There's a lot to discuss about the World of the Sussexes. We have the new chapters in Lacey's book, ANL getting approval to appeal the Letters Case, Diana's Statue Unveiling, and more. Let's discuss...
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
If they were working royals they wouldn't have to pay rent at all. H seems to think the working bit is irrelevant as he still thinks he's entitled to taxpayer-funded security, so presumably he's equally blasé about the rent. Just notionally add it to the renovation payment (what there was of it).
According to The Mirror
Harry and Meghan paid rent for the five months up to May last year, the report stated, and, after moving to the US and signing a lucrative deal with Netflix, later paid the £2.4million refurbishment bill.
The large sum also appears to cover a 22-month rental period - from June 2020 until March 2022 when the couple's annual licence to occupy their private UK home is up for renewal.
The source said: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have paid £2.4 million, which covers the rental income in 2020/21, rental income in 2021/22... So all of the payments are reflected in the accounts."
...
". The annual report on royal finances appears to indicate that it included rental costs as well.
A senior royal source said: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have
paid £2.4 million and we're satisfied that, on the basis of that payment, it satisfies all their current obligations."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/meghan-harry-repaid-18-months-24386626
Sorry, I'm catching up on some comments working backwards and realise I said 'a lot can happen in a year' and you wrote something similar.
Catherine raised her game when M arrived and became more dignified. No more flying skirts. More engagements. More involvement. I know as a friend of mine had a senior position in one of her charities. She never made an effort. Visited briefly once every year or so. Now she gives fantastic support.
So M has unwittingly changed perceptions and what we value in Catherine and Camilla, and indeed William. She's also made the younger two try harder. Part of that would have come anyway as they grew older but I'm convinced M was also instrumental. Her failures encouraged others to be more successful and made us value that more than we would have otherwise. Until M arrived we didn't know how lucky we were.
"If they were working royals they wouldn't have to pay rent at all."
Not sure that is true. Both Andrew and Edward have lease arrangements and pay rent. Their (PA & PE'Ss) arrangements differ from each other's because one paid reno costs upfront in exchange for lowered rent. But both pay I'm pretty sure. If H&M were working royals, maybe Charles would have paid their rent more openly but I'm not sure they wouldn't have been charged rent.
BTW: I think the one-named singer is likely Adele. I recall seeing a blind either on CDAN or Blind Gossip that when the Sussexes were mooching at Tyler Perry’s home, Harry met up with Adele several times for drinks, but then Meghan told her to stay away from Harry.
CRAZY DAYS AND NIGHTS BLIND SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2021
Blind Item #5
The alliterate one is worried about the trip her husband is taking. It is evident by the documents he recently signed that he is not willing to be a commoner. He loves the title. The alliterate one actually went straight up commoner for her portion of the document. Will the husband be seduced into coming back to the home country? Will the one named singer play a part in that?
Comment:
media_lush
4 hours ago
The interesting thing is that the Queen was seen driving to Frogmore Cottage (where he is staying) within 40 minutes of his arrival in the UK - she drove part of the trip herself!
Reckon there's some serious shit she's going to lay down on Harry.
The fact remains the Queen is allowing all of this ‘Duke and Duchess’ title shilling to the highest bidder, whilst also remaining in succession. For that, I am aghast.
I agree. I wish Her Maj would put her foot down! The 6s have been nothing was disrespectful to the highest degree. They should not be allowed to be 1/2 in and 1/2 out!
William and 6 received 4.9 million ponds to share when they were 21 and 8 million pounds to share when they turn 40.
This was according to Phillip Hall author of a book called Royal Fortune.
"....William and 6 received 4.9 million ponds to share when they were 21 and 8 million pounds to share when they turn 40.This was according to Phillip Hall author of a book called Royal Fortune."
That's been debated here before. Obviously I don't know what's true, but I'm close to 100% sure no professional would ever set up a trust and leave X amount for Persons A and B to "share." But I've seen that report before.
And too it's hard for me to believe (if it's true) she favored Will and Harry that way over the rest of her great-grandchildren. She favored the ones that would likely already have the most. Certainly Will would but even Harry would have (say compared to Zara or Louise) had he not gone nuts. Guess she was kind of a witch.
Kate had already done away with the short and flying skirts before the viper came on the scene. In fact, she had gone to such extraordinary length that she was called dowdy as her skirts fell down to just above her ankles, long sleeves and high collars. It was a really, really bad look which she still does occasionally now. She has now settled somewhere in the centre - I read that she had a new stylist.
I think the most obvious thing that Kate did not long after Viper came on the scene was re-wear her clothes. She really made the latter look extravagant and nouveau riche.
As for work, I tend to overlook her lack of it earlier in the marriage as she was settling in and raising very young children. Now that they are older and the siblings have each other to pay with, her jobload should increase and it has. I am glad that she has taken the time to study and decide where she wants to focus ie early childcare and mental health. I think it is the right move to focus on a few projects and make it a success than to attend endless ribbon cutting and being patron to 1000 organisations with surface level engagement.
Btw, I was never a fan of Kate and William previously. I was a Harry fan - yeah, I bought into his good PR but only after his involvement with Cressida. There was something about her - I could see a new Diana with the blond hair, blue eyes, fragility and light airy voice. Also, the fact they she was very badly bullied by trolls - I tend to side with the victim. Well knowing what I know now, thank goodness she had a lucky escape. I imagine he would have made her cut her hair short like Diana and use her Diana likeness to steal the limelight away from William and Kate. He would use her to play the Diana card over and over again, shudder.
I recall part of the renovation for Frogmore was a nanny unit for Doria. Of course we know that Doria never stayed longer than 5 days in the UK. So, this part of the house must be where 6 is doing his quarantine.
Now, news of The Queen driving to Frogmore - could they be having a meeting in the garden at a safe distance from each other? I imagine the Queen wanting a face to face meeting but it is not advisable indoors.
I agree, perfectly said.
On another note, the DM article about "secret lunches" with 6s friends....the fact it used the word "secret" makes me think its a SS PR piece because why would a lunch with your mates have to be "secret".
Secret lunch?
Good question. If it is published, it hardly can be considered secret from you know who.
So you probably are correct.
In the movie they talked about the specific amount of money left by the QM to wills and 6. They did not specify the amount of money in this he trusts to the rest of the grandchildren. They said she left money in trust for all her grandchildren.
I reported on what I saw because there have been questions in previous threads as to whether Wills and 6 are inheriting additional funds when they turn 40.
I don’t think it’s unusual to leave funds to be divided equally between two people.
I wasn't criticizing reporting what you read.
We have discussed that info before but I don't think the source was mentioned. So thanks.
At the time of her death in 2002, the Queen Mother had 6 great-grandchildren in QEII's line, (W&H aren't her grandchildren-- Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward are her grandchildren along with Lady Chatto and David Armstrong-Jones through Princess Margaret's line.) At the time of the QM's death in Mar 2002 Lady Chatto had two children and David A-J had one with one more born a few months later in May. (Margarita)
IF 4.9 + 8 million pounds was left to W&H, AND she treated all her great-grandchildren living in Mar 2002 equally (both Elizabeth's and Margaret's grandchildren) that would mean the QM had nearly 60 million pounds (cash) in the trust. I don't believe that given she reportedly died with debts HMTQ had to pay. Maybe she did manage to pull a legally questionable "fast one" re: death duties but I personally am not convinced.
Leaving equal amounts to two people isn't weird. But that's not what you reported. The way you reported it and the way it's been reported and discussed here before is that 4.9 was left for W&H "to share" at 21. No one with any sense or legal training would do that. Instead the legal document would say 2.45 mil to Will and 2.45 mil to Harry if there was an equal division of the 4.9 million. There's no reason two sibs would be treated as one entity. They'd be two separate individuals.
It has also been reported various places she left H more than she left W because W will be king. But if she did (no evidence) she had horrid advisors if the paperwork didn't specify the division more explicitly than "sharing" X amount with "more" to go to Harry.
For all those reasons I question whether anything reported about the QM's estate is true. And so i question whether W&H can expect to get money at 40. But I'm questioning the info, not you!
Harry is most likely in a residence Royal or hotel, and it’s not been published where. The Queen ‘spotted’ heading to frogmore just sounds like BP PR to gear up that ‘jubilee invite’ announcement. In all honesty, it wasn’t a terrible move. If they accept- they look hypocritical, if they deny the invite they look spiteful. If they accept, though, lord have mercy for the booing crowds! I assume they will keep them off the balcony and only attend private events.
Of course they will accept! This is the merching opportunity of a lifetime!
Thanks for answering @Martha's question while I was offline. I had thought my comment made the contrast clear, but I guess it can always stand to be made clearer!
I imagine he would have made her cut her hair short like Diana and use her Diana likeness to steal the limelight away from William and Kate.
Perish the thought! I'm glad Cressida found a better Harry in the end.
The irony was that Harry already was stealing the limelight from the Cambridges. He was "Hero Harry" serving in Afghanistan, while "Workshy Will" did the laziest bare minimum as a helicopter pilot in Norfolk. At least this was the public perception -- and Harry often came in second on Most Popular Royal lists, beaten only by the Queen herself. And he did this (well, okay, Edward Lane Fox did it) without once playing the Diana card; he was beloved because people believed he had his own accomplishments.
He could have kept his brand strong through Invictus and support of veterans' charities, plus steady work for the Firm. But no . . . he had to let his envy of Prince George and the other Cambridge children make him believe he needed to grab attention through stunts. Like marrying a biracial woman with a yachting past and becoming a public mental patient. It's as if he made his wish for constant publicity and headlines on a Monkey's Paw.
Reports that the Queen was driving in the direction of Frogmore about the time Harry was arriving in the UK. I expect at her advanced age reconciliation trumps everything else.
