Let's continue the discussion...
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
`College friends tell all - Meghan was in love with William
Is Daniela changing with the wind?
Pt1
Daniela Elser: The Diana feat Meghan Markle is yet to achieve
24 Jul, 2021 10:38 PM7 minutes to read
NZ Herald
By: Daniela Elser
OPINION:
It was inevitable. Before the ink was even dry on the first reports in 2016 that Prince Harry was dating Suits star Meghan Markle, the Los Angeles native was already being hungrily compared to Diana, Princess of Wales.
Statuesque fashion lover? Tick. Avowed humanitarian? Of course. Mould-breaking woman intent on charting her own course? Bien sur.
Everyone and anyone who had even a passing acquaintance with the princess, from her one-time chef to her one-time bestie Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, soon came out of the woodwork to speculate about whether Meghan would prove to be the natural heir to Diana's title of Queen of Hearts.
Meghan had the same easy connection with people during public events as Diana. Photo / AP
Because while the Queen and the rest of her musty lot might have watched the princess' trajectory from pale teenager to Versace-wearing Boudica with purse-lipped anger, the public adored her for it.
The world bore witness to her extraordinary transformation and we were beguiled time and again by her lusty commitment to making her royal platform count for something. She didn't just give a nice speech, sprout some platitudes and hope bad things in the world would become better.
No, she put on a pearl choker and went and smashed through feeble notions of propriety like a blow-dried Sherman tank, moving charitable mountains in Chanel midi-heels.
Keep up to date with the day's biggest stories
Sign up to our daily curated newsletter for the day's top stories straight to your inbox.
And not only Britain but the world unreservedly loved her for it.
Nearly five years on from those heady, innocent days when Meghan first appeared at Harry's side in her oversized white shirt, we are on the other side of the all-too-brief Sussex era and any notions of happily ever after have long since been dashed, it's still a question worth asking though.
Did Meghan fail to live up to Diana's example? Did the actress-turned-duchess pass the Diana test?
From the outset way back in 2017 when Harry and Meghan got engaged, it looked like she would naturally assume Diana's mantle as the passionate, tradition-bucking, renegade and that she, like the princess, would approach her royal career driven by compassion.
From her very first official engagement, Meghan put on a positively Diana-esque display of the sort of tactile, deeply human version of royal life that the Princess of Wales had pioneered.
It soon became abundantly clear that Meghan had every intention of channelling Diana's passionate, vocal advocacy for issues close to her heart and that stiff upper lips and polite silence were not going to be options.
Women the world over cheered – here was our princess. Finally, here was a member of the royal family who brought with her the values and ideals that resonated with contemporary women, not a nude pair of pantyhose in sight.
But we all know how this story ends – in anger, hurt and duelling PR camps – and with the monarchy just having barely endured the convulsions triggered by the Sussexes' defection.
As the dust continues to settle post-Megxit though, one thing has come into focus – Meghan, no matter how hard she worked, no matter how much she tried, no matter how many hugs she dispensed and pensioners she charmed, she never really came close to winning the title of Queen of Hearts.
And part of the reason for that is that the public love Diana basked in was a direct result of how much definite, quantifiable good she did.
Looking back at the 20-months that the former actress was a working member of the royal family, the question is, what did she actually, tangible change, aside from courtiers' gin consumption?
In hindsight, Meghan's work, as hard as it was, did not fundamentally move the dial on any of her causes.
In other ways, the Duchess of Sussex had an indelible impact. Her tenure has forced British society and the media to take part in an unprecedented reckoning about race and the nation's treatment of the first woman of colour to marry into the royal house. (Lady Davina Windsor, 34th in line to the throne and the daughter of the Queen's cousin, the Duke of Gloucester, married Māori builder Gary Lewis in 2009.)
But what I'm talking about here is that Diana's activism and advocacy did long-term, demonstrable good, something that the Duchess of Sussex never quite achieved.
I'm not saying for a second that Meghan did not work extraordinarily hard. For heaven's sake, one of the earliest complaints about her was that she would email staff at 5am. Oh the temerity of having such unapologetic zeal and get up and go!
In fact the numbers paint a truly impressive picture.
She carried out 198 engagements while she was on the royal "clock" and undertook three overseas tours. During Meghan and Harry's South Pacific tour in 2018, she notched up 76 engagements (and 40 outfit changes) in 10 towns and cities in 16 days. Oh, and she did much of this while she was pregnant and suffering serious mental health issues.
Where Meghan and Diana's paths veer dramatically apart is when it comes to being able to point out to how one woman changed things for the better in a concrete way and the other didn't.
Diana seismically, and I don't use that term loosely, changed the perception of Aids patients in the '80s at a time when the stigma around the disease was extreme. In 1987, when people still believed that you could catch the virus via touch, Diana opened the UK's first HIV/Aids unit in London and was photographed shaking hands with a patient without wearing gloves.
She intrinsically understood her own power and wielded it with precision and breathtaking savvy. Photos of her readily touching a man with the disease was nothing short of a revolutionary move.
It's so tragic that Meghan does not have quite the same resume of trailblazing work.
Impressive, clever, and impassioned? Hell yes. But paradigm-shifting force? Not really.
Sure, she helped put out a charity cookbook that has sold more than 130,000 copies, she guest edited an issue of Vogue, launched a clothing collection in support of the charity SmartWorks (of which she is patron), and made gender equality a cornerstone of her work – but she never truly changed the landscape.
This week, veteran biography and investigative journalist Tom Bower, who is currently working on a biography about Meghan, weighed in on the issue during a TV interview.
"Diana was famous for what she did," he said, pointing out that she "only became such a loved figure in Britain because she devoted herself so much to the poor, to the afflicted".
"Meghan doesn't realise that she hasn't done anything," he said. "She may be a philanthropist, she may be an activist, but I haven't seen results."
It is so tempting, and so poignant, to wonder what she might have achieved under the aegis of the royal family, if she and Harry had somehow stuck it out.
What will be fascinating and thrilling to watch in the years to come is what Meghan, via the couple's Archewell Foundation, will achieve. Given her tenacity and unimpeachable work ethic, I would bet she will not only meet but surpass the benchmark set by Diana and become an even more consequential humanitarian voice.
To put it simply, in the future I'd wager that the Duchess of Sussex will only become an even more potent force for good. It's just such a rotten shame for the royal family that she won't be doing any of it under the palace banner.
The 3 tours? I recall 2 (SA & Pacific) & 2 visits (Ireland & Morocco)
What do you make of the tone?
Damning with faint praise?
Has she been threatened?
Unlike Diana, who also did not do the incredible well informed work that Charles and the Cambridges do, and who genuinely had compassion, Meghan puts on an act.
Meghan has not displayed long-term commitment and follow-through to build anything in her life, other than to marry wealth and fame. Her marriage to Harry has been the pinnacle of her success in that.
On another topic ... a book about philanthropy and leadership? It is laughable!
Of the 4 books touted: one ghost written and about Harry, one very bad children's book by Meghan, one wellness book by Meghan (why, she is neither an expert nor an example of wellness), one book on philanthropy and leadership, by Meghan. This is vanity publishing at its worst. The only book of interest is Harry's book as it might contain some good gossip.
'I can't wait for the bit about his naked Las Vegas party.'
Alex takes aim at Prince Harry after the 'Duke of Montecito' reveals he will publish a literary memoir next year.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1417522188505190403
**************************************************
'I think this book is going to be the longest resignation letter in history, as Prince Harry's place within the Royal family will disappear forever.'
Duncan Larcombe, former Royal Editor at The Sun, debates the consequences of Prince Harry's new book.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1419045008020230146
*************************************************
‘The Hollywood wing of the royal family have a nasty habit of saying one thing and doing quite another’
Mark Dolan says the Queen should strip Prince Harry of his HRH status to the save the 'reputation' of the monarchy and the country.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1419197174781554690 (first 3 mins)
If there is a fourth book, it will `explain' how they imagine the way Duke of Edinburgh arranged the assassination of Diana (the `Grandpa killed Mummy' hypothesis) and that is why it's being delayed until after the Queen's passing.
Never mind about how HM might feel about it - except insofar as she might change her Will. They know there's no chance of any more cash from Charles and certainly none from William - HM is their last chance and they don't want to take any chances with it.
`Longest resignation letter in history'? Oh yes, it'll certainly be longer than the Labour Manifesto of 1983 which Gerald Kauffman called `the longest suicide note in history'.
Whether `Harry's' effort is tantamount to a suicide note remains to be seen.
Re: Daniela Elser
What will be fascinating and thrilling to watch in the years to come is what Meghan, via the couple's Archewell Foundation, will achieve. Given her tenacity and unimpeachable work ethic, I would bet she will not only meet but surpass the benchmark set by Diana and become an even more consequential humanitarian voice.
Good God! What on earth is this woman smoking!!?
Yes, that had me scratching my head as well and why I wondered if she'd received an `...or else...' letter from MM's legal team, for having strayed from the path of sugary righteousness.
Quite possible!
As an aside - Somebody mentioned on Twitter the other day that Alex Belfield,(youtuber) had received a warning from the TBW's legal team, though not sure I believe that, as he's still busy ripping the p*ss out of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkkslKYd8LY
I never thought about that ... a book about Diana and her death that points a finger firmly at the royal family. It is the sort of thing they would do, but while the Queen is still alive, she has wealth and power that they think is useful to them, and the Queen lives the concept of Christian forgiveness and mercy.
When you consider all the porkies told, with faux sincerity, in the Oprah interview, it is quite believable that TBW and the son who does not remember her would use Diana in that way.
What do you make of the tone?
Damning with faint praise?
~~~~~~~~~~
Faint praise? It was so sickeningly sweet, in fact you should have posted a warning to have a bucket at the ready!
Not sure if Daniela Esler was talking about TBW:
Statuesque fashion lover? Tick. Avowed humanitarian? Of course. Mould-breaking woman intent on charting her own course? Bien sur.
Statuesque? I had to check this was about the floozy, not Diana.
smashed through feeble notions of propriety: meaning rode roughshod over well established protocol.
6s'wife had an indelible impact. True, indelible as sadly it cannot be erased but not an impact in the way she means.
As for the more potent force for good., these are empty words. 6s' wife will never be anything positive.
@Miggy
I totally agree with you, that's exactly what I thought. Either Daniela Esler is /has been converted to a sugar or has taken leave of her senses.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Loretta61505338/status/1419118201292476417
Here someone did a mock up of 4 covers for the books!
If there is a fourth book, it will `explain' how they imagine the way Duke of Edinburgh arranged the assassination of Diana (the `Grandpa killed Mummy' hypothesis) and that is why it's being delayed until after the Queen's passing.
As much as I detest the snivelling woke whelp... I don't think he'd dare go that far!
I can certainly envisage him criticising the RF for his what he perceives as their unfair treatment of his mother... but if he did choose to go down that route, (asassination)... God help him!
Ha ha - excellent book covers! 😅
It's the very worst thing I can think of and I believe they're capable of it.
I agree that every time we've thought they couldn't stoop lower, they surprise us and do... BUT... if he DOES make that claim, how is he going to explain 'attending the funeral, the touching words he spoke and the floral tribute he made' to the very man he believes had his mother murdered?
He could have used the virus as an excuse to not attend the funeral. Had he done that - then his claim would be more believable to his fans.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9823223/Meghan-Harrys-daughter-Lilibet-missing-Royal-line-succession-SEVEN-weeks-birth.html
Meghan and Harry's daughter Lilibet is still missing from the Royal line of succession SEVEN weeks after she was born.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9823223/Meghan-Harrys-daughter-Lilibet-missing-Royal-line-succession-SEVEN-weeks-birth.html
No line of succession, no title for you, baby #2! The BRF is giving your parents the freeze out.
Megs must be after Hapless every day to secure title and secession for #2. Raging at him to make it happen. Whether by threats, blackmail or sweet talking Charles. Megs doesn't care how Hapless does it, she needs these for baby #2. And it is killing Megs that baby's title and succession are out of reach
There's a comment on the LOS DM article about the lack of a photo of baby#2... and someone has replied with: "Not allowed by California law to show photographs for six months of an adopted baby to save the birth mothers feelings."
Get a load of this from Page Six in the NY Post. What on earth do Harry and Meghan know about leadership and philanthropy?
Everything they know about both of these topics could be written on a Post It sticky note.
Article also says Meghan will write her memoirs too, which of course we all have known would be coming along. After all, it would be a waste of all the packages of notes she was reportedly sending back to someone in North America as far back as 2018. I recall reading this just a couple months after the wedding.
Page Six headline:
Meghan Markle, Prince Harry will pen ‘leadership’ book as part of $20M deal
By Sara Nathan
July 24, 2021 | 1:44pm
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will team up on a book about ‘leadership’ as part of their megabucks book deal, Page Six is told.
