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
Archie and Lilibet are being 'deprived' by Harry and Meghan not letting them see the Queen, Charles and Camilla (and me), says Thomas Markle
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/index.html
3 of my grandparents died long before I was born - and I can have seen my surviving grandma only 3 or 4 times max. before she too died (we lived north of London, she was in South London and we had only public transport). I managed.
I feel there’s almost a `cult’ about grandmas today, to judge from the number of times I’ve seen Primary School projects, so I feel for any child in that position today. Yes, I know grannies play a huge part in child rearing today, given the women have to work from economic necessity but I do think that commercial interests drive a lot of the sentimentality.
Now, without children, and hence grandchildren, I have to ask women who buttonhole me, to boast about their descendants, to change the subject. The biggest deprivation I feel is not having in-family tech support!
Don’t get me wrong -I do enjoy SwampWoman’s comments about her family!
Harry and Megsy see their children as leverage, not independent souls who need lots of loving, caring family and friends in their lives. They will use Archie and Lili to get what they want: More active roles in the Monarchy. Of course, that isn’t going to happen.
As far as grandmas, my father’s family were farmers and the grandmas and great aunts helped watched the kids while the parents worked the fields. This babysitting scenario has been in place for thousands of years across all cultures, especially after wars.
Now it's just another way of diminishing the childless.
@CookieShark,
It is strange that we haven't heard anything about how well Archie is doing in his early years education. We've heard next-to-nothing about the boy since Lili arrived on the scene. Was the last gem we were given about how she clutched him as she hummed and bled on the floor?
I wonder if Gavin's mum has cut contact with her? Also, does H sincerely believe that the children are biologically theirs, or does he pay lip service to the idea because he's under duress?
Haven't read it, no time, can't be bothered.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9993455/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-Times-worlds-100-influential-people.html
I hear ya completely. I think having to muddle through stories of children's antics is the modern day version of folks presenting slide shows of the same, after a dinner gathering. One can only take so much of the little darlings jumping on the sofa with peanut butter and jelly in hand...
I love my grandchildren but I do my best to refrain from the habit.
Just my opinion, but the people who are going to get human beings to Mars, cure cancer, take care of the environment, and so on, are not the Harkles, Kate Winslet, Billy Eilish, and so on.
If I had young children, I know whom I would want to influence them, and it is not the people on the list.
@Maneki: I wonder how much that mention in Time cost the Harkles? $500,000, $1,000,000? So, Time magazine can be bought. Pathetic. Their sales must be at rock bottom, and the magazine is in danger of going under.
___
Truth right here! How incredibly stupid (and desperate) for Time to present this sludge. Expect it to go the way of the horse and carriage. Loo paper is what Time has been for quite awhile. Time will be Markled.
The day I see them on the cover of Forbes mag (not just in their articles or photos) will be the day I believe the hype.
As far as I can tell, I can't find them on any stellar mag cover. Just the bottom feeder pulp variety.
@Fifi
I haven't read the article but yours is a very question. I read that Sunshine Sachs had dropped them so either they paid some other PR company or else Time magazine were bought, as you said. People, however, are not fools and I don't think many believe the 6s are influential - never mind in the top 100!!
@Sandie
Yes, a sad indictment of today's society. I had a look at Time to see who these 100 people were, one or two names I'd heard of but I have never heard of the rest. I wouldn't say they're known, not this side of the pond anyway. If they're unknown, or largely unknown, how can they be influential? And I don't think the 6s, who are well known (read infamous) are influential at all.
That the Harkles are smugly presenting themselves as being really important kind of says 'humanity, we have a problem'!
Bitchy comment ... TBW has put on a lot of weight, hence the loose pleated pants, and gosh she has become very broad at the hips as well!
Thomas Markle has a right to speak if the media keep giving him a platform, but he actually has nothing to say, and seems very confused about which of the Harkles is to blame. Tiresome! Oh and now he says that Harry did not ask for permission to marry hs daughter (previously says the opposite). He had already said that the Harkles stopped Palace aides from assisting him, and then provided no assistance themselves (Palace aides have confirmed that this is true). Nasty people! Who the heck would want their children influenced by the Harkles?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9993455/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-Times-worlds-100-influential-people.html
I have to admit -- in THESE images TBW looks very stunning. This is obviously the vision she has of herself -- and believes that this is the one that should be imposed on her brand.
