What do you think the options are for them as it has been said (source Omid) this will be "a new era of visibility"?
So if this is a new era, what about the last one? Claudia Connell wrote a long piece in the DM about this in what she describes as the "invisible year". (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9913639/The-Sussexes-preparing-visible-phase-CLAUDIA-CONNELL-looks-year.html). She tallies up 98 events in a 12.5 month period - averaging 7.5 (sightings? appearances? rising above the horizon?) per month so far.
Not included is the revised Finding Freedom to be released August 31st. It is said to begin before this invisible year to include major events such as really leaving, that interview, the death of Prince Philip, the miscarriage and then Lilibet.
So, Harry will be very busy it might seem. He has a book or two to get out, a new baby, the toddler will be ambling around, the dogs, his wife and he does have a couple of places which offer a work life of sorts.
And his wife? She has the Netflix show to produce but we haven't heard about any sort of follow through on the birthday charity (new team players or how it went for the known listees). There still are the kids, the dogs but jobs like classroom mother or running the school carnival don't seem to be in the short term mention to public list. What else does she have? Spotify?
So will one dominate in the visibility sweepstakes? What about the kids? Will they be part of the new visibility?
And, will this opening up to become more visible mean that people will start asking hard questions about the misrepresented statements made in that interview?
Comments
It's because she needs the narcissistic supply. She thinks that this is one issue that will garner her some sympathy so she is trying to use that to garner some attention.
Yankee Wally has said in her latest video that they are getting about $16k a month through Archewell. Some of the donors are posting that they have to wait for their next paycheque in order to donate to the 6s! It's all very pathetic and sad to be in thrall to a narc.
I read the headlines and chuckle. They are getting deeper and deeper. HMTQ has given them fair warning with the attorneys, however she appears to be standing by her words that H remains a beloved grandson.
IMHO, it will not be the Queen who removes the titles, it will be Charles.
Charles being the one to remove the titles? interesting idea. Could be. What neither 6 or 6w seem to really understand is that being king (or queen) sometimes means having to make very hard choices that you would not want to.
They are the absolute embodiment of the word antithesis. 😂😳
She couldn't play the part of a pregnant woman convincingly so she had to go into hiding.
Prince Harry criticises the monarchy but still wants its trappings
The desire for undeserved power still haunts the Duke of Sussex and it will end badly
TANYA GOLD
Part I
I am not a monarchist. I see the profundity of monarchy – I feel its ancient power to comfort and inspire, it is the old way – but I resist it, largely because of its power.
For me, there are more sensible ways to rule a modern democracy in an age of mass media than a monarchy that segues into a class system which is destructive and unfair. We have been lucky with Elizabeth II, a woman so skilled that even republicans admire her. I was moved by her standing for hours in the rain for the Diamond Jubilee at 86, dressed in silver like a tiny icon. It was a tribute us, and we would not have asked it – or expected it – of anyone else.
But she, I suspect, is an exception. I wonder how happy they are; if the contortions required of monarchy – silence, good humour, gratitude in the face of nonsense and often cruelty – harm them, too. There are just too many casualties of modern monarchy to ignore.
There was Margaret, whose heartbreak we sentimentalised when she was denied marriage to Peter Townsend, the man she loved, but we could not stop it. Then there was Diana, Sarah – and now Harry.
I am a British subject and I felt bright shame at the way he was compelled, at 12, to walk behind his mother’s coffin in front of the whole world. I wondered if it was done, consciously or not, to protect his father? Either way, it harmed the young prince; he has said so. The clicking of the shutters terrified him, and he later went “off the rails”, which is in children a euphemism for grief.
When he married, he vowed to protect his wife as he could not protect his mother. So, he left the old world for the new. I wished him well, and I still do. But I now think he has exchanged one kind of unelected power for another, and that makes him both a poor critic of monarchy and a poor advocate for progressive politics.
A new chapter in the paperback version of Finding Freedom, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s unauthorised biography, contains a trickle of new grievances. It suggests a Remembrance Sunday wreath sent by Prince Harry to be laid on his behalf at the Cenotaph last November “remained in its box”; that they considered identifying the so-called “royal racist” who wondered what colour their unborn baby Archie would be, but chose not to; that some members of the royal family were “understood to have been ‘quietly pleased’” that Meghan did not attend the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral, weeks after the couple’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, as they didn’t want “the Duchess creating a spectacle”.
I don’t know if this is true; but it is obvious that, despite “finding freedom”, Prince Harry is, one way or the other, in monarchy’s thrall. The Duke of Windsor was the same, though he did not call himself a feminist. That would have been ridiculous.
Monarchy is a narcotic, for those within it and without. It tells the subjects they are safe – life goes calmly on – and the objects that they are important. (If you believe this, and I do, it is Elizabeth II’s very humility that keeps her sane.)
I suspect that if you grow up inside it and you are not peculiarly tough, as she is, you trap yourself. Harry knows this well enough to call his brother William “trapped”, which, true or not, is a cruel thing to say in a television interview across the world. It lacked compassion; the very compassion he asks for himself and tries to project.
Harry thinks he is not trapped now. WH Auden wrote: “Who can live for long in a euphoric dream?” True again – but who can live outside it, if it is the British monarchy?
Increasingly, I think Harry can’t. Rather, he has exchanged his role in the British monarchy for another in international celebrity and its favourite pastime: bogus and self-serving philanthropy. If you are a republican, there is not a hair between them. They are the same bitter, useless thing.
For some people, progressive causes are urgent. They are doughty, bloody and, at heart, they are about fairness, about sharing the trappings. They do not need compassion – compassion is cheap – but the ideal result of that compassion: money. They need seriousness.
And when celebrities of great wealth adopt these causes, they cease to be serious and become spurious. They become a stage set for other people’s vanity; something beginning and ending with them. It feels to me very much like greed.
I cannot forget the year of #MeToo, when every red-carpet beauty had an activist in tow like a toy, and yet, now, just a few years later, where are they when women’s rights – not their own; low wages, childcare and reproductive rights are not issues for them – are so threatened? They are, by their own existence, an oblivious argument against them. They are a tinny elite.
Harry struggles to free himself, but only so much. He is a critic of monarchy, but he still yearns for its trappings: a glorious home; great wealth; praise and attention without end. He is still a prince. It is a ludicrous thing to read pleas for progressive causes signed “the Duke of Sussex”. It is pitiable.
If you are for inherited status, say so. If you are for equality, reject your title and work as a normal human being. If you are progressive, it is no loss at all. But he won’t. The desire for undeserved power still haunts him. It will end badly.
thank you for posting that article.
I like this line:
It is a ludicrous thing to read pleas for progressive causes signed “the Duke of Sussex”. It is pitiable.
I like these lines: The desire for undeserved power still haunts him. It will end badly.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9929915/Ofcom-fines-China-TV-channel-counted-Meghan-Markles-friend-presenters-200-000.html
It refers to the journalist whom TBW claims/claimed as a friend - he's rather cosy with the PRC.
Yikes WildBoar
James Chau is tiny!
Not much of a climb…
She should rename her Pearl cartoon
Peril 😉
Friday Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Lloyd Price
Personality
Lie-ability
Over and over
she’s tried to become someone new
Over and over
we knew just what she’d do
Over and over
Haz was had for a tool
But over and over
the tool and the fool still sue
Cause she’s got no personality
Walks with disability
Talks with ambiguity
Smiles with abnormality
Charm no visibility
Love no capability
Over, it’s over
It’s all over for you…
in a not-dissimilar position to James Chau. Nobody here picked up in on this but I wondered about LL. I still do.
All speculation.
The desire for undeserved power still haunts the Duke of Sussex and it will end badly
TANYA GOLD
They both do (or appear to) want the trappings and power. We might hear they don't want the title but they want power of appearing with security. Or that laying of a wreath which they technically are not entitled to so they do so in their own way. Or requests for a baptism and so on.
There are points when I am not certain that they really understood all the ramifications of what they were agreeing to at the summit. Or were they just happy at thinking of how they would still be able to have all the fun bits if and when they wanted without realizing they could be held to the letter of it?
Either way, she is correct. This will end badly.
Is this just his continuing fantasy that a lack of security somehow contributed to the death of his mother? The security that she was provided and dismissed (along with the known security of wearing a seatbelt?) If so, that message is a bit jumbled.
"Security" seems to be just another card to play, like racism and Diana. And just as worn out.
Any terrorist group is surely aware that an attack on them would be counter-productive as it's very doubtful that it would affect British morale in a negative way. The aim is usually to create grief and a sense of intense devastation.
It's rather like why her father's at low risk of kidnap - he's got little money and there's no way she'd pay a ransom for him.
Yes, I know I'm a cynic.
In part, I do think it's because they think it makes them look important. And I think Harry feels entitled. (Heck, he said having security was his "birthright.")
But I think it's also so they can.have people around to do all their errands without having to hire house staff. While I'm 100% sure they have maids and cleaning staff, i don't think they want too many people doing jobs inside their home on a regular basis. (Drugs, alcohol, issues with children & pets, arguments etc too easy to see) And too I think they don't want to pay for extra staff. So better someone else pay for security they can then use for other things like picking up take-out food. Certainly it's been suggested they've always used security for non-security jobs.
I agree totally with your opinion that they don’t want a lot of people witnessing their home life . I remember reading about a pilot, assigned to fly them to far away engagements , who quit because most of the time he was picking up take away or getting their dry cleaning. In summary, he felt disrespected by doing menial jobs when he was a highly trained pilot.
------
I don't think so.
I don't think they ever planned on it getting that far, and thus had given no thought to what it really meant.
I think they thought they would make the big threat to leave, everyone would go, oh no they cannot leave! We'll be lost without them! They're the stars of the family!! And that would be the end of it.