And Markle may be set to write her own sensational memoir — following in her husband’s footsteps.
In fact, royal observers ponder whether a Markle memoir will be the first chapter in a pivot to her long-rumored political aspirations.
Markle, who gave birth to baby daughter Lilibet in June, has been relatively quiet since her appearance with Harry on her bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey back in March.
Following our royal exclusive this week that Harry had signed an estimated $20 million book deal with Random House, it was then confirmed the deal with Penguin Random House is actually for four tomes.
Aside from Harry’s memoir, there will be a rumored wellness book from Markle.
And now we’re told Markle and Harry will team up for a book that is described as being focused on “leadership and philanthropy.”
The Sussex camp was forced on Friday night to deny that Harry’s memoir will be split into two, with a second chapter to be published after the death of his grandmother, the Queen.
A spokesperson for the couple told Page Six that contrary to reports, there is only one memoir planned by Harry and it’s scheduled to be released in late 2022, as originally announced.
Sources added that it’s “appalling” to tie anything to the Queen’s death.
One source who knows the couple told us: “With such a steady drumbeat of all the Harry announcements, you have to imagine that the Meghan dial is going to be dialed up.
“One can only think that she would absolutely write a memoir — she has been outspoken to those who know her about her political aspirations in the future.”
Meghan’s recent kids book, “The Bench,” was published by Random House, but the deal was done in 2019 and is not part of this new deal.
A Sussex rep was unavailable for comment.
Remember how her work ethic was vaunted for emails received at 5 am? You can set emails to go at a specific time. That does not mean that she was actually up sending them. We don't know for certain if she was or was not up at that time. Just that they were received at that time.
I've missed my calling.
"Remember how her work ethic was vaunted for emails received at 5 am? You can set emails to go at a specific time."
True. And since it quickly became known sending email (& texts) yo employees at 5 am just wasn't done, even if she was up at 5 she didn't have to have the emails sent then. The ONLY reason to continue to send them at that hour was to make people think she was working at the time. In other words, bother her entire staff to create a certain impression.
Doesn't sound like an early riser to me.
I find it interesting that JCMH's friends (talk about left behind) are publically stating 'do not air (publish) our secrets or we will talk'....
While on the surface, it appears to be a CYA statement, could it also be an attempt to stop him from doing something that he cannot ever come back from?
also in the DM - the article regarding Harry's fears that he will become like his Uncle Andrew - irrelevent, and so the push now. Life runs full circle - Harry (and William) did eclipse Andrew as he (they) became adults. Harry realizes the same is coming true with the next generation - George, Charlotte and Louis. While Andrew's poor associations and sexual proclivities are his undoing, the cycle is the same. The heirs of the Monarch will eclipse their aunts and uncles in the long run. So Harry is having trouble dealing with the future and is burning his bridges in an attempt to make a lasting impact now.
Wonder what other Faustian choices JCMH will make.....
...
Petition.
Deport Prince Harry as he doesn't want a green card or citizenship
The Duke of Sussex has a few options he could pursue, if he and his family are hoping to settle in America for the long haul. However, two paths he won't take, according to a new report in the Times, are permanent residency and citizenship—both of which he is eligible for, as a spouse of a U.S. citizen.
As a royal source told the publication, "the Duke has not made an application for dual citizenship and I don’t think he will apply for a green card at any point." He doesn't pay taxes in America.
https://www.change.org/p/joseph-r-biden-deport-prince-harry-as-he-doesn-t-want-a-green-card-or-citizenship
Nice find!
Does anyone have The Times article in question?
Note: The Alex Belfield case was a joke!🤗❤️
https://archive.ph/2021.07.24-230330/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-the-author-is-desperate-to-avoid-being-the-new-andrew-tpqhswh5c
...
https://archive.ph/2021.07.24-232846/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harrys-start-up-heads-for-london-7ff0rzpfb
...
Hugs❤️
...
Petition Demanding Prince Harry's Deportation Launched For This Reason
By Catherine Armecin
https://www.ibtimes.com/petition-demanding-prince-harrys-deportation-launched-reason-3258940
Bye!
Philip used to call Harry's kids Ker and Ching, he was laughing all the way to the grave, probably still is the old trooper.
No problem - their motto appears to be `Cognitive Dissonances "R" Us'.
Many thanks for today's articles from The Times. Much appreciated. 😊
I found a Daily Express article that quotes the original Times one that you were searching for.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1267270/prince-harry-us-citizenship-green-card-meghan-markle-los-angeles-royal-family-latest-news
Meghan MEGA BUCKS - WHAT NEXT ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksJx5GtdP7w
Oh my gosh! I figured out how this memoir is going to be written to deal with conflicting “facts”!! This is going to be a “choose your own adventure“ book.
for example, if you believe walking behind Diana‘s coffin was forced upon Harry and has traumatized him forever turn to page 97, if you believe Harry was going to be excluded and had to fight in order to walk behind his mothers coffin, turn to page 105.
if you believe that Archie was born through a surrogate turn to page 212, if you believe that Archie was born through IVF, turn the page 230, if you believe that Archie doesn’t exist at all and is merely a reborn doll/borrowed child, turn to page 240.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-2.2215591/post-73293360
Would they actually pay someone who still is nominally in the RF? I doubt it. Perhaps it TBW jumping to conclusions?
https://uk.yahoo.com/sports/news/bbc-olympics-coverage-misses-events-145212369.html
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/spare-us-prince-harry-s-literary-memoir-
I don’t read cDNA but was flicking through comments on a link someone posted here.
Presumably a Brit posted that as part of medical care for a pregnant women they are given a form to fill in every time they have an appointment with a Dr.
They questionnaire is about their mental health to continually check they are doing ok.
Can any British nutties confirm this?
Prince William ‘will come out of it looking worst’ after Prince Harry row
Prince William has reportedly been warned against taking Prince Harry’s upcoming royal memoir lightly.
Royal experts recently speculated upon Prince Harry’s new four-book deal as well as its future impact upon Prince William’s monarchy.
The claim has been brought forward by Ingrid Seward and during her interview with GB News she was quoted saying, “William is the one who will come out of this the worst of all.”
“There is the row between William and Harry, and basically if Harry says things that are inappropriate about the monarchy, that is William's future.”
“It is not Harry's future, he is out of it now, but it is William's future. Of course, everyone forgets poor old Prince Charles, who has remained very very quiet about all of this.”
She concluded by saying, “But it is his son after all. How hurtful can it be for him to hear Harry say that his father hasn't been a great father. Which is what he has already said.”
I agree. The one to lose the most is Prince William. I hope that he will be allowed to step forward to act on this as times have changed. We have news 24hrs a day and the no comment does not work as well today esp when there is huge influence on social media and PR companies use of social media, paying for news articles on newspapers and mag like NY Post, People, VF etc and buying off celeb/reporters like Scoobie, Chris Ship, Orca, Gayle King etc.
It is my guess that information similar to or such as to this October 26, 2020 Blind Gossip item is the type of info with greater details of not only the alleged behavior by Harry, but how it was swept under the rug when anyone other than Harry would have been arrested and the case would go through the civilian or military judicial system, depending on jurisdiction.
Famous Son Got Very Rough
October 26, 2020
This blind item involves a famous guy from a prominent family.
He’s been in the news a lot lately.
We have a story to tell you that may impact what you think of him.
Years ago, when he was in the military, he used to go off-base with his buddies when they had a night off.
Although they regularly drank to excess, it was not his alcohol consumption that caused the local police to intervene in his bad behavior.
You see, our boy used to hire local workers to service his needs. His carnal needs.
Those sessions inevitably got…. rough.
“He was very physically rough. So rough that the frightened s*x workers had to call the police. Granted, these were s*x workers, and traditionally not the most reliable witnesses, but this happened multiple times and their stories were very consistent.”
What stories did they tell?
“They all described him being drunk and how his conduct always turned violent: punching, slapping, choking, hair pulling, etc. It was violent enough that the girls thought that he would permanently hurt them. They were genuinely frightened of him.”
How did the local police handle it?
“Normally, when something like this happens off-base, the offender would be arrested and then the local police and the military would determine whose jurisdiction it fell under. Then the case would work its way through either the civilian judicial system or the military judicial system.”
Is that what happened here?
“No! Because of his family, none of that ever happened. The girls would be treated for their injuries and he would just get sent back to base. No arrests, no attorneys, nothing. He was strictly off-limits and neither judicial system would pursue the case.”
How often did this happen?
“Because he was never really punished, he got away with it multiple times. At first, every girl wanted to service him because of who he was but eventually word got around that he would hurt you. It’s a small community of s*x workers around the base and after this happened a few times, none of the girls would take his business, so it stopped.”
Remember when he used to be the fun, partying, likable member of his family?
Those days are long gone.
He is now a husband and a father and is seriously consumed with making money by getting involved in a variety of business deals.
Since he is so busy, perhaps his wife could take the time to write some uplifting notes to the girls he beat up?
I think it would be fine for Will to speak if he's attacked directly. But if the criticisms that will hurt the monarchy and by extension hurt Will are aimed at Charles or even at the Queen, it may not be good for him to speak up even if the others remain silent. By speaking, he would simply reinforce Harry's claim that even within the family itself William is favored and allowed certain freedoms compared to Harry simply because of Will's future Constitutional role. And if Kate is attacked, I think it's also a little tricky. No one would blame Will for defending his wife, of course. But by defending her, it would put Harry's past defenses of Meghan on the same level in some ways. And therefore put Meghan and Kate, as the squabbling brothers' wives, on the same level. And that's not a good look.
All in all, I don't think the question of how Will should publicly react to the contents of Harry's book is a straightforward matter.
LOSers
Lili not in line of succession
A slight, li’l bit of aggression
A direct message to the tossers
Keep on taking the p.ss
Won’t change title, master, miss
It’s time to stop and
Cut their LOSses
I bet H has a whole catalogue of W's remarks of years ago that can be twisted to his purpose.
Thinking about stripping
their titles/LOS.
Harry would no doubt sue, Just
what they’re hoping for.
A court case against the Crown
Regina v Vagina…
I'd bet a pound to a penny that both Master and Miss M-W are both adopted, assuming they exist.
That's 2 thumping great pieces of, possibly circumstantial, evidence now - the Californian law on photos of adopted children and the lack of an authenticating stamp on Archie's birth certificate - that point in that direction. Hence the non-appearance of Lily in the LoS.
Poor kids, assuming they do exist.
-------------------------
Apologies, I can't recall who found the piece about the AoC's non-appearance at the Friday afternoon session of the General Synod at York in 2019. That's intriguing, although not evidence of anything beyond the fact that he wasn't there at any meeting that afternoon.
As we've said before, to get to Windsor in time for the ceremony, he'd have had to have flown. Not impossible - a helicopter could have dropped him off somewhere remote in Windsor Great Park and he sneaked into the Castle unseen by Press or Public -
Or, he knew it was all fake and hid away somewhere to save the embarrassment of blowing the whole thing sky-high by being seen anywhere other than Windsor.
He wasn't actually the President of the Synod - that was the Archbishop of York, so perhaps he needn't have been there all the time. The Synod continued until the following Tuesday, 9th July.
https://www.oxford.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ODS-19.17-Report-from-General-Synod-July-2019.pdf
All the same...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9821989/Christening-Harry-Meghans-son-Archie-caused-chaos-Archbishop-Canterbury-Justin-Welby
- timestamp 25th July (updated)
I think stories where the royal family covered for Harry would also reflect badly on the royal family. Hence, the sex worker story may do more harm.
I am thinking of stories where there was no cover up but we revisit them with more details. Like how he was extremely rude to the press corp in SA. Amplify the snide remarks he made before they boarded the plane. Ask questions about the little African girl whom he had reneged on his promise to pay for her education, the one who wrote to him a few times but never received a reply.
These are the stories that will amplify the hypocrites that they are and kill their motto of kindness, compassion yada yada.
https://thecrownsofbritain.com/2021/07/25/royal-round-up-25th-july/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
The website has been updated since her birth so it is not as if the website person is on sick leave.
Obliterated
The cross we must bear
From the raddled ex spare
Is to await his literary shtick lit
The guy who can’t spell
Failed his art, A level
Is now adept at shoveling sh.t
Thanks for your latest offerings (Regina v Vagina 🤣). It must be getting harder and harder to find something humourous to say about the 6s. Yes, H is now adept at shovelling sh¡t - he's at a good school of learning with the wife - but those two are now getting really boring. Still, thank you for keeping us entertained 😁
Thanks for the link to the Crowns site - it's good to have Saffy back and on form. She did also have an a/c at
https://twitter.com/CrownOfSapphire
but she got suspended from that and I've yet to discover if there's a replacement
It's https://twitter.com/CrownsSaffy - Saffy has started up again in the last couple of days.
