorb it yet. too busy having trouble fitting into the allotted sizes to portion it out
stand by....😊
What went wrong between Prince Charles and Prince Harry
Part 4
Charles had opposed his nieces Beatrice and Eugenie becoming prominent figures in the working royal family — to the considerable annoyance of their father Prince Andrew — though it was now obvious that these two lively and intelligent young women (great friends of both William and Harry) could have played quite useful public roles in the post-split, Sussex-deprived royal family. And now the future King Charles III was, apparently, set on eliminating Harry and Meghan’s two children from full HRH prince and princess status for reasons of what — economy and modernisation?
It was surely a false economy. And how “modern” was it to consider denying full HRH status to the only members of the British royal family who, with their mother Meghan, were of mixed race?
In 2012 the Queen had changed the rules of the 1917 convention by new letters patent extending HRH status to all William’s children — and not just to George, who received his HRH automatically since he was in direct line of succession. So at the time of the Oprah interview in March 2021, Charles already had three HRH grandchildren, but had seemed ready to get the rules changed in order to deny HRH status to his two mixed-race grandchildren by Harry and Meghan.
No wonder Meghan cried foul, and Oprah cried “What?” The failure of imagination and empathy was staggering.
The most hurtful in the roster of sharply honed accusations that Meghan and Harry levelled against his family came when Oprah asked Harry — “Your relationship with your father? Is he taking your calls now?”
The media explanation of why Charles had stopped taking Harry’s calls was all about money — the long-suffering father was apparently tired of being “treated like a cash dispenser”, as one royal source put it. But there were more profound issues at stake.
“There’s a lot of hurt that’s happened,” said Harry, before turning to talk about his family as a whole. “They only know what they know . . .” he said sadly — and a tad patronisingly. “I’ve tried to educate them through the process that I have been educated.”
Harry’s “process” of education had been his new life with Meghan — “living in her shoes,” as he put it to Oprah. With all the zeal of a convert he was referring to the concept of “unconscious bias” — an idea that had come to consume him since he started experiencing life through the eyes of his mixed-race girlfriend.
“If you go up to someone,” he had explained to the anthropologist Jane Goodall in May 2019, “and say, ‘What you’ve just said, or the way that you’ve behaved, is racist’ – they’ll turn around and say, ‘I’m not a racist’.”
Harry had clearly encountered this sort of reaction from his family — and from his father in particular.
“Your unconscious bias,” he explained to Goodall, is “because of the way that you’ve been brought up, the environment you’ve been brought up in … That you have this point of view – unconscious point of view – when naturally you will look at someone in a different way.”
Harry was talking about racism.
“My God,” he said to Oprah, “it doesn’t take very long to suddenly become aware of it.”
Popular British reaction was virtually unanimous. UK tabloids branded Harry and Meghan as “selfish” and “nauseating” in their litany of complaints, deploring the harm and pain that they had caused the Queen by reducing the thousand-year-old institution of monarchy to “celebrity talk show fodder”.
What went wrong between Prince Charles and Prince Harry
Part 5
America could hardly have reacted more differently. Former first lady Michelle Obama and singer Beyoncé both applauded Meghan for speaking so openly about race and mental health — and White House press secretary Jen Psaki made clear that President Joe Biden felt the same.
A mixed-race American woman had stepped forward to enter this fantasy world that appeared to offer such glamour and comfort, and 29 million Americans had got up at dawn in May 2018 to share Meghan’s dream — only to discover, via Oprah, that it was all, apparently, a poisonous nightmare. This was bad for the image of the hitherto sainted monarchy, and it was bad, in an international sense, for Brand Britain as a whole.
The royal family’s rejection of Meghan was “part of the whole legacy of colonialism”, declared Jamaican professor Carolyn Cooper, in disdainful reference to her country’s bond to the British crown. “It’s a disreputable institution. It’s responsible for the enslavement of millions of us who came here to work on plantations . . . We need to get rid of it.”
Harry and Meghan had gone out to the world on a Sunday night. On Monday morning, Buckingham Palace went into crisis mode. The three royal households representing the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William were locked in discussions that lasted all day.
By the end of Monday the combined efforts of the three households had hashed out a statement — a very short statement — and the press was panting at the gates. The media wanted and expected some reaction in time for the evening TV news.
But Elizabeth II — in touch with all the family and palace discussions that day via telephone and video conference from Windsor — decided they could wait. The Queen wanted “to sleep on it”. And the interview had not yet been seen by most people in Britain, since it was not scheduled to go out on ITV until 9pm that night.
When the four-sentence statement of just 61 words was finally released the following afternoon at 5.26pm — nearly 40 hours after the Sussexes had first gone on air in the United States — it started and ended in the now traditional way, with an expression of the Queen’s personal concern for the feelings of her grandson and his wife.