They would be begged, on bended knee, to stay, on any terms they wanted.
Prince Andrew didn’t want his daughters to have their security removed…it’s a prestige thing with him and for Harry. They both see themselves as highly important. I doubt very much Harry or his family (Maggot) is in any imminent danger. 😉 The Home Office makes security decisions, not the royals themselves. 🥴
the reason she announces all of her plans is that she doesn't see a difference between her plans and the carry through. She really believes that if she wants to lunch with Michelle Obama, that is the same thing as lunching with Michelle Obama. She doesn't understand the concept of hard work. It's a type of magical thinking that if she wants something, it shows what kind of person she is because not everyone wants world peace, for example. But also, it's the kind of thinking that if you want something badly enough, the universe will provide it. Oprah is big on that. (pun intended)
I think in Andrew's case, it has also to do with a father worrying about his daughters, like most parents are wont to do.
-------
I wouldn't cook dinner on Zoom with anyone.
Meghan can be fake, is the lead of the story.
Michelle couldn't help thinking that Meghan had an agenda.
“Word out there is that Michelle has come to think Meghan is obsessed with her and Barack,” says the insider. “She's also heard rumors that Meghan keeps name dropping the Obamas,that she’s telling everyone they’re bestfriends, insome effort to further her career, which Michelle is unhappy about. It makes her feel used.”
In fact, adds the insider, “Michelle is apparently even questioning whether Meghan used the Obama name to curry favor with Netflix.”
That would be a reasonable and fair assumption, but neither of Princess Anne’s children nor The Earl of Wessex has security. Andrew is well known for his pompous attitude and when the cost of security was made public for Beatrice and Eugenie it did not go down well with the public, especially as neither had a public role and both had been photographed on numerous holidays in one year alone. 🥴
I think their exclusion from Obama's 60th party, a party where Chrissie Tiegen made the cut no less, is an accurate reflection of their social capital. I think 2022 is going to be the year they try all sorts of things and see them fail or do mediocre because let's face it. These 2 have no real talent other than trading on the royal name and we're already bored of that.
Of course, deep down H may have realised that it was his mother's getting rid of close protection that sealed her fate.
I can no longer find the article. Sorry.
------
Thus the need for a pretend soccer match to film?
Is this the article you mentioned?
Back to work! Meghan Markle and Prince Harry facing 'very busy period' as couple 'thrive'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1480854/meghan-markle-news-Duchess-of-Sussex-prince-harry-archewell-omid-scobie-royal-family
In another very similar Express article a few days before, Scooby Doo said the 6s 'are "now in the thrive chapter". Harry and Meghan, who quit royal duties for a new life in California, are reportedly preparing for a busy autumn as their parental leave comes to an end.' 'The thrive chapter'! I wonder what's in store for us when they reveal their plans for a busy autumn/bombard us with new ventures in this new
'era of visibility'. At least we've been forewarned.
After the international howlfest that met the truly excreble birthday video...Mugsy has a definition of THRIVING that is unique. It’s in the urban dictionary right next to Charlie Sheen’s WINNING!!
yes it is. Thank you very much.
Every time I read of a storm, my thoughts go to you'll and I think: I hope and pray that they come through so I can stop being worried. I have also have friends in Louisiana and family east and north of there.
I worry about tatty because it appears that (1) she and her family will be at ground zero, and (2) her husband is a doctor and may be deep in COVID patients, there will be sick people that need to evacuate, they need to get out now, and people are going to hesitate to see if they really need to go and, sadly, ain't no time for hesitation.
I spoke to a nurse at the grocery store this evening and asked her how it was going at the local hospitals (we're slammed with COVID). She'd just gotten off shift and was covered from head to toe from the hospital. She started crying and said it is terrible, just terrible. I felt so bad for her.
Beleaguer, it’s True
I know we’re all a bit fatigued
Sick of megs,
but still intrigued
Come on Nutties
don’t give in
The end is nigh
for Madam Sin
Yes, we're all suffering from Markle fatigue (wait until they soon enter their very busy period!) but I'm not so sure the end is nigh for Madam sin. It's more like a protracted,slow agonising death... Wish something be happened and they could put us out of our misery.
She didn’t think he should have walked off. ‘But nor did he, in hindsight. However, what he said about that interview being full of inconsistencies and untruths has been proved right in so many ways.’ (don't we know!)
She thinks America is finally coming round to this view. ‘You can pick up a lot from the chat in the nail salons, and my sources there tell me Harry and Meghan have lost the nail salons.’ She’s alarmed herself lately by becoming more of a royalist, like her husband. ‘The Queen’s just been so amazing recently. And to have this impudent girl [Meghan] behave in such a crass and vulgar way…’ (my emphasis) 😁
@Maneki
“protracted, slow, agonising death”
Perfect, love it!!
Part of the long game
the Queen is playing.
Unfortunately we’re caught up
with it 🥺
@Maneki
If she’s lost the love of the
nail parlour/hair salon
She’s lost the root,
and claw of US 😉
If she’s lost the love of the
nail parlour/hair salon
She’s lost the root,
and claw of US 😉
Haha! Well said. They're not as important as they think.
The Sobsie Twins
Apparently sad Jess
is still
In with megs
her mate, for shill
No surprise from less
and less
Par for the wh..es
Old Jess, and Mess
Ah Maneki
Our Queen returning to full-time work
God Bless the Queen
Where’s WildBoar?
I know the feeling, it's getting harder to find anything to say.
.......................
Having said that, I've just seen in the DM that Buckingham Palace are 'ignoring' Harry and Meghan's Oprah racism allegations in hope 'they will go away', claims new Finding Freedom chapter.
'Buckingham Palace is ignoring the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's racism allegations in the hope they 'go away', an updated biography by her friends claims.
A source told Finding Freedom the Royals 'by now should have learned that never happens' and said they were 'horrified' by the row.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry made the incendiary claim during their sit down with Oprah Winfrey earlier this year.
They said the suspect inquired into what colour skin her son Archie would have while she was pregnant with him.
The updated Finding Freedom chapter claims the Palace now think they can ignore the explosive claims and they 'will go away'.
A source claimed to authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, who are seen as being close to the couple: 'There is a feeling that if it's ignored it will go away but surely by now they should have learned that that never happens?'
The writers claimed the insider had been 'horrified' by Meghan and Harry's allegation. ...
HTTP://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9935725/Buckingham-Palace-ignoring-Harry-Meghans-Oprah-racism-allegations-Finding-Freedom-claims.html
If this is true, BP should know that this ostrich policy never works. Sweeping the problem under the carpet will only make it worse.
These allegations must be challenged otherwise the Palace looks weak and the 6s will get away with it yet again. I thought the Queen had hired lawyers to defend the BRF against the 6s' constant attacks.
I only listen to Lady C about the pair now. I stopped reading about them ages ago. 😋
There is only so much the Duo can rehash, their claims of various grievances can only do so many cycles, it’s already old when it’s been said once before. 😳
True, it's always the same cr@p. I can't even be bothered to listen to Lady C, although I do like her, or read Harry Markle. I only stumble on their stuff when reading the news.
I just wish BP or the press would deliver the coup de grâce we all want.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grand-old-duke-the-greatest-scandal-never-told-1220042.html
(Jan 2009)
It's a tale of sex & corruption which made Mary very rich - for a while- and despite her living an extravagant life in England (or rather because of it) she had to escape to France to avoid the debtor's gaol. She died in poverty.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I see parallels with TBW - fingers crossed she goes the same way - very heart-warming.
I'm afraid that the coup de grâce, when it is delivered, will be done in the privacy of the Palace, not for public consumption. The BRF believe that by punishing the wayward duo, they are splattering mud on themselves
The sensational claims made in leaks of the epilogue included:
Members of the Royal Family were 'quietly pleased' the Duchess of Sussex missed Prince Philip's funeral as they 'didn't want a circus' and feared she might 'create a spectacle';
how would the FF authora know what the RF was thinking or felt about TBW and the funeral....did they interview any of the RF?
While Harry and his brother have spoken on at least two occasions since Prince Philip's funeral, Harry and his father Charles were only on 'light speaking terms';
My guess PW may have ahd convos in reference to the Di statue and the preparations? And maybe a congrats call about the baby?
Theres no reason PC needs to speak to the Harkles.
The book alleges Palace courtiers lied to the media over Meghan and Harry's wishes on the issue of Archie not being made a prince;
So funny the FF authors buy this lie. Hasnt PH has claimed he hated being a prince and just wanted to be JH? Didnt TBW claim titles mean nothing to her in that O interview? .......or are the Harkles just Lying to the public about their real thoughts and wishes, how much easier it is to hoover up money and publicity when you have royal titles to fall back on....
It criticises the monarchy after courtiers ordered an inquiry into claims of bullying against the Duchess while the couple's racism claim did not get one;
Hmm..in the metoo anti bullying woke era, this seems very unwoke to me. All claims and "truths" from everyone must be taken as fact! And investigated!
The book claims Harry was left 'deeply saddened' after he was refused permission to have a wreath laid in his name on Remembrance Sunday last year;
Why should he expect to have a wreath laid then and there? Hes no longer a working RF member....hes JH....another UK citizen that wants to send flowers to a cemetary.
The authors offer a new take on Harry's financial situation in the run-up to 'Megxit', saying the couple 'wouldn't have survived' without his inheritance from Diana;
I do believe they blew threw the inheritance and thats why theyve been whining to the RF/PC about money and attempting to blackmail them. And have sold them out for any penney they can get. TBW expected to be supported in the lifestyle TBW wanted without doing any work.
The epilogue also claims Meghan had no idea diamond earrings given to her as a wedding present were from Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi prince accused of ordering the murder of a journalist.