I was a dedicated follower of hers from the time this sh*tshow stated.
Thanks, Saffy.
Thanks Maneki
It is hard, so over the pair of ‘em!
I’ve gone from shocked, flabbergasted,
outraged to disgusted.
All I can do is take the p.ss!!
And laugh at them, hard!
Good will overcome 😘
It's such an unedifying spectacle de merde, getting worse by the day! I long for the day when the yachting days/merching/surrogacies etc are revealed 😉
BTW, narcs also store up anything that you have said in confidence to them, when you still trusted them, so they can use it later, letting it be more widely known in order to damage you.
I bet H has a whole catalogue of W's remarks of years ago that can be twisted to his purpose.
If an anti-William book comes out, it will be the ultimate betrayal. I can't think of anything Prince William could have done to his brother that would warrant his past words and actions being smeared the way they will be.
And I don't know how the Harkles can continue to say this is not about blackmail or revenge. It is plain to everyone that if BP acquiesces on any of their crazy demands, they will be willing to delay publication.
It just needs to come from sources independent of BP, ones with far more clout than us, ones which cannot be smeared with the r-ism charges, who won't be lone voices crying out in the wilderness.
It sickens me that their evil might prosper.
Why now? Why not just after the uproar started after the interview?
I was thinking that there was some sort of clause buried in the contract with O that was called in.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8730711/Meghan-Markle-pitching-documentary-Black-Lives-Matter-founder-Patrisse-Cullotrs.html (sic - it's a mispelling in the URL)
Will Cullors be one of the `inspirational women' she intends to laud in `Pearl'?
From where I'm standing, TBW is dabbling in the really dark side if she admires this woman, given her party-political views and the religio-racial attitudes within her movement. I am not going to be more specific.
The only ray of hope is that this project will fizzle out/flop like everything else she touches.
you can use a scheduler to send emails at a desired time.
Wow, so she deliberately decided to harass her staff even though she had a lie-in, probably sleeping it off.
Narcissists are also famous for finding something that annoys people, and even after complaints, not just continuing with the behaviour, but using it as a means of psychological torture. The best way for the intended victim to react is to ignore any types of offensive behaviour from the start so as not to give the narc an inside track into your psyche.
The Queen and courtiers have no proof that her and Archie are actually biologically the children of M&H nor that M was ever pregnant, but the children have been accepted. For the Harkles, I think that is very important.
Ho-hum... I daresay HM sees them as innocents in all this, which of course they are.
1) Finding Freedom
2) "Meghan Misunderstood"
3) Netflix paper only
4) Spotify a podcast that aroused no interest.
4) Oprah Interview
5) "The Me You Can't See"
6) The Bench
In which of these projects have the Sussex shown success? Wide public support?
7) Harry's NEW ghostwritten Biography (2022 - if published)
....
It has been announced that Prince Harry will be publishing his memoirs next year. How interested are you, if at all, in reading this book?
YouGov surveyed 5808 GB - adults
Conducted Jul 21, 2021
All adults
I am very interested 3%
I am fairly interested 11%
I am not very interested 15%
I am not interested at all
67%
Don’t know 3%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey
-results/daily/2021/07/21/64083/2?utm_source=twitter%20&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2
...
In reality, H&M have yet to prove they have a solid or worldwide interest.
...
Prince William only needs the support of the British. This he has. And I don't think Harry is going to take that away from him. The British don't trust Harry anymore.#teamwilliam
...
Magatha forever❤️❤️❤️
UK DAILY MAIL Headline>>>>>>>>
Lilibet is FINALLY added to the line of succession on Royal Family's official website seven weeks after birth of Harry and Meghan's daughter
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9826349/Lilibet-FINALLY-added-line-succession-Royal-Family-website.html
****** Are they/BRF this stupid? What a cave in. The BRF should be pleasing the British people not the Montecitos. DM comments are brutal and some are just plain confused by the latest BRF surrender to the Destructive Duo's Diktats.
https://www.change.org/p/joseph-r-biden-deport-prince-harry-as-he-doesn-t-want-a-green-card-or-citizenship
I think using titles in the US doesn't seem to be a problem. Remembering that Sarah Ferguson uses the title of Duchess of York in the US in her business.
I know that to run for public office you cannot. Ex: If Meghan wants a political career in US, she will have to give up British titles
The problem with Harry is that he's a US resident (he himself claimed that his residency would be fixed in the US) But he didn't apply for US citizenship or a Green Card. And Americans want to know if he's going to pay taxes in the US. I don't know if I'm right about that, but it was the information I was given.
...
Xxxx... I couldn't agree more.👏
"I think using titles in the US doesn't seem to be a problem. Remembering that Sarah Ferguson uses the title of Duchess of York in the US in her business.
I know that to run for public office you cannot. Ex: If Meghan wants a political career in US, she will have to give up British titles..."
I'm not sure that running for public office in the US would mean M legally would have to give up her titles.
The Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution does bar those holding federal office (not state) from accepting foreign titles without the approval of Congress. However, that doesn't mean someone who wants to run for federal office would have to give up a title she'd already accepted. (And it doesn't make sense for Congress to be asked to weigh in on the qualifications of candidates running for office.)
As a practical matter to get elected, she'd need to not use any title, of course. (Not that I think she'd have a chance even in CA of being elected to federal office.) But I don't think she'd be forced to officially "return" already-accepted titles.
...
Part of the text
"Conversations have already started about what steps they might be able to take to protect their own reputation and that of the monarchy post-publication.'
It remains unlikely that there would be any official overturning of the confidentiality rules because of their importance in protecting members of the Royal Family from damaging leaks over the years.
But an insider added: 'There may be a provision given to staff members to respond to any claims that they consider to be inaccurate.
'Maybe a blind eye could be turned if staff members used friends or family members to correct the record on their behalf.
'These are the sorts of conversations going on at the moment and, of course, legal remedies are always available too if the book smears any individual staff members unfairly.'
Harry and Meghan's staff hold the key to exposing their experiences about many of their most explosive claims about the Royal Family, so it is a shame they could remain silenced.
Another royal source added: 'These are, on the whole, very good people who wanted the best for Harry and Meghan.
'But many of the *secrets they know are explosive and would blow up much of the victim narrative so carefully crafted by those two*.
'For example, some of these staff members were aware of commercial conversations that were going on when they were still full-time royals – they were clearing the way to make millions long before Megxit was revealed.
'The way they tried to publicly discredit staff who they took against has been particularly distasteful and left a bad taste in the mouth of many courtiers past and present.
All options have to stay on the table because we are in unprecedented times. There is literally no precedent for this situation.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9826893/DAN-WOOTTON-Harrys-book-free-Palace-staff-reveal-survived-working-Sussexes.html
According to the requirements to hold office stated in the US Constitution, the country's President must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
The Constitution also states that elected officials must not accept titles from foreign states, as noted in The Foreign Emoluments Clause".
https://www.insider.com/royal-baby-lilibet-could-grow-up-to-be-president-2021-6
Lady Di's engagement ring.
Various media reported that it was Harry who gave it to William...But
...
"Prince Harry to receive inheritance from his mother's estate on 30th birthday. By Guest Submission 1st July 2014.
"inheritance from Diana, Princess of Wales, will see Prince Harry receive £10 million on his 30th birthday this year, which he celebrates on 15th September. The money is subject to a £4 million tax bill (at 40%) but this could be reduced to £3.6 million if Prince Harry chooses to give some of the money to charity. When Prince William received the same inheritance two years ago, he paid the same 40% estate tax.
£10 million on his 30th birthday this year, which he celebrates on 15th September. The money is subject to a £4 million tax bill (at 40%) but this could be reduced to £3.6 million if Prince Harry chooses to give some of the money to charity. When Prince William received the same inheritance two years ago, he paid the same 40% estate tax. (...) The settlement included shares, *jewellery*, cash and personal items from Kensington Palace, which was her home. Under the stipulations of the will, the money was to be halved between William and Harry when they reached the age of 25, however executors of the late Princess of Wales changed the details so that the Princes would receive the money when they were 30.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/sussex/prince-harry-to-receive-inheritance-from-his-mothers-estate-on-30th-birthday-33824/
...
Note: (I think) If Prince William got engaged in 2010. Soon Lady Di's ring given to DoC Cate at the engagement didn't leave Harry's hands. Because he and PW had not yet received their mother's inheritance. PW received in 2012.
I agree with what you've posted about The Emoluments Clause so far as it goes.
BUT note the language states an elected federal official must not accept ....and the President cannot accept....The language applies to people who've already been elected being offered titles. The language is also present and future oriented, not past oriented. As such, the clause doesn't say anything about an otherwise-qualified citizen who already holds titles not being allowed to run for office. In other words, it's one thing to say you can't do X while holding federal office. It's quite another to say you can't run for or hold federal office if you've done X
We know Americans can hold titles. The Constitutional amendment from the early 1800s to prevent that was never ratified by 2/3 of the states. And it couldn't be passed today even if people would vote for it. The penalty for accepting a title was being stripped of citizenship. And we don't make people stateless these days.
So far as the engagement ring goes, the article is interesting. But I'd find it hard to believe that neither Will nor Harry were given any personal mementos from Diana's estate until age 30. The money is a different matter. But how weird to withhold personal and sentimental property. I just can't see that being done.
Finding Freedom to get major update: New edition of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's flattering biography will discuss their 'heartbreak' after Prince Philip's death, their miscarriage and the birth of their daughter Lilibet
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9827469/Finding-Freedoms-update-new-version-Meghan-Prince-Harrys-biography-include.html
Thanks for the post on the updated edition of the 'flattering' 🤣 biography. I wonder if they'll have to update it every year?
I had a brief look at the article and the book 'goes on sale on August 31', which as we know is the date Diana died... Coincidence? I think not.
Sorry, I forgot you posted about the Dan Wootton article too. Quite apart from the 6s' former staff, there are also H's former friends:
'The Mail on Sunday revealed at the weekend that Prince Harry's old friends are also horrified that Harry is writing a book and are considering speaking out too.
A source told the newspaper: 'If Harry slams any of his old school and military buddies in his new book they have pledged to break ranks to tell their story.''
Perhaps some of these friends could mention how they were former clients of TBW ;)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9826893/DAN-WOOTTON-Harrys-book-free-Palace-staff-reveal-survived-working-Sussexes.html
Last night my royal insider revealed: 'Harry and Meghan's former staff members are convinced that this book is being written to settle scores and will likely include a lot of detail about their time within the Royal Family.
'Based on the Oprah Winfrey interview, some of these ex-workers simply do not trust that a full and accurate picture will be presented.
Most royal staff are bound by understandably draconian confidentiality provisions, including the Official Secrets Act, writes Dan Wootton
'Conversations have already started about what steps they might be able to take to protect their own reputation and that of the monarchy post-publication.'
It remains unlikely that there would be any official overturning of the confidentiality rules because of their importance in protecting members of the Royal Family from damaging leaks over the years.
But an insider added: 'There may be a provision given to staff members to respond to any claims that they consider to be inaccurate.
'Maybe a blind eye could be turned if staff members used friends or family members to correct the record on their behalf.
'These are the sorts of conversations going on at the moment and, of course, legal remedies are always available too if the book smears any individual staff members unfairly.'
Harry and Meghan's staff hold the key to exposing their experiences about many of their most explosive claims about the Royal Family, so it is a shame they could remain silenced.
Another royal source added: 'These are, on the whole, very good people who wanted the best for Harry and Meghan.
'But many of the secrets they know are explosive and would blow up much of the victim narrative so carefully crafted by those two.
'For example, some of these staff members were aware of commercial conversations that were going on when they were still full-time royals – they were clearing the way to make millions long before Megxit was revealed.
'The way they tried to publicly discredit staff who they took against has been particularly distasteful and left a bad taste in the mouth of many courtiers past and present.
'All options have to stay on the table because we are in unprecedented times. There is literally no precedent for this situation.'
During their time in the Royal Family, a host of staff members left the employ of Harry and Meghan.
They included private secretaries Samantha Cohen and Amy Pickerill, two PAs, including Melissa Touabti, and two nannies.
At least ten former staff members are reported to be wanting to give evidence to the Buckingham Palace investigation into Meghan's alleged bullying behind palace walls.
Harry and Meghan's then communications secretary Jason Knauf alerted Prince William's private secretary Simon Case in an email, leaked to The Times in the days before the Oprah chat was broadcast.
He wrote: 'I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of X was totally unacceptable.
'The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying Y and seeking to undermine her confidence.
'We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behaviour towards Y.'
Maneko Neko...Well Said.
Many of Prince Harry and Meghan's former staff doubt the book will be 'wholly truthful' because, if it was, Harry and Meghan would come out of it looking terrible
I hope now everyone can talk about H&M. TBW clients 😊 and the case of women who were afraid of Harry ( Blind Gossip)
#teamPrinceWilliam
I came across this youtube channel today and thought some of our non-British nutties might be interested in taking a look.