As frustrating as it is to hear that the Queen seems to be giving in to him again, I understand why she is thinking more like a great-grandmother than as a monarch these days. Even as a monarch, she knows she's in the twilight of her reign. Let the younger ones do the strategic thinking and mobilizing; it's their turn. She has done her part for decades, even when she might have wanted to be "just" a mother to her own four children. I wouldn't blame for her thinking that it's time to be simply Granny.
Re Jubilee:
My understanding from the earlier press reports was yes, they have been invited to the Jubilee but presumably only for the purely family events because an `insider' later remarked that they were being a pain in the anatomy (or wtte) because they were fighting to be in on the public events as well (I paraphrase).
Some people never know when they're not wanted.
HM may still cherish the hope that they can prise him out of the claws of his Awful Wedded Wife, even if it means a headlines like that notorious one in the Chicago News-Herald Tribune ` “King’s Moll Reno’d in Wolsey’s Town!”
I hope she'll tell him what's what -
`Don't you lie to me, young man! It's time to decide once and for all. We know everything - the children aren't yours and neither is in line of succession. Thus is the deal - either you stay here without her, keep your title and one day, perhaps make it up with the British people to whom you owe so much, communicating with her her only through the lawyers, or you leave here as plain Mountbatten-Windsor and never set foot in the UK again!'
`I have the documents here ready to be signed. Which is it to be?'
As if.
----------
Yes, the frequent repetition of `secret' may be a giveaway - don't they know the word `clandestine', which is perhaps more accurate? Or is it journalese, simply a matter of space/linage? Will the friends ask if he has any photos of his kids about his person? Would he show them if he has? Any `normal' dad would. Might they tell us?
----------
I can't imagine any lawyer allowing the phrase `shared' without specifying the division, either stating `equal' or the precise percentage split if it's not. Wouldn't even do it in a Will for an impoverished commoner. It's one of the classic pitfalls when people write their own Wills without legal advice.
“All that really matters is that Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor is now a person recognized by the state of California (and the world).”
closes this known Markle payroll ‘source’. Hmmm...Defiant much? I have never ever read the announcement of a baby’s birth certificate phrased like that. It reads like there’s been room for doubt that this baby is actually a person before now, but now that “the duke of Sussex, his Royal highness” Has been named as the father, all doubt should be eradicated.
However, by intentionally inverting #6’s title and foregoing the use of his own birth name, technically the person named as this babies father does not actually exist either. Smells like a legal dodge to me.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a36836357/meghan-markle-drops-duchess-sussex-title-lilibet-birth-certificate/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm
"As frustrating as it is to hear that the Queen seems to be giving in to him again, I understand why she is thinking more like a great-grandmother than as a monarch these days."
Maybe. But it also makes sense from a PR perspective for the monarchy to be proactive and stop the constant "we're going to the Jubilee next summer" coming from CA. This way, all but the most saccharine sweet sugars will see how demanding and self-centered the Sussexes are if they keep bleating on about not being satisfied with their part in the Queen's Jubilee.
Yes, just as `Archie' now doesn't seem to have a mother.
I feel they are just more fluffy PR spin and feel-good stories to bolster Mole’s reputation, to revitalise their brand/ royal family connections, all put out by SS for our fame junky obsessed California based pair. 🙄
"I don’t believe the so called Jubilee invite simply because one, a year is a long way off for our Monarch and two, why even mention the occasion this early on and specific time (when Mole is in Blighty)?"
You could be right. But it seems a bad move for the CA pair as it removes an issue to bleat about.
They will bleat regardless, there will always be something. 🥺 I think it could be seen as a veiled threat, invite us or else (we’ve seen other veiled blackmail stories in the media). I think they are extremely desperate to keep the connection alive so they are putting the story out now. Lady C says they are desperate for money as the people that matter (with money and clout) won’t have anything to do with them. 🥴
Scroll down a bit - it's reposted from elsewhere and starts:
Anonymous asked:
I think it's finally time to clear up the bone Meghan has to pick with Eugenie. *all tea is for entertainment purpouses only
Anyone curious about Gina Coladangelo---with the unusual last name that I have never heard before.
Father:
Millionaire businessman Rino Coladangelo has described his daughter as a ‘wonderful woman’
Gina’s dad, Rino Coladangelo, 70, is a millionaire businessman who is the boss of the international pharmaceutical company Rephine.
Approached by the MailOnline, he declined to comment except to say: “My daughter is a wonderful woman.”
Mother:
Gina Coladangelo’s parents are Rino Coladangelo and Heather.
Rino and his wife Heather gave birth to her in 1977. Gina’s parents have been living in their farmhouse in Steeple Morden village. Actually, it lies on the border of Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
Rino’s wife worked as a florist in her earlier life. Also, she served as a secretary in Rino’s company. In addition, she was with the Willo Foundation as a director.
It is not clear when Gina’s parents married. But they have two children, a son and a daughter. Roberto is their son.
***** Conclusion-- Gina comes from an English-Italian marriage. Though little info on her mother named Heather.
***** Heather is a very English name. About as English as it comes
***** Father Rino Coladangelo. This name sounds 100% Italian
Anonymous asked:
I think it's finally time to clear up the bone Meghan has to pick with Eugenie. *all tea is for entertainment purpouses only*
Eugenie is friends with top layers of British society that mingles with HW A listers. Her friends range from Ed Sheeran, *Misha Noonoo*, Cressida Bonas, Emma Watson, basically, you can call Eugenie the Margaret of her generation because of how well connected she is. Eugenie was never friends with Meghan but heard uncomfortable stories about her first marriage, past and work ethic from Misha and a couple of journalists who were staunchly anti-Meghan and tipped her off via friends. Eugenie wasn't sure what to believe yet told William who in turn went to Harry. Harry told her to piss off and after an intervention from Charles and Catherine, they all made up and Eugenie paid her fee via delayed wedding and engagement announcement. Meghan did not want Eugenie's tiara, it wasn't offered to her, but she did want a piece that belonged to Queen Victoria and Her Maj said no.
Meghan only recently found out that Misha was the one that told Eugenie and cut her off completely. But, she never forgot about what happened. She wanted to force Eugenie to pay 10k rent to her and Harry so she and Jack moved into Royal Lodge with Andrew and Sarah. Keep in mind this all transpired while Eugenie was going through a difficult pregnancy because of her spine. Meghan never forgave Eugenie for being the first one to cast doubts about her. She wants to torture the Yorks and she is just beginning. Lily was indeed a name Beatrice picked for her daughter and unfortunately told Meghan before the Megxit scandal. The Yorks were super close to Harry, Andrew considers Harry his son, alas those relationships are over now.
Meghan obviously announced her pregnancy to spite Eugenie at her wedding. But this is the kicker: they were unsure if she is or not. Harry did not go to a single appointment with her nor was he involved with the pregnancy. Everything he said was written by Meghan. Eugenie turned the other cheek but after Lilibet, the kid gloves are off. If you start hearing more shady stories about Meghan's past, well, let's just say, Eugenie asked a friend for a favour.
the-empress-7 answered:
NEW Tea* Alert
*All alleged and for entertainment purposes only
Maybe. But it also makes sense from a PR perspective for the monarchy to be proactive and stop the constant "we're going to the Jubilee next summer" coming from CA.
This vile pair has vile PR.....No no no! At this point their PR is more accurately called a relentless propaganda machine. Goebbels would have been proud of M's lies "told often enough". Here we have a familiar mode. Where M has her propaganda machine attempt to bully the BRF, in this case in order to get an invitation to the Queen's Jubilee. I predict you will see this particular agitation every month until the Jubilee. Which is obviously so far off that who knows what the state of BRF/M$H relations will be.
Correction -- Quote by Vladimir Lenin: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”.
xxxxx replied, This vile pair has vile PR.....No no no! At this point their PR is more accurately called a relentless propaganda machine. Goebbels would have been proud of M's lies "told often enough". Here we have a familiar mode. Where M has her propaganda machine attempt to bully the BRF, in this case in order to get an invitation to the Queen's Jubilee. I predict you will see this particular agitation every month until the Jubilee. Which is obviously so far off that who knows what the state of BRF/M$H relations will be.
Exactly my thoughts and sentiments xxxxx. 😁
Cheers LL & Hunter
We’re back in lockdown,
aisles wiped clean of loo rolls already!!
Great comment in DM re- the bros
“The only thing William owes Harry is a slap”
Perfick 👌
I agree with @lizzis legal explanation for how the will and sums of her estate would have been written and divided. Allegedly, the Queen mother was cash poor. That doesn’t mean she didn't have valuables and heirlooms to leave to her family. She could have left H apainting worth X and William a painting worth Y. X being the more valuable of the two paintings. The monarchy has the largest art collection in the world (allegedly). HTMQ even sent over a list of artwork H$M could borrow to decorate Frogcott. Keep in mind artwork does not gain interest like cash does. It will appreciate if its taken care of properly, but that can be expensive for old artwork. It can also be rented out to museums or businesses for $$, but taxes must be paid on the income(in USA, not sure about UK). It can also be sold for $$$.
Thank you for posting the tea from Yankee Wally. What you posted is along the lines of what I thought happened. IMO, this tea explains why Rache hasn't gone scorched earth in her PR clap-backs of what happened between her and Eugenie.
Rache has always devised campaigns to destroy reputations of those that allegedly wronged her: Markles, Thomas, PC, PW, Catherine, BRF staff, etc... The exceptions are ones with strong ties to Hollywood: Trevor, Cory, and the York sisters.
H&M will always look awful for announcing news of their pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding. People remember and it's a truth universally acknowledged that taking the spotlight from a bride on her wedding day is evil. While H&M cannot white-wash that sort of history, they certainly can say everything is phenomenal between them and the York sisters who seem to never complain or explain.