I find that hard to believe... wouldnt she have hand calligraphed her thank you notes for the wedding gifts? Wouldnt she have remebered very expensive diamond earrings from another prince? Doesnt she have that prince on her short list for a new sucker when JHs money runs out? Hahahaha
Agree, we won’t see it…it will be silent and subtle, but the death knell none the less. 😋No public spectacle.
Announcing that they will become "more visible" is an indication to me that the Negs are circling the drain. No one has to announce that they will become more visible unless they've been deliberately in seclusion, which the Negs have not been. They've put out a tremendous amount of PR, and if that hasn't made them more visible, nothing will.
I think those two fight constantly, and are at each other's throats. There is no peace in that household.
You're probably right about the coup de grâce delivered behind closed doors but I think we'll find out eventually because the 6s will be smarting from their treatment and will enter a new era of invisibility - hopefully forever. It would be a delicious moment of schadenfreude to be able to read about the juicy details, though.
Oh they’ll be smarting and seething I’m sure….we have to hope they are left completely windless. 😂
Schadenfreude, it’s such a delicious word…it’s right up there with serendipity as my favourite words. 😀
I think Harry will be disowned. I think whatever privileges are afforded to him from the British government will stop. I think the IRS and British Inland Revenue will start hounding him. I think his life will be hell on Earth especially with Meghan at home and unhappy.
William and Kate are 'seriously considering a move to Windsor' to be closer to the Queen as they prepare for a senior role at the heart of The Firm
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9936207/William-Kate-seriously-considering-Windsor-closer-Queen.html#comments
------
But, but,.....I *want* a public spectacle.
Not just that it signals his moving into a more elevated position about the future but that the little kids can visit their great grandmother. I can imagine them running the halls of Windsor (ok, walking fast), tea/talking about life and maybe even some dinner with them. Comforting image about how life keeps on even when you are grieving for someone who passed.
And, that you would be knowing it will be in good hands.
For the kids, getting a closer look at their wonderful great grandmother as a living legacy as a real person.
What is it that William said once about the BRF seeming calm and collected but underneath, it was like a duck's legs paddling underwater.
It must be lonely for The Queen since Prince Philip's passing. No doubt they were not staying at the same home most of the time since his retirement but he was always available a phone call away. Now, even that is gone. I would love it if she has the company of her great grandchildren - little ones always brings so much joy to the elderly. Their innocence and playfulness are such a joy to witness. Furthermore, Wills and Kate can be her confidant and at the same time, there is so much to learn from her. The clock is ticking.
Please, please let this be true.
Oh I’m rather hoping he’s already been completely cut loose and disowned. 😳I’m pretty sure he isn’t getting any perks from Blighty now. As for the tax man….not sure, but I’m certain there’s a lot of noisy and heated arguments between Harry and Maggot, I don’t envisage a calm and harmonious home life at all. 🤨
I was listening to the latest Lady C video yesterday, and she said if Harry came back (if he and Maggot split), most people would give him a second chance. I don’t agree with that at all….he’s burnt too many bridges, his family will never trust him again and neither will the majority of the British public. 😖
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/28/behind-glitz-of-sussexes-lies-simple-truth-aristocracy-dead
Behind the glitz of the Sussexes lies a simple truth: our aristocracy is dead
Nick Cohen
Sat, 28 August 2021, 7:00 pm
Part 1
The Queen will be dead soon and with her will pass the last significant remnant of British feudalism. The future belongs to her grandson and his wife, who have judged the modern world with calculating eyes and placed the ultra-capitalist entertainment industry above old royal privilege.
They cannot stop emoting. If they did, it’s not just that they would lose money as surely as a supermarket chain would lose if it closed its stores for a summer holiday. They would lose relevance. And as status is so intertwined with the business of making money in celebrity culture that you cannot separate the two, the loss would cut deeper.
If Prince Charles, allegedly barely on speaking terms with his son, and the brother who will be king one day hope they will stop damning the monarchy for sexism, racism and other unproved sins in the interests of protecting the family, they do not understand modern capitalism’s need to keep the content production line rolling.
Last week, the Mail revealed that a semi-official biography with enough plausible deniability to cover the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s backs will be churning out fresh material. (I won’t call them “Harry and Meghan” because celebrity culture’s pretence that we are on first-name terms with the famous is the first of its many deceits.) We learned that they cannot name the royal who allegedly worried the duchess’s baby would be too black and that other royals – unnamed again – were “quietly pleased” that the duchess missed Prince Philip’s funeral because they feared she would “create a spectacle”.
The market demands that they expose themselves and their family and the market is all they have now. What would happen if they stopped? Meghan Markle could go back to acting, but Harry Windsor would have nothing to do.
Liberals can admire the opposition to racism and sexism and enjoy the admittedly unexpected spectacle of a former royal endorsing vaguely leftish causes. I hope alert readers have noticed that their commitments tend towards the self-centred and the flippant. Earlier this month, the duchess and assorted progressive celebrities launched the 40x40 intiativeto help women return to the workplace after Covid by giving them 40 minutes of mentoring. You read that right. Forty whole minutes. Why 40 instead of 50? Because it was the duchess’s 40th birthday and we were meant to notice that. And why mentoring instead of campaigning to provide state-funded childcare for working women by raising the tax take from assorted progressive celebrities? The question answers itself.
(Continued...)
Conservatives hate the Sussexes’ wokeness and the knowledge that most of their values will win in the end as their voters and readers die off. There’s undoubtedly an element of racism at play in their anger but, trust me, the Tory press would have gone for her if she was white, as they went for Princess Diana, Sarah Ferguson and are going for Prince Andrew. You can decry them all you want and you would be right. But both large and small “c” conservatives are right to notice that their abandonment of royal duties shows that old certainties are almost gone.
‘All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said of capitalism’s destructive power in The Communist Manifesto. “All that is solid melts into air.”
The Sussexes have followed the prophecies of Marx and Engels by concluding that the traditional aristocracy is finished. The nobility does not set style or taste, as it did well into the 20th century. The last significant aristocratic politician was Lord Carrington, who resigned as foreign secretary in 1982. (He took responsibility for the failures of his department, which can almost make you nostalgic for his kind.) You might count David Cameron, as he was descended from some mistress of William IV, but he was no more a serious aristocrat than he was a serious politician. If you doubt me, ask how many British people can name a duke or an earl, apart from Earl Spencer, who is only famous because of his sister.
The power of inherited wealth is stronger than it has been in a century and the explosion in inequality that Covid has accelerated will make it more powerful still. Yet in terms of the status the Sussexes seek, the old aristocracy of birth counts for next to nothing – even the Daily Mail’s gossip columns barely bother with it. The monarchy is all that is left.
Supposedly wised-up commentators who say “the monarchy is a part of celebrity culture” miss the point. As the duchess acutely noted: “I grew up in LA, you see celebrities all the time… This is a completely different ball game.” Indeed it is. At some level, even the most privileged celebrities earn their fame. If the market does not value them, they cease to be celebrated. In contrast, a royal born into the House of Windsor is a royal whatever their talents, or lack of them.
The death of aristocratic power helps explain the affection for Queen Elizabeth II – even republicans find it hard to condemn her. People like that she never asked to be head of state but does the job anyway. They do not care that, if truth be told, she is not a noticeably good head of state. If she were, she would not have agreed to Boris Johnson’s unlawful suspension of parliament in 2019, and insisted instead that he play by the rules.
Her failings do not matter, because in this age when money bestows power, the last hold-out of old aristocratic entitlement is unthreatening in comparison.
Marx said that when capitalism had torn up the ties of religion and feudalism, and all that was solid had melted into air, man would at last be “compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life”.
The Sussexes present a real threat to the monarchy because they have seen its irrelevance, as many more will once the Queen dies. They have soberly concluded that whatever privileges it brings are as nothing compared with the money and status that belongs to the real aristocracy of the celebrity industry they are so determined to join.
End
Depressing but a good analysis of their behaviour?
Depressing, certainly, and also biased (but it was in the Guardian).
I used regularly to read the Grauniad in the mid -70s when it presented a reasonable viewpoint which perhaps gently challenged my way of thinking but since at least the late '90s it's been downright bigoted. I used to sneak a look at all the `heavies' when I worked in an FE library and it was apparent that the G stood out as it was totally metropolitan with no regard for anyone who lived outside the big cities, especially if they valued the countryside.
The only consolation is that this article won't convert anyone to their viewpoint as all the readers I know have already made up their minds.
I can’t even waste my time reading their nonsense. 😵💫
The Guardian does not have a massive readership as does the Daily Mail. It is also firmly anti-monarchy, even if it results in embracing celebrity culture. Celebrities provide shallow entertainment and live a life of blatant shallow consumerism, which makes the criticisms of the monarchy laughable.
Of course, there are entertainers who genuinely do have exceptional talent (acting, song writing, movie making ...). There are others with mediocre talent, but they will put in the time (endless interviews to sell a movie, uncomfortable hours on a movie set for a few minutes of the latest superheroe movie ...). The Harkles do not fit into either group.
I’m not sure this is really a problem? isnt that the way many charity donations work? there are “bundlers” who raise money by throwing parties and the rich or people attend and depending on the ticket they buy, they get to hear someone speak or get a picture and a good table. and the “bundlers” get a cut. the politicians, super pacs, many charitiies etc operate that way. some chairities have televised fund drives, with celebs paid or expenses aid to participate, and there are many expenses invloved that take a cut of the donations.
the head / face/ or figurehead of the chairty (PC) has to get out there to publize & fund raise for the charity.
also just because he’s a member of the WBRF, he cant fundraise for his own charity? he‘s a patron for a bunch of charities that are able to fundraise off him because he’s associated with them and brings them press.
Recollections may vary = they are lying!