Free Tours by Foot - London
https://www.youtube.com/c/FreeToursbyFootLondon/videos
Most unfortunate for William, the one 'unforgiveable' sin William has committed against his brother, to warrant being smearing forever, in perpetuity is something he had zero control over: to wit, being born 26 months the elder. That William will be King and get *all* the goodies just because he was born first and for *no* other reason is something that Harry is never going to get over. Wife has exacerbated this sense of grievance but it was always there. Every slight, real and perceived, to Harry by William, such as H 'being blamed' for the underage drinking/pot smoking/endangered animal shooting/Nazi costumery that William may or may not have also engaged in or encouraged his little brother to do is filtered through this privilege of William's in Harry's eyes, whether or not Wills actually did get a pass for any questionable behavior. It's more of the professional victimhood/"It's not FAIR!" mantra of the man-child's life. It's been suggested that William had his share of underage drinks and may have suggested to little bro that dressing like a Nazi would be a gas. Maybe. Maybe he even blew a little pot as an undergraduate. But H embroiled himself in so much trouble of his own making when William was nowhere near, not even in the same country. Do we envision William being the *mastermind* behind the "Las Vegas Debauch/Naked Billards" or that he is responsible somehow for his little brother routinely abusing sex workers outside of a military base in America? William's influence never reached that far.
If even one allegation from the sex workers H used to frequent is true . . .Diana's youngest is a sado-sexual sociopath with a deep-seated animosity toward women. From whence does this come? And if it's true, then Wife didn't ruin H; he was already ruined. Them getting together was more likely a case of like calling to like, rather than a case of a 'lovesick empath' being targeted by a malignant narcissist.
*Harry* is also a malignant narcissist, but he doesn't have the same intrinsic drive as Wife and requires a lot of propped and pushing. He's also significantly stupider than she is . . but she's lit a match under his shadow self. I used to feel sorry for him, at the beginning of this--I bought the story that he fell in love with an illusion and was suffering from buyer's remorse, but I have come round to the idea that he is doing exactly what he has always wanted to do and is doing it with glee. He too is getting Narc fuel every time he sticks a knife in his family and twists it. If he looks miserable and terrible, that's the hate and the vindictiveness corroding him from the inside, not a signal that he's being 'forced' against his will to do anything.
Sad but true. The only way forward for William's reign to know a scintilla of peace is if the ginger traitor is no longer on this earth when he takes the throne.
Diana's youngest is a sado-sexual sociopath with a deep-seated animosity toward women. From whence does this come?
Could it possibly be derived from his mother `deserting' him? How DARE she do that! She was the only person left to give `Good King Harry' the validation he craved. She got rid of his nanny after all.
I've just found something odd. I recalled a report that Diana made Charles get rid of a much-loved dog because she was jealous of it, so I googled it.
2 similar articles from the Express turned up, turned up:
www.express.co.uk › news › royalPrincess Diana news: How Diana made Prince Charles give away
12/09/2019 · Royal feud: How Princess Diana made Prince Charles give away his labrador
PRINCESS DIANA and Prince Charles struggled with a difficult marriage from the start –
yet when I clicked on it there was just a report about his Jack Russell going missing...
There was something of an explanation on Quora:
Princess Diana was not a dog lover. Prince Charles had a much beloved Labrador named ‘Harvey’ when the royal couple first married, but Diana did not like the pooch. He was old and incontinent. This is well documented in ‘The Housekeepers Diary’ by Wendy Barry and other books as well. Diana made Charles get rid of his beloved pet of many years and he arranged for ‘Harvey’ to go live with an advisor.
I don't know if I imagined it but I think I read very recently that Diana was given to `kidnapping' cats belonging to other residents of KP and locking then up because she hated them. If that's true, it speaks of a woman who was cruel to both people and animals.
Shades of both #6 and his wife.
I think it is probably fair to say Diana wasn't an animal lover.
Supposedly she "kidnapped "Princess Michael's" cats.
Story: Royal biographer Penny Junor, in her 2005 book “The Firm”.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1177097/princess-diana-news-prince-charles-feud-labrador-royal-family-spt
#teamPrinceWilliam❤️
I understand that it is not a requirement that said person reside in the United Kingdom, or even necessarily be a British citizen, although to have it for a national in your direct line of succession seems bizarre. Over the ages, dozens if not hundreds of dynastic marriages have been Contracted between British Royals and consorts from other nations. But those married ins Were not in the line of succession. They also promptly pledged fealty to their marriage nation, and converted to the prevailing religion. During the religious wars between Catholic and protestant, it was uncertain which would prevail as the state religion and it was his changeable ass which ever monarch was in favor at the moment. But since the Anglican church won the day, it has been a prerequisite to profess That faith, of which the current queen is the head if you were one of her heirs. Peter Phillips made his wife item convert from Catholicism specifically so that he would not lose his place in line at number 14 or whatever he is-/-So important was it to him to return that place for himself and his daughters, even though they were that far back in the lineup. That is a prestige like no other which beats any title, lands or wealth outside of that elite club.
We have been presented with Images crafted to convince us that Archie was duly baptized into the COE, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has not denied it. Which is not to say frankly that I am convinced that it happened as the Harkles say it did. On paper at least, Archie is a natural born British citizen and was resident in the UK at the time of his birth. Allegedly. Without hard proves which we did not have, there was no Public reason at any rate why Archie should be denied his place in line—Wonky birth certificate and lack of witness testimony to his actual arrival out of Megan’s body not withstanding. But Lili is even more opaque. Is she real or not? Can she be officially declared in the line of succession without COE baptism or Even her birth being verified? We have not seen any valid birth certificate, and I’d way to the queen hasn’t either. If these children are actually adopted and the Provenance otherwise Unknown, How can they legitimately and in good faith be declared heirs to the crown? Is the palace capitulating to the Harkles demands to save face, and are they actually going to give them what they are demanding, with zero proof as to how either child came into the world?
To say I am both confused and disappointed in the queen and her advisers would be under stating the case. It seems like we have a huge constitutional cock up on our hands, well not my hands, but the integrity of the monarchy is at stake here If any and all pretenders can be stuck in because the palace does not want transparency here. What is everyone thinking?
I am wondering if Lilibucks has been added (as Archie previously) because to be listed on a website is really....irrelevant. As much as it annoys me, it really costs the BRF nothing. It is the legal issue which is the important one, not whether or not someone is on a webpage.
Should the horrific come to pass and we actually get that low down on that page....I am sure there will be legal issues/Parliament which would step in and documents shared. Which is a whole other horrific mess in addition to losing that many people higher up on the list...
Again the fact that these children are mentioned is SUPREMELY annoying. But my guess is the BRF are picking their battles.
If Harry’s alleged Spawn Are truly only listed on the royal website pro forma as occupying the line of succession, that’s one thing. But if they are actually in truly really officially in line, That’s a whole other and much Graver matter. But that was the substance of my question: Just how official are they really? Is this just a public show to appease the Harkles and their flying monkeys? What is their inclusion carry actual constitutional weight? That’s why, I thought there had to be some non-negotiable conditions met For the honor of having one’s name appear in that particular listing. As an official communication from Buckingham palace on behalf of the queen, is this not a public statement to the effect that all of these persons included here are accepted as Potential
Sovereigns of the nation, If called upon to fill that role? In reality, yes it’s indeed unlikely that fate or Providence would result in that happening. But in the spirit of the intent, we have to accept that any of these individuals could potentially take the Queen‘s place, or otherwise is this all just an elaborate game for show? At number six, H, a demonstrable mental defective and traitor To his country and to his grandmother and queen, is still uncomfortably close to the crown for my comfort. Williams children are still young, and as ghastly as it is to contemplate, the Harkles technically are not wrong: H is just one horrific plane or automobile crash away from the crown So long as the Cambridge family insists on traveling together. There are terrorist attacks… Diseases. Anything could potentially carry away William and all of his errors before they can fill their birth ordained destinies. That leaves mad uncle Harry, and his plastic children to carry the torch for Great Britain. Don’t we think the dastardly duo it always hunker down in your den of evil wherever that may be, concocting ways to potentially take out Harry’s brother and the children? To admit the end likelihood of something happening does not mean that it is entirely impossible. I think that’s what Meg is banking on, and that’s why the queen and her advisers should be more worried. Just one Yank’s opinion.
That’s why more clarity about Harry’s heirs Is imperative.
Recently, I received the sad news that my high school choir director passed away. His name was “Errol”. One otherwise well-meaning tribute was written to “Error”. Imagine being called an error in your own obituary. My gas wasn’t quite that bad.
My gas is sometimes bad, particularly if I have consumed Mexican food, but tonight all is quiet on the southern end.
I am wondering if Lilibucks has been added (as Archie previously) because to be listed on a website is really....irrelevant. As much as it annoys me, it really costs the BRF nothing. It is the legal issue which is the important one, not whether or not someone is on a webpage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was thinking something similar before I read your post. Maybe the Queen decided to add the sprog's name to the LOS to keep the peace for now, even if having doubts as to her provenance. If, however, there's been some skulduggery that comes to light re her birth (and Archie's) - I'm sure the BRF could dig deep for info - then the Queen knows the fallout will be the coup de grâce for the 6s and there won't be any coming back for it. So maybe let them be in the LOS, they can be taken out later for greater effect.
An NDA should also not be used:
* to stop someone reporting discrimination, harassment or sexual harassment
* to cover up inappropriate behaviour or misconduct, particularly not if there’s a risk of it happening again
* to avoid addressing disputes or problems in the workplace
The gov.uk website has a section on NDAs:
'Crack down on misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements in the workplace
New legislation will tackle the misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), also known as confidentiality clauses, in the workplace – including those being used to cover up sexual harassment, racial discrimination and assault.'
This was dated July 2019 but I haven't heard of any new legislation in place. Let's hope it's implemented and enforced very soon or that former Palace staff can sue and bring a test case.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crack-down-on-misuse-of-non-disclosure-agreements-in-the-workplace
"During the religious wars between Catholic and protestant, it was uncertain which would prevail as the state religion and it was his changeable ass which ever monarch was in favor at the moment. But since the Anglican church won the day, it has been a prerequisite to profess That faith, of which the current queen is the head if you were one of her heirs..."
I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure the following things are true.
1. Catholics are still barred from taking the throne and from being in the LOS. However, marrying a Catholic is no longer grounds for removal from the LOS. Today Autumn would not have to convert to preserve Peter's place. The change in legislation occurred with the discarding of male primogeniture prior to George's birth. And at that time Prince Michael was returned to the LOS after being removed some 40+ years ago for marrying la Catholic.
2. Kate and Meghan didn't have to be confirmed in the COE to preseve tbeir husbands' places in the LOS but both chose to do so.
3. I don't believe it is required a person be baptised in the COE to be in the LOS as long as the person is not baptised in the Catholic faith.
Lots of posts here state COE membership is required to be in the LOS. I don't believe that is true and so I don't find the listing of Lili to be odd in terms of the religion question. And, as previously discussed on other threads, the rule for the monarch isn't even that the person BE COE but that the person BE "in communion with" the COE. How could the "religion rule" be stricter for those in the LOS than for the actual monarch? How could that work?
You said: Most unfortunate for William, the one 'unforgiveable' sin William has committed against his brother, to warrant being smearing forever, in perpetuity is something he had zero control over: to wit, being born 26 months the elder. That William will be King and get *all* the goodies just because he was born first and for *no* other reason is something that Harry is never going to get over.
Agree with this when he was a kid. But now, now Prince William has three little ones, including a daughter who are between 6 and what 6/6w think of as the dream fun rule of the future. Or even 6's kids to follow him since they are in the LOS.
It's still down to the family connection.
Once, it could involve force of arms but still based on a kinship claim.
That applies to Wm I (1066); Henry VII (Tudor = Welsh) had a very weak case but it was decided at Bosworth (1485); Monmouth (Charles II's bastard) tried in 1685 (Sedgemoor); James II & VII made what he considered a tactical withdrawal in the face of the overwhelming force that his son-in-law Wm III bought with him, plus further English opposition, but was deposed, then defeated when he came back in 1690 (the Boyne).
The Crown hasn't been fought over since 1746 when James's grandson made the attempt (Culloden).
Since 1603, we've had several monarchs born in other sovereign states, a couple who couldn't be said to speak English.
James I & VI - a Scot, brought up by Presbyterians ie not Anglican (HM is technically a Presbyterian in Scotland). I although his writings were published in English, he spoke `braid Scots', ie broad Scots, a speech of the Lowlands (not to be confused with the Gaelic of the Highlands and Islands, or the Norse-influenced dialect of Shetland) derived from a different Old English dialect from that in England. He had to conform to Anglicanism in England. I doubt if he was very intelligible to his English subjects but as he surrounded himself with fellow Scots speakers, that wasn't an issue for him.