There's a strain of Eugenie is in cahoots with H on every royal gossip site I've seen which I find ludicrous. Compare that to the *manufactured* consensus surrounding Prince William on American gossip sites geared towards Gen Z and the youngest Millennials. Apparently, PW is the racist one, the one that remarked on Archie's skin color, and he's in cahoots with the British press to destroy Rache and crowd out reporting of his affair while Catherine was pregnant.
It doesn't matter what Americans think of PW, but it has to hurt to think your brother once a best friend cosigns to such character assassination. Watching PW responding to all of H&M's garbage has been the highlight of this saga for me. May the Scarfing King reign supreme!
@SirStinx
I reckon we will never know, as with the
rest of the royals,
how much the Queen mum was worth,
and how she left it.
All speculation, which leads to the
many confusing/contradictory reports.
I don't doubt we may see regular continued agitation by H&M. But
1. I do not believe the Queen was ever going to "ban" the Sussexes from coming to some Jubilee events. I don't believe they'll be part of most public celebrations. But the idea that TQ would lock the UK's doors against them next summer is not realistic IMO, no matter how much some here might want to see that happen.
Harry was front and center during the Diamond Jubilee and so far as I know, he wasn't a senior royal then or technically even a working royal. (He was in the military) Even the Middletons appeared! If in-laws have been included, I don't think blood family will be excluded.
I don't necessarily buy Harry is or ever was TQ's "favorite" but he has been a family member for 36 years. And if all goes according to.plan, he is the second son of the next King.
People seem to think Harry should be treated more harshly than a former king who abdicated his duty to his country on the eve of war-- yet many of Harry's offenses weren't clear offenses of his "official role." While extremely unpleasant, a copper bath tub, bad poetry, one-upmanship, competition, backbiting, arguments with Will, and ugly rumors hardly prompted a constitutional crisis.
2. You both seem to think any continued agitation coming from CA will be effective. I don't. I see it as having diminishing returns. The more they do it, the less effect it has. Sure, some woke types will buy whatever they sell. That's a given. Some woke types buy the darndest stuff from various "celebs."
I also don't personally like even mild comparisons to Nazis if someone does something unseemly. I'm not minimizing (or don't mean to) the negative effect H&M have had on the UK and many of its people. But just like I think it's beneath people to play the Nazi card in US politics, I think it goes a bit too far here. Goebbels was more than just a skilled propagandist, after all.
So far as I know, H&M haven't caused people to die. They've lied about conversations. They've tried to play perpetual victims. They've been verbal bullies. They've behaved like teenagers. They've wasted money. Maybe they've stolen charity money, (the only way I see lives could have been taken by their actions.) They've been mean to plenty of people including family & former partners. They've used people. They've caused diplomatic offenses. They've made a mockery of court system and to some extent, with Justin's help, the COE.
All very bad. I think they are both disgusting human beings. But that's not quite like burning children alive (to save bullets), engaging in painful medical experimentation, or prying gold teeth out of people's mouths. Just don't see them as Goebbels who eventually poisoned his 6 children with cyanide.
Just my opinion.
@charade
I’m knitting him a new scarf as we speak.
Knit one, hurl one
So Ho the dominant weave 😉
Ouch. 😕I never said I think or believe the Duo’s relentless PR spin will be effective. Their onslaught of lies is just like a form of propaganda in trying to spin untruths. I think all their PR is having the complete opposite effect. They won’t win despite all their effects and wasted money thrown at PR.😉
Sorry. I read it differently. I apologize.
In that case though, if the "we're invited by TQ" story came from the Sussexes, that was a mistake as it hurts their long-range spinning. And if it really did happen and TQ spoke with H & sort of invited them, that negatively impacts their spin too. So either way, not really a Sussex win.
The Sussexes attending some part of the Jubilee just isn't that far-fetched to me. It's not like TQ personally baking M a birthday cake, it's not like Kate giving M a baby shower, it's not like Doria personally invited to Christmas....
No worries it happens. 🤗
They have no foresight, they can’t see past their own noses. If there’s any invite it will be to Mole...there’ll be a reason why Maggot isn’t there and I’m guessing the reason with come from the Duo’s camp 😟. Besides, a year from now is a long time away. Look at the past years occurrences and antics, sooo much can happen between now and then. 😯
Pipe Dreams
Claiming dibs, can’t they see
Won’t work on the Queen’s Jubilee
They can push, and tote
Via PR, SS, unquote
No stepping once more
onto the balcony
it also makes sense from a PR perspective for the monarchy to be proactive and stop the constant "we're going to the Jubilee next summer" coming from CA.
While I agree that they ought to be proactive about squashing false stories, I don't think anything will really stop the Harkles from thinking up new things to say. At this point, whoever is in charge of Palace PR must feel like he's playing a game of whack-a-mole.
The Sussexes attending some part of the Jubilee just isn't that far-fetched to me. It's not like TQ personally baking M a birthday cake, it's not like Kate giving M a baby shower, it's not like Doria personally invited to Christmas....
Give them an inch and they'll take Arizona. Soon we'll hear that Camilla personally asked Harry's wife for skincare tips . . . that Catherine is impressed by how much more effectively her sister-in-law plays "peacemaker" between the brothers . . . the the Cambridge children are intimidated by their self-confident American cousins.
There was recently an AITA post with a similar story. A couple had announced their unborn son's name in advance multiple times, even sharing photos of items they had bought for him with his name already on them. Then the mother's sister had her son first and took both the names! When confronted, the sister said that since her son had been born first, she had dibs on the names. The couple decided they would go ahead with their original plan anyway, and when their son was born, they gave him the names that they had chosen. As expected, the sister was furious that they had taken "her son's" names. And sadly, the extended family was on the sister's side rather than the first couple's. But the AITA forum gave them an NTA verdict.
Which is my long-winded way of predicted that if Princess Beatrice and Edo name their daughter Lily Elizabeth Mapelli-Mozzi, the Harkles might roar all the way from Montecito, but everyone in the UK will throw their support behind the couple that didn't smear them as racists.
1) an attempt to make Harry look like the "old Harry we love" with visitng friends and secret meetings. Pictures or it did not happen. These two pay paps for Pete's sake.
2) The invite: I agree with all the above posters in that an invite (to the Jubilee) is nothing more than an invite. Much can happen in a year.
3) The article on Kate is an interesting one - and I am inclined to believe it came from SS; the talk of reconcilation plus the mentions of from the notorious interview is a left handed compliment at best.
Join me for popcorn on the !st?
Which is my long-winded way of predicted that if Princess Beatrice and Edo name their daughter Lily Elizabeth Mapelli-Mozzi, the Harkles might roar all the way from Montecito, but everyone in the UK will throw their support behind the couple that didn't smear them as racists.
_____
Oh, this is good. Touché. Hope it happens!
I’m knitting him a new scarf as we speak.
Knit one, hurl one
So Ho the dominant weave ��
___
LOL! Brilliant!
Great comment in DM re- the bros
“The only thing William owes Harry is a slap”
The complete American expression would be "A slap upside the head"
In this vein I read Charles saying in the 1980s---
"There is nothing wrong with this man that a sound thrashing will not cure"
@XXXXX & @Raspberry Ruffle:
1. I do not believe the Queen was ever going to "ban" the Sussexes from coming to some Jubilee events. I don't believe they'll be part of most public celebrations. But the idea that TQ would lock the UK's doors against them next summer is not realistic IMO, no matter how much some here might want to see that happen.
Right. The BRF cannot keep them away from the UK. But then M/H will have a dilemma. If Harry comes alone this dis-confirms them as a real and grounded family. The face (image) they like to present to all publics. USA/UK/Australia/Canada/Everywhere
So M must come too, to the Queen's Jubilee. Then does she bring the two children? If not why not. She is paranoid of bringing them onto UK soil. But if she leaves them in Montecito with the nanny of the month or Doria, then she looks crazy. A mother who is is depriving her children of a unique Jubilee experience and the memories of this. How cruel! Of the Cruella de Vil of the Ville of Montecito.
My thoughts on reading the Sunday spin articles:
1) an attempt to make Harry look like the "old Harry we love" with visiting friends and secret meetings. Pictures or it did not happen. These two pay paps for Pete's sake.
2) The article on Kate is an interesting one - and I am inclined to believe it came from SS; the talk of reconciliation plus the mentions of from the notorious interview is a left handed compliment at best.
Join me for popcorn on the !st?
Most here (99%?) will be needing something stronger than popcorn. Or to go along with the popcorn. Something w alcohol in it. Pick your poison.
I think it is likely Eugenie is very well connected. Working as an associate director at the gallery Hauser & Wirth only enhanced her connections and flow of information about people such as Meghan.
—————————
mishmashgirl, London, United Kingdom, 37 minutes ago:
this is interesting: Eugenie is friends with top layers of British society that mingles with HW A listers. Her friends range from Ed Sheeran, *Misha Noonoo*, Cressida Bonas, Emma Watson, basically, you can call Eugenie the Margaret of her generation because of how well connected she is. Eugenie was never friends with Meghan but heard uncomfortable stories about her first marriage, past and work ethic from Misha and a couple of journalists who were staunchly anti-Meghan and tipped her off via friends. Eugenie wasn't sure what to believe yet told William who in turn went to Harry.
Antoinette., South East, United Kingdom, 15 minutes ago: You call that well connected?!
mishmashgirl, London, United Kingdom, 9 minutes ago: Harry of course got very angry. This is the basis of the story about William telling Harry to slow down "with this girl". Harry of course tells Meghan who has decided to punish Eugenie and the York girls for Eugenie's reporting to William what Misha Noonoo told her. Hence the pregnancy announcement at Eugenie's wedding. Also, I heard that Beatrice wanted to name any prospective daughter of hers "Lily" and that's why Meghan stole the name. She made the mistake of telling this in front of Meghan. Just like Meghan took the nickname Archie from George, she took both Lillibet and Lily from the BRF.