My wish ... that staff have emails, text messages and voice mails that show up the lies (watch the Harkkes spin!) and they release the evidence and dismantle each lie, one by one.
Not very charitable of me!
Not sure if the link takes you to the correct post ...
Someone on LSA posted an article from the Telegraph that is a scathing critique of TBW and her beige decor!
I actually read the Guardian article as a lament for the passing of 'the old ways,' or 'centuries old tradition.' To me, it was not unlike recent articles in the Telegraph bemoaning Britain's loss of international prestige. I don't know much about the writer, but a lot of republicans & anti-monarchists are secret snobs & pro royalists. He certainly doesn't seem fond of celebrity culture, the #6s, or people who are famous for being famous. He obviously has more affection for the Queen than the Kardashian-like #6s. He even seems to wish she had exercised more authority in dealing with BoJo's proroguing of Parliament. I don't know enough about British law to know if that was actually within her power. I've always assumed she had to go along with whatever the government in power does. He sounds like a grumpy older man, who's fed up with all parties. I often have a similar attitude to things in the USA.
The Guardian has become so one-sided that they don't even allow comments on most articles now. I used to mouth off there now & again. I was amused when they didn't allow me to post a comment about pop music which described Beyonce as 'zaftig.' I don't know what she is, be she's no diaphanous sylph.
hahahahaha
but they may love it since we know they are potheads.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3560250/meghan-markle-prince-harry-neighbours-complain-stink-cannabis-farm/
I stopped reading the Guardian a few years ago during the Ukrainian crisis when the entire world was worrying about a possible World War between Russia and the West over Ukraine. The Guardian reporter wrote a story that he saw Russian tanks crossing the border into Ukraine through a whole in the fence. He had no photos or any other witnesses to support his claim. It turns out it wasn't true. He seemed to be trying to rally people to a war supporting side. The Guardian printed this story despite the fact that it went against a lot of journalistic standards - no supporting evidence, primarily. Can you imagine? They were trying to start a major war!
Our concept of the British Constitutional developed in order to limit Royal power following the Great Rebellion (as it was then known) in the 1640s which culminated in the execution of the anointed king for the `treason' of waging war upon his subjects, as Parliament put it. That was followed by almost 12 years of military dictatorship (Jan 30th 1649 - 29th May 1649), under the forces of Parliament, which we disliked as much as we had the previous regime.
Charles II then had the task of exercising his rule without re-creating the pre-war situation - he clearly envied the autocratic rule of the French king but was cunning enough not to be caught out. (He aimed to build a new palace in Winchester along the model of Versailles - a base from which he could perhaps slip unobtrusively across to France...)
His brother James succeeded him but was much more obvious in his quest to be an autocrat, unhindered by the law or his ministers/advisers - hence he was replaced by his son-in law, Dutch William, who reigned as jointly with his wife Mary, daughter of James (who was 1st in line, if one ignores the warming-pan baby, James Francis Edward.
The story of how Wm arrived usually makes it seem that he stepped ashore in Brixham as nonchalantly as if he'd just been for a trip around the bay aboard the Skylark. Far from it. He brought a mighty invasion force with him because his main aim was to use us in his wars against the King of France.
Following the death of Anne, the final Stuart monarch, our first German king, George I, spent so much time in Germany that we were run by an inner group of elected MPs which came to be known as the Cabinet.
That roughly is where we are today - we don't like absolute power in the hands of either Monarch or the politicians but are prepared to accept a bit of each. We have our say in the politicians at each General Election - and the Monarch reigns (not rules) with the consent of the people (best ignore the absurdity of the current situation with the House of Lords - at least with the old hereditary system it was `one out, one in').
As Head of State, the Monarch represents the nation and acts as a figurehead and, most important, focus of loyalty for the Armed Forces to ensure that it'd be v. difficult for Parliament or other body to instigate a military coup.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle risk becoming 'bit players' like Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson and could 'fade into obscurity' over the next decade, claims royal filmmaker
Expert Nick Bullen drew parallels between Prince Harry and great-great uncle
Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 to marry the American divorcee Walls Simpson
The pair moved to France after he forsook the throne, Edward penned a memoir
Duke of Sussex is set to pen a bombshell memoir in 2022, following tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2020
Bullen questioned whether pair would be in high demand 10 years from now
By CLAIRE TOUREILLE FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 05:59 EDT, 29 August 2021 | UPDATED: 07:01 EDT, 29 August 2021
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9937263/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-risk-fate-Edward-VIII-Wallis-Simpson-film-maker-claims.html
The Guardian does not have a massive readership as does the Daily Mail.
-----------------
Actually, the Guardian's daily circulation (printed paper) is 132,000 and the DM's 1.2M. the Guardian has 1M+ subscribers and the DM 2M readers online. As you said the Guardian is firmly anti-monarchy.
I too hope there is a lot of concrete evidence held waiting by the BRF and staff. However -- if there were video available (or second best, audio) that would really seal their fate. An image tells a 1000 words....and a video would shatter any illusion of them completely.
I actually like Nana Akua, she says it as it is.
‘Back again’ moans GB News host as she rips into Meghan and Harry over royal racism row
GB NEWS host Nana Akua ripped into Prince Harry and Meghan Markle during her show on Saturday, as she discussed claims the couple had considered naming the member of the Royal Family who allegedly made a comment about the Duchess when she was pregnant with Archie.
During the couple’s tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey which aired on ITV in March, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed a senior member of the Royal Family made a comment about the skin colour of their first child, Archie. It was later claimed that in an unauthorised biography called Finding Freedom that Meghan and Harry had considered naming the person who allegedly made the remark in the Oprah interview.
During Nana Akua’s segment on Saturday’s GB News, the presenter began by taking a swipe at the Duke and Duchess, by stating “they’re back again”.
She went on to mention the reports that the couple were allegedly snubbed by the Obamas.
“So, on a lighter note and God knows we need it,” the host said to viewers.
“This happy couple has popped their heads above the parapet again.”
She continued: “I mean I never thought I’d be happy to see these two lighten the news. At least we can laugh at them.”
“I mean they are back after a snub from the Obamas as in no invite to Barack’s 60th.”
Nana went on to speak about her own experience with racism, as she spoke about her son, who she named Ivory.
She explained: “Now, my son is called Ivory. He’s mixed raced and we were all joking and laughing saying ‘What if he comes out really dark?’”
“Get it? Ivory! That in no way makes me and my friends racist,” she joked.
“I even went as far as to say, ‘Which one will be darker than the other?’ because I’ve got two (children).
“I don’t mean to be rude Meghan, but I doubt very much that you have received anything like the levels of racism I have faced.
“I am considerably darker than you. And I was born in the 70s, when the black and white Minstrels were acceptable,” the host added.
She concluded: “In an interview, your father said you didn’t face this at all, you had a very middle-class education.
“Turns out, you weren’t even there to hear the comment.
“Now you have married someone who dressed up as a N*zi to attend a party.”
In the past, Nana has been very vocal about her views on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The original article you posted from The Guardian, it seems the author Nick Cohen (who also writes for The Spectator) doesn’t know which side of the argument he truly stands on, but overall he seems to prefer or has more respect for the Queen. The 11th Duke of Devonshire said (many years before his death) that the aristocracy was dead….meaning its grasp and hold on power etc was gone and they were the celebrities of their day and etc. , which had now passed. Old money as American’s call it, still stands out and have a place up against the new so called celebrities of today in Britain, these are the type our Duo aspire to be like…as per Nick’s piece. I can’t say I completely disagree with some of his points…but for the most part I do. 🤔
Had to go through emails,
can’t access Nutty otherwise?
@Puds
Thank you 😘
@Raspberry
Money talks, wealth whispers…
No Coat and no Knickers
With her lack of apparel
Haz was scraping the barrel
We might have turned a blind eye
But her utter contempt
For all, non exempt
Led to her downfall
Plus her penchant to lie
Saw this on Yahoo this morning. Team Cambridge/BP has potentially released a salvo guaranteed to make the Mad Montecito Much-ess froth at the mouth. A spokesman for the Cambridges refused to comment, calling it 'speculation', but a non-denial denial can be also read as 'potentially true'.
Now that the Queen has chosen to spend the twilight years of her reign based primarily at Windsor Castle rather than Buckingham Palace, this article proposes that the Cambridges are considering a move from Kensington Palace to Windsor to better support the Queen as William's seniority and role continue to increase. I'm sure they would retain the KP apartment and the Sandringham estate, but they are looking for a Windsor base, with *FROGMORE HOUSE* as one potential address.
Whether or not this is true, is there anything more likely to wind up a certain faux Duchess in California? Frogmore House was, after all, where she assumed she would be moving into, only to be given the "staff quarters" instead.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/duke-duchess-cambridge-said-considering-152014773.html
Yes, indeed, I hope it's true. Frogmore House is such a beautiful property, it should be used more than the occasional Royal wedding reception and annual garden days. Kensington to Windsor is not terribly far but it would be more convenient as a working base for William when he needs to meet with the Queen. With the Jubilee coming up next year and the longer-term transition matters to discuss, William will be seeing his grandmother a lot more than formerly. Hard to fathom, but George will most likely be off to Eton in 5 years, and I'm sure William would like his children to get to see their Great-Granny as much as possible while they still have her.
An additional benefit, though by no means the most important one, it will really grind Goad and Toad's gears.
'A royal commentator has claimed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘won’t get over’ reportedly being snubbed by Barack Obama.
...
Now, during his TalkRADIO programme, host Mike Graham suggested that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be feeling hurt by their omission from the invite list.
He claimed: “But of course we know that they don’t really have any friends, and the only friends they do have - or who they count as friends - are all the people that got invited to Barack Obama’s 60th birthday party, but they didn’t.”