The meat — sentences two and three — lay in the middle of the sandwich: “The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.”
In the days that followed it became clear that the word “privately” referred only to the resolution of the specifically family-based disagreements. On March 14, palace guidance revealed that “independent external investigators” from “a third-party law firm” were now being brought in to conduct a review of the human resources issues — specifically the allegations lodged by the joint communications secretary for Kensington Palace, Jason Knauf, that staff had been bullied by Meghan.
What went wrong between Prince Charles and Prince Harry
Part 6
A week later another leak revealed the planned appointment of a “palace diversity tsar” to handle the racial matters. “We haven’t seen the progress we would like,” admitted a senior royal source, “and [we] accept more needs to be done. We can always improve.”
Diversity! Diversity! Meghan and Harry had delivered some low blows in talking to Oprah in a thoroughly non-familial fashion, but it was impossible to swat away their essential truth. When Meghan had arrived in Buckingham Palace some three years earlier and had walked down any corridor — or the corridor of any other palace — to enter any office, the face of virtually every senior official whom she encountered had been white.
Across St James’s Park the stuffy old Tory government had a non-white chancellor of the exchequer (Rishi Sunak) handling the wealth of the nation, with a non-white home secretary (Priti Patel) handling many other vital aspects of national life — including the police. But Elizabeth II, head of the multiracial Commonwealth, was still running her show with a virtually all-white team. What had happened to the brave diversity principles established and championed so boldly more than half a century ago by the colour-blind young monarch who had danced in the arms of President Nkrumah of Ghana? In 1961 Elizabeth II’s diversity principles had shocked, challenged and inspired the world. Now her palace was the object of worldwide scorn — and even horror.
The monarch who “never put a foot wrong” had taken a misstep. Elizabeth II might feel she had nothing to prove when it came to accusations of racism, but she had entrusted the essentials of her reign to the custody of those clubby white father figures who comforted her as her private secretaries over the years — from the grave and grey-suited Tommy Lascelles and Michael Adeane to her current private secretary Edward Young. None of them had had the vision to shake up the white Anglo-Saxon system inside the palace to reflect the diverse modern world outside, and here were the sad consequences — which the Queen now had to deal with at the very moment she had lost the support of her husband, the man on whom she had always relied in moments of difficulty like this.
Robert Lacey is a historian and royal expert
On Tuesday: More extracts from his revealing new book
The End
Thank you for posting the excerpt. Just read the first one (posted by you @June 21 at 4:15 AM).
My first reaction is that Lacey, like others, is hellbent on embracing the concept that cosmetically remodeled, chemically straightened, and bleached to the teeth (unless artificially bronzed) Meghan could be compared to anyone the 35 year old queen met. And, he seems to forget she was also a woman in her 30s with a college degree and computer access and stacks of white husbands and boyfriends, who somehow was astounded she married into all-white royalty with centuries of protocol.
He is being as he tries to round up a few salty readers to join the sugars.
However he spears her a few subtle times as when referring to her “variable” tales.
But if he thinks Oprah questioned her “forensically”, he needs to look up the word.
So far, no kraken. BECAUSE we have heard this before, and it's made-up BS.
It just makes me disgusted all over again.
..................
It's mostly the OPPOSITE OF THE KRAKEN!
He's insulted the Queen.
And made a callous remark about her husband.
I hope this article provokes the release of the Kraken
I do not understand the British monarchy
I don't understand their relationship with the media
Yes, what a disappointment.
Its back to the old Lacey again.
I thought it would have more kraken when I saw that he was calling her out for lying but he goes after the Queen!
And did you see the article I posted yesterday from Roya Niccah (sp)?
She writes about there being a delay in the report for the bullying investigation.
First we get an article revealing even more details of the bullying and how William was taking charge. We get excited and hopeful and think that a juicy report is about to break.
Then we are thrown a weird story about how the report is not ready yet and they may wait a year before making it public.
Now today we get a new RL excerpt and he's back to mostly coddling the Harkles while insulting HM.
There is another article available right now from Valentine Low - I didn't read it yet but will be back in a little while to post it. It's not as long.
What do you think Snarky, ShadeeRrrowz, and teasmade?
I think we need to “forensically” rake over Lacey's articles.😱
I note that like others, one of Lacey’s key tasks seems to be trying to set up the RF as being the only homogeneous set-up on the planet.
He ought to step away from the costume dramas and take a stroll in a few other places, and other royal houses.
This fixation on the BRF royals (and U.K.) as the worst of the worst continues to make me think Hmmm.
OMG I am dying of laughter.