It would look very odd for the Harkles to attend the Jubilee next year but not bring their children with them. Harry's wife could bleat on about privacy and security, or recycle the line about "serving [her children] up on a platter," but by then, no one will really buy it. I suppose they could say they brought the children to meet their royal cousins, but just didn't want to expose them to the press. But a single line from Mike Tindall would blow their cover immediately.
And you're right that even if people accept their excuses at face value, they would look strange at best if they chose to deprive their children of such a unique experience. With all the other royal cousins publicly out and about (not all of whom have RPOs), they'd also look extremely paranoid.
To be honest, it's stuff like this that makes me think Harry's wife actually is the biological mother to two children in her custody. First she shrouded Archie's birth in so much confusion and chaos that it will haunt him for the rest of his life. Then she saddled Lili with the most notorious name possible, again for her daughter to bear for the rest of her life. She also deprived them of relationships with both extended families, including a "birthright" that includes a chance to participate in their great-grandmother's Jubilee celebrations. A truly unique opportunity! It's exactly what a narcissist in her position would do to her children. Gosh, I pray she isn't a mother in any sense of the word.
CBS is pushing the "pro Harkle narrative" to back up their current and former employees Gayle King and Oprah. That's the best reason I can think of and hoping they will get more "exclusives."
I also read that she had a reputation in school for writing letters to complain to companies in order to score freebies. Someone who has been obsessed with freebies and copyright since the 8th grade is a maladjusted person indeed.
I remember reading before she married 6 that she was very greedy with the swag bags at
show biz events and would try to take more than her share. So yes, she is obsessed with freebies.
Your scarf pattern is brilliant! I needed a hearty laugh!
Reading the day's posts now but you must be in bed. Should you be short of loo rolls, you could use Finding Freebies or some old newspapers with TBW 's (That Blooby Woman) face on. Eminently suitable.
Hope your lockdown is bearable at least it's only two weeks. Take care.
Its all about £££££ isn't it? I mean, isn't that what the Jubilee is for--making as much money as you can?
And you're right that even if people accept their excuses at face value, they would look strange at best if they chose to deprive their children of such a unique experience. With all the other royal cousins publicly out and about (not all of whom have RPOs), they'd also look extremely paranoid.
The dirty little secret about the RPO in UK and their current hired guns in Los Angeles, is that they are not protecting, they are enabling. Enabling the H/M forever game of hide and seek. As in "Do they live in Frog Cott?" "Do (did) they rent and really live in the Cotswolds?" "Do they live in their Montecito mansion or in Oprah's guest house?" "How did Meghan get to the Portland to give birth with no staked out reporters seeing them leave from Frog Cott?"
If there are surrogates and vinyl babies, their security officers are very well needed to enable this farce and coverup.
M yammers "Security, we deserve Dad's money for security and protection for the baby Arch!" "Protection! Security! Protection! Security!" --- Reality is that no one is interested in physically harming the Hazzbeen Duo. While the Duo needs RPO and the like to provide the logistics that enables them to slink around undetected. To live where oh where? Undetected. To be seen when they choose to, such as their self-serving excursions to LA charities.
The Star, seen in Newzit, says:
Meghan Markle and Harry's Netflix dreams dashed as they're told 'no one wants to watch'
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Netflix ambitions have been shot down by a US columnist, who has brutally said that "no one wants to watch" anything they produce.
...
Whilst many of their fans are excited to finally see the pair's hard work on screens, other people are definitely not as excited.
Maureen Callahan, a US columnist, has brutally hit out at the pair and their ambitions of becoming Netflix mega-stars, writing in the New York Post: "Meghan showed up on 'America’s Got Talent' for no discernible reason, and Harry and Meghan just announced that $100-million-dollar deal with Netflix.
"'Making inspirational family programming,' they said in a statement, 'is important to us.'
"Uh-huh. They droned on about 'the power of the human spirit: of courage, resilience, and the need for connection."
She added: "'Through our work with diverse communities and their environments, to shining a light on people and causes around the world, our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope.'
"In other words, stuff no one wants to watch.
"Let’s get real: The most buzzed-about doc on Netflix right now is about a South African man who falls in love with an octopus ('My Octopus Teacher,' truly a must-see)."
...
~~~~~~~~
I hope there is some truth in this. 'Stuff no one wants to watch'. Too right. These were topics that might have been interesting once but not any more, especially when mentioned and nauseam, and people want entertainment, not preaching and pontificating.
Well, it's just saying what we're all thinking, but I can't figure out why it got published. It's not the usual Harkle PR that paints them as incredibly popular.
On the other hand . . . It could be their way of explaining in advance why nothing has come from the over-hyped Netflix deal. And it's not their fault, either! The real culprit is the wider audience beyond their fans, which would rather watch "a South African man who falls in love with an octopus." What a way to insult both one of the biggest streaming platforms in the world and the majority of its subscribers! Jeez, are they trying to burn bridges in Hollywood while they still live there?
The misha nonoo thing makes 1/2 sense to me. TBW is nuts so MN could have spread bad news about her to E....but is TBW crazy enough to cut off MN after MN married some super filthy rich guy? The rich guy could be a future hubby for TBW, or good contacts with other filthy rich bizillionaires, so her cutting off MN seems suspect to me. But maybe MN cut contact with TBW....
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20151109-english-speakers-or-not-brits-and-americans-swear-in-different-languages
___
I 've been curious about why the word bloody is a curse word in the UK. In the U.S. it just means there's a hella lot of blood.
I went to Google and found an interesting history on Wikipedia. I then found this older (!) BBC article on the vast difference between British cursing and American cursing. I think it spells it out pretty clearly why we Yanks curse differently than those in Britain.
If any one here knows of other stories concerning the origins of the word Bloody please share. I have always wondered about it.
I've suddenly developed a huge appreciation for the word Bloody, especially coming from the mouth of a future King (I hope it's true. It makes William a badass which I find very attractive in a man).
I'm not interested in using the word because it's laughable when Yanks try to sound British. I may joke and use the Irish "meself" on occasion due to my history in that country, but Bloody is different.
Thanks, Nutties.
I could see wanting to say a few words but giving a speech seems a little pretentious. I'd sure feel stupid.
Thanks for the link about Why do Brits and Americans swear so differently. Bloody is an intensifier which can be used in a positive as well as negative way: bloody good/ bloody expensive. It is still considered rather rude and shouldn't be used in polite conversation. There is also the expression 'bloody hell', used to express anger/annoyance/shock etc., again not to be used in polite conversation.
To use a British phrase: "spot on".
True, over the last 60 years the use of cuss / curse words is on the rise in the American verncaular. I remember George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words and the FCC (guardian of public television airings) will not allow them still, however cable will enrich your vocabulary with a few more that you were not aware of.
I also believe it have to do with the delivery - the dry wit gets away with more than the plain spoken individual - all because of the amount of time to realize that one has been insulted and highly at that. Thanks for the posting. :)
LOL! glad you enjoyed the link. @Humor, you are so right about the dead pan delivery. It's classic, as someone mentioned Maggie Smith's zinger's in Downton Abbey. I enjoyed her character for that very reason.
I never used the F word until I worked in Northern Ireland and had a couple of Irish loves. I was goaded into using it because being the prig Yank (as us older ones can be) it never left my lips. It actually was the UVF lads who shamed me into using it promising it would bring relief like no other word. They were right...:D
I noticed back then even a few priests and nuns would use the F word when they got really mad. Not feck but full on FU** LOL...that was a shocker. Everyone used it, grannies, little kids etc. I now know why the likes of Liam Neesom and Colin Farrell were constantly bleeped out on our talk shows here ha ha!
I adore the sound of That Bloody Woman! Sorry to be redundant. Again, OCD Virgo here... :D
It is still considered rather rude and shouldn't be used in polite conversation.
____
Woah Nellie! Wills must have been po'd to the max. Hubba Hubba :D
I agree with Maneki and the swear word bloody. Although it’s one of our more minor swear words you wouldn’t use it as part of your usual conversation unless making a point. I would add that the upper classes etc, swear rather a lot which includes bad swear words too. So Wills saying bloody was really rather tame by his standards. 😃
So, as I recall, it's a corruption of "my lady" meaning "my lady [Mary]" -- say it fast a few times and you get it -- muhluddy, muhluddy, m'ludy, luddy, bluddy . .. get it? Yeah, me neither. But then, those old-timers were more religious than most of us in modern times, certainly more than I am. I don't get it at all. I always thought it was much ado about little, but again, not my faith, not my hangup!
:D :D :D
Not sure about bloody being a corruption of my lady, it sounds a stretch.
This is what Wikipedia says about the origin of the word bloody:
Use of the adjective bloody as a profane intensifier predates the 18th century. Its ultimate origin is unclear, and several hypotheses have been suggested. It may be a direct loan of Dutch bloote, (modern spelling blote) meaning entire, complete or pure, which was suggested by Ker (1837) to have been "transformed into bloody, in the consequently absurd phrases of bloody good, bloody bad, bloody thief, bloody angry, etc., where it simply implies completely, entirely, purely, very, truly, and has no relation to either blood or murder, except by corruption of the word."[2]
etymonline.com says:
"of the nature of blood, pertaining to blood, bleeding, covered in blood," Old English blodig, adjective from blod (see blood). Common Germanic, compare Old Frisian blodich, Old Saxon blôdag, Dutch bloedig, Old High German bluotag, German blutig. From late 14c. as "involving bloodshed;" 1560s as "bloodthirsty, cruel, tainted with blood-crimes."