Royal biographer Angela Levin agreed. She suggested, “no that’s right, I’m sure they haven’t got over that, and won’t for many years.”'
More in the Star https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/harry-meghan-wont-over-barack-24866710
And now the Cambridges might move to Windsor, which TBW coveted. After what's been happening in the news lately, I don't think anyone is going to feel sorry for them.
I’d say pretty much so, but personally I’ve been feeling that for a while🥺 I find other things and subjects far more riveting. 😎
I think Magatha’s poem up thread said it all. 😉
Does anyone else, apart from me, think that the Cambridges might not relish the idea of Harry possibly fetching up* on their doorstep at Frogmore, or is the probability of him coming back regarded as remote to the point of being non-existent?
On the question of burn-out, there's little to speculate about at the moment, although Welby is due back soon and the Iwerne Camps scandal doesn't go away. I do hope this doesn't mean we're relying on the Harkles as our `fuel'/`source of supply', as HG Tudor would say!
*or worse, throwing up?
For me, I am kind of bored with the 6s childish, petty games. They are so predictable.
I did not think they would make such a mess of things, and thought that it was possible for Meghan to earn a fortune as 'face of' top tier perfume/make up companies or a fashion house (quite a few Hollywood stars do this) ... perhaps platforming a pet cause of hers in whatever glossy campaign, billboards and all. (Maybe even guest starring in some movies or TV shows?) Harry, I thought would continue working with his conservation organizations in Africa, Invictus (making more connections with America as he did with the Walking With The Wounded campaigns), and Sentabala, fund raising and raising awareness. Basing themselves in Toronto would have made more sense (Commonwealth) and cost less. Even an apartment in New York would have made more sense.
It is astonishing how two people can mess up such privilege and opportunity so badly! Even the documentary with Oprah about veterans and mental health became a word salad of whinging that was quite astonishing. As for the mansion in Montecito, the Zoom calls (featuring Meghan in yet another designer outfit and more itty bitty jewellery), and the deals they have actually made (venturing into areas where they have no skills or talent) ... what a mess!
Tomorrow is anniversary of Diana's death = unexpected pap walk with lilabucks$ going into a church to pray. But H I didnt call them they just followed me
I dare her to do it. She may now be scrambling around for a doll of the appropriate size, since 'Lili' is only 2 months old. 'Archie's' Reborn is too small, but 'Dead Frog' Archie is too big. 'Inert Polo Baby' would be approximately the same age. I really, really hope she tries it. More proof of her insanity.
Maybe a pap walk, but I doubt about the church. She is afraid of being hit by lightning.
I agree, I did not think that they would make such a mess of it and squander the opportunities given to them. Smart people make the most of their strengths and follow through on lucrative opportunities.
@Hikari
A pap walk would be interesting to see.
Hmm what constitutes special? smacked upside the head?
What do you think the royal family could and should do about all the lies Scobie has published in his book?
I also hope she tries the pap walk with whatever doll she decides to strap to herself!
Remember that pap walk in Canada with Archie hanging askew from her and that smile while looking directly at the camera?
A commenter on the DM said that you really can't make this stuff up except they have.
To me, if their behavior shows love and respect, doubt I would want to see what dislike or hatred toward her looks like.
Besides, who is it who came up something about how service is universal?
Mugsy’s spent plenty of time on her knees but it sure wasn’t in prayer. She displayed her heathenish contempt for houses of worship every time she’s been in one and I include the mosque in South Africa. She’s got no real soul—just acts for pictures.
Wonder if Meggy ever encountered the story of Ahab and Jezebel in Sunday School when she was pretending to be Catholic. Or at temple when she was pretending to be Jewish. Read it—a conniving and evil loose woman who turned the mind and heart of a king and mocked Gid and killed His prophets. She rode high for a while...and her eventual downfall was literal and horrific.
"An updated epilogue for the biography - written by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand and due to be released on August 31, the 24th anniversary of Princess Diana's death – reports that the Duke of Sussex got to 'spend precious moments' with his grandmother following the funeral of Prince Philip in April.
The Duke of Sussex travelled to London from his £11million mansion in Santa Barbara, California, without his wife Meghan Markle, who was advised not to fly due to being heavily pregnant with daughter Lilibet at the time.
While the book claims Prince Harry spent most of his time after the funeral with his cousin Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack Brooksbank at Frogmore Cottage - where he is believed to have stayed while in the UK - he also reportedly spent a few 'precious moments' with the monarch after being separated for more than a year amidst the pandemic.
'To see each other after so long apart, the longest he hadn't seen the Queen for, was very special,' a source told authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn"
Reading that qnd knowing how Scobie and TBWs team twists words around to the Harkles benefit, I translate as
" JH sat in the same side of the church pews at PP service and could see her at the end of the pew"
no mention in Scobie's little fairy tale that the Queen had lost Her life's partner and that She was in mourning. He just made it about Harry, like any good narc would.
(Excessive) Pride goes before a fall.
Ha! That's a good one! I am surprised she survived Catholic High School what with their mandatory attendance at Mass (usually every day in my school days). Guess dear ole dad Thomas must have wrote her an excuse to save her. I am still mnystified how nothing good stuck with her from what should have been an excellent education, at least from the standpoint of instilling compassion, charity, empathy for the downtrodden, etc...
From The Telegraph
Monaco royals under pressure to reveal whether marriage is 'on the rocks'
Princess Charlene has not been seen in Monaco since March and has been advised by doctors not to fly due to a serious ear 'infection'
Prince Albert of Monaco is facing growing calls to come clean over whether his marriage to Princess Charlene is on the rocks after she failed to return to the tiny principality to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary.
Princess Charlene, 43, has not returned to Monaco since March after leaving for her native South Africa on a conservation trip.
Her departure came shortly after reports that Albert, 63, was facing a paternity suit over an alleged love child born in the early years of their relationship. Albert already supports two illegitimate children.
The couple, who share six-year-old twins Princess Gabriella and Prince Jacques, were set to celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary on July 1, but Princess Charlene failed to return.
According to palace officials, the only reason she was staying away was because doctors had advised the former Olympic swimmer for South Africa “not to travel to Monaco” due to complications from a "serious" ear, nose and throat infection. Earlier this month, Prince Albert said she had undergone an operation and was "resting".
Seeking to quash rumours of an impending split, Prince Albert flew out to South Africa and the pair posted Instagram pictures on August 25.
However, Madame Figaro, the respected conservative women’s weekly, said their "strained embrace", in which Princess Charlene looks drawn, "failed to convince the Monegasques" amid reports she is looking for a house in Johannesburg.
The magazine called for the growing "malaise" over her absence to be cleared up.
"How long can she remain away from her children, her duties?," asked the magazine. "How long will the fight against rhinoceros poaching remain the Princess of Monaco's top priority? How long will Albert II of Monaco go on bearing this affront, which is becoming ridiculous?"
One "well-placed source" told the magazine Voici back in June: "Everyone has started thinking she won't come back."
Last month, France's best-connected royal pundit and Macron's heritage tsar, Stephane Berne, wrote an article for Paris Match headlined: "Albert and Charlene on the verge of splitting up?"
The royal couple met in 2000 at a Monaco aquatic competition and married at a star-studded ceremony in July 2011.
However, questions over their relationship swiftly surfaced following reports she had bolted two days before her royal nuptials.
It was alleged she tried to flee home to South Africa three times one point taking refuge inside her country's embassy in Paris. Her tears and mournful demeanour at the ceremony did nothing to assuage the rumours.
"Lots of people go the impression it was an arranged marriage, it’s true," said Philippe Delorme, historian and author of The Finest Hours of the Grimaldis and Monaco.
"Albert chose a wife who resembled his mother, and Charlene clearly felt very ill at ease in this Grace Kelly role they wanted her to play," Mr Delorme told Madame Figaro.
Princess Grace died in a car crash in 1982.
"As Karl Marx put it: History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce," he said.
You've reminded me of doing the Scripture Union exam a couple of times when I was 9 or 10 - Elijah & Elisha featured prominently. I wonder if those exams still go on?
It's always struck me as odd that Jezebel's fate was so often regarded as punishment for wearing make-up by the moralists of my youth - after all, wouldn't any 20thC woman have `put her face on' if she had time to prepare for a difficult encounter?
Her sins were far, far, worse than using a bit of slap.
As for TBW, it won't be the cosmetic surgery she'll be remembered for - in the past, she could have been tried, found guilty and punished for of all 3 types of libel as then defined:
Blasphemous libel (posing as BVM and as Saviour of the World);
Seditious libel (attempting to overthrow the monarchy/British Constitution); and
Criminal libel (slandering and libelling her in-laws - NB `Slander is Spoken, Libel is Literary').
Nowadays the b*tch and her sidekick get away with it. Retribution is coming with glacial slowness, alas.
They lash out and do tremendous harm to others.
They never apologize, acknowledge that they caused harm or make amends.
They are all about control and domination, even if it makes no sense. So, they will give instructions that must be obeyed even if it makes no sense and especially if it ignores and denies the basic human rights of others.
They love money, even if they say otherwise. They buy a lot of stuff but don't invest in quality and timeless style so they end up wasting a lot of money.
They will bully others into silence if another has a different point of view, so they are actually very close minded, but insist that they are the smartest person in the room.
They do suffer, not alqays consequences, but because they live with a miserable mindset that deprives them of genuine love, interesting conversations, and so on.
They often start projects and then abandon them.
They always blame others for everything.
Just putting some thoughts down ... I watched a video on gaslighting (evaluating a Disney character in a Rapunzel kovie against a list of 11 criteria) and gosh, Meghan ticks all the boxes! Gaslighting is a typical mode of behaviour for narcs? I suppose it is confusing because I would instinctively associate gaslighting with a psychopath.