JennS you are a treasure for posting these for us!
That is, there are some unrelated facts existing side by side. Unlike most organizations, BP hasn't had a deliberate diversity in hiring initiative because it hasn't had to because it hasn't cared about its reputation, doesn't have any stockholders or customers.
Royalty lives in a privileged bubble. If you are royal and unintelligent, even more so.
Even if you've acted white your whole life, if you can claim partly black heritage, you can play that card endlessly to force your will on people.
Lying works too.
To me, there are great hops between these statements but they don't flow smoothly from one to another. That is, it is not true that there is no princehood for the boy doll as a result of there being no non-pure white senior palace personnel just because someone says so.
I hope Lacey is systematically building a case to strike these lies down.
What I had hoped for the krakening was the reveal of 1. what had been scrubbed from the internet of her past life and 2. their current financial shenanigans. Eh -- throw in whatever's up with Doria, too. She seemed sweet, but who knows.
I do, too.
This is the guy who supplies “research” for the rather fantasist soapy Crown Netflix series, after all.
Yet he makes money off writing about them! Does the man want to destroy what he makes a living from?
This is the type of stuff I don't understand.
And the lack of any formal responses from the palaces drives me crazy.
How insulting towards HM. And although there may not be a large number of minorities at BP I’m sure there are some. I’d be curious to know how many minorities apply for roles in HM household and what percentage are hired.
In fact, there’s this from 2017. Appointed, not hired, but still.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-elizabeth-hires-first-ever-black-assistant-royal-major-nana-kofi-twunmasi-ankrah-a7831596.html
I’m not sure what Lacey is trying to do here. Maybe he wrote the part about William kicking Harry out to appear balanced. It’s so damning towards Harry, though, so that doesn’t make sense.
Truly, I’m flummoxed. LOL!
In addition to Meghan allegedly telling Trevor she couldn’t get pregnant, some of you may recall that Harry was born with an undescended testicle, which was surgically brought down from his pelvic region to its normal location in the scrotum when he was about two or three years old. Males who have had an undescended testicle that has been surgically located to the correct place sometimes, but not always experience fertility issues.
I also remember reading that sometime right around the time of the engagement, they visited a London fertility specialist.
Just another brick on the pile of suspicion that neither Sussex child got here the old-fashioned way.
If there was anything to dig up on this topic, I hope Tom Bower digs as deep as the Grand Canyon to find the truth. And then reveal it in his biography about Meghan. Any sort of lies, lies of omission, half truths or manipulation of facts would seal the fate of the Sussexes.
Crazy Days And Nights
SUNDAY, JUNE 20, 2021
Blind Items Revealed #3
June 11, 2021
It is pretty remarkable that this A list celebrity told at least one of her exes that she couldn't get pregnant and that her foreign born celebrity husband has always said it would be very difficult for him to have kids, and yet the two managed to whip through three pregnancies in pretty short order. Makes you think.
Meghan Markle/Prince Harry
While most of us already know this information, the general public does not.
I can think of reason they might hold back the bullying investigation results for months, to a year: leverage. “You give up all stylings and titles, and divorce, we release a sanitized version.” Personally, I think it’s a poor reason and rude to the victims.
Also, I expect little from the Valentine Low book, unfortunately. Why? All these gibbering “Royal Reporters” pad their prim books with fluff and dance numbers and never peek at the stinking nuggets rolling about in our plain view.
So tired of saying “well maybe the next book.....”
Valentine Low
Sunday June 20 2021, 10.00pm BST, The Times
Part 1
Duke and Duchess of Sussex could follow the example of the Earl and Countess of Wessex by letting their son Archie wait until he is 18 before deciding if he wants to be a prince, a leading royal biographer has said.
Robert Lacey, whose updated edition of his book Battle of Brothers is being serialised in The Times, spoke after claims that the Prince of Wales is to ensure that Archie, two, will never be a prince.
However, experts and Palace insiders say Charles has no power to stop Archie becoming a prince — or his sister Lilibet a princess — when the Queen dies.
Charles can only change the rules after he becomes king and it is thought extremely unlikely that his first act on acceding to the throne would be to block his grandson from the title.
Lacey said: “It is clear to me that the Queen and her advisers have discussed this issue at the highest level, and that the future royal status of Archie and Lili is not in jeopardy in her lifetime.
“It is possible that Prince Charles may try to remove royal status from the Sussex children when he comes to the throne but that does not seem likely.
“His priority then will be to gain popular support for upgrading the status of Camilla from princess consort to queen consort, and he is not likely to court unpopularity by removing HRH status from Archie and Lili.”