It has been a British intensive swear word at least since 1676. Weekley relates it to the purely intensive use of the cognate Dutch bloed, German Blut. But perhaps it ultimately is connected with bloods in the slang sense of "rowdy young aristocrats" (see blood (n.)) via expressions such as bloody drunk "as drunk as a blood."
The word "blood" in Dutch and German is used as part of minced oaths, in abbreviation of expressions referring to "God's blood", i.e. the Passion or the Eucharist. Ernest Weekley (1921) relates English usage to imitation of purely intensive use of Dutch bloed and German Blut in the early modern period.
I assumed Wills said what he said in public. Not! Now that would be HOT ;)
@RaspberyRuffle said
the upper classes etc, swear rather a lot which includes bad swear words too.
--------
Yes, very true. I don't swear very often, not being upper class 😆 so had forgotten about it.
Ditto! 😂😁
BTW I've been meaning to say your handle pic is such a good one! No mistaking the contempt on HM's countenance.
It was on my phone for quite awhile so I could be reminded how 'that bloody woman' will hang herself eventually. Looks as if she has!
It's an intensifier but I'm careful who I say it in front of, not in a job interview for instance.
Thank you. I had William rearranging his scarf for a while and changed it to the Queen and her glare at TBW. The photo is a bit dark, I'll try to play around with the brightness.
@Wild Boar said
It's an intensifier but I'm careful who I say it in front of, not in a job interview for instance.
------
Exactly! And a job interview is just the example I had in mind of not when to use it. Applied to M, it's just right. Well done, William!
IMO: #6w is posting on this site.
Intriguing! Whom do you believe?
Food for thought, indeed!
Well we know it's not @Not Meghan Markle. I need that handle!! Lol.
I've been accused of this myself. We've been through it so many times.
I have to admit both TBW and I both think Wills is Alpha hot right now...
p.s. do tell!
Tantalising titbit! Give us a clue!
I've had a look in The Queen's Diamonds by Hugh Roberts. The only tiara that I can find listed for Queen Victoria is the Oriental Tiara. There is a famous picture of the Queen Mother by Cecil Beaton of the QM wearing it. www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw16511/Queen-Elizabeth-the-Queen-Mother
https://thecrownchronicles.co.uk/history/historical-news/victorias-emerald-tiara-from-albert-fife-tiara-to-go-on-display-at-kensington-palace/
From https://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2014/05/sunday-sparkler-oriental-circlet-tiara.html
Bold added by me.
"In terms of royal provenance, it doesn’t get much better than this tiara. It was not only worn by Queen Victoria but also designed by her beloved Albert, and it’s the only one of the four tiaras designed by Albert that is still owned by the main branch of the British royal family...
"Victoria had little use for elaborate tiaras, including this piece, after Albert’s death in 1861. When she died forty years later, the tiara was left to the crown and specifically earmarked for the use of future queens and queens consort.
QEII had no choice, fortunately. Not that I think she would have lent it. For one thing, it was worn often by her mother.
This tiara had no emeralds. It has rubies that replaced the original opals thought to be "unlucky" for wearers unless opal is the wearer's birthstone. (Common superstition in US where I live about opals,l
The emerald tiara of Victoria's on display at KP doesn't belong to the RF anymore. The Queen could not have lent it.
The Oriental tiara has rubies, not emeralds: www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw16511/Queen-Elizabeth-the-Queen-Mother
I'm not sure if the emerald tiara TBW coveted is The Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara:
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/secondary/vladimir-kokoshnik-tiara-Russia-Queen-2577198.jpg?r=1595429364761
IMO: #6w is posting on this site.
Not #6w but her mum perhaps? I endorse that.
Perhaps this is why the blog goes 'bonkers' from time to time?
My Octopus Teacher IS an amazing documentary. H & M strike me as completely incapable of creating something as interesting and compelling, even with their connections. They're too arrogant to listen to right advice and cannot see beyond their own distorted narrative to create anything authentic and meaningful (not to mention entertaining).
Also, I don't believe the invite H & M received to the Queen's Jubilee next year is legit. It reeks of a Sunshine Sucks-it plant. It's similar in tone and ridiculousness to the stories about Kate throwing MM a baby shower and the Queen inviting MM for special lunch or tea or whatever it was.
Finally, I watched the latest Lady C video and she must have said, "She is a real pro. I mean REAL PRO!!!" so many times in reference to MM that I thought for certain she must be calling her a PRO-stitute. Lady C does know much more than she lets on. ;)
The Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara is stunning!!!!
Yes, who does Fifi suspect is #6w (or grip or cringe or maggot or cash (as in Cash and Harry not Cash and Carry)?
I quite enjoyed the image of The Queen going gang busters doing a drive by at Frogmore cottage to stare Harry down, “you’re on my turf now, son!”
LOL thanks for the hilarious imagery
Sure, someone might be reading us. So?
That does not mean that someone posting some idea which we disagree with makes them 6w or similar.
We have a diverse group of people who post diverse ideas. Each of us agrees with some but not others.
Let's not stir the ahm by pointing fingers at posters we don't agree with and saying we think they are 6w or a friend of hers. The Salem Witch hunts were a couple of centuries ago and this is not the blog to revive their concept of how to deal with people we don't like.
@Maneki
That would wipe the smirk from her face😜
@LL@DesignDoctor
Cast off… 😉
You are a treasure!
To the contrary, it would be a smart move by Megz and her team. That’s my thoughts on the matter. Do I disagree with Meghan fundamentally and that’s why I’m here? Yes. But sometimes I don’t hate the player, I hate the game, and boy does she game the BRF and the press!
For the blog though, we are not going to start having conversations about how our opinion is that so and so is actually 6/6w/someone else.
Personally, in my opinion, it would be a better strategic move to read the blog and not comment.
I agree with @Design Doctor. A treasure.
G'nite and stay strong in lockdown!
@abbyH,
Thank you!
I'm out for now Nutties...
Agreed! That would be fun!
Deviating from the context of 6/6W shouldn’t happen here, of course.
@Maneki
That would wipe the smirk from her face😜
@LL@DesignDoctor
Cast off…
Preferably without sail, engine or oars, so to speak? To be picked up by somebody else's yacht?
He seems to be saying that checking up on him was itself racist - I'd argue that it's Classist - we smelled fakery by a pleb, colour being irrelevant.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9729757/Black-Irish-Lord-backed-Meghan-claims-royal-racism-confesses-hes-FRAUD.html
He's a 22yr-old US student - but the Independent fell for it, which itself tells us a great deal.
I saw a post about this on another site, can't recall where (Hrrysgreysuit perhaps? - it was late, I was tired & meant to go back to it but the moment was lost). Here's the gist:
An LA/<Montecito? resident said she spent a lot of time on the balcony of her apartment, above road level. One morning she observed something odd.
A woman laden with child and bags came down the road and stopped, as if waiting for someone but nobody came. So she trudged back up the road, then came down again. This time a car arrived, somebody got out and took photos of her.
I can't remember what the observer said happened after that, beyond the fact that she thought it very peculiar.
All was revealed in the newspapers shortly after, when the pics were published.
No prize for guessing who it was.
Was she trying to imply that they couldn't afford a buggy?
Native Americans want meeting with Harry and Meghan over fears the Sussexes are using HOLY WATER to irrigate the grounds of their $14.7million California mansion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9732141/Native-Americans-want-meet-Harry-Meghan-fears-using-HOLY-WATER-water-garden.html
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link. Here's the best comment:
From Sussex, UK
"It cant be Holy water or Megs would have self-ignited by now."
Oh, I laughed so hard. Looool!!
I couldn't get this link to work -it just took me to an article about Wimbledon. There's something funny about it...
I did find it though in the Sun:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15411418/native-americans-harry-meg-water/
In a sense, all water is holy/sacred - just a pity that so many abuse it.
Draining an aquifer isn't a good idea.
One royal commentator ( unidentified source again) "Harry returned to the UK last Friday and is quarantining ahead of unveiling a new statue of his mother Princess Diana at Kensington Palace on Thursday. While Harry would have no doubt hoped to see the Queen during his time back in Britain, a reunion with his grandmother may be off the cards as she travelled to Scotland on Monday for Holyrood Week. The Queen is expected to remain in Edinburgh for the week and may not get back to Windsor Castle before Harry's departure.
While Harry's UK schedule has not been confirmed, he may be keen to get back to his wife Meghan Markle, 39, their newborn daughter Lilibet and son Archie, two, in California as soon as possible.The only way a royal reunion could take place between Harry and the Queen is if he decides to stay on in Britain after Thursday
In a sense, all water is holy/sacred - just a pity that so many abuse it.
____
Amen.
The human being is sacred as well. Some more than others, unfortunately.
Those that choose the path of dishonor make the choice for their own karma, which passes to the generations that follow.
Don't we so often see the effect of this in our "New World"? Rhetorical question.
Oh, I laughed so hard. Looool!!
Me too! There are some very witty comments on that article! :-)
@WBBM,
I couldn't get this link to work -it just took me to an article about Wimbledon.
The link definitely worked when I posted it. It's now taking me to the Daily Mail NEWS page.
Have no idea why!
Yes! What a hoot, I loved it!
(minus the ones that sound like a cringe-y re-run of F Troop...WHELP!
It worked for me but some PC's are on different programming systems.
Thanks again for the share :)
Interesting about the schedule clash. First, maybe that's why HM took that supposed drive to Frogmore? Second, wasn't there supposedly a lunch/tea invite with HM for Harry? Are both items SS plants?
The plot thickens...