However, once anyone sees her "real self" shine through...there isn't enough Photoshop in the WORLD to get rid of that image.
Nice photos...but fake. Next.
The photo: the b*tch wife has the husband behind her, because she's the most important, right?
Off topic: Some of you bring up tarot readers, etc. So here's my contribution: There is an esoteric connection between rings and on which finger the person wears a ring. TBW has the wedding ring, and rings on both little fingers. Rings on little fingers can indicate weird, bizarre sexual inclinations. In that regard, more evidence that there is something sexually aberrant going on between 6 and the wife. Dom/sub? Remember how many times she knocked him out of the way at public events? Public behavior is just polite behavior of what goes on behind the scenes.
Wild Boar Battle-maid
Harry and Megsy see their children as leverage, not independent souls who need lots of loving, caring family and friends in their lives. They will use Archie and Lili to get what they want: More active roles in the Monarchy. Of course, that isn’t going to happen.
@Elskainga and WBBM:
The leverage part is spot on, but I do not think Harry and Meghan want anything to do with having “more active roles” in the Monarchy.
Their only idea of active roles is to keep their titles and they want their children to receive titles. Without
titles, Harry and Meghan are nobodies and so are their kids. Especially, Meghan and the kids. Unless Harry goes to the extreme step of renouncing his birth title of Prince, he will always have a title, even if the titles gifted them at their wedding are eventually removed due to their behavior.
The Queen will probably not remove Harry and Meghan’s ducal titles. She’s 95 and probably just doesn’t want to deal with it at this point in her life.
Unless the Sussexes do something that gets into the realm of treason, Charles is too feckless to remove the titles, which is why I hope that one way or another, Charles never takes the throne and it goes straight to William.
Once he is king, I doubt William will take any crap from Harry or TBW, so he is the best hope for removing the titles from H and TBW.
Also, if Charles is skipped as king, the Sussex children will never be the grandchildren of the monarch, which would keep them from acquiring titles via that route. And we know William sure as hell is not going to hand titles of any sort, even lesser titles, to the Sussex children.
Where? When? Prove it.
They can't prove they did anything. They 'partner' with the chef...what does that mean precisely? Let's hear exactly what they did, with receipts. Enough with the secret stuff.
`Why don't they do something about the way his ears stick out? There are operations after all'.
Then there was load of publicity about his tonsils being removed, then being sent to a school that was clearly not suitable for him, right up the the business with wife #1.
Now though, and I feel disloyal for saying it, I can't help thinking it'd be better for the nation if the crown passed straight to William. It'd be sad for PC but I think Wm has the safer pair of hands. Charles is too damn gentle - he needs to be ruthless with those 2 but I expect they've got a load of scit, true or otherwise, ready to dump on him too.
I find her anything but stunning.
She is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge across the hips. She has really, really let herself go. Especially for someone who has never been pregnant.
Well there goes the chance for next year's invite.
First no invite to the Obama birthday and now apparently no invite to the Met Gala. Anna Wintour seems to appreciate the title of Dame bestowed upon her by HMTQ a few years ago.
From today’s Crazy Days and Nights:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
Blind Item #5
No, the alliterate one was not invited to the Met Gala no matter how much she might want to leak otherwise. She will never be invited as long as the current editor is in place. She likes the title presented to her by the Queen
Duke and Duchess of Sussex ‘burned by fame’ ... but still posing for Time magazine cover shoot
Royal couple described as ‘equal partners’ as they are named in annual Time 100 list as ‘icons’ alongside Dolly Parton and Britney Spears
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have posed together for their first magazine cover shoot, groomed to near-flawlessness by Hollywood’s finest stylists for a celebration of them as “equal partners”.
The Duke and Duchess, who appear in two photographs released on Wednesday, are named on the annual Time 100 list as “icons”.
They have each previously been included in the list, along with other members of the Royal family, but have this year chosen to take part in a photoshoot.
The couple were styled by Clare and Nina Hallworth, whose clients include Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, with make-up by Linda Hay, who works with Kristen Stewart, the actress, and Emily Ratajkowski, the model.