Lacey pointed out that the Earl and Countess of Wessex decided not to call their children prince or princess or style them HRH: instead Lady Louise and Viscount Severn — her brother James — will be able to make up their own mind when they are 18.
The question of Archie’s title has become inextricably linked with the Sussexes’ accusations of racism against the royal family after Meghan told Oprah Winfrey during an interview this year that a senior member of the royal family expressed concern about what colour their child’s skin would be.
In the latest installment, Lacey says the Queen was guilty of a “misstep” in failing to improve the racial diversity of Buckingham Palace. While the Queen might feel she had “nothing to prove when it came to accusations of racism”, he says, virtually every senior official that Meghan encountered when she arrived was white.
Part 2
The consequences, he says, was that the Queen was faced with the crisis over the Sussexes’ claim just as Prince Philip was nearing the end of his life.
The claim that Charles does not want Archie to have a royal title came in the Mail on Sunday, which said that he had made it clear that his grandson would have no place among frontline royals as he planned a slimmed-down monarchy after becoming king. Clarence House declined to comment on the allegation.
A source told the newspaper: “Harry and Meghan were told Archie would never be a prince, even when Charles becomes king.” The couple were said to have been told this just before they filmed their interview with Winfrey.
A source was quoted as saying: “This is what nobody realised from the interview. The real thing was that Charles was going to take active steps to strip Archie of his ultimate birthright.”
However, both experts and royal sources said Charles could not stop Archie from becoming a prince because it happens automatically the moment the Queen dies. The only way it would not happen would be if Charles persuades the Queen to change the rules.
The present system is based on rules drawn up by George V in 1917. Hugo Vickers, the royal author, said: “When the Queen dies, Archie and Lilibet become prince and princess.” A royal source said: “There is a long-standing convention that means this happens automatically with reign change.”
The Duke of Cambridge and his brother are said to have called a temporary truce to put on a united front at the unveiling of the statue of their mother on July 1. The Sun on Sunday quoted a source close to the planning committee saying: “The boys will walk out together out of respect for their mum but there’s been no reconciliation.”
Buckingham Palace’s investigation into claims that the Duchess of Sussex bullied royal staff is still under way after more than three months, according to The Sunday Times.
Results from the inquiry were expected to be announced in the annual Sovereign Grant report to be published this week. But royal sources have confirmed the investigation is “ongoing”.
Is this not true?
1) Extract written to save Oprah.
2) Explained the theme of lean monarchy proposed by Charles to the Americans. Highlighting how this also affected white children.
3) Explanatory extract for today's theme: Charles won't let Archie be a prince, even when he's King. According to palace sources, this information was leaked by the Sussexes camp. If yes, Lacey explained (today)
I'll look forward to a little more of these articles by Lacey. Hugs❤️
Now, I know the Harkles want those titles to monetize the kids - if they exist.
And I realize that the Sussexes should be removed from the line of succession for obvious reasons...
But - if the monarchy doesn't stand up to H&M and they end up with titled children, what does that mean to the UK exactly? Would it cost any more taxpayers money? Or any other obligations to the UK?
.................
In trying to put a positive spin on this, I wonder if this latest nonsense will push out into the public any possible scams involving those kids.
I can't imagine the gall to argue over titles for children no one is allowed to see.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/page-8775
Though Harry and Meghan retired as senior royals last year, he remains in the line of succession. This is because only an Act of Parliament can remove a royal from the Succession of the Throne Act.
Lacey showed us he was a shill already. Believe what he shows you.
@hunter,
I understand your sentiments about this being “balanced way” and your thought it will pay dividends.
Personally, though, I’m feeling harsh, counting the bodies thus far through this delicate tiptoe dance. I remain unimpressed at the poor limp journalism by SO MANY and by the incredible lack of brave digging into odd stories, odd things. This affects U.K. taxpayers, a future king, deeply bullied staff, foundation funds, the wellbeing of two small children (if you are a believer; I am not), the line of succession, abused family members, treasonous attacks, and a widow who sick elderly long-serving husband was Harkle-nipped into his grave. Some staffers were said to have sought therapy for PTSD. Prince Andrew had to be sent to apologize to Australia and the governor’s wife. Invictus and all the wounded warrior athletes were screwed out of their much needed fundraiser by the ginger cult member.
Forget our curiosity. When is enough enough? When are jounalists going to step up? I think it will take one who hasn’t been lapping in the royal cream bowl for years.
Sorry for repeating the information about the titles- I had not yet read Valentine Low's article you had copied for us.
Wow — that is an extremely interesting theory!