@Karla, is that article saying the Queen didn't rush to Frogcott to see H just 30 minutes after he arrived?
----
Here's hoping she raced over to present himself-and the wife-with a bill for services not rendered.
...
SirStinx
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1455540/queen-and-prince-harry-meeting-diana-statue-scotland-evg
That really caught my attention too. More than anything else in that video. Lady C was really emphasising the point and given what she was talking about at the time, the inference was inescapable. For someone who is always aware of the legal situation, she has become a lot more outspoken in recent days. It makes me feel the tide is really turning against M. Slowly of course. I firmly believe I'll be 96 by the time that woman is revealed to the rest of the world for the creature she is.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/a-grieving-queen-emerges-from-windsor-castle-to-take-her-corgi-puppies-for-a-walk-158767/
Meghan Markle, Archie, Lili likely to attend the unveiling of Diana's statue via Zoom. (Another PR???)
https://www.geo.tv/latest/357300-meghan-markle-archie-lili-likely-to-attend-the-unveiling-of-dianas-statue-via-zoom
I still consider myself a newbie here and have been following the story line of what's happening and all the really good comments being posted here.
First, thank you to those who posted links to the various Tiara's, so beautiful. My favorite is the Oriental Tiara favored by the Queen Mother. Rubies and diamonds, gorgeous.
It's taken me time but I'm slowly being able to pick up on the real articles or those for the purposes of PR by MM. I probably would have never taken notice if not for this blog.
@Mum Mobile - Finally, I watched the latest Lady C video and she must have said, "She is a real pro. I mean REAL PRO!!!" so many times in reference to MM that I thought for certain she must be calling her a PRO-stitute. Lady C does know much more than she lets on. ;)
Ava C commented:That really caught my attention too. More than anything else in that video. Lady C was really emphasising the point and given what she was talking about at the time, the inference was inescapable. For someone who is always aware of the legal situation, she has become a lot more outspoken in recent days. It makes me feel the tide is really turning against M. Slowly of course. I firmly believe I'll be 96 by the time that woman is revealed to the rest of the world for the creature she is.
I am trying keep the quotations separate so that people can follow who said what. We'll see if it works, or I augur this particular plane into the ground.
When I read the above two comments, I thought "This I gotta see!" and watched Lady C's latest after that tropical system setting off the coast decided to put an end to my mowing. This latest video seemed confirmatory to me without actually coming right out and saying "yes, she's a ho".
I have to wonder if she is getting fed information behind the scenes that certain people want to come out, or whether it this what Lady C *thinks* rather than what she knows. After all, Lady C could be speaking about 6w's self-promotion efforts in which she is a "pro".
That is exactly what I think, but not because of Lady C. I look at the way that 6w treated her prior relationships and she certainly treated them as disposable johns, not as persons that she dearly loved.
The Express has some truly bizarre stories today, one asserting that Wm might abdicate (admittedly years down the line.) It also concedes that `few monarchs have ever abdicated' - only 1 in my reckoning, James II was deposed but they called it abdication.
Others have been killed but that's hardly been voluntary.
The other weirdnesses are that Sugars are saying that HM has gone to Scotland to win popularity so they don't `declare' for Meghan and the Express also repeats Robert Lacey's alternate version of the Commonwealth Service. You know, the one full of alternate facts that the BBC failed to notice so didn't televise and instead showed us something else.
Again, if I were the kind to "LOL," that very idea would have me splitting my sides!
Don't the Scottish people consider themselves among those smeared as "racists" by Harry's wife?
"The other weirdnesses are that Sugars are saying that HM has gone to Scotland to win popularity"
Royal family traditions are sometimes unknown.The Queen's visit to Scotland during this period is the week "Royal Week or Holyrood Week"
Holyrood Week
Each year, The Queen spends a week visiting various regions in Scotland, meeting Scots from all walks of life and hosting thousands at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in recognition of their good work. Known in Scotland as 'Royal Week', and to others as 'Holyrood Week', these visits celebrate Scottish culture, achievement and community.
Holyrood week normally takes place from the end of June to the beginning of July.
https://www.royal.uk/holyrood-week
/There is probably more interest in the UK. Maybe. I just don't see the point of them wasting lots of money inducing nausea in people who do not want to hear of them or any children that they may or may not have.
I agree there probably is more interest in UK. Yes these two would definitely turn my stomach and not want my dinner too.
I've followed the Royals since 1980 when Diana arrived on the scene. God she was so young, so beautiful, and so naive. But I followed that story to it's very tragic ending.
Now here we are 40 years later and I can't help but watch this new trainwreck. I was able to read a letter Thomas Markle Jr. sent to Prince Harry and I had to chuckle when he said she's pretending to be a royal princess, but she's a c list actress who can't act.
But then after reading several posts here about her real obsession is Diana, I believed all along that I was the only one who this about her. Finding out that other's feel the same way makes me feel included in what certainly will end in some tragic event.
PH's obsession with Diana and how she died is a bit delusional to me. He really believes this isn't going to happen to his wife and wants to protect her, as if any one was chasing HER all these years. It's almost like a self fulfilling proficey that something bad would have happened if he stayed in the UK as a member of the royal family.
No one ever chased this woman, nor would anyone want to either.
I have two daughter in laws both of whom can't stand MM or all the antic's she's pulling on the world stage. She's just bad news here in the US too. There is nothing royal about her and some of the outfits she's worn in her ROLE were hysterically funny, especially the one in the white pill box hat. Who is she kidding, besides her husband?
HMTQ looked wonderful and happy to bein attendance despite all the comments of her grief. Yes, she is grieving, but she is Exhibit of 'stiff up lip, and keep calm and carry on". A role model for all of us.
lots of pr and it’s not even july 1 yet. speculation on zoom. again she likes to stir the pot. then again i would love it if she did and then have someone live blog her at the same time. she and the mr are so dumb. they could make real money being out there on pay per view and have skeptics blogging it. or even guest negative commentators like Lady C, Candace Owens etc. make money on negative brand. maybe not the brand they want but right now they don’t have a brand except negative one so why not make money on that. at least that i would have a little more respect for them since it would being honest that people loved to hate them.
6w treated her previous relationships as disposable Johns not as people she dearly loved
Narcs are incapable of loving anyone but themselves. They may act “as if” they love someone, but it is an act. They do not have the capability to love another.
I wonder if Megs, Sunshine Sachs or whoever is leading the PR drive (apart from Megs) are pushing the Palace to see if they rebutt all false PR stories from Megs camp.
I doubt the Queen will sink to their level but if the stories directly link to a Senior Royal then info such as the different whereabouts of the person would show up the false stories.
The Queen and BRF are doing more rebutting. M's PR/propaganda strategy has forced them to. Still, as you say, the BRF cannot get down in the mud with The American Bounder and H. The BRF is not going to get involved in back and forth exchanges with M/H. Royalty never does this.
Sunshine Sachs and Meg's other PR agents are always placing articles for M to maintain her visibility the way the Kardashians do. With PMK as their resident genius. Kim is no dummy but the other girls seem to be. Visibility is all in Hollywood these days. Got to maintain it! Or wither away.
Sunshine Sachs etc. Will be doing this placing as a matter of course. Then they also have their "special issue placements" that are outright lies about the Queen's and the BRF's intentions regarding M/H. In an effort to get BRF invitations (such as to Sandringham) and more. All designed to push/intimidate the BRF in a direction the BRF does not like or want
Kris Jenner is PMK -- Pimp Mama Kardashian.
Megs is PMH - Pimp Mama Harry
----- Since Megsy-Wegsy is currently dead in the water, H has to be the more visible, viable one. He is who Americans want to meet. When Harry gets hesitant, there is always Megs to push him out, pimp him out to earn. Earn on his own (that mental gymnastics outfit) and earn by getting money out his Duchy £££ laden Dad.
Daniela Elser: Harry's UK return triggers new palace 'emergency' week
28 Jun, 2021 07:20 AM7 minutes to read
news.com.au
By: Daniela Elser
PART 1
OPINION:
Buckingham Palace boasts many intriguing features, including vast wine cellars (39,000 bottles and counting), a secret private indoor swimming pool and even its own post office, but one of the most hair-raising additions might be the $1 million-a-piece panic rooms that exist in all of the Queen's residences and which can withstand a mortar round.
If there was ever a week when Her Majesty might fancy shutting herself inside one of these security lockboxes with nothing but the complete works of Dick Francis, her new corgi puppy and an entire tin of Quality Street, then this is it, with the next week shaping up to be one of the most high-stakes periods in recent royal history.
The reason? Prince Harry of course, or to be fair, the return of the royal heretic for the unveiling of the much-anticipated statue of Diana, Princess of Wales alongside his brother Prince William.
The 36-year-old is already back in Britain having flown in from Los Angeles on Friday, UK time, and currently, he's holed up in Frogmore Cottage for five days of Covid-related quarantine. (Here's hoping the controversially renovated five-bedroom "cottage" has Sky Sports and the collected writings of Brene Brown so he can stave off boredom.)
On Thursday, William and Harry will stand side-by-side in Kensington Palace's Sunken Garden, an exquisite Edwardian addition that was one of their mother's favourite places, where they will debut the Ian Rank-Broadley statue of Diana they commissioned in 2017. (Thursday would have been the late Princess's 60th birthday.)
Make no mistake: This will be the most highwire meeting of the two men so far – the royal equivalent of the Yalta Conference, sans big moustaches.
For anyone out there harbouring any naive notions this princely reunion might amount to some bridge-building, or anyone who is tempted to start throwing around the word "healing," then I have some very bad news for you.
Going into this week, all signs are pointing to tensions between the princes remaining as bowstring tense as they have been for years now, with neither side showing any sign of relenting.