The cover image “captures their powerful dynamic as equal partners”, said Dilys Ng, the Time 100 photo editor.
Prince Harry is dressed in black, captured with his vivid blue eyes, thick red hair, a neatly groomed beard and his trademark bracelets.
Perched on a wall, with the left-hand side of his body hidden behind his wife, he rests a hand supportively on her shoulder.
The Duchess, dressed in pristine white with her gold watch and diamond rings on display, stares straight into the camera with smoky-eyed make-up and a half smile.
A second image sees the couple dressed in coordinating olive green, the Duke’s hands in his pockets, in front of an open window. A third sees them hand-in-hand, strolling through a lush garden and smiling at one another.
The couple were named alongside others including Naomi Osaka, Dolly Parton and Britney Spears in the “icons” section, rather than the “leaders” they could be equally qualified for.
They feature on one of seven covers for this year’s Time 100, a list of influential people across the world.
Their citation for the magazine was written by chef José Andrés, the founder of World Central Kitchen, which is supported by the Sussexes’ foundation, Archewell.
The chef compared the military service of Prince Harry, who was famously captured on camera scrambling to his helicopter when duty called, to the Duchess’s work as an “active humanitarian”, saying they had the “same sense of urgency”.
“Springing into action is not the easy choice for a young Duke and Duchess who have been blessed through birth and talent, and burned by fame,” he wrote.
“It would be much safer to enjoy their good fortune and stay silent. That’s not what Harry and Meghan do, or who they are.
“They turn compassion into boots on the ground through their Archewell Foundation. They give voice to the voiceless through media production.
“In a world where everyone has an opinion about people they don’t know, the Duke and Duchess have compassion for the people they don’t know.
“They don’t just opine. They run toward the struggle.”
The words echo the Duchess’s own entrance to royal life when, during an engagement interview, she said was excited to be “boots on the ground” in the UK.
They also coincidentally follow a speech by the Duke of Cambridge on Wednesday night, who praised emergency services workers who “run straight towards the danger”.
The Duke and Duchess are joined on the Time magazine covers – in separate versions of the issue – by Simone Biles, the gymnast, Kate Winslet, the actress, Billie Eilish, the singer-songwriter, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Jensen Huang, the chief executive of NVIDIA, and Cathy Park Hong, the writer.
The Sussexes have written their own citation for the magazine in honour of Dr Okonjo-Iweala. They wrote on their website: “The Duke and Duchess are honored to be Ngozi’s partner in pursuing that goal and are proud to be listed alongside her on this year’s Time 100.”
Edward Felsenthal, the editor-in-chief and chief executive of Time, said of the Sussexes’ inclusion: “Their actions this year not only prompted deep re-appraisals of British society and the monarchy’s place within it, but have also catalyzed essential conversations on topics from mental health to misinformation.”
The Sussexes have previously appeared for Time 100 television, when they issued a plea to Americans to use their vote in the Trump-Biden election.
Prince Harry and the Duchess were named separately on the influential list in 2018.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have appeared on previous lists, as have the Queen and Prince of Wales.
The Prince of Wales has previously posed for a Time magazine cover.
From the London Times:
Martin Bashir will not be prosecuted over BBC interview with Princess Diana
Martin Bashir, a former BBC journalist, will not be prosecuted after a police review of his interview with the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
The Metropolitan Police has announced that it will not formally open an investigation after studying the findings published in a review by Lord Dyson, the former Master of the Rolls, of events leading up to the interview.
The interview became known as one of the set-pieces of modern television, when the late princess spoke publicly about the disintegration of her marriage with Prince Charles, remarking: “There were three of us in this marriage.”
Broadcast in 1995, the interview garnered awards both for Bashir and the BBC. However, after it was aired rumours grew around the practices and methods used to obtain access to Princess Diana.
After the publication of Dyson’s review earlier this year the BBC returned the awards and apologised.
The publication of the report led to renewed speculation that Bashir could face criminal proceedings, having been told in March by police investigators he would not face action.
In a statement the Met said yesterday: “In March 2021, the Metropolitan Police Service determined it was not appropriate to begin a criminal investigation into allegations of unlawful activity in connection with a documentary broadcast in 1995.