The long arm of ultimate revenge by Dodi’s father.....Al-Fayed’s dynasty was ruined in the crash, his dreams shattered........so he will ruin the Queen’s dynasty?I can see the plausible nature of this, actually. I know someone who worked for Al-Fayed in London at a high level, and I worked often for a woman whose NYC agency helped his company as well. Both described someone whose business ferocity and rage over slights in loyalty were such that I could persuaded to see your idea being set in motion.
Something I’d never considered. Really, we need to consider this. The flow of PR money, the relentless attacks focusing on racism and BRF cruelty to outsiders, her possible girl-for-here business interests...
From the article about Charles after he becomes king:
“His priority then will be to gain popular support for upgrading the status of Camilla from princess consort to queen consort, and he is not likely to court unpopularity by removing HRH status from Archie and Lili.”
On the contrary, I think Charles’ popularity would skyrocket if he prevents the Sussex children from using HRH and becoming prince and princess.
But Tom Bower and his book about Meghan may prevent the Sussex children from ever having titles of any sort if it comes out the Sussexes were even a tiny bit less than truthful about the conceptions, pregnancies, or the births.
Or perhaps Mr. Bower will have other details that may be convince HMTW, Charles, and William to take drastic measures to deal with Harry and his wife.
And we don’t know what new bombs, insults, and underhanded behaviors will come from the Sussexes in the coming months and years until Charles takes the throne that could cause a day of reckoning to come to pass for the dastardly duo.
Lol
But seriously, is he actually still hanging onto the idea that racism drove an impossible person out?
I have always wondered about the legitimacy of the story on Harry's alleged undescended testicle. Do you know any more about this? I've seen folks say it was an anon story that came from tumblr. Are there any articles about the surgery? I just tried googling and can't find anything. It would be great if we could locate receipts as it certainly helps generate doubt about the children.
🌸
@Midge - no problem!😊
🌸
@Ant
I'm right there with you about the bullying effects. It's not fair to the employees who went through this ordeal nearly 3 years ago now! Royal staff is not paid very much and now we learn they can be treated so badly by a "principal" and nothing is done about it?
@Hunter - you sound like Tatty!🤣
🌸
@Karla
I can't believe that parliament hasn't already started procedure to remove them from the line of succession. I pray that they do.
🌸
@ShadeeRrrowz said...
I’m not sure what Lacey is trying to do here. Maybe he wrote the part about William kicking Harry out to appear balanced. It’s so damning towards Harry, though, so that doesn’t make sense.
Truly, I’m flummoxed. LOL!
.....
Call me flummoxed as well.
His writing is entering schizophrenic realms.
I wonder what will be served next in Tuesday's excerpt?
🌸
I’m glad you see the possibilities in the Mohamed Al-Fayed connection. Something for another day…I have a very early morning. Good night!
Someone needs to change the Queen’s mind.
Thank you for the brilliant précis of their malevolence.
"Lacey said: “It is clear to me that the Queen and her advisers have discussed this issue at the highest level, and that the future royal status of Archie and Lili ! is not in jeopardy in her lifetime"
....
Well, Lacey, as long as the Queen is the monarch Archie and Lil Di will have no titles. Long live the Queen!
JennS.. Exactly
Blogger JennS said...
Harry Markle seems to think: There is nothing to stop them issuing a Letters Patent, restricting the title of prince and princess only to those who reside in the UK, and the HRH style to those who are UK citizens and residents, and to make it law that any issue must have the birth witnessed by at least two medical professionals on record.
Exactly...I don’t understand why the Queen would want to toss that hot potato into Charles’s lap when she could change the Letters Patent herself.
However, I think they know Charles will do it, hence their at least Eugenie's siding with Harry.
Some people may see it as hoping for the Queen's death. To me, it is called pre-planning so that everything is well thoughout and put into place for the inevitable eventuality. You will not be caught flat-footed.
Imagine if the 2 whingers immediately declare Arch and Lilbat Prince and Princess and the media celebrates it, it would be harder and even look vindictive to take the titles back. Imagine what Gayle King would say - they stripped the titles of our 2 senior royals".
why would the special circumstances taken to strip the Harkle children living on another continent with no proof they are of the body/ dna related affect Eugenie and Beatric?
Also I wanted to say that I loved your comments about Cressida's mysterious post from a few years ago.
Her original post left on her Instagram...
"No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are, how you treat people ultimately tells it all"...was always thought to be about Harry and people used this quote to justify their opinions that Harry is not a good person.
Your theory that this comment was in fact about Meghan Markle makes much more sense and Cressida could very well have not only met Markle through Harry but learned of her poor behavior from Harry's friends.
If the Queen issues Letters Patent restricting the title of prince and princess only to those who reside in the UK, and the HRH style to those who are UK citizens and residents, and to make it law that any issue must have the birth witnessed by at least two medical professionals on record this would take care of the Harkle plastic spawn.