"Neither are offering an olive branch," a close friend of both brothers told the Times' royal editor Roya Nikkhah. "I fear it will be the same as at Prince Philip's funeral, a nod of recognition, and that's about it."
Those in royal circles, per the Times, are already "anxious" about this week's proceedings.
"On the day, it will be difficult to separate the statue from the occasion, which is now loaded with all sorts of unwelcome baggage," a royal source told Nikkhah.
"Of course they will put on a brave face for the event, like they did at the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral," the Telegraph's Camilla Tominey quotes one well-placed source as saying. "They both know it is not about them but remembering the late Princess.
"But the idea that this can all be forgiven and forgotten … it's going to take a lot longer than a couple of days."
Since late 2018, reports have only intensified and multiplied exponentially about the dismal state of the relationship between the Sussexes and the Cambridges. Harry and Meghan's decision to sit down with Oprah Winfrey in March this year for two hours of prime time grievance-airing has only seemed to pour fuel on the underlying anger and hurt. (No one wants their dirty family laundry aired in front of a global audience of 50 million people, do they now?)
`William is still angry about it," a close friend of both brothers told the Times. "It's despair, as well as anger."
"Before Oprah there was some sympathy for [Harry], but not after that," a source told the Telegraph. "He knew the damage he was doing. That he looked deeply uncomfortable tells you everything you need to know."
What should have been a powerful and touching gesture from the Wales brothers, the project, conceived to honour their mother when the bond between the two men was still largely intact, has now become a powder keg moment in the long and winding clash between the Sussexes and the wider royal family.
If all the players involved can somehow skate through this week without some sort of PR conflagration erupting, it will be nothing short of a miracle. (If ever there was a time for the Queen to use her godly connections as the head of the Church of England, this would be it.)
At risk here is more than just whether the palace can tamp down the roiling feud story that has dominated coverage for years now. Instead, at stake is the much bigger project of future-proofing the monarchy that is currently going on.
What separates the princes at this precarious stage is what they stand to lose if this state of royal affairs continues to drag on..
In the case of Harry, there is an argument that this narrative – the rebel prince standing up to the hoary, white palace; a man driven by love to protect his family in the face of a racist, antiquated imperialist hangover – is a boon for him back in the States. That is, defining himself in opposition to the royal family and everything that Americans think that stands for, only equates to some top-notch branding. More kombucha, anyone?
For William, things could not be more dramatically different. The last 18 months has seen both him and wife Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge dramatically ramp up their royal work, with him launching the $91.5 million Earth Shot Prize and the debut of the Kate-driven Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood, which was announced recently at the prestigious London School of Economics. This is all legacy-defining stuff and represents a dramatic and impressive departure from the prevailing royal status quo. William and Kate don't just want to politely do their bit for Gan Gan and country. They want to create real, generational change that will have a tangible and significant impact on the UK.
Unfortunately at the moment, all of this is perpetually overshadowed by the tantalising melodrama of the ongoing Sussex vs Windsor civil war.
That's why, on a purely pragmatic level, if William and Kate truly want to get the media's attention, and public interest, back on their paradigm-shaking do-goodery, then they need to find a way to draw a line under this whole sordid Sussex mess.
The longer this drags on, the more precious time the Cambridges are losing to cement a new, invigorating vision of the monarchy as the palace readies itself for the eventual passing of the Queen and the potential foment of Republican sentiment, especially in the Commonwealth.
They have a narrow window to prove, especially to younger Brits, that the monarchy is a genuinely positive and valuable institution in the 21st century and not a $169 million waste that carries with it deeply uncomfortable connotations of colonialism and white privilege.
As biographer (and The Crown's historical consultant) Robert Lacey wrote in the Daily Mail, "top figures in Buckingham Palace are working flat out to bring an end to the present emergency – and make no mistake, they view it as little less than that."
But no matter how furiously royal courtiers and aides might be beavering away to sort out this current situation, there is no denying the very clear and present danger this week poses.
So, Your Majesty, now would be a most opportune moment to gather that family-sized block of Fry's Turkish Delight you've been saving and your Line of Duty boxset and settle in. Those panic rooms might be mortar-proof but are they Sussex-proof? Now might be the time to find out.
THE END
Prince Harry issues poignant message after returning to the UK
PRINCE Harry has issued a poignant message to recipients of the Diana Award.
"There is great need for young leadership and there is no greater time to be a young leader. I believe in you. We believe in you." (PH)
Thank you to The Duke of Sussex for joining our #2021DianaAwards celebration.
Head over to http://instagram.com/dianaaward for the full video message.
While i think alot of that is spot on, the part about the Harkles appealing to the US public is off base. I personally think the majority of the US now has a very negative view of the Harkles. The exceptions are her very dedicated sugars and some of the SS PR media celeb crowd that think they can profit off the Harkles like Oprah did.
I really think most in the US and even world wide, now know they are liars, hypocrites and act like petulant children.
The Harkles really arent very influential anywhere and are nothing but a distraction best to ignore whenever posible.
That said the Cambridges, PC , have to work very, very hard to continue make the monarchy relevant in the coming years
After not inviting his friends to the wedding reception, it would seem that 6 burnt a lot of bridges. Lady C has said that if 6 returned to the UK he would be treated respectfully, but that's about it. 6 has been a traitor to his own family, so the story of him lunching with pals must be more PR.
They need to let Diana Rest In Peace.
Puds, LOL
....still catching up today
Is it the end of the world if the spare heir who has the IQ of a garden slug and his wife, a bad-tempered spendthrift woman of no morals, flounce off to Hollywood to join other shallow, stupid people?
Manaki Neko & Sir Stink Alot, if TBW did want to wear a tiara that had been in Victoria's collection then the time line is wrong for the Vladimir tiara. Victoria died in 1901 and the Russian Revolution which caused the Grand Duchess to flee Russia was in 1917. The tiara was sold after the Grand Duchess died.
I have been reading Suzy Menkes book The Royal Jewels. When Victoria married Albert she had orange blossom in her hair rather than a tiara. She liked rubies best of all. She bought a huge amount of jewellery and there is a copy of Garrad the Crown Jewellers order book in the V&A listing what she bought. It's mainly necklaces, bracelets and suites of jewellery.
The only other tiara that I have so far found reference to from this period is the Indian tiara by Cartier and the Duchess of Gloucester is the current owner.
Going back to the Oriental tiara and the direction that it is only to be worn by Queens or future Queens. The Queen Mum wore it quite often, there are lots of pictures of her wearing it. Camilla has been wearing most of the Queen Mum's jewellery but I can't find a picture of her in the Oriental tiara. I wonder what the reaction of Prince Charles would have been if he had to walk TBW down the isle wearing the Oriental tiara when it appears that Camilla hasn't been able to wear it?
Likewise , Ava C can give updates on Scottish attitudes on race and the English in Scotland.
From my perspective, being English married to a Scot, I've picked up negativity, even from in-laws (well, one in particular who is likely to preface comments to me with `Och! You English' and expressed astonishment at the warmth with which I'd welcomed them- what had she expected? Boiling oil and molten lead?).
I recall a conversation from when we were staying in a fishing village on the Moray Firth. We were chatting to a neighbour (actually I was keeping quiet) and this woman had a moan about `all the English' who were moving into the area but, after all, `England was full of blacks, wasn't it.'
I had auburn hair (out a bottle) and was wearing my Shetland silver earrings at the time so she didn't realise she was talking to the `Auld Enemy'.
What is really at stake here is Scottish independence or otherwise; it seems that in some urban areas at least, it's OK to slag off the English. The Borderers seem well-disposed towards us, probably because the can see the true implications of Sturgeon's vision.
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1409350737382055937
Slightly off topic:
Sounds like the Scots feel they are the red headed stepchildren of the Commonwealth. That's been my perception for quite awhile but, I know diddly about Scotland other than they were once Catholic a long long time ago and some can now be quite sectarian and Nationalist in their politics; they have an active Orange Order as you know.
Of course the newer generations are more along the lines as other Western youth. My Bff's daughter lives there and it's changed a lot as have most Western countries with the wokeness ideology spreading as we speak. Some change can be good, but to us older folk it's hard seeing our society change so rapidly. I will even say it can feel traumatic...
I understand its a beautiful country. Green and lush in the rural areas. I can get why HM loves it there. It must be a great escape from London, the NYC of Blighty, or so I hear. I was there once. It's a bustling city. I would love the Scottish get away too if I were her.
The folks in NI also feel they they are given a bum deal, both Green and Orange. Meaning they feel England doesn't embrace them as much as they would like. Though they are very loyal to the Queen (the Orange side are, there are Irish there as well), as you also know.
I always enjoy your thoughts on history, the RF, and the obnoxious duo lol.
Indeed. My glucose reading went up after that piece ha!
This, in reference to being upstaged by William and Catherine:
"Harry and Meghan were very, very popular and they sucked up an awful lot of the oxygen," said Jonny Dymond, a royal correspondent for BBC News.
Ugh! Too much oxygen IMO...
I have to agree with that, even though I tend to be pro-Sturgeon. I don't have much appetite though, for yet more radical upheaval after Brexit. I'm approaching my first year in the Scottish Borders and have been welcomed 100%. Everyone has been SO friendly, offering help to us at any time.
One thing I haven't got used to yet is that everyone is Scottish. Without exception. People in shops, delivery people (lots of those!), workmen, neighbours, taxi drivers ... everyone. Coming from Cambridge, at the University, where there is every nationality, it takes some getting used to. That's why I'm surprised my English family has been universally welcomed, but that could well be because there's no influx of people from elsewhere. It's a tiny, rather austere village. I don't know how much the pandemic has affected our experience but so far it's been wonderful.