William III was a Dutchman, possibly Calvinist?- I'm not sure what his English was like.
George I was a German Lutheran, received into the CofE didn't bother to learn English, kept out of England as much a possible, which is how we evolved `Cabinet Government', with an inner group of politicians under the Prime Minister .
George II was born in Germany.
George III was the first of the Hanoverians to be born here but George IV was born in Germany.
William IV was born here, as was Victoria but she was brought up speaking German and apparently retained the accent throughout her life, despite what the films would have one believe.
Thus the monarch has to be a communicant member of the CofE.
I imagine that there would have been interesting discussions in the 18thC, had the Lutheran churches been in communion with the CofE then, as they are now.
Because a woman takes the rank of her husband, a king's wife is also anointed and crowned queen but the ceremony is simpler. Again, she has had to be Anglican in order to receive the sacraments.
The husband of a Queen, though, doesn't become king, just as when a high-ranking woman marries a man without a title. HM did ennoble Antony Armstrong Jones before he married her sister, so Princess Margaret also become Countess of Snowden, but the Phillipses declined a title.- Mark Phillips didn't become a Prince when he married Anne - he stayed plain Mister.
There was tension with Prince Albert when he married Queen Victoria, as he expected to be King. No way! Hence the title Prince Consort and I recall something similar with Philip back in '52-3.
On the quiet, Victoria and Albert did function more or less as joint monarchs; Elizabeth set boundaries - she was Head of State (not to be confused with Head of Government - that's the PM), Philip was head of their family.
Thanks for the historical accounts. Very interesting.
Re: The anointing of a Queen consort....I did know that happens.
You wrote:
"Because a woman takes the rank of her husband, a king's wife is also anointed and crowned queen but the ceremony is simpler. Again, she has had to be Anglican in order to receive the sacraments."
How could the recent change re: marrying a Catholic occur then? While it may be unlikely a male heir who will actually take the throne will marry a Catholic, it could happen. Even with Georfe. Would she be required to convert to being Anglican? What if she won't? Would she not become a queen? Obviously it wouldn't mean her husband couldn't become a king or the recent change is idiotic.
Also is the anointing an actual sacrament? I know marriage isn't in the COE (is an important rite, not a sacrement) so COE membership through baptism is no longer required.
I would imagine all palace employees have to sign The Official Secrets Act and so that would bind them etc. NDA’s are usually for the private sector if employers wish to you them. 😃
Whether the other one regards the other 5 traditional sacraments as such depends on whereabouts on the Anglican spectrum one places oneself - Low Church or High Church? Your choice.
I've no idea how marrying a Catholic would be handled - would it be OK after a coronation?
If before, would the spouse be crowned? As things stand, I suspect the RC church would take exception to one of its members receiving communion from an Anglican priest. Would the Communion be dispensed with?
Some awkward questions would have to be addressed.
A PS - I was careful to put this in the past tense:
`. ..she has had to be Anglican in order to receive the sacraments'
The last coronation of a Queen Consort was in 1937; whether there will be one next time remains to be seen. It is a contested matter at the moment- what might Camilla be?
Catherine was christened and confirmed in the Anglican church long before she met William, long long before. You imply otherwise in your post. The only concession made for her marriage is that the ceremony took place at St Pauls even though she was not part of the congregation for that church, but of the church in Buckleberry. This is a concession the church seems to make for all royal marriages.
Correct, Meghan did not have to convert to ensure being in the line of succession for her children. Their place is assured as long as they are indeed the biological children of Harry, they were not born by a surrogate, Meghan and Harry were indeed legally married, and the children do not convert to Catholocism.
I wonder why Meghan did convert, as she obviously has no spiritual or religious interest in the church or religion. The archbishop must feel a fool that she so easily convinced him otherwise, just as Charles must feel a fool that he was taken in by her love bombing.
I did not mean to imply Kate had not been baptised in the COE. But according to many reports, she had not been confirmed as the Middletons weren't big-time church goers. She chose to do that shortly before the wedding. That was widely reported at the time.
Could the Queen issue letters patent for the following:
1. To be in the line of succession, you have to be born in the UK. (A new requirement but in fitting with the modern age when royalty do not have to marry royalty and thus British royals do not have to look to European royalty to find a spouse.) Same requirement for regent and counsellor of state.
2. To be in the line of succession, the birth must be verified by the royal medical team (they do not physically have to be there but they must sign off on the declaration from the medical team that was present).
3. To be in the line of succession, the marriage must be verified by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the same conditions as above (must sign off on a declaration from whoever was the legal person who did conduct the marriage).
Some may be dropped from the line of succession, and there might be some bitterness in the family because of that, but Charles and William are going to have to deal with traitors in the family no matter what they do or do not do.
Yes, Catherine was confirmed shortly before her wedding, I remember reading about it myself. 😀
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-13066249
Thank you for that info.
I assume that the entire Middleton clan were then confirmed at the time?
I am Anglican and I was christened and confirmed, even though my father was anti religion and only went to church for weddings and funerals, and have never come across anyone who was christened but not confirmed, which seems like a deliberate act of choosing to not be in the congregation of that church.
Even though my sister and her husband were christened and confirmed as Anglicans they could not marry in the church as they did not go to church and were thus not part of a congregation.
How royals seem to cynically use the church must be disheartening for the Queen.
First, hiding the ugly truth and then using it as a form of blackmail through the press is not honourable in my opinion. But, I accept that it is normal human behaviour.
Second, I doubt that Harry will actually name people, other than those he thinks are still useful to him and he is thus going to show them in a very positive light. He will make the accusations without actually naming people.
The problem with this strategy is that by not naming people that he hurls criticism, blame and insults at, he casts a shadow over everyone (like the racism accusation). Could someone, or a group of people, use such an argument to sue him for defamation of character, or to justify 'spilling the beans' to the press?
1. To be in the line of succession, you have to be born in the UK. (A new requirement but in fitting with the modern age when royalty do not have to marry royalty and thus British royals do not have to look to European royalty to find a spouse.) Same requirement for regent and counsellor of state.
@Sandie: In addition to your suggestion requiring someone in the line of succession being born in the UK, the person should not be allowed to have dual citizenship. Just as in the Bible it is said it is not possible to serve two masters, it is not possible for a ruling monarch to have 100% allegiance to two different nations.
I also believe that a requirement should be added that the legal residence of anyone who is in the line of succession must be in the UK and the spouse of anyone in the LoS from a country outside the UK must obtain UK citizenship within 7 years of the date of the marriage or the person within the LoS and their children would be removed from the LoS until their spouse becomes a naturalized citizen of the UK and renounces citizenship of their native country.
Spouses of royals in the LoS should also not be allowed to hold elected government office of any type or accept paid or unpaid positions with any government or non-Commonwealth NGO that has political connections, such as the United Nations.
Meghan never intended to spend her life living in the UK as a working royal. The stage there was waaaaaay too small for her and the US market is far more lucrative place for her to hawk her title to the highest bidder. Grabbing the shiny royal title and all the benefits that come with it was always her goal from the moment she met Harry.
Meghan will go down (double entendre intended) as an extraordinary con artist who, unless her titles are removed to the point where she is a commoner, duped a monarchy and an entire nation to complete one of the the biggest snatch-and-grab thefts in modern human history.
She makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur.
They are getting paid for trashing the RF, this is the job they have been hired to do
The reason why you don’t see their children is because they don’t have their children. That’s the one story I want to come out the most that it’s an out and out lie about them having kids. I think the adoption did not go through and that’s why Harry threw a fit and was angry and when the little kid asked for a picture. Because any new father would be beaming with joy.
He's about as fascinating and influential as snot.
“Thing is, Harry--nobody likes the man you’ve become.”
Lilibet is now on the line of succession, despite no one ever seen that baby.
At this point, I’m starting to be anti-monarchy.
Who wants a monarchy so weak that’s bends to any and every demands of its blackmailers.
Jerk and Smirk have two children, Figment and Fiction.
The commentators are on fire, and Taz really lets it rip in the vlog entry called:
Harry's Memoirs and Finding Lili
--------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-mi02v4h8&t=906s
The CofE, as it functions within England under the parish system, is there for all residents within each parish. The parish priest and his curate still function as they did centuries ago as a local Marriage Registrar, independently of any secular/civil Registrar of the district, a post which has only existed since 1837. Their church records for marriage are submitted to the Registrar General in exactly the same way.
Until very recently, church marriages usually took place in the home parish of the bride, whether or not she attended the church. Not being a worshiper at that church made no difference.
After 1837, Roman Catholics & Nonconformists (Methodist/Baptist etc) could marry at their own churches as long as a civil registrar was present. Before the introduction of Civil Marriages, everyone, with the exception of Jews and Quakers, had no choice in where they married, it had to be the parish church. Only Jews and Quakers were allowed to conduct their own marriages. I assume that still applies and they don't need to presence of a Registrar. Please correct me, someone , if I'm wrong.
Recent changes mean that there is a little more freedom of choice - one may marry in a more attractive church if one can prove a family connection but people sometimes really push their luck on that one and incumbents of pretty country churches do feel the pressure.
One may also marry in other Anglican places of worship under some circumstances, such as in Oxbridge college chapels if either bride or groom is an alumnus/-a or parent is,say a Fellow. Cathedrals are available if a parent is a member of the clergy there.
Charles and Diana were married in St Paul's Cathedral, mainly I recall because C didn't like the long nave at Westminster Abbey and the way the screen blocked the view of the chancel. St Paul's has a Greek cross plan, making it almost a church-in-the-round, so everyone has a better view. It's a cathedral with a Dean and Bishop in the same way as, say, Ely or Durham.
Westminster Abbey is something else again, a Royal Peculiar, like a private chapel but outside the jurisdiction of any diocesan bishop, like St Georges Windsor (it just has a Dean) and has long been the place for large-scale Royal weddings and of course coronations. I daresay the H$Ms were angry that they were shunted out to Windsor - fortunately there were good security reasons for that.
FWiW, I was baptised at the local parish church aged 5 months. There was a bit of a family party afterwards but, beyond pushing me off to the nearest nonconformist Sunday School once a week, `to make me good', as my mother put it, my parents had no concern for my religious upbringing. I was finally confirmed CofE of my own volition aged 21, in a college chapel by the local diocesan bishop, in the annual University Confirmation service.
(...)The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.
therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.
...
Information on the official website of the Royal Family.
https://www.royal.uk/succession
...
Professor Robert Hazell, from UCL's Constitution Unit, explained: "The line of succession is laid down in law, most recently the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which abolished the rule of male primogeniture and introduced gender equality.
"The Queen has no power to change the line of succession. Only Parliament can do that, as it did in the 2013 Act.
"So if Harry were to be removed from the line of succession, it would require legislation through an Act of Parliament."
The Queen cannot bring that Act of Parliament in because the rules that regulate the monarchy are decided by Parliament, not the monarch.
And it's unlikely that an MP would use parliamentary time to have Harry removed, when the chances of him becoming king are slim, even at sixth in line.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/how-royals-removed-line-succession-090549288.html
...
Lili
new rumors
"Right tea time
MM wanted to showcase herself and her daughter for the Vogue September Issue 2021 (the most coveted issue because that is the one that dictates the new trends and picks out the hits and misses of the season) but Anna Wintour said no because MM wanted to be alone on the cover with the baby, but Anna told her she only would accept an MM cover if she had Harry on it too which is a hard and resolute no.
Adele will be on the cover instead and that's it that's the whole tea. Short and sweet"
Mistakes CORRECTED/Harry & Meg DUPING/2 books/support 4 The Queen/Friends POISED 2 retaliate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOJuHyax3g
Me too...ugh.
I swear by peppermint tea. It makes it livable. Hugs
Perhaps Catherine's family weren't big church goers because Catherine's mother comes from a Jewish family. Carole's maiden name was Goldsmith. In some of mixed marriages, people don't bother with religion as a compromise instead of choosing one or another religion. This should be commended, not criticised.
Huh? 😟😳I never said anything about Catherine’s religion etc. All I said to Lizzie and I quote Yes, Catherine was confirmed shortly before her wedding, I remember reading about it myself. 😀 Where is my criticism? 😉😳
(https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/meghan-harry-didnt-consult-over-24611389)
I have to ask: Does this REALLY pass the smell test?
Let's put aside the other alleged attendees at this alleged event depicted in the christening photo in the Green Room at Windsor Castle which has been dissected and proven to have been digitally manipulated to a very large degree, and just focus on what Justin Welby would be expected to do on behalf of the Royal family in this instance.