But how would it affect Beatrice and Eugenie? As far as I can see it would not.
"The Queen cannot change the LP now because it would mean taking away Princess titles from Beatrice and Eugenie. She would never do this to them - children of her fav son Andrew."
I don't see why that's true. A LP wouldn't have to be retroactive would it? It seems one can easily write something that says "from here on out x happens" vs saying "from here on it x and while it happened in the past, we're undoing that besides." Are you saying any new LP would take away all previously granted titles based on being a grandchild?? Even those of the Queen's cousins? I didn't think the 1017 LP was retroactive. And certainly the change in the law re: male primogeniture wasn't.
Nutties blog is on Estonian time which is about 2hrs ahead of us on BST (British Summer time -that's GMT + 1(Greenwich mean Time = IST). Not sure if Estonia has Summer Time or not).
As I write, the computer says it's 07.11 -I'll put in update just before I press `Publish' so you can compare it with the blog timeline.
British papers usually have their front pages set up in time for TV reviews of next day's headlines at 10.30pm. Hard copy is `put to bed' and the presses roll in the small hours. The papers are sent out to the provinces to arrive in time for the newsagents to get delivered/ sold in shops.
Online newspapers are updated throughout the date - the article I indicated last night will be in today's print editions.
They don't publish the papers here to suit the US.
NZ Herald's publication is 12hrs ahead of anything in the UK - that;s why it often gives `advanced' notice of events.
My computer time now = 7.23
Revealed: 'Angry' Prince Harry 'agreed to do bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview alongside Meghan just 24 hours after the Queen stripped him of his military titles over Megxit'
Monday, Jun 21st 2021 6AM
Last updated: 07:23 BST, 21 June 20
Note the timings.
Meghan: I paid tribute to Diana in my book
Duchess of Sussex speaks for the first time about writing The Bench with a nod to her mother-in-law
The Daily Telegraph 21 Jun 2021By Izzy Lyons
The Duchess of Sussex has revealed that she included references to Diana, Princess of Wales in her new children’s book. The Bench, a book written by the Duchess which was inspired by Prince Harry’s relationship with the couple’s two year old son Archie, includes illustrations of her late mother-in-law’s favourite flower, forget-me-nots. The subtle nod to the Princess is one of numerous personal “nuggets tucked within the book”, the Duchess said yesterday in a US interview.
THE Duchess of Sussex has revealed that she hid references to Diana, Princess of Wales in her new children’s book.
The Bench, written by the Duchess which was inspired by the Duke of Sussex’s relationship with the couple’s two year-old son, Archie, includes illustrations of her mother-in-law’s favourite flower, forget-me-nots.
The subtle nod to the Princess is one of numerous personal “nuggets tucked within the book”, the Duchess said yesterday in her first media interview on The Bench.
...
Speaking to NPR, the US radio network, the Duchess revealed that Archie loves the book and has a “voracious” appetite for reading. “There are nuggets tucked within the book,” she said. “There’s a lot if people start digging, you can find sweet little moments that we have tucked in there, from my favourite flower and even my husband’s mum’s favourite flower, forget-me-nots.
“We wanted to make sure those were included in there. There’s a lot of special detail and love that went into this book.”
The Duchess added: “Archie loves the book, which is great because he has a voracious appetite for books and constantly when we read him a book he goes ‘again, again, again’.
“But now the fact he loves The Bench and we can say ‘Mummy wrote this for you’ feels amazing.”
...
In this weekend’s radio interview, which was recorded before the birth of the couple’s second child, Lilibet, earlier this month, the Duchess said she did not feel represented in children’s books when she was a young girl. “Growing up, I remember so much how it felt to not see yourself represented,” she said. “So any child or any family hopefully can open this book and see themselves in it, whether that means glasses or freckled or a different body shape or a different ethnicity or religion.”
...
‘If people start digging, you can find sweet little moments that we have tucked in there’
Here is the section in bold:
the Duchess said she did not feel represented in children’s books when she was a young girl. “Growing up, I remember so much how it felt to not see yourself represented,” she said. “So any child or any family hopefully can open this book and see themselves in it, whether that means glasses or freckled or a different body shape or a different ethnicity or religion.”
Moreover, if one is determined to use it as an object lesson in something or other, here's a site aimed at teachers:
https://www.teachingideas.co.uk/library/books/the-queens-knickers
--------
Is expecting to see oneself reflected in a children's book another sign of narcissism?
Someone asks `What sort of animals would be the cheapest to feed?'.
The reply was `W(h)ales, the Princess of...' or wtte.
No veneration of a saintly icon here.