I can see why people like Meghan would use the 'r' word about such homogeneous communities as this. It's so easy. To which I would say "glass houses my dear". Oops I'm sounding like Lady C. I think, to British people, avoiding hypocrisy and demonstrating fair play are paramount, just as they have been for the last couple of centuries. They will forgive a lot if they know a person is fundamentally honest, does his/her best and treats others properly. The Sussexes have thrown all this in our faces and there's no way back.
I find it scary how shallow Harry's British roots are, that he could change his body language, demeanor and language to such an extent, so quickly, for such candyfloss. What was he doing all those years he lived here? It's not as if he was buried in a mobile/cellphone throughout his childhood. He's too old(!).
I'm not criticising American people or culture BTW. My American friends and colleagues back in Cambridge find the Sussexes as alien as we do. They just wish they'd go away. Somewhere. Anywhere.
It would be very difficult to forgive if it's true that the unfounded marriage rumour came from Harry and his wife.
@Puds: I recall seeing a blind item not long after the rumor of the affair was floating around that the RF had traced it back to Meghan, which only threw another log on the fire that is fueling the animosity between William and Harry.
Narcissists are incredibly jealous people who are never happy with what they have in life, and being the toxic, destroyers that narcs are, Meghan probably read the articles and blogs with glee knowing that she was the source of the rumor. There isn’t much that Meghan would like better than to see the Cambridge marriage go through rough times or perhaps even end in divorce due to an infidelity rumor.
She has always bern jealous of Kate and likely regularly reminds Harry that SHE should be wearing Diana’s engagement ring instead of Kate and how stupid Harry was to let William have it.
It never made alot of sense to me to think M wanted to wear an emerald tiara. While it might make sense (mostly in M's head) for her to want to have a "signature gemstone" given the Diana/Kate sapphire connection, we'd not seen M wearing green much in photos prior to the wedding (although Doria's dress was green and the children's flowers contained alot of green.) But it made zero sense to me that Angela K would claim provenance was an issue for any piece M would know to be in the royal collection. Nor would it make sense to be terribly concerned about Russian origins given the known relationship between the Tsar and the BRF. Plus, if it was a piece HM has worn, that made it ok Russia-wise I'd think.
But if it was the Oriental Circlet with rubies she wanted, it might all make more sense. M did wear reds and burgundies prior to meeting Harry. And rubies are the birthstone for May. (Not that using a birthstone for the month of the wedding makes sense, but it makes as much sense as many of M's other symbols and forced connections.) And so maybe the provenance issue was not Russia at all, but that the piece can only be worn by queens and queen consorts per Queen Victoria's bequest. That would have put M on the ceiling because it would mean Kate could wear it someday (although personally I think there are other tiaras that would suit Kate better, technically she could wear Quern Victoria's as a consort.) It might also explain the children's lack of sashes if M got her panties in a twist re: colors. (Personally I thought sashes would have helped the look of the children's extraordinarily plain outfits. Others may not agree.)
Regardless, I don't think we have the full "tiara gate" story. At all.
Hasn’t that been the prevailing theory here? That Meghan started the Rose rumor?
Tiaragate: HM could hardly announce that the reason for not letting M wear the tiara of her choice was because she wasn't going to be Queen, even over her dead body, assuming that was the tiara she wanted.
Whether she told TBW that to her face is another matter. Perhaps the `Russian reason' was the first thing she thought of?
There may be a grain of truth in this statement by H but I don't think it'll be the change She's thinking of - I see it as something intensely personal for them, for the good of all the rest of us.
Re: Tiaragate--
Maybe. But it's my understanding TQ picks what she'll loan. It's not my understanding she is present herself to supervise the bride's choosing process.
But if she was there, not sure in her 90s she'd have felt obligated to explain why M couldn't choose to borrow something she hadn't offered.
Perhaps it was what she said to H when he objected so vigorously - perhaps She leaked it.
It is my impression Angela K was the source of the comment about a Russian connection. But it's not clear. Not sure if I think that because I think AK was the one presiding over the selection process or if that's what was explicitly reported somewhere. And when supposedly TQ called H later to "Meghan gets what I offer" I'd think TQ would have been prepared for a trantrumming H. But maybe not.
Queen abolished ‘birth verification’ before Meghan faced ridiculous baby conspiracy.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1455711/queen-elizabeth-ii-meghan-markle-royal-baby-tradition-archie-online-abuse-royal-family-spt
She lifted much of her text from
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22983365
published in 2013.
Given how the Sussexes deliberately obfuscated everything about Archie's `birth', to say nothing of the antics that preceded it, I believe we are entitled to be sceptical.
This is a cliche-ridden piece of writing such as I'd expect from a 16yr old, very short on critical thinking. I shan't believe a word she says in future.
I wonder if Charlotte thought the equivalent of "what the hell is this?" when she did her stint for M, after such an exquisite dress for Pippa's wedding. If they'd just been wearing the lining it would have been little different. They looked like they'd been run up the night before and had run out of time to finish them.
Maybe it was part of M's obsession with Carolyn Bessette's severe simplicity but she's never known how to do it successfully. Either that or she was being mean to little girls she resented for their lineage. Not to mention a determination to be the only one people would look at. If I had spent $75K on an engagement dress for example, I'd want my fiancé to make an effort for the photo shoot too, but if I'm the only one who matters, who cares?
Thanks for finding that BBC article and I agree the DE article itself is rubbish but I just wondered why now? I'm sure they're aware that many of us are sceptical.
A few days ago I read that it was simple racism as we did not understand pregnancy for women of colour and how it looks. Well I've seen enough in my more than half a century to know I've never seen a rectangular bump with straight edges that changes position as you walk (at the retirement home). It was as crazy as the summer dress worn in mid-December, several sizes too small. On a woman who spent nearly a million on clothes as a royal. She was visibly taunting us that day.
After this, government officials continued to be present at royal births ‒ supposedly to “verify” it ‒ until the Queen abolished the custom shortly before Prince Charles’ birth in 1948.
In this way, the Queen did away with the outdated rule and paved the way for greater privacy and decency for royal mothers.
A few days ago I read that it was simple racism as we did not understand pregnancy for women of colour and how it looks.
~~~~~~~~
Interesting. Do you remember nowhere you read this? How is pregnancy different for woc? Is this meant to mean it's more difficult for them? In any case, TBW is very thin-skinned and any criticism, or lack of approval, is construed as racism. This is actually wearing very thin and is now really boring.
Although I gave up on Supernatural early in season 6, that was enough of a dumpster fire to get me checking out some fan fora again. And I learned that there may be a very good reason -- beyond wanting the lion's share of credit and money (which BG alleges) -- for Ackles not wanting Padalecki on board. This isn't the first time Padalecki has thrown a tantrum on social media. And probably also not the first time he put Ackles on the spot in public. (The irony, right?)
This may seem really off-topic, but it doesn't surprise me that BG saw a parallel between the fictional Brothers Winchester and the real Brothers Windsor. And I had to chuckle when a fan commented on an "apology" tweet that Ackles published twenty-four hours later: "It reminds me of an older sibling forced to apologize because a younger sibling was upset that he wasn't invited to play." Well, sometimes there's a very good reason why an older sibling decides it's time to stop sharing!
After this, government officials continued to be present at royal births ‒ supposedly to “verify” it ‒ until the Queen abolished the custom shortly before Prince Charles’ birth in 1948."
Doubt; Queen Elizabeth assumed the throne in 1952. When Charles was born, the king was his father, George V.
"The wild and completely unfounded claims, which gained traction on dark corners of social media, involved accusations Archie was born via a surrogate and the Duchess faked her pregnancy. This conspiracy contributed to the abuse Meghan faced online, abuse which she has said adversely affected her mental health. However, Meghan is not the first royal to have experienced baseless accusations that they did not carry their own baby and it forced a major royal protocol around births to be brought in."
It also mentions the bedpan baby theory.
It has been my opinion for quite some time that journos are reading this blog. But, as @abbyh said recently "So?". I think it's good because NF blog, Lady C, River, Padina, etc. etc. Twitter spies, all the folks wishing to out TBW is what helped release the Big Kahuna (that she's a psycho). I also have zero doubts that certain staff in the RF are being fed certain info to help the process along. I would do it too as I believe we all here would help the BRF rid themselves of the pox that has been upon them since Spare brought home TBW...
Americans (even non mainstreams like myself) are sick to the back teeth of the duo. Alas, Hollywoowoo has always set our trends and Hollywoowoo has not come knocking for TBW. On the contrary, they appear to have her blacklisted (certainly no pun intended). The 64million dollar question is how in the hell did she get Spotify and Netflix to agree to support her? DISCLAIMER: IF that's what went down. If so, well, we need the likes of Ronan Farrow on that one. Or someone of his talents to bring it *ALL* out in the open.
I agree 100% with the idea that the BRF are giving her the necessary rope-bit by bit-to bring about her publicity demise. As a prime example of an out of control narc, what she wants the most is for the public to adore her. They do not, at this stage, minus the deranged sugars. I have also said a good while back that she is ripe for becoming a cult leader. I know because I am a cult survivor (from my early days as a college freshman) and know how that type of "leadership" operates.
I too believe there HAS to be a way to clearly define the validity of Royal births without invading the mother's privacy. DNA is perfect for such a role. The BRF have everything at their command to do such. But then, the dialogue starts all over again ad nauseam concerning the Sussex's births, and I am positive the 1000 year old BRF have a plan on how to maneuver that damning piece of info...
The article is nothing but a sugar hit piece. BUT thankfully, they went there! Re: the dark corners of social media. If that's this blog and others we peruse, then Hally-lool-yah. It will hit the fan! Coming to a theatre near you. But, as Lady C has alluded to, in due time my dears.
Bring it on.