--The AOC serves the Queen, but he is also acting as one of her chief spiritual advisors. Would this Queen, a universally acknowledged devout woman who is a stickler for order and appropriateness *insist* upon her Archbishop performing this family baptism on a day dictated by two minor, difficult members of her family when the choice was in direct conflict with his duties on behalf of the Church-at-Large?
I do not believe for a moment that she would. Particularly when she knew she wasn't going to be able to attend, or more aptly, had no intention of attending. She'd departed for her annual Scottish sojourn several weeks early to make sure she was unavailable. Would she REALLY have allowed #6 and his slaggy wife to issue orders to the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Performing royal christenings has to be one of the 'perks' of his job but is Welby completely lacking in autonomy to decline requests/orders from the RF that conflict with his other duties? The day H$M chose could not have been more inconvenient for the AoC . . but he trots down to Windsor like an obedient dog on the petulant whims of the Sixes?
And would he do so without a single word to his closest aides, who could have let it be known that he had Royal business to attend to and would be back as soon as possible? I can't believe that ER would either inconvenience her Archbishop like this OR allow any of her family to do so except in the case of a spiritual emergency like an impending death.
There was no reason Archie could not have been just as secretly christened one week earlier or later, none at all. Google has York to Windsor as a 31/2 hour drive. I'm sure, if this went down, a chopper was employed. The Harkles doing their bit as they are constantly preaching for the environment.
If Welby took Meg's marching orders and kept everything 'secret' it's because he wanted to, not because the Queen compelled him. That guy is a shady as the day is long. I accuse him of being a tainted minister. I still say there is significant room for doubt that he baptized a baby boy called Archie on on that day or anyone and may have disappeared from his synodical duties for some unknown, shifty purpose of his own.
Still awaiting this Kraken . . so long delayed.
I don't know if all BRF staff have to sign the Official Secret Act. For instance, what about staff working in the kitchen, jousemaids, cleaners? Some could have met TBW (e.g. housemaids) and could have stories to tell. Clerical staff, secretaries etc would certainly be able to talk about bullying (if allowed). Incidentally, 'It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it. The 1989 Act states that a person can be “notified” that he or she is bound by it; and Government employees will usually be informed via their contract of employment if they must observe the Act.' (House of Commons Library).
Agree, I can’t imagine kitchen staff etc. not having to sign The Official Secrets Act. 😀Staff working closely with members of the royal family yes. I had to sign The Official Secrets Act for my job and I’m bound by it for life (well as far as I’m aware), so I assumed everyone else was. 😉
Lili
new rumors
"Right tea time
MM wanted to showcase herself and her daughter for the Vogue September Issue 2021 (the most coveted issue because that is the one that dictates the new trends and picks out the hits and misses of the season) but Anna Wintour said no because MM wanted to be alone on the cover with the baby, but Anna told her she only would accept an MM cover if she had Harry on it too which is a hard and resolute no.
Adele will be on the cover instead and that's it that's the whole tea. Short and sweet"
This is amusing tea but I think it falls under more of "Meg's Vison Board Mantras".
My money's on Adele having been selected as the September Issue cover girl months ago, maybe even at the start of the year, irrespective of whether some minor royals had a baby. The issue not only showcases all the fall trends but also sets advertiser rates for the year. As such the included advertisers want to be guaranteed of a hit cover model that is going to move tons of copies. A newly-slimmed down Adele, who is infamously elusive about her private life would do it. Meg has been bona fide box office poison practically since her wedding, and a cute (rented) baby might have helped but not that much. Vogue readers are into fashion, not babies. Anna Wintour would not have held the September cover of all covers, contingent on M producing a kid . . and let's be honest, Vogue readers could give a toss about a balding and sour-faced ginger on the cover of a women's fashion bible. Hello! or People are the audience they want.
And not forgetting the UTTER DISASTER that was Mugsy's UK Vogue issue. Ed Enniful's job looked in jeopardy there for a bit. Anna Wintour is also in a delicate position--many want her out and replaced with a younger editor. I highly doubt she wants to court controversy by even being thought to have *considered* the Sussex family for a cover.
Meg would give her entire yak hair collection to be a Vogue cover girl though.
It should read….. @Maneki Neko
Agree, I can’t imagine kitchen staff etc. having to sign The Official Secrets Act.
I didn't understand about Cate's baptism.
...
I read that she was baptized as a baby. ( June 20, 1982, which just so happens to be the day before Prince William was born)
And ahe was confirmed in 2011. Prince William was confirmed at 14 years old. Meghan was baptized but not confirmed.
...
Hikari Lol...I couldn't agree more.
Snippet:
While the Queen has maintained Harry and Meghan remain much-loved members of the Royal Family despite recent dramas, there is speculation his father Prince Charles, 72, could choose to remove his titles once he is king.
Express.co.uk asked a constitutional expert to explain the process by which Charles might strip Harry's Sussex dukedom and explain whether or not he could lose his place in the line of succession too.
Academic Iain MacMarthanne told Express.co.uk: "The Duke of Sussex withdrew from formal royal duties, relocating to North America, to secure his privacy and financial independence."
The expert added: "In the pursuit of the same, he has now spoken widely about personal and family issues.
"A perhaps unanticipated consequence of his actions has resulted, in some quarters, with calls being made for him to be stripped of his titles and removed from the line of succession.
"This, in turn, has brought Prince Charles’s long-held ambition for a slimmed-down monarchy, after his accession, into the spotlight.
"These constitute three quite separate threads and arguments, but they have become messily entangled, owing to the perceived behaviour of Prince Harry."
Charles will have the power to take away Harry's titles and style "by a stroke" when king.
Mr MacMarthanne explained: "As far as styles and titles are concerned the Queen is at liberty to strip whomever of whatever royal title and peerage.
"When Prince Charles inherits the throne he also inherits that same right.
"Accordingly, by a stroke, be it at the hand of Elizabeth II, or a future King Charles, HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel, could quickly find himself becoming plain and ordinary Mr Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor."
Will Prince Charles strip Harry of titles when king?
Mr MacMarthanne said speculation as to Charles's future actions in regards to Harry's titles was "pointless" but argued the "spiteful" way in which Princess Diana's title was removed following their divorce may put him off repeating history.
The expert said: "Speculation is pointless though as to whether or not this will happen.
"One thing can however be kept in mind, the formal removal of the HRH from Diana, Princess of Wales, after her divorce, was seen as a petty, spiteful act and not one that would actively be sought to be repeated."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1468418/prince-harry-news-duke-of-sussex-title-prince-charles-king-evg
AoC - so her side is still trying to spin this. I still think there is something very shady about him and her and it goes beyond some good ole fashion lust. That she or her side keeps bringing him up and he is set to be in the US for sabbatical has me thinking he will or be photoshopped to have baptized little lillybet$ or at least her hand
From the Jewish Chronicle:
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/accept-it-kate-middleton-is-not-a-jewish-princess-1.46161
To be confirmed in the Church of England, you must have been baptized In Church England before, as happened to Prince William.
...
(...) William was confirmed, also by the Bishop of London, at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, in March 1997 when he was 14.
...
( ...) Kate, 29, was baptised when she was five months old, but had never taken her religion further or been a regular churchgoer.
(...) St James’s Palace said yesterday: ‘Catherine, who was already baptised, decided to be *confirmed* as part of her marriage preparations.’
...
Bishop confirms Kate into Church of England in secret pre-wedding 'preparation' ceremony
By Rebecca English for the Daily.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376455/Royal-Wedding-Kate-Middleton-confirmed-Church-England-secret.html
Yes, a rumored pal of Harry's, as was--too close for Wife's comfort and she ixnayed that friendship, apparently. Now that Adele is thin, she poses a threat. Otherwise, it would have been right up Wife's street to cultivate her, you'd have thought, since Adele is a gazillionaire. Even though she hasn't released a new album in 6 years and hasn't toured in four, she probably rakes in at least a million dollars every day before breakfast due to song residuals continuously played on the radio. She's 31 years old, so nearly a decade (or more) younger than Wife. The biggest threat Adele poses besides her beauty, fame, boodle, talent and relative youth is that she's British. Can't have Haz getting too chummy with people from home and being reminded him of the past life he's torched to live out Wife's dream.
We all know that 'Miranda Priestly' from 'The Devil Wears Prada' essayed by La Streep is not-so-loosely based on AW. A storyline of the book/film is Miranda's machinations against a younger colleague/rival--her equal number at French "Runway". So she *might* have put a bug into EE's ear about using Wife as guest editor with some thought of discrediting him, but the ensuing spectacle was *soo* bad, I think the only conclusion we can draw is that EE is bad at his job and deserves to be replaced. Meg's issue shone a light on that for sure. maybe AW is mad because EE got his comparable position to hers by being Wokey-Token POC who slept his way to the top(ish)?
I don't have any use or further respect, professional or otherwise, for anybody who would cultivate the Harkles. If Anna Wintour is sucking up to Wife, she needs to go. Wife's crimes against fashion aren't the most egregious of her sins, but her utter lack of style, sophistication or basic hygiene should insult AW on every conceivable level. As River might put it . . "She's already Markled herself, my dears." She was photographed with Wife at some event, wasn't she? That's enough by itself.
I've never been a Vogue subscriber but if I were I would cancel it. No company who supports the Harkles with blood money deserves to survive.
I have no idea why I’m being drawn into the religion of Catherine discussion, I’ve made no comment about it, only agreeing with Lizzie when she was confirmed, nothing more.
Overall, I personally do not care about a persons religion. It’s a very personal thing to each individual, including what religion they are, whether they choose to covert, whether they practice a religion, and/or whether they believe or not. 🥴
Part 2 of your comment
AoC - so her side is still trying to spin this. I still think there is something very shady about him and her and it goes beyond some good ole fashion lust. That she or her side keeps bringing him up and he is set to be in the US for sabbatical has me thinking he will or be photoshopped to have baptized little lillybet$ or at least her hand.
I would not put it past her at all. Let's watch and see if that very thing plays out. All 'in secret' of course--until the release of the 'official (Photoshopped) Christening Photo!
If Welby is her ally/john, it's interesting that M's PR periodically churns out these stories that make him look bad, like the 'unsanctioned garden pre-wedding wedding' story--something which his aides and he were forced to categorically deny. Welby has not denied reneging on his duties to the General Synod to sneak down to Windsor and christen #6w's alleged baby. If ever he had an unimpeachable reason to say, "I'm sorry but I'm not available that day or that whole weekend; you'll have to choose another date"--this was it. He's not on the record himself as having performed the christening attributed to him, but neither has he denied it. Now we've got stories of his clergy brethren in York being 'stunned' and 'flabberghasted' that he'd abandon his Synod agenda and take a powder for hours and 'it only became known later' what the reason was. So--in the moment, to hundreds of his priests, he looks like a flakeball, an incompetent, a work-dodger . . Or he had everyone worried he'd suddenly been taken ill . . to leave without a word?
This doesn't reflect well on him so . . when stories like this come out, does this mean he has displeased Wife in some way? What's she holding over him that he never disputes any of her versions of events, save the once?
Things that make you go hmmm.
Though it is not my place to speculate about the final dispensation of another person's soul--I am to worry about mine and mine only as my only locus of control--If you ask me if I expect to see Justin Welby upstairs in Heaven one day, I have to say no, I do not. He gives me a very ooky feeling inside.
It should read….. @Maneki Neko
Agree, I can’t imagine kitchen staff etc. having to sign The Official Secrets Act.
~ ~ ~ ~
That's how I read it : )
Thank goodness for small mercies! 😁It’s been one of those days….I need a lie down! 😂
Thanks for the snippet of that article.
Charles will have the power to take away Harry's titles and style "by a stroke" when king.
Mr MacMarthanne explained: "As far as styles and titles are concerned the Queen is at liberty to strip whomever of whatever royal title and peerage.
"When Prince Charles inherits the throne he also inherits that same right.
"Accordingly, by a stroke, be it at the hand of Elizabeth II, or a future King Charles, HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, and Baron Kilkeel, could quickly find himself becoming plain and ordinary Mr Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor."
I know there has been discussion here about Parliament having to get involved in this question, but I always thought it bizarre that the Queen could not take back a title she bestowed in the first place. But the problem with Harry is two-fold: His titles AND his place in the succession. A sitting monarch may strike the first on his/her order, but as Mr Windsor of Montecito, H is still in the line of succession. Does Parliament have to convene on that matter? The titles and succession are separate issues, but both have been subject through history to the vagaries of battles lost and won, usurpations, etc. It seems not too likely that Parliament would have the stomach to rule on ripping H from the line of succession but maybe they should. How else do we get clarity about the existence of H's 'heirs'?
If the worst happened and H was on deck to become King, wouldn't it be too late to remove him from his place in line? If William and his heirs are out, and Harry and whatever preternatural/rented/invisible spawn he's got are out, then we look to King Andrew I, who would make way for Queen Beatrice.