@WBBM
Will there be retribution? In my opinion, their wealth and the values of a very influential entitled elite provides them with a lot of protection. However, I do think that bullying staff and the messiness in how they run their affairs could result in being sued or even a criminal trial.
My hopes ...
Proof emerges from the ANL appeal (of everything ... expose it all, yet again).
Bower unearths verifiable dirt on TBW.
They get sued by a lot of people.
The IRS investigates them and drags them into court.
Harry does a tell-all interview with Piers Morgan where he spills all!
Very nasty and more than a little bit insane on my part!
I live in a part of the world where we do not have hurricanes. Looking at the press coverage of Hurricane Ida is quite an eye opener! To all those affected, I hope all is well with you.
"Some of my experience of narcs (not NPD as I am still on the fence as to if someone can be classified with NPD if they have functional lives, but perhaps I am not taking into account harm done) ..." (Bold emphasis added by me)
While DSM does require tbe clinician to assess whether the PD symptoms interfere with occupational and/or interpersonal functioning, here's the way I look at the question of functionality:
It depends on the yardstick you use to assess functionality. IMO, it is necessary to use an individual yardstick, not a universal one.
Imagine instead of assessing occupational functioning, we were assessing an athlete's ability to function, say, a gymnast. This person does well in competitions and appears very talented. Articles are written about her talent and her drive to succeed. Twice she reaches "the nationals" (I don't know exactly what sort of pinnacle exists in gymnastics, but I'm talking top of the heap.) But at the national competitions, she fails. Comes in 5th & 6th. And it's obvious she failed because she crumbled under her own too high, too rigid expectations. In other words, two psychological fails. Clearly if we use a "universal" yardstick and compare her to the general population, this person is functioning at a very high level. She's won tons of competitions and reached national competitions twice. But using an individual yardstick, her functionality is impaired by her "issues."
Same with H&M. Yes, in some ways they have functional lives. (Universal yardstick) But how often have people here pointed out that they are failing faster and more spectacularly than expected? (Individual yardstick)
Very interesting reply from you.
I suppose that is what makes it tricky ... that a measuring stick must be personalised because, as you say, what is functional or even high achieving for one person is not the same as for another.
I think the Harkles would regard themselves as highly functional and high achievers, but when you look at them from the personalised perspective, as I keep saying, they have made a mess of so much.
Meghan could have been a good actress, playing a variety of roles, if she applied herself instead of living off and platforming off men. She likes showing off! (I struggle to think of any talents she actually has that would have been worthwhile developing!)
Harry could have remained a beloved prince in his family and country and used that to achieve tremendous things for veterans and conservation, plus proudly been an ambassador for the values, principles and achievements of the monarchy and the UK. The achievements of his grandfather and father could have been inspiration for him. He had the reputation, the support, the right people to guide him, the means and the many opportunities, but instead he let Meghan drag him down into the mess with her.
She was trying to get friends to tell Lady Colin Campbell that her father had sexually abused her, so it's worse than we think.
@Swamp Woman,
She doesn't just define people by their positions - she also defines people by their looks and their wealth. For someone who was born without many attractive features, that is kind of ironic of her.
Yes, I think you are right when you wrote "I suppose that is what makes it tricky ... that a measuring stick must be personalised because, as you say, what is functional or even high achieving for one person is not the same as for another."
It is necessary to look at the size of any gap between functioning and realistic potential. Someone with a very high potential for occupational success in a given field who repeatedly self-sabotages because she's a perfectionist may still be functioning/achieving at a "normal" occupational level. But there IS an impairment. It may or may not rise to the level of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder but it's there. And there's a sizeable gap between achievement and potential. That trait likely also causes the person to feel distress.
Thanks for the giggle regarding incompetence, unattractiveness and the ability to be in charge finding its level in politics. Funny and true.🤣😂
https://www.etonline.com/finding-freedom-new-epilogue-says-staffers-rescinded-bullying-claims-against-meghan-markle-171230
No, the investigation is continuing but the report has been delayed.
I still think the Queen wants it to go away rather than let the truth come out about the pair. It looks bad if staff were bullied, reported it, and nothing was done even though the Palace has a dignity at work policy. Besides, nothing can be done ... the Harkles and their staff have gone. Principles cannot be fired or disciplined other than by the Queen and she does not have a track record of doing so. It is the very situation that will turn a narc completely toxic and I think that is what happened.
IMO the Queen will only let the truth out and take some kind of action/any kind of action if the Cambridges and Cornwalls are threatened by sweeping the whole Harkle debacle under the carpet but I may be wrong about that.
However you look at it, it is ugly and damaging.
No matter how you spin it, it looks bad that so many staff left so soon. But this is incorrect information being spread by the Harkles. Staff would have given their evidence way before now and who or what would get each and every one to rescind their evidence?
I think the delay is because of the nature of the monarchy. If royals are investigated/disciplined every time someone complains, the whole concept of monarchy unravels. Ultimately the Harkles are not important in the investigation. Questioning the nature of monarchy and working royals is.
http://disq.us/p/2j8ix5c
do you really think that the 6's wipe their bottoms with baby pandas?
How did I guess it was in the Sunday Sport?
Next week's headline: `MM is an Alien from the Planet Boke.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bId-LYmh5_o
I like the fact that he calls her "the ex-actress, Meghan Markle" all the time
I haven't got time to read it now but saw two comments:
robbb, London, United Kingdom, about a minute ago
'Finding Freedom' as thousands flee for their lives in Afghanistan, the irony will be completely lost on these two
Mike_Oxlong, London, United Kingdom, about a minute ago
Never in the field of human literature has so much bo ll ox been told by so few to so many
🤣 Love the latter comment.
`Heart of England'? Sean may be in London, as it says, but that backdrop is in Yorkshire. I don't recognise the building - Magatha, any ideas? As far as I recall, all the TV progs he mentions are in different parts of what Yorkshire folk call `God's own country' - near Scarborough perhaps (Heartbeat), Hebden Bridge (Last of TSW), or the Dales (All Creatures...), for example.
By our standards, Yorkshire's a big place.
Perhaps time to take a deep dive into the murky world of the Sussexes? I do hope the media do due diligence instead of doing little research and grabbing onto a sound bite for headlines.
PIERS MORGAN has won his complaint battle with Meghan Markle and Ofcom over comments he made about the Duchess of Sussex before abruptly walking off the set of ITV's Good Morning Britain before he quit the show.
@Maneki
“So much bollox been told by so few to
so many” hahahaha!
@WildBoar
Not sure, Otley?
I’m confused, Sean Neil
or Neil Sean?
Seems to go by both!!
He’s from Mirfield.
I’d prefer a ‘~ cure to a ‘~ dural 😉
Here is Piers Morgan's response to the report from Ofcom. In his article he reminds us of just how many lies she did tell in that interview!
Thanks @D1@Sandie
Piers Morgan victory
Refound Freedom of Speech
As the whiny, fork tongued actress
Complained, from her well worn mattress
Piers walked from his gig
Said, I don’t give a fig
Proved his point
she’s a liar, and fatuous
Part 1:
ITV has been cleared by media regulator Ofcom, which has rejected a record 58,000 complaints about Piers Morgan's criticism of the Duchess of Sussex.
The ex-Good Morning Britain host said he didn't believe what Meghan said in her Oprah Winfrey interview in March.
The duchess herself filed complaints with the regulator and ITV.
Ofcom said restricting his views would be a "chilling restriction" on free expression but criticised his "apparent disregard" for the subject of suicide.
Morgan said he was "delighted" with the ruling, which he described as "a resounding victory for free speech and a resounding defeat for Princess Pinocchios".
Ofcom said its decision was "finely balanced", but that ITV had "provided adequate protection to viewers from potentially harmful and highly offensive statements about mental health and suicide".
The 57,793 complaints - the highest in Ofcom's 18-year history - related to Good Morning Britain on 8 and 9 March, the mornings before and after the Oprah interview with Meghan and Harry was broadcast in the UK.
In the in-depth interview, the duchess revealed her mental health became so bad she "didn't want to be alive any more", that she did not receive the help she asked for from Buckingham Palace, and that an unnamed member of the Royal Family had queried "how dark" their son Archie's skin might be.
The following day, Morgan said he did not "believe a word she said", that he "wouldn't believe it if she read me a weather report", and "the fact that she's fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible".
He briefly walked off the programme after clashing with weather presenter Alex Beresford, and was later criticised by mental health charity Mind.
media captionThe BBC's entertainment correspondent Colin Paterson gives the lowdown on Piers Morgan's departure from GMB
His departure from the show after six often confrontational and controversial years was announced that evening.
Morgan later conceded that it was "not for me to question if she felt suicidal", but has defended his "right to be allowed to have an opinion".
He has continued to refer to her as "Princess Pinocchio" and was recently nominated for the National Television Award for best TV presenter.
'Unwarranted restriction'
Ofcom said: "Consistent with freedom of expression, Mr Morgan was entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's allegations and to hold and express strong views that rigorously challenged their account.
"The [Ofcom broadcasting] code allows for individuals to express strongly held and robustly argued views, including those that are potentially harmful or highly offensive, and for broadcasters to include these in their programming.
"The restriction of such views would, in our view, be an unwarranted and chilling restriction on freedom of expression both of the broadcaster and the audience."
However, the regulator said it had concerns over his comments about suicide and mental health.
"We were particularly concerned about Mr Morgan's approach to such an important and serious issue and his apparent disregard for the seriousness of anyone expressing suicidal thoughts," it said.
Ofcom "would have been seriously concerned" if he had not been challenged by co-hosts Susanna Reid and Chris Ship, which provided "adequate protection for viewers", it added.
'Woke mob'
Morgan didn't refer to that part of Ofcom's report in a column about the ruling for the Mail, saying the overall decision "came down to an unequivocal and emphatic endorsement of my right to an opinion".