--------
Where is everybody? Am I talking to myself?
I know it's a pain, having done it myself, to dodge the popups and inserted ads in articles, and to gauge how many words will be accepted, and to not lose track of any text that was cut. Re-pasting and cutting into a text editor helps, but just adds another step, doesn't it?
The Maximum Plan-
The Queen and her lawyers must get everything precisely right and inviolable years in advance. The papers are then signed by the Queen to change the letters of patent the way Jenn describes via the Harry Markle blogger. However! The papers are put out publicly only in The Queens last days so that she dodges the annoyances and uproar coming from M/H, coordinated from the Left Coast USA. BY SS of course.
(For Lord Geidt. You have my permission to present this as your own.)
This will be Queen's gambit then checkmate on the Dastardly Duo and their issue. Issue meaning offspring, vinyl, surrogate, real, whatever they might be. Charles emerges as King and clean. As in the blame game coming from M/H will be - "The Queen dun it! She wuz wot dun us dirty!" (How plebs in North England speak) (got this lingo from the DM)
All UK will cheer, have great laughs for a month, millions of pints will be pulled, all toasting Queen Elizabeth. The Union Jack will be hoisted high everywhere. As the stripped M/H/Offspring sink into a sunny Montecito oblivion. Even worse, not much of America will notice.
I have wondered if Charles could prevent prince/princess titles if nothing is done now. It doesn't seem the LP from 1917 require approval from the monarch for those allowed titles. It certainly sounds automatic. And while some European houses have clawed back already-awarded titles (Sweden) I'm not sure I see that happening in the UK.
--------------------
@Wild Boar
Is expecting to see oneself reflected in a children's book another sign of narcissism?
.............
I'd say it is. I never thought about seeing myself reflected in a children's book and I'm sure you didn't either. She obviously thinks she's somebody special - maybe Thomas's fault.
New article posted, claiming Charles wl be too busy making Camilla Queen Consort to bother with Archie and Lilis titles.
I understand your sentiments about this being “balanced way” and your thought it will pay dividends.
Personally, though, I’m feeling harsh, counting the bodies thus far through this delicate tiptoe dance. I remain unimpressed at the poor limp journalism by SO MANY and by the incredible lack of brave digging into odd stories, odd things. This affects U.K. taxpayers, a future king, deeply bullied staff, foundation funds, the wellbeing of two small children (if you are a believer; I am not), the line of succession, abused family members, treasonous attacks, and a widow who sick elderly long-serving husband was Harkle-nipped into his grave. Some staffers were said to have sought therapy for PTSD. Prince Andrew had to be sent to apologize to Australia and the governor’s wife. Invictus and all the wounded warrior athletes were screwed out of their much needed fundraiser by the ginger cult member.
Forget our curiosity. When is enough enough? When are journalists going to step up? I think it will take one who hasn’t been lapping in the royal cream bowl for years.
There are a lot of things happening that are much, much larger than some royals gone awry that the entire journalistic community and the owners of the publications/media are surprisingly incurious about. They are so incurious that they actively quash any investigation or even the people trying to discuss it.
I remember when media competed to break stories, not suppress them.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/archie-harrison-lilibet-still-prince-105735235.html
New article posted, claiming Charles wl be too busy making Camilla Queen Consort to bother with Archie and Lilis titles.
Oooooh, Meghan be mad.
He comes off as trying to butter his bread on both sides of the bread (short and long term).
Exactly! Why would I want to read about ordinary kids who went to the village school?
I liked stories about children who went to independent schools, had midnight feasts in the dorm, caught burglars and spies, had ponies or sailed boats in the Lake District. The only `council schools kids' were those of Bash Street (and their school had a janitor ie they were in urban Scotland). Even Lord Snooty was an Etonian, with a rum collection of pals.
Failing that, I'd read anything with talking animals - Black Beauty, Wind in the Willows, Tai Lu Talking (a Siamese cat!).
The only character I ever identified with was the chestnut mare, Ginger, when she fought the bearing rein - that was when the dentist tried to knock me out with gas without even saying hello, let alone looking at my teeth. I was so angry. I won but was sick on the bus home - but didn't care.
How long would it take to dictate a "no title for YOU, doll-boy and born-of-another-body-and-adopted-girl!" and have it typed up?
I just don't think Camilla really cares about her title. I think she's been in the game for so long that she sees it all as fluff, just me?
I really don't think that she cares, either. Charles cares on her behalf, I believe.
This is just another attack from the Rage Monster of Montecito who really should be doing things like, oh, I dunno, maybe feeding and changing baby, cooking waffles for Archie, and making content for all the companies that they took money from. I guess this is what she was doing instead of sending birthday wishes. Poor rage monster was probably up all night writing another 18 page best-selling book of instructions for Harry and all males.