“Following the publication of Lord Dyson’s report in May, specialist detectives assessed its contents and looked carefully at the law, once again obtaining independent legal advice from Treasury Counsel as well as consulting the Crown Prosecution Service.
“As a result, the MPS has not identified evidence of activity that constituted a criminal offence and will therefore be taking no further action.”
Dyson’s report criticised the methods used by Bashir to obtain his exclusive interview.
It said that he was in “serious breach” of the BBC’s guidelines when he faked bank statements and showed them to Earl Spencer, the princess’s brother, to gain access to her.
The late princess’s sons, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex, both issued strongly worded statements following the publication of the report, which found the broadcaster covered up “deceitful behaviour” used by Bashir to secure his headline-making interview.
William and Harry condemned the BBC for its treatment of their mother, saying the interview fuelled her “fear, paranoia and isolation” and a wider “culture of exploitation and unethical practices ultimately took her life”.
Lord Tony Hall, the former BBC director general, later said that he was “deeply sorry” for the “hurt” caused by the scandal around the interview but denied that there had been a BBC “cover-up”.
The corporation has also since apologised to the whistle-blower who tried to expose Bashir’s methods.
Matt Wiessler, a graphic designer, was sidelined by the corporation after raising concerns that fake bank statements he had mocked up for Bashir had been used to persuade the late princess to do the interview.
Piers Morgan has won Best News Presenter at the 2021 TRIC awards. 👏👏👏
Bet TBW will be pleased.
Rather,
Boots on the ground running away from Royal duty; Voices to claim injustice, unfairness, and victimhood for themselves; A shared sense of urgency to grab all the fame and fortune they can as quickly as possible.
Just googled the Time magazine photos. Yep, both airbrushed within an inch of their lives.
Hairy doesn’t really look like himself so much as like one of the Hollywood actors who have portrayed him in those lifetime films. Someone has considerately filled in all his missing hair. Haz Hasn’t had a head of hair like that since about 2007. The shot of him in the black Seeming to cower behind the Amazonian white figure of his wife Makes him look so diminished and tiny… And he the blood royal of the United Kingdom. What about this is remotely equal partners? Only I guess that TBW’s spending on herself Is equal to the amount of money her husband’s family provides to them. Actually in excess of it.
Since I believe a feature of narcissistic personality disorder is a kind of body dysmorphia,Do we suppose that TBW, at 40 years of age… Or closer to 45 as some believe…Charitably, at least 30 pounds heavier than in her Suits days…Supposedly I having given birth twice in 3 years…yeah, whatever…Still views herself as a sex kitten? When she looks into the mirror what does she see? Because most other recently postpartum women… Allegedly… Who have gained a significant amount of weight might choose not to park themselves front and center On a magazine cover the full length view Wearing all white, and furthermore, pleated trousers. As Stacy and Clinton of what not to wear would remind us, if your goal is to look bigger than you are, then by all means wear white pleated trousers. Pleats that wide are a NO that went out in the 80s, for a reason. Any stylist that would let her wear white pleated pants isn’t completely pro Meg to my way of thinking.
Harry looks better in the second picture. With his ginger coloring, that olive green shade is actually very flattering on him, and it’s well cut, yet casual. This is the kind of thing that he might be wearing on a daily basis if he were still a royal. He still looks worryingly vacant however, less human then like a ginger manikin that has just been posed where they want him. He doesn’t seem to actually be alive. TBW insists on wearing this color, along with other equally unflattering shades to her complexion like brown and gray. They just deaden her right out. Sad poseurs.
Page 6 has an article today saying the disastrous duo is being mocked online for the heavily airbrushed Time 100 cover.
https://pagesix.com/2021/09/15/prince-harry-meghan-markles-time-100-cover-called-airbrushed/
https://mobile.twitter.com/SparkleMeghan/status/1438123513680998408?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
for years they’ve been picking controversial people as ‘influential’ just to get lots of Media coverage, talking heads talking, and thus more publicity for their failing, ever morenon-influential magazine. and of course the Harkles are so thirsty, they’ll jump at any opportunity to be on a Magazine cover, woohoo it’s such an honor and a feather their caps. hahaha
I’m going to confess to some fat-shaming… TBW is looking very thick and channeling her idol Bey, with the slightly wavey long treated hair air blown/fanned against her shoulders in an effort to look less thick. the white jumpsuit sticks out even though she was going for the 1 color slimming thing. and of course the airbrushing.