One time in the late '80s when Fergie and Di were still friendly, they apparently visited a fortune teller for a lark. She told Sarah that one day, Beatrice would be the Queen of Great Britain. I think Sarah may still be dining out on that. Recent events with the Harkles make such a scenario, while incredible, not as completely outlandish as it may once have been.
I still wonder if the folks at the York summit are the one speculating or confirming AoC wasnt there or is it the many priests that live in 6s wife's brain that are spreading the story. She hates to be caught in a lie and is constantly putting out pr when we all question things. I still would love to know what that connection is because everytime i see oddly timed pr i wonder if it is a public subtle threat - i know you werent at the christening and i know you were not in any other place you said you were and york, well we have the duke of york. is AoC an Epstein guy? it always strikes me as more of veiled threats in these pr articles that seem to pop out of no where. She wants him to do something or be somewhere or pull some strings for sure.
My mistake, sorry.
Another poster `attached' their comment to yr name
Thanks for the snippet of that article.
You're more than welcome. 😊
Not sure if you read the whole article that I posted the link to... but this is what it said about the LOS.
Snippet:
What about the line of succession?
Despite having the power to strip Harry of his Sussex peerage when king, Charles cannot remove his son from the line of succession as that lies power with Parliament alone, Mr MacMarthanne explained.
Harry remains sixth in line to the throne despite quitting royal life and his children Archie and Lilibet are currently seventh and eighth in line.
Mr MacMarthanne said: "On the question of removing Prince Harry and his heirs from the line of succession, only Parliament, through an Act of Parliament, can alter the succession as it is presently laid down in law."
As King Charles would still have to give the parliamentary process Royal Assent.
Mr MacMarthanne added: "Neither the Queen nor a future King Charles would have a part to play in this other than having to give Royal Assent at the end of the process."
Hikari - isnt Adele rumored to be a pal/drinking body of PH? I never thought Anna Wintour would put her on a cover - i would see dragon lady suggesting to B Vogue what a coup that would be to have 6s wife involved. AW is known to have keen instincts hence the reason she has kept her job for so long. eliminate a Vogue heir apparent via this means would have been just up her alley No one markles AW
Yes, a rumored pal of Harry's, as was--too close for Wife's comfort and she ixnayed that friendship, apparently. Now that Adele is thin, she poses a threat. Otherwise, it would have been right up Wife's street to cultivate her, you'd have thought, since Adele is a gazillionaire. Even though she hasn't released a new album in 6 years and hasn't toured in four, she probably rakes in at least a million dollars every day before breakfast due to song residuals continuously played on the radio. She's 31 years old, so nearly a decade (or more) younger than Wife. The biggest threat Adele poses besides her beauty, fame, boodle, talent and relative youth is that she's British. Can't have Haz getting too chummy with people from home and being reminded him of the past life he's torched to live out Wife's dream.
@Hikari: You are correct about the talk of Harry and Adele being a drinking buddy with Harry. There was a blind item either on Crazy Days And Nights or Blind Gossip last year when Harry and Meghan were crashing at Tyler Perry’s house prior to buying the Mudslide Mansion.
The blind said that since relocating to So Cal, Harry had been regularly meeting up with a one-named British singer for drinks and that Meghan stepped in and warned the singer away from her meal ticket.
Please get a name as soon as you can. Unknown comments generally will be deleted. Here is a set of instructions to help you get a name. Hope this helps.
Instructions:
- Click on your "Unknown" name where you last posted.
- You should arrive on your profile page where you can then click the "B" icon; once clicked, you should arrive at the blogger info page
- Next click the dropdown menu to the left of the "B" icon and click on "Settings" and then click "User Profile"
- Scroll down to "Display Name" and type your name
- Hit "Save Profile" at the bottom
- Finally, you can add an image/avatar on this page if you wish
I no longer remember. Was the HRH also removed from Sarah Ferguson? And, if divorced and title not removed, can Meghan market herself with title like Sarah? Thanks.
@MsDeb52: Welcome to posting here. This is a great group of people here:-)
Yes, Sarah Ferguson also lost her HRH when she and Andrew divorced. As unlikely as it may be, if she ever remarries someone other than Andrew, she loses the duchess title too and reverts to being a commoner.
As an American, this is what I understand about Meghan’s titles, so don’t take this as gospel:
I am hoping that due to her never bothering to become a British citizen, Meghan will lose all of her titles in the event of a divorce. From what I understood from the British royal expert who was doing commentary, her titles are courtesy titles due to being married to Harry. At that time, the commentator and pretty much everyone else never even thought she was already planning to run back to the States with her titles to cash in on them. It was assumed she would become a British citizen. The commentator said her title would become permanent once she became a British subject.
From what I have read, it is not against US law for a US citizen to hold a foreign title as Meghan currently does.
But as I said above, even if there is no legal reason in British law that bans a non-British or Commonwealth citizen to hold a title without marriage to a royal, that who ever is on the throne at the time of a Sussex divorce, will remove the titles due to her behavior and utter contempt for the monarchy and the UK in general and her obvious efforts to damage the monarchy.
The Sun has an article stating that she will be headlining an act in Las Vegas, earning $100K per night. Starts in January.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/15709118/adele-las-vegas-residency/
A Vogue cover would obviously be great PR for this upcoming residency, and also help Vogue with the high fashion angle -- since I am sure Adele in her new slimmed-down version will ramp up the glamour.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2021/07/blind-items-revealed-2_01450398082.html#disqus_thread
I'll just remember that after SF and Lady Di's divorce, Queen issued a LP in 1996 on future divorce cases.
...
Queen announces New rules on HRH title. (Ago/1996)
(...) The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996 to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the *style,title or attribute of Royal Highness*.''
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12033517.queen-announces-new-rules-on-hrh-title princes or princesses.
Unlike lots of US blurbs written by legal eagles in CYA situations the LP doesn't include boilerplate "and any other situations ...." language. It is quite specific and according to the article (and based on the language used) it applies only to the spouses of the monarch's sons, spouses of the sons of monarch's sons, and the spouse of eldest son of the eldest son of the PoW. These sons are the people to whom titles were limited by the now-infamous 1917 LP of George V.
The LP granting prince/princess titles to all of W&K's kids came after this. So it certainly appears under certain circumstances the spouses of younger sons of the PoW's eldest son wouldn't be included unless enough time had passed so that those sons had become the sons of a monarch or the grandsons of one. No chance Louis could marry and divorce while QEII is on the throne but it could come up in the future with other people. I'm also not clear on how/if this would apply to people granted titles under previous monarchs (like Prince Michael.) While those titles aren't removed with the passing of the particular monarch (Prince Michael is George V's grandson) it's not clear this LP would apply should he divorce. It's also not clear what this would mean for divorcing daughters IF spouses had been granted titles.
I guess an LP isn't intended to be comprehensive and set all future precedents, it's more of "I want X in this situation and I want it now" but I can see how using
LP's can get messy.
I wonder if the 6s are invited?? TBW is a friend of Michelle's, isn't she? ;-)
obama’s are smart enough. they know she is toxic and i think it fleas friendship with PH that they cultivated. she’s on maternity leave. they wouldn’t want her to travel 😉
On the other hand, Michelle made a very tactful statement after the Oprah interview came out that was spun as "sympathy for [Harry's wife]."
Quotes: "As I said before, race isn't a new construct in this world for people of color, and so it wasn't a complete surprise to hear her feelings and to have them articulated" and "My hope is that, when I think about what they're going through, I think about the importance of family, and I just pray that there is forgiveness, and there is clarity and love and resolve at some point in time."
How very diplomatic, aye? While it's true that we can't really say she's Team Harkle based on that, she is obviously covering all her bases. There's nothing there to offend either the BRF or the Harkles (or for the diverse supporters of each group . . . or even people who don't really care about them). It's not quite meaningless word salad . . . but it comes close! Michelle is "safe" no matter what happens in the future; she hasn't burned any big bridges with the BRF and she wasn't supportive enough of the Harkles to be markled. But this may mean that she sees the Harkles as potentially useful to her in the future. So she hasn't written them off yet.
Sed contra: Michelle said all that before the Lilibucks fiasco. She may think very differently now.
One time in the late '80s when Fergie and Di were still friendly, they apparently visited a fortune teller for a lark. She told Sarah that one day, Beatrice would be the Queen of Great Britain. I think Sarah may still be dining out on that.
Crikey! Do we also know what the fortune teller said to Diana?
And perhaps Sarah revealing that to her sister-in-law was the first crack in the friendship. Sarah would have been delighted at the possibility -- and perhaps insensitive to how it might sound to a woman whose two sons would first have to be removed somehow.
And it's interesting that the fortune teller didn't tell Sarah that she might be Queen someday. If she took the prediction seriously, her divorce from Prince Andrew might have also served as confirmation bias! But that's just me having fun with this scenario.
Needless to say, I hope the Cambridges all stay safe and healthy for a long time to come. But thinking about the worst, I believe that the British public would prefer Prince Andrew, Epstein contacts and all, over Just Harry on the throne.
=========================================================================
Crikey! Do we also know what the fortune teller said to Diana?
And perhaps Sarah revealing that to her sister-in-law was the first crack in the friendship. Sarah would have been delighted at the possibility -- and perhaps insensitive to how it might sound to a woman whose two sons would first have to be removed somehow.
And it's interesting that the fortune teller didn't tell Sarah that she might be Queen someday. If she took the prediction seriously, her divorce from Prince Andrew might have also served as confirmation bias! But that's just me having fun with this scenario.
Oh, I was just having fun with it, too. Yeah, I can imagine how Diana might have reacted to this 'revelation' which wound up splashed far and wide in the media. Because Diana had already had her two boys and it goes without saying that for Beatrice, the daughter of the second son to vault over Di's sons to the throne, something horrific would have to happen, meaning that William and his brother wouldn't survive to reign. Since Diana had already gotten the brass ring (so it seemed to the world, at any rate) one does wonder what kind of glittering future she had predicted for her. The Royal divorces (Waleses and Yorks both) were not even on the horizon yet when this 'prediction' was made, and Charles and Diana certainly might have had other children. But when all the Royal cousins were so young--Bea no more than a toddler at this stage, and Eugenie I don't think even born yet . . the scenario did seem *possible*, albeit not likely. After all, the Queen is herself the eldest daughter of a Duke of York--Just like Bea. I can't help thinking that this status played a bit into Her Majesty's generosity to Beatrice in providing a dress and her own wedding tiara for the bride.
Fortune tellers are of course, skilled con artists very adept at guessing just what their paying customer wants to hear, and it wouldn't take a savant to figure out that the Yorks must have had many conversations about possible scenarios in which they could displace Charles and his heirs. Had Andrew's path somehow followed his grandfather's, then Sarah would have been the new Queen Mum, which had to be in the back of her mind . . but the fortune told was for the *blood royal*, her daughter, which was a safer bet. Bea & Eugenie remain blood royals, whatever the outcome of their parents' marriage, forsooth.
I believe the *official* reason Diana dropped Fergie like a case of the clap was because Sarah gauchely (I know, shocker) claimed to some tabloid that she had caught foot warts from a pair of shoes Diana had lent her. That Diana would 1. have warts and 2. not have her shoes well-maintained and clean are frankly as incredible to me as Beatrice becoming the Queen. I think Fergie managed to catch warts all on her own but it gave Di a flimsy pretext to cut her off if Diana was in fact still salty about the whole implication that Fergie kind of wanted her boys out of the way, or some other slight, real or imagined.
I had a moment of 'momento mori' this morning when I realized that tomorrow, July 29th, is the 40th anniversary of Diana's wedding. Shucks. Beyond the very real and lingering tragedy of her untimely and violent death . . I'm not the person I'd hoped to become when I was a 15-year-old up before dawn on that July day to watch the wedding with my mom. At least I am alive, but time is hurtling along. Ay.
Michelle made a very tactful statement after the Oprah interview came out that was spun as "sympathy for [Harry's wife]."
Quotes: "As I said before, race isn't a new construct in this world for people of color, and so it wasn't a complete surprise to hear her feelings and to have them articulated" and "My hope is that, when I think about what they're going through, I think about the importance of family, and I just pray that there is forgiveness, and there is clarity and love and resolve at some point in time."
===========================================================
Yes, this is a masterful dodge-and-parry which manages to be both appeasing and quite non-committal at once. Well-played. I wonder if she came up with it herself, or consulted with PR people first. I think Michelle, as a lawyer and good with language, could certainly have crafted it on her own.