I agree that I don't think Camilla cares AND whether she does or not, I do believe that Charles, with the help of office staff, will be capable of handling more than one matter at a time.
How long would it take to dictate a "no title for YOU, doll-boy and born-of-another-body-and-adopted-girl!" and have it typed up?
I think that the whole whiny "too busy with titles for CAMILLA" indicates that titles are not going to be forthcoming.
I just don't think Camilla really cares about her title. I think she's been in the game for so long that she sees it all as fluff, just me?
Not just you! I think Camilla has the nonchalance toward official titles that Harry's wife likes to pretend she has.
And I agree with @SwampWoman that the sudden focus on Camilla smacks of whiny point-the-finger-ism. It's also setting up a contrast between Prince Charles's relationship with his younger son (born of Diana's body!) and his relationship with his former mistress (Diana's great nemesis!).
It was sketchy at best when Harry's then-fiancée pleaded ignorance during the engagement interview. It's entirely implausible now.
All this also shows how calculated and determined the Firm has been in dealing with the drama here. Much has been done behind the scenes. They weren't as passive as it seemed or as surprised as we thought they would be. Fascinating what they are letting out there now. I think, the gamble here, is its showing a better picture of the Sussex response here. Yes it is "scorched earth" but I do wonder if Charles needed to make clear Archie would never be a Prince ahead of time. I wonder what led up to that.
The more questions are answered, the more emerge. Still, doesn't change my perception that the Sussexes are done outside of the RF and won't be setting up court in Montecito. It also reveals what a slap in the face Lillibet was meant to be all along. Still, it makes them look petty, nevermind that they would use their own baby in this way, naming her AS REVENGE.
@Swamp: Oh. Then I'm being too literal then --often happens!
Heh. No, your point of view is completely valid; in fact, I just got back home last evening, I had grandchild this morning after a restless night, and I was fielding phone calls and breakfast for grandchild while I typed out my POV.
@Puds: Newspaper outlets should be obliged to say if an article has been placed and paid for by PR firms, political parties, or interested persons, that might go some way to understanding what is fact and what is opportunist fiction.
They (newspaper outlets) have cut to the bone in terms of people on the payroll. I believe that more articles than we might think are all typed up, ready to go, spell checked, and ready for printing, and the outlets are happy to have them.
What do you reckon?
Have I got that right? I detest the term `royal expert' and I certainly have no claim to be one.
Is there a qualification in Royal Expertise? A Bachelor's degree - BA(RE)? A licence to promulgate bare-faced lies? Would it have to be a Double Honours in Constitutional Law and Royal Etiquette?
I whole-heartedly agree - never once undermined her husband, all along has maintained a discrete silence, taken to royal duty as a natural.
In 2019 Trevor was voted as one of the most influential people in the military community by “Pathfinder Magazine”. And he gave his opinion of Harry.
" To be absolutely honest, he was a hindrance to the fighting troops, putting other peoples lives in danger to protect him so he could say he fought on the front line!
"Nothing more than a selfish spoiled little Cnut!
Interestingly, CDAN published it on the same day.
"SUNDAY, JUNE 20, 2021
Blind Item #2
The alliterate one and her husband are upset that a new book is being published which makes them seem like the bad guys in the bullying situation (they were). So, the alliterate one is planning another big interview to throw a lot of tarnish on what would have been a special day" Hugs❤️
As for no Archie title, I believe that is due to surrogacy and they've allowed Meghan/the Firm to spin it as streamlining the Monarchy.
Harry married a person who doesn't charge his values in any single way. Tough. He was warned.
Now I find that I can say something similar about Camilla. The more I learn about her, the more I like her.
There's a part of me that is on the side of strict justice. I remember how scandalized I was that they remained together even after Diana's death. There seemed no sign of remorse or guilt for having carried on an adulterous affair. And when they were allowed to marry in the end, it seemed like a reward for decades of persistent poor behavior. But since then, they have behaved impeccably in public and the family seems to be at peace in private. I find that I only wish them well these days.
@ Jenns, thank you so much for bringing the articles over, especially as you were tired.
..................
**@Puds
You're welcome!💝
It appears that the Times is going to serialize all the new chapters to Lacey's book with the next installment due on Tuesday/tomorrow! I wonder if the latest one will be Kraken-level or anti-kraken?🤣
I think I agree with AnT that Lacey may be helping to prepare content for the Harkles and Netflix focusing on the racism victim narrative. The royal family really needs to make some formal public moves against the Sussexes ASAP.
I have special info for you and AnT that I'm getting ready...I'll give you a heads up when it's ready to post.