and lastly TBW is front and center in the picture, with her little sub hanging on for dear life in the background trying to look sort of important. hahaha
----
This is why is feels off. They shrunk H's head. See this interesting thread: Now, check this out: the proof that Harry's head was literally shrunk to fit Meghan's head size. https://t.co/4wK9q6E0qW
@Miggy - Cheers ☺️
Wide of the Markle
Bad look Harry, what’s going on
Your heads too small
and your body’s all wrong
Al dente megs is front and centre
With her wide leg-ged stance
In her wide white pants
Just more twaddle
a sly con-venture
You’ve sold your soul
for a life of debenture
I noticed immediately that they had shrunk Harry's head. I think most people can spot it too.
The photo where they are standing in front of the window frame, TBW has stolen everything about her presentation, from Victoria Beckham .
The uni-colour outfit, pleated pants, turtle neck skivvy, hair in a bun with whispy bits, excessive dark eye make-up, one arm across her midriff and the other supporting her chin area, the wide leg stance with one knee bent, and her toothy mouth closed with no smile.
Not an original thought or idea in her head, ever.
The `hairdresser' comment cracked me up!
I've just been ploughing through this advertising site to see if I need to up my vitamin D:
https://www.healthygem.com/health/common-symptoms-indicate-vitamin-d-deficiency-mobile/17/
Lo and behold, I found a very familiar photo, one of a `newborn' being held by his Daddy as Mummy caresses/pokes the fontanelle. No faces are shown but if it's `posed by models' they've done a very good job.
Has it been used without permission or have our dearly-beloved couple been paid handsomely? Your guess is as good as mine.
@Longview
VB to a T ✅
@Maisie
Something for the weekend madam?
@WildBoar
Claws for thought,
Yes!!
As the actress said to the bishop
Justin time for a quickie
Singalong 🎤
Harrywokie
🎵 Wide thighed and megmess
She’s gone and done it again🎵
🎵 Snide eyed and feckless
He’s proved once more he’s inane🎵
Apologies: Andy Fairweather Low
Wide Eyed and Legless
(Justin Case) 😉
I've just looked at the picture you mentioned in the piece about Vit D. It certainly looks like H&M picture when they presented Archie.
@Catlady
Definitely her paws
-----
So the Time 100 list is broken down by category. "Leaders" (not the Harkles). "Pioneers" (not here). "Titans" (hell no). "Artists" (nope). "Innovators" (are you kidding?)
The 6's are listed under "Icons," in the company of Britney Spears, Naomi Osaka, Dolly Parton and some other names I don't recognize. Some of these people are known for having iconic nervous breakdowns on the world's stage.
-----
Icon ... definitions
'person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration'
' a person or thing that is revered or idolized'
'a very famous person or thing considered as representing a set of beliefs or a way of life'
They certainly are icons for selfishness, stupidity, materialism ...!
Someone else TBW has copied? Ignoring what DP does with her literacy endeavours?
@Sandie
I would class Dolly Parton as an “Icon”
Great songs, fabulous personality
and her “Imagination Library”
is helping children world wide.
The others???
Great find! Yes, it is them presenting Archie (?) to the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's an article by Daniela Esler published by news.com.au, not sycophantic this time (can't decide what she is at times) Harry and Meghan’s Time magazine cover reveals their true colours'
You know what they say: Those who can do, and those who want to be seen to be doing appear on the front of Time in a fug of contrived solemnity.
Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have posed for their first joint magazine cover, gracing the front of the Time issue devoted to the 100 most influential people on the planet, and the result is … astounding.
Astoundingly bad, that is.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle appear on the cover of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people issue. Picture: Pari Dukovic/Time.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle appear on the cover of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people issue. Picture: Pari Dukovic/Time.
We could begin here with the fact that Prince Harry is dressed like a stagehand in a suburban theatre production of Les Mis. Or that the image is clumsily and heavy-handedly Photoshopped.
Or that the Duke looks like he was added in after the fact. Or that the royal couple look like knock-off Madame Tussauds wax figures. Or that his hairline appears suspiciously fuller. Or that social media is having a field day mocking the image that looks like a parody.