He wrote: "It was preposterous that I had to leave a job I loved because I didn't believe a demonstrable liar.
"But it happened because the corporate world has been cowed into surrendering to the woke mob whenever it bays for blood."
'Important discussion on race'
Ofcom's ruling added: "While we acknowledged that Mr Morgan's questions about the nature of racism had the potential to be highly offensive to some viewers, the conversations about race and racism in this programme provided open debate on the issues raised by the interview.
"We also considered that the programme allowed for an important discussion to be had on the nature and impact of racism. ITV had clearly anticipated that racial issues would be discussed at length as part of the coverage of the interview and had taken steps to ensure context could be provided during the discussions.
"Despite strong opinions expressed during the programme, in Ofcom's view any potential offence was justified by the context and the comments and discussions about race and racism were not in breach of rule 2.3 of the code."
A further 6,203 people complained about the original Oprah interview. On Wednesday, Ofcom said it would not investigate those complaints.
"In our view, the interview was clearly presented as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's personal testimony, which would be open to viewer interpretation," a statement said.
(There follows a copy of the criteria used in the judgement)
'As the whiny, fork tongued actress
Complained, from her well worn mattress
Piers walked from his gig
Said, I don’t give a fig
Proved his point
she’s a liar, and fatuous'
Her well worn mattress! Superb 😁
@Hikari (yesterday)
'Mugsy’s spent plenty of time on her knees but it sure wasn’t in prayer.'
Excellent! 🤣🤣
And @Wild Boar
'Hikari - Yep! That thought about what she did do when on her knees was at the back of my mind but I refrained from being explicit from a sense of delicacy!'
😂😂
We need to keep cutting her down to size - she's not all that.
As for Rabid Crony:
Amoebic Misanthrope
Give it up Omid
you waxen plank
So desperate now
and clearly rank
Why defend this arch deceiver
She’s nothing but, a blight, amoeba
@Maneki re cutting her down to size -
I'm all for that!
In the past, in less sensitive times, one could produce joke epitaphs for the still-living; there's a classic one for Charles II:
Here lies our Sovereign Lord the King,
Whose word no man relies on,
Who never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one.
To which the king replied, wtte, `My words are my own but my actions are my ministers'.'
(Btw, that's a neat summary of our constitution!)
I have punning one for TBW, when she eventually shuffles off:
`Here lies Meghan Markle, still doing what she has done all her life.'
Not that I wish her a premature demise, just letting nature take its course.
Kate of House Cambridges family, the Middletons, live near a pot farm and now, apparently, so do Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and you can smell the crops; some neighbours have complained. I don’t love the smell of weed which is why I don’t like smoking it but I can think of a lot of things that smell worse. Like … roses. I hate the smell of roses. I prefer cannabis scent over rose scent. (Cele|bitchy)
Two mean girls and they're always preaching against "mean girls". I think Lainey is a bigger narc than TBW
For those who have heard about a new mutation of Covid that has emerged in South Africa, the following article sums up all that we know and don't know about it, and what South African scientists are doing.
An intriguing piece of information is that although there are a lot of unknowns about this mutation, it is not spreading like wildfire through South Africa.
The article!
Back to regular programming ...
I wish they were made irrelevant. I think they are working on their Netflix project with David Furnish. They realized that they have to put up and shut up.
Meghan in Montecito manifesting again! Look how well that worked out with the Oprah interview (lies debunked with glee by the tabloids).
Dan Wootton's response to Scobie's claim of racism at the Palace directed at him.
Sandie- when all they have is resurrecting Rose rumors they got nothing so I look at it like a plus plus
Scobie Do - wow even he has nothing
Its all getting somewhat boring but thats good boring is irrelavent
Then another article states 'the former Sussex Royal foundation still owes £78,500 to 'not for profit enterprise' despite couple raking in multi-million pound media deals'.
Last but not least, the Cambridges are spending 'a special week' at Balmoral withte Queen (unlike the 6s, they were wanted and invited).
Not TBW's week!
in her video from today, Ashlee from Danja Zone claims that it's been discovered that they never gave the $3 million to an elephant charity, although later, Ashlee makes a claim that's not correct (that Madonna offered them her apartment in NYC for free)
... and in the other claiming that Ofcom could have breached the Human Rights Act by clearing Piers Morgan for his criticism of TBW.
Response in the DM from a Human Right's lawyer.
Human rights lawyer pours scorn on Omid Scobie's claim that Ofcom could have breached the Human Rights Act.
Royal author Omid Scobie's suggestion that Ofcom could have broken the Human Rights Act by clearing Piers Morgan over his comments about Meghan Markle was today dismissed by a legal expert.
The watchdog found Good Morning Britain was not in breach of its code after Mr Morgan said that he 'didn't believe a word' of what Meghan told Oprah Winfrey.
But Mr Scobie said he questioned the decision because 'freedom of expression' under the 1998 Act is subject to the restriction of 'protection of health or morals'.
However, a human rights barrister insisted Mr Morgan is not a public authority so is not himself bound by the Human Rights Act, and therefore cannot have breached it. Adam Wagner, of Doughty Street Chambers in London, added that Ofcom had not breached its duties under the Act after it gave a 'detailed and reasoned' response.
Mr Scobie, who co-authored Prince Harry and Meghan's biography Finding Freedom, is a trusted media contact of the Sussexes and often defends them in the public eye.
Mr Scobie tweeted today: 'Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, freedom of speech ensures everyone in UK 'has the right to freedom of expression.'
'But it is not absolute - that freedom can also be subject to laws and 'formalities, conditions, restrictions… necessary in a democratic society'. One of those restrictions is 'protection of health or morals', which makes me question Ofcom's decision.
'While everyone should be free to express opinion on public figures, discrediting a person's mental health issues on TV reinforced a dangerous stigma and put others at risk.'
Replying to a comment by one of his 71,000 followers, Mr Scobie later added: 'It sets a worrying precedent for Ofcom to be giving the nod to this kind of commentary.'
The claim for the money is owed to a not-for-profit enterprise, not named
It was for £213,000 of which £134,500 has already been paid back to it
The rest will be paid 'shortly' and was held up by charity commission probe
Harry and Meghan began winding-down the former Sussex Royal cause last year"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9946591/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-former-Sussex-Royal-foundation-owes-78-500-cause.html
-----------------------------------------------
They may not have done anything illegal, but it is not a good look to not pay what they promised, especially as, since they left and Sussex Royal was dead in the water because of the Megxit agreement, they have bought the Montecito monstrosity, hired dozens of staff for their commercial ventures, hired lawyers for lawsuits and to threaten the UK media, made itty bitty donations here and there for maximum publicity... They could have dug into their own pockets and made a donation to their dead in the water foundation to settle debts. When the Cambridges, with Harry, started the Royal Foundation, they used their own money. As their reputation grew, they attracted generous donations.
Is there anyone or anything that could knock some sense into the Harkles?
good one!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9948799/JAN-MOIR-bucket-cold-water-thrown-Harry-Meghans-fevered-claims-Ofcom-verdict.html
This twitter account has a good summary if the new chapter in FF.
Attempting a copy and paste of tweets ... hold thumbs!
Thanks for the heads up in the Jan Moir article. It is scathing.
---–-------------------------------------------
Truly mind-boggling. You're an American citizen and a princess and duchess of the United Kingdom, ATTENDING A STATE DINNER ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. This was 3 weeks after Jamal Khashoggi's murder, it was well known that MBS had ordered his murder.
I will never get over it. This is the worst instance of fashion diplomacy I have possibly ever witnessed. And this book's "explanation" makes it even worse. It tells us why MM's staff lied to press and said the earrings were borrowed from Chopard.
even worse. It tells us why MM's staff lied to press and said the earrings were borrowed from Chopard.
#FindingFreedom attempts to defend Meghan by saying that multiple members of the BRF, including the Queen, have received jewels from members of the Saudi RF.
-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Re: Meghan bullying allegations, the book says multiple times they are false and defamatory but also confirms that the emails around it at KenPal were genuine and a terrible leak by "the Firm"/invasion of privacy.
The book also insinuates that the Times bullying story was only pushed forward after knowledge of the Oprah interview. This is incorrect - the story had been in the works for weeks/months. The Times *asked H&M for comment* 24h after interview news was made public.
@valentinelow
-------------------------------------------------
Harry and Meghan are said to be angry that their racism allegations weren't formally addressed but Meghan's bullying claims are being investigated. Claims race claims are "far more damaging than bullying". 1-bullying claims are HR matter 2-racism claim is private family matter.
------------------------------------------------
The book claims several times that Harry needed to get back to the UK after Philip's death to take care of/look after/spend time with the Queen. As if 1-she didn't have anyone to take care of her 2-she was there alone at Windsor Castle 3-Harry wasn't in quarantine.
Thanks, Miggy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58417074
`Prince Harry uses GQ awards show spot to make vaccine plea'
What's the connection with GQ magazine? Apart from it being American?
Scobie is whining:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9946677/Meghan-Markles-friend-Omid-Scobie-claims-suffered-prejudice-senior-royal.html
Meghan Markle's friend Omid Scobie, 40, claims he was victim of 'prejudice' from 'very senior' royal aide who 'found it peculiar how well he spoke' - and says 'loaded comment' shows 'level of unawareness' at palace
• Scobie said unnamed figure 'found it really peculiar that I spoke as well as I do'
• Journalist - whose mother is Persian - said the person issued a 'loaded comment'
• Interview coincided with Ofcom clearing Piers Morgan for remarks on Meghan
By RORY TINGLE, HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT and MARK DUELL FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 10:42, 1 September 2021 | UPDATED: 02:31, 2 September 2021
Omid Scobie today said he had been the victim of 'prejudice' from a 'very senior' Royal aide as he was quizzed about the Sussexes' claims of racism at the palace.