1. "As I said before, race isn't a new construct in this world for people of color"
She acknowledges the reality that she herself has no doubt experienced, as a girl from the South Side of Chicago who aspired to the Ivy League, on a consistent basis. Racism isn't just a 'construct'; it's real. But notice she doesn't personalize this statement for M. at any point. She uses the pronoun 'her' but never once uses her name. Nice and general, 'people of color'. It could be very likely that Mrs. Obama feels that M has appropriated the 'Black' side of her heritage for transparently mercenary motives, has exploited her Black mother to those ends, not to mention the routine abuse of bronzing products in order to look 'more black' when it suited. Which was never in her country of origin, where she did everything she could to be as pale and as non-Black as possible, as she used white men and listed herself as 100% white on her professional resume. Where she was willing to pose as a Latina to get jobs but never identified as Black until she smelled money-making opportunities in it. An accomplished professional woman of color like Michelle, who has a deep complexion and thus could never cover up her heritage might look askance at wholeheartedly embracing #6w as 'Black Like Me.' I think MO's sympathies probably lie more with the HIV mothers in South Africa whom M made sit on the floor.
2. . . . and so it wasn't a complete surprise to hear her feelings and to have them articulated"
Michelle could not, as a black woman, come out and ridicule/question M's alleged experiences without betraying the woke Code. Maybe part of her wanted to give M the benefit of the doubt. But notice carefully that she *never* states nor implies that #6w *actually* experienced racism. Only that #6w has lots and lots of 'feelings' and is compelled to 'articulate' them, loudly and often. M is always always explaining and clarifying and retracting and explaining some more all about her 'feelings'. We've all got feelings. We don't all TALK about them incessantly. I particularly love the 'it wasn't a complete surprise' bit. It was anything BUT a surprise that #6w would hammer everyone over the head with her 'feelings'.
But--MO never confirms or validates the idea that RACISM was inevitable or drove these nebulous 'feelings'. Just that there is an awareness of 'race' and that M has 'feelings'. She allows the reader to correlate the two but doesn't do it herself. Nice and vague.
What does this even mean? That when the specter of M potentially 'going through' *something* (the reader again is invited to infer racism, but Michelle doesn't imply that that's actually happening), she'd much rather think about her own family instead. Who wouldn't, frankly?
I sense in here actually a gentle rebuke to #6w, who used her father for his bank account and then turned on him in the most vicious way possible after he became a liability to her new image. She's never prioritized the importance of family. Michelle is saying, "Stop whining about how your in-laws are so mean and call your dad, Meg."
4. and I just pray that there is forgiveness, and there is clarity and love and resolve at some point in time
And now we reach the pinnacle of 'make soothing correct noises with lots of great, broad patented woke words while skillfully not committing to either side. Clearly, forgiveness, clarity, love and resolve are all much desired qualities. But FOR whom, TO whom is left open to whatever interpretation you like. I don't read ANY of this statement as particularly 'sympathetic' to M, at least, not only to her. MO acknowledges that there is hurt and a breakdown within this family but she's very careful not to assign blame. She has not taken M's side at all in terms of saying "Yeah, I KNEW that family is a bunch of racists." Only that she is not surprised that M has chosen to interpret the situation thusly.
Let's not forget that MO met #6w, albeit in an unscheduled and not altogether welcome way when #6W showed up at book tour event MO was doing in the UK and forced her way into a meet and greet with Mrs. Obama, despite previously having been told that her schedule was too tight to allow for the meeting that #6w wanted. She bulldozed her way in and forced herself on Michelle anyway because that's what she does. This inconvenienced MO and her entire schedule for the day was affected. This happened a year-plus before Megxit . . and not forgetting that #6w was fine with Vogue readers garnering the mistaken impression that #6w and MO had a chatty girls' lunch over chicken tacos. All a complete fabrication of course. Michelle's staff received some emails sent when the composer thereof was couch-snacking on tacos. MO has never refuted the chicken taco lunch story because she doesn't have time for such petty matters but I think it's safe to assume that Michelle had #6w's number from way back. So the notion that Michelle is keeping #6w in reserve as a potentially useful contact makes me smile. In what possible way can Meg & Harry be useful to a former President and First Lady?
I was never a supporter of the Obamas as such, but I respect Michelle's drive and her educational attainments. She is a far better communicator than her husband and I believe she was sincere in her platforms as First Lady. She did a lot while she was in that job that had value, from the childhood obesity initiatives to getting involved with inner city DC schoolchildren planting vegetables in the White House kitchen garden. If #6w had been a fraction of the whip-smart, hard-working, *Black* humanitarian/orator/caring mom, etc. that she pays to have herself promoted as, she might have aspired to be Michelle Obama. I'm sure she wants a piece of what MO has, but not for genuine reasons, to do good. No, it's always only about making money with her.
The Obamas breached a lot of protocol when they visited the Queen, but I don't think they are interested in destroying the British monarchy. They have distanced themselves from the Harkle pair and need to keep backing up.
I was intending that bit as at least a little exaggerated for humorous effect. Maybe 'incredible' is too strong. A bit surprised, though, yes. I am a 55 year old peasant and I have never had warts, despite a Y membership and everything. Just lucky? So I didn't realize how common a malady they were, particularly not in the echelons Diana was in. She did like to work out but I didn't envision her using gyms with the hoi polloi when she would have been loaning shoes to Fergie. And I also am surprised that the phalanx of people who were employed full-time to take care of her wardrobe and shoes wouldn't have like, fumigated them after every wearing. I didn't realize warts were contagious, never having experienced them, but I just figured that the Princess of Wales with her access to all the best beauty treatments and medical care wouldn't have been able to avoid this particular malady or nip it in the bud before it became a problem.
I'm not convinced that this happened, really. I think Fergie likely made it up as a cover for the real reason Di dropped her as a friend and confidant. Poor Sarah, verbal diarrhea is her specialty, along with verucas. Really, the story doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Why would Fergie need to borrow shoes from Diana? She could easily get herself an identical pair of anything she coveted. What are the changes that they were the same size, even?
In a Royal house full of mysterious, weird occurrences, this is just one of the minor ones . . but I've learned in the interim that when it comes to the Royal family, almost nothing we read in print about them is true. Every bit of their press is like that party game where you try to figure out which out of a number of statements is the lie.
"In Greek, hoi polloi means simply "the many". (Even though hoi itself means "the", in English we almost always say "the hoi polloi".) It comes originally from the famous Funeral Oration by Pericles, where it …"
In what possible way can Meg & Harry be useful to a former President and First Lady?
You have me there. "Useful" isn't the best word to apply to the Harkles. I was just trying to rationalize Mrs. Obama's disappointing word salad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlK8b_FxCmM
Fortune tellers are of course, skilled con artists very adept at guessing just what their paying customer wants to hear,
No kidding. All con artists have this skill. A few years ago, a sales lady made me feel bad for not buying overpriced face cream from her; all I could think about for hours afterward was that she was a foreigner trying really hard to make it in a new country, and I just helped dash her dream upon the rocks.
Later, I checked out the brand she was shilling and found angry reviews detailing how they train their staff to manipulate customers. What a relief to stop feeling guilty that I didn't let myself get conned!
Anyway, I'm sure the fortune teller's prediction did haunt Sarah for a while afterward, even if she didn't truly believe it.
Back to my fun note: Do you suppose she looked at Princess Beatrice's borrowed wedding dress and tiara and thought, "Oh, maybe that was what the fortune teller saw!" The vision just got scrambled in the aether, as in a game of psychic telephone?
Former First Lady Michelle Obama tagged Biles in a tweet on Tuesday evening and wrote: "Am I good enough? Yes, I am. The mantra I practice daily."
do people really publicly say stuff like that? oh dear Princeton must be so proud ;-)
The whole Harry and the Obamas thing has been interesting. The certainly courted him pre Markle Not sure what i think is going on with all that.
Do you suppose she looked at Princess Beatrice's borrowed wedding dress and tiara and thought, "Oh, maybe that was what the fortune teller saw!" The vision just got scrambled in the aether, as in a game of psychic telephone?
LOL . .very possible! Maybe this fortune-teller was more legit than I am giving her credit for and genuinely had a vision of a grown-up Beatrice wearing the Queen's wedding tiara. That would seem to be a really promising sign!
The psychic didn't tell Fergie that her daughter would marry quite well in the Queen's tiara but that has come to pass. Meg must be about eating her blackened shrunken heart out that Eugenie's sister now is the chatelaine of her own Italian castle.
I feel singled out for some special love today, gals. My posts are being read with painstaking attention to detail and it makes me feel noticed for sure. Keep it coming!
....................
@Hikari
The best one of all followed this sequence:
Hikari said...
Recently, I received the sad news that my high school choir director passed away. His name was “Errol”. One otherwise well-meaning tribute was written to “Error”. Imagine being called an error in your own obituary. My gas wasn’t quite that bad.
Gaffe!!!! My phone is being very temperamental tonight.
My gas is sometimes bad, particularly if I have consumed Mexican food, but tonight all is quiet on the southern end.
.............
And here it is:
LavenderLady said...
@Hikari,
Me too...ugh.
I swear by peppermint tea. It makes it livable. Hugs
..................
I laughed so hard my poor cats jumped in the air!
And yesterday, in the blind item about the Harkles, someone commented that they knew Harry in Afghanistan, and also knew that there was a team of people in London responsible for covering up Harry's beatings of prostitutes.
I posted the second item yesterday but no one seems to have read it.
Wow, it just keeps getting better and better, doesn't it? Or worse and worse . . but definitely the entertainment never stops with these two. His manager--ROFL.
@Jenn
Do you know the movie "While You Were Sleeping?" If you do, "These mashed potatoes are so creamy!" will resonate with you.
I appreciate all the well-meaning advice and in fact have some new peppermint tea, so I'm good to go! ;-)
LOL!
Marshal Dillon was tall
Bigfoot is out Get me
https://mobile.twitter.com/royalinstablog/status/1420476135473831936
...
" Watch Harry when interview was over he bows his head and looks upset. It was weird how she burst out laughing when interview ended"
https://t.co/neBcnjJdHp https://twitter.com/Lilylilyyyyu/status/1369082024410112003?s=20
....
HBO Max (@hbomax) a tweeté : The royal tea is piping hot. ☕️
Prince George spills all about life inside Buckingham Palace in #ThePrince, streaming tomorrow on HBO Max.
https://t.co/sx9d1LXjP5 https://twitter.com/hbomax/status/1420474140889395210?s=20
"It was weird how she burst out laughing when interview ended"
Not so weird if you've heard of duper's delight!
At least Harry could still feel some shame, though I don't know how much that really amounts to.
Duper's delight (also called duping delight) is a body language tell. After someone lies to you and sees that you believe the lie, he or she might smile at the successful deception. At the moment, it might seem like a normal smile of connection, but if you know what you're seeing, it's can be chilling.
The audience's reaction to a recorded instance of duper's delight in this video is more of hilarity at the absurdity of it all. The relevant portion starts at around 14.45:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ4zlkhdcCw
That’s right! Actually, Marshall Dillon was 6 foot five, and Argentina has great beef and Nazis.
They’ve got that seen on YouTube… LOL
I watched the video. And I agree with you. MM's smile fits the concept. I'll watch it in full now. Thank you for the video. ❤️❤️❤️
Speaking of love them or hate them A list celebrities, this little nugget takes the cake It is a chef's kiss and any other cliché, that comes to mind. The alliterate one takes 15% of all earnings of her husband as his manager. He is not similarly compensated.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2021/07/blind-item-6_0575471523.html
****** Pathetic!
I already posted about that blind item at CDAN.
Since you always follow my every word, days later, even when I'm trying to be kind, thanks for noticing...
@xxxxxx
I already posted about that blind item at CDAN.
I knew this. I figured post it again since not much else is going on from M/H. She gets 15% out of Hapless? Shocking if true.
...
GWAH And XXXX
RE: CDAN... Pathetic! that's the right word.👏
...
Miggy... Lady C's Video
Article DE.
(...) Lady C made the remarks after responding to one of her viewers on her YouTube channel who called on the Queen to take action against her grandson.
Lady C said: “You think the Queen should disown him? I’ve got news for you. Various members of the Royal Family, various aristocrats, various couriers, several people at the palace, various members of both major political parties all agree. All agree!”
She added: “People have a lot of respect for and affection for the Queen.
“Nobody likes seeing an old woman being tormented the way she is being tormented by her supposed beloved grandson.”
...
Parliament getting involved in the HM case? I hope so. ( Fingers crossed)🤞
"...She can’t take 15% of everything he earns..."
She can if that's what the two of them have agreed will happen. Why Harry would do that makes no sense for a host of reasons. But there is nothing that I know of to prevent a married couple from having that arrangement. And so far as I know, having that set up now would have no effect on a divorce settlement. In other words, he wouldn't "get credit" for the 15%.
Palace aides 'could launch legal action against Harry and Meghan if book is inaccurate'
Palace aides are reportedly prepared for the book to contain a string of bombshell allegations but will launch court action if they believe it includes any untruths
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/palace-aides-could-launch-legal-24638124