Or even, that in a story praising their humanitarianism, Meghan is wearing tens of thousands of dollars worth of Cartier jewellery and diamonds.
No, to really see what is wrong with this picture you have to step back, squint and ask the question, why? Why did the Sussexes do this?
It was only a scant two years ago, in 2019, when Meghan guest-edited British Vogue, and she chose to not grace the fashion bible’s cover with the magazine’s editor Edward Enniful saying the royal felt it would have been “boastful”.
Rightio then. But clearly, something has changed; clearly, these days, Harry and Meghan – with a brand to build and a fledgling commercial empire to get off the ground – have no issue with being ‘boastful’.
Consider this: This issue of Time is all about saluting the men and women who have shaped the world. That Harry and Meghan agreed to take out the cover spot after the events and the global trauma of the last year speaks volumes. That they acquiesced, when Time asked them, to appear on the cover is just telling.
And therein lies the problem here. What this Time image does is not so much make them look like they are publicity hungry but publicity ravenous.
This situation goes to the very heart of their post-royal lives; lives which now seem driven by both a very genuine desire to help and a very real genuine desire to consequently pick up as much good PR as they can.
The rest at https://tinyurl.com/3urm5dhm
They are getting so much attention from this Time debacle, and it is all about people mocking them!
What will it take to burst their bubble of delusion and for them to get it?
She supposedly has a history of using bots to boost follower numbers. Social media is arife with rumours of how much they paid for this, and people are talking about millions. I am sure the real cost was a fraction of that, just so that she can put some pictures on the wall next to her mirror and tell herself how fabulous she is!
The way the light strikes his neck from the left makes him look as if he has thyroid trouble - a touch of goitre perhaps. And are those blue contact lenses he's wearing?
This had me laughing, he's got a way with words.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1438448719658160128
Thanks @D1
That’s/he’s good!!
Glad you enjoyed it.
I am really liking Patrick Christys and Merci Muroki, I try to watch the morning shows as often as poss.
1. According to the print copy of the Daily Mail, other celebrities also had the cover for the same issue, Harry and Meghan did not have exclusive copy cover. 2. New Harry Markle. 3. Per that blog, you can purchase that cover framed for a price (see blog insert).
I am leaving for hospital now. My 80 year old husband was taken by ambulance last night. He has a massive foot infection and is septic. No visitors in ER due to Covid. I was sent home. And, because of Covid admissions, no hospital bed for Bob. Still in ER hallway this morning. Prayers requested. This has been an excellent diversion from worry, which kept me up all night.
There is appropriate time to wear jewelry, expensive clothes and strut your stuff. And there are times when you pull out something you've worn before (which is common enough in the BRF).
With people being "food insecure" (which 6/6w might have had someone tell them about with some of the several food public participation displays they have done - was that the boots on the ground?), perhaps this is not the time to be wearing a lot of expensive items. I thought of this when they were talking about the 30, 35K Met tickets would feed several families for a year.
I personally wonder about the image of wearing a lot of expensive jewelry and then asking people to donate money to what you consider a worthy cause. It's one thing if it's something from your mother-in-law because that was inherited. Something else to just go out and buy new flashy for the left hand and then ask for cash with the right.
Something else - the differences between how the jewelry she wears to show off and the BRF. She gets fad and then you never see that fad again because she's replaced it with new fad. And, it's small. Always small. Think of the initials on a necklace. Pinky rings - same thing. By the time this is mentioned in ladies magazine as the latest must have, it's already been replaced in fashion world but the public who doesn't know any better is running out to buy it - it's like a stock pump and dump.
The BRF, otoh, Their pieces worn are substantial enough you don't need a telephoto lens to see it. And, you see them again and again. An investment piece when it was purchased to be worn multiple times.
Someone up thread described them as swirling down the drain. Very descriptive.
MsDeb - I hope your husband gets a bed soon and is able to get treatment.
@MsDeb52
Thoughts, and prayers for
you and your husband X
Thoughts and prayers for your husband. I hope he soon gets a bed and the treatment he needs. Virtual Hugs XX
Best wishes to you and your hubby.
thoughts (and suggestions) continue on the new post for you.