The media ally of Meghan and Harry said the unnamed person 'found it really peculiar that I spoke as well as I do' as someone who is mixed race and issued a 'very loaded comment' that demonstrated the 'level of unawareness' at the palace.
Mr Scobie's interview took place at the same moment Piers Morgan was sensationally cleared by Ofcom for comments he made about Meghan Markle live on Good Morning Britain.
The broadcast regulator backed his right to free speech after he said that he 'didn't believe a word' of what Meghan told Oprah Winfrey and challenged her claims of royal racism, including that a senior Royal raised concerns about Archie's skin colour.
Mr Scobie, 40, who has a Persian mother, was asked by This Morning presenters Rochelle Humes and Alison Hammond whether he was surprised by the Sussexes' claims of racism.
He said: 'We knew they had contended with issues surrounding race within the institution.
'I myself have experienced some prejudice from one or two royal aides in the past, so you can kind of know what Meghan was entering. And so it didn't surprise me, but I think for it to mention a family member, that was kind of the moment that even myself, my jaw was on the floor – just like Oprah, it was the same reaction.
Asked to clarify whether he had suffered racism, the Finding Freedom author added: 'I wouldn't say racist, but I just experienced prejudice. I'm mixed race, there aren't many mixed race royal correspondents out there.
'I would not name that person. Someone very senior within the palace who found it really peculiar that I spoke as well as I do, and that was pretty much how they said it to me.
'And I'm used to 'where are you from, where are you really from' and all that kind of stuff, but that was a very loaded comment – and I'm sure it came not from a nasty place, but it just shows perhaps a level of unawareness within certain quarters of the institution.'
Where's he from ? Why doesn't he simply say `Born in Swansea*' and move on? Where would most us be if we'd made an issue of the times males implied we didn't know anything technical because we're women?
*according to FreeBMD.org.uk!
Article continues about Piers - to follow...
In its ruling this morning, Ofcom called attempts to silence Mr Morgan a 'chilling restriction on freedom of expression' after the Duchess of Sussex was among an avalanche of people who complained that his questioning of her account was 'harmful' and 'offensive' to viewers.
He told MailOnline today: 'This is a resounding victory for free speech and a resounding defeat for Princess Pinocchios'.
Meghan, 40, was among the 57,000 people who went to Ofcom after an orchestrated social media campaign spearheaded by his 'woke' critics including several Labour MPs, who accused him of racism and sexism.
Within 48 hours of the March 7 Oprah interview, Mr Morgan was forced to quit GMB after he refused to apologise for his 'honestly held opinions', costing ITV around 790,000 viewers and millions more in advertising revenue with the ratings gap between GMB and rival BBC Breakfast still growing. On the day Piers quit, GMB was in the lead.
And Ofcom today backed Mr Morgan's right to 'rigorously challenge' the Duchess's account of suffering suicidal thoughts and claims she experienced racism at the hands of the Royal Family. Complaints that his views on the programmes on March 8 and March 9 were unsuitable for children and incited hatred and racism were also thrown out.
ITV's left-leaning former Guardian chief CEO Dame Carolyn McCall is under pressure to explain why she tried to suppress the presenter's free speech after the Duchess of Sussex complained to her directly and allegedly implored her to censure her critic as they were both 'women and mothers'.
There was complete vindication for the star, 56, who branded Meghan 'Princess Pinocchio', as Ofcom ruled: 'Mr Morgan was entitled to say he disbelieved the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's allegations and to hold and express strong views that rigorously challenged their account'.
And in a damning indictment of his former bosses and the 57,000 people who complained, the watchdog found: 'The restriction of such views would, in our view, be an unwarranted and chilling restriction on freedom of expression both of the broadcaster and the audience'
.
Other allegations roundly rejected by Ofcom included that Mr Morgan were not 'duly impartial', he had 'misrepresented facts' and that he 'mocked the American accent'.
Reacting to today's ruling Mr Morgan told MailOnline: 'I'm delighted that Ofcom has so emphatically supported my right to disbelieve the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's incendiary claims to Oprah Winfrey, many of which have since been proved to be untrue. This is a resounding victory for free speech and a resounding defeat for Princess Pinocchios.
'As OFCOM says, to have stifled my right to express strongly held and robustly argued views would have been an 'unwarranted and chilling restriction on freedom of expression. In light of this decision – do I get my job back?'
He added: 'I was reliably informed recently that Meghan Markle wrote directly to my ITV boss Dame Carolyn McCall the night before I was forced out, demanding my head on a plate.
'Apparently, she stressed that she was writing to Dame Carolyn personally because they were both women and mothers – a nauseating playing of the gender and maternity card if ever there was one. What has the world come to when a whiny fork-tongued actress can dictate who presents a morning television news programme?'
Two tweets, which I cannot copy the text of, but the link above should lead you to them.
Summary: Claims that Harry is trying to get back into the royal fold, without Meghan.
Claims by people who are hiding their real identities and probably false.
I somehow think the Sussexes' marriage is going to be dogged with such rumours forevemore.
I was also wondering why on earth GQ chose Harry to give an award to the team who developed the Astrazeneca vaccine.
Neither him nor Meghan publicised getting the vaccine themselves, as the Cambridges did. They have contributed nothing other than Harry making a rock star appearance at some vaccine-related concert. Neither has any scientific or public health knowledge, expertise or connection, nor any public role in the UK.
Who is the editor of GQ? Who puts together these award ceremonies? Is Sunshine Sacks involved? Why choose Harry when he is so unpopular in the UK? Did they want a royal and he was the only one they could get?
I did not watch his speech. Surely it should have focused on the scientists, and not been ignorant fascist preaching? I have been vaccinated but will defend everyone's right to make a personal and informed choice.
@Sandie
The editor of GQ is a Will Welch. An excerpt from his biography tells us that 'Under Welch’s leadership, the magazine has achieved a more refined and arresting internet presence, along with an uptick in millennial readership.'
Millennial readership. That might explain it.
They have joined together and, however much or little I click on, I just get error messages...
Thanks.
I'm as puzzled as you as to why H was involved - did somebody think that because the Oxford AZ vaccine was developed in Oxford, with an Anglo-Swedish company, a British speaker would be appreciated? As if, in H's case.
Or did S-S strike again, via GQ. Will GQ be Markled?
----------------------------------------------
Not sure if I have posted the link properly but I just watched the video of him talking and no-one is listening to him. He is dull, sounds like he is just reading multi-syllable words but doesn't understand them as his voice is dead and people are just talking throughout. At the end (I had to scroll through the last minute or so because it is really really dull) people start cheering for the winners while he is still talking. I do hope the dimwits watched this video. It is just embarrassing.
LOL!
------------------------------------------------
Did Harry get paid for making that speech?
@Maneki Neko
Thanks for that info about the editor of GQ. Maybe he is a devoted fan of the Sussexes, like the Sussex squad.
I managed to track down the original twitter account. Some interesting posts ...
https://mobile.twitter.com/luca31404488?lang=en
The link should take you to Harry's speech.
It is very long.
The staging for the background is Meghan. She also appears to be in the room with him.
He mentions his 'wife' and then makes claims about talking to a range of people (world leaders, scientists, and so on) about the vaccines and vaccination. Comes across as making him sound relevant and important to the issue, which he is not, at all. Other than Scobie, the Sussex Squad and some celebrities, the Sussexes do not have a constituency to claim some kind of unelected role in world affairs.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/don-t-know-even-omid-085429977.html -from the Independent originally)
Harry and Meghan’s biographer Omid Scobie: ‘I don’t know if they even like me’
Kate Ng
Thu, 2 September 2021, 9:58 am
Royal rota journalist Omid Scobie has revealed new details about his relationship with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in an interview, following the release of the paperback version of Finding Freedom.
Speaking to Tatler, Scobie, 38, opened up about his career and experience reporting on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as well as the impact of the book on his relationship with them.
The new edition of Finding Freedom, authored by Scobie and Carolyn Durand, included a new epilogue that reflected how the couple spent the past year.
Scobie, who is British-Persian, told the magazine that he was one of three journalists invited to Meghan’s last engagement as a working royal, and that he shared a “big farewell hug” with the duchess.
According to the journalist, Meghan told him: “It didn’t have to be this way” as they hugged, before she flew out of England to live in California with Harry and their son Archie in January 2020.
Scobie thought his work for US publications US Weekly and Harper’s Bazaar led to the Sussexes trusting him enough to share their last moments as senior members of the royal family.
“I think she wanted to share that last moment because it is a moment in history,” he told the magazine. “But also to do it in an environment she felt safe in.”
Scobie said the narrative around Meghan “twisted” drastically after Archie’s birth, when it appeared as though “nothing Meghan could do was ever right” and it was around this time that the Sussexes “realised there was no moving on from there”.
Asked how he was able to secure direct quotes from Meghan in the book, despite the couple’s legal team insisting there was no collaboration with them, Scobie said it was the duchess’ friends who reached out to “share some insight into how she was feeling”.
“People who said no at the beginning, as they saw things getting worse, suddenly replied to an email we’d sent six or seven months to a year earlier - people who’d just grown increasingly frustrated with the stuff they’d seen and how far [different] that is to what really goes on,” he said.
However, Scobie is unsure of his relationship with the Sussexes now, following the publication of the book. He said he doesn’t “even know if the Sussexes like me, to be honest”, adding that “press is press”.
He also said the couple’s relationship with the tabloids is “completely dead” and he did not think it would ever work.
On the rift in Harry’s relationship with Prince William, Scobie said things had not “progressed”, contrary to reports saying the brothers were ready to put their feud behind them after they unveiled a statue of their mother, Diana, in July.