Meghan Markle hasn't been getting many wins lately with much more negative press, getting snubbed by the Obamas, and heralding her 40th birthday with a 40 x 40 women's work campaign that took off like a lead ballon. Princess Eugenie seems to be in her and Harry's corner and perhaps she can look forward to winning 2021's "Grifter of the Year" award. Today as of 8:53 AM EST, she's #1 on Griftie's nominee list.
You can vote here: https://grifties.com .
Let's discuss this and more.
Comments
But the right therapy for a 12-year old probably would have involved other family members too.
This is true. And if other family members are not on board, it's almost pointless. I know a woman whose daughter needed therapy and who elected not to continue her daughter's therapy because the therapist said that the woman needed to go, too.
As a side note, there was (some years ago) the idea of using different colors (say glasses or clear but sheets with color to overlay) would help make the letters more visible. You could place the sheet over pages in books or anything in print.
It sounded kind of new age to me until I was sitting in a waiting room and could hear how much more or less confident a highly dyslexic kid I knew (not a FOAF) based on the colors they were trying so they could then have glasses made for the kid.
Once Diana died, I'm not sure any therapy Harry received as a consequence of that event would have viewed his dyslexia as the primary focus of therapy assuming, of course, he's actually dyslexic. (His diagnostic history is murkier than Bea's. I'm not positive but I think Harry was in his 20s before he spoke publicly of having dyslexia and he spoke about it in the context of "it wasn't because I partied too much my grades were bad." That doesn't mean he isn't dyslexic, of course, but that could have been a self-serving statement. And the reporter he told [Jeremy Clarkson] reportedly spent the weekend playing Scrabble with Harry and Chelsy. Hmmm.)
I'm also not sure there was any follow through when Harry was young after the initial grief counseling.
What you said about Virginia Giuffre is absolutely right. The photo where she's posing with PA shows her smiling broadly, the smile doesn't look forced and it reaches the eyes. We don't know the extent of PA's actions and they may be unsavoury but this doesn't make him a paedophile. Was VG really trafficked? I thought she was well paid for her services. And where were her parents? Her father was in the news a week or two ago complaining about her treatment but where was he at the time?
Girls who haven’t gone through puberty are prepubescent. A predator who goes after prepubescent girls or boys would be considered a paedophile. The girls Andrew is seen with may have maybe have been underage in America, but they were not prepubescent. He’s not a paedophile. 😕
It kind of seems that if he did have therapy when he was 12 years old, it perhaps was effective for who he was right then, but he needed more/different therapy as he aged.
He would have needed a different kind of therapy as he became an older teen. It's that therapy, if he had any, that I think was not effective. It seems like it didn't take into account all of the underlying issues. It seems like he's got more issues than just the death of his mother.
Lots of people lose a parent, either through divorce or death, at age 12 and don't turn into weirdos.
That's certainly possible. I agree the grief counseling at age 12, a kind of crisis management, could have worked and could have done what it was supposed to do. (That's the only counseling I've heard Harry had before adulthood but that may not be true.) But I'd have thought there might have been some clinical assessment at that time and some awareness by the professional that deeper work would be beneficial. The kinds of issues that Harry seems to exhibit didn't initially develop in his 30s or even in his late teens. They are more basic than that. Or at least that's my view.
He only went to therapy round the time when he left the army and then joined the Cambridges with the Royal Foundation, and I think it was to deal with anger issues.
At that time, his focus and energy was channelled into projects such as Invictus Games, a walk to the South Pole with the Walking Wounded, and so on, plus a lot of good stuff: raising money, being a figurehead and mascot, being part of the Royal family at public events and family gatherings.
Friends and cousins were pairing off and getting married; William became a father and was paying more attention to his role as a future king.
The York sisters, although with long-term partners, were still clubbing and holidaying and hanging out with celebrities. The Yorks in general could not have been giving him the sort of guidance that a future spare slipping down the line of succession would get from someone like Anne.
Harry struggled to get a relationship going beyond a couple of dates. He was ripe for the picking for Meghan and surrounded by people who did not give him the sort of sound direction and guidance in his personal life that he was getting in the Royal Foundation for his public life.
Along comes Meghan. He soon turns his back on all that was giving him stability and direction. And every weakness is exploited. In the hands of a therapist hand picked by Meghan, he is guided along the path of victimhood. And so on ...
Not so much a case of a good man being corrupted but more a case of a weak and troubled man falling under the influence of a skilled, shameless and ruthless operator. A different wife would have resulted in a different outcome for him.
I agree. I don't think that Harry's problems began when Diana died. I think he was born with certain challenges, firstly, and secondly, his upbringing and the behaviour of his mother caused other issues.
Then, there was the death of his mother.
just a different look at a 12 year old who's lost her mother at the same age. sorry, still typing one-handed.
You're back! We've been very worried about you! Are you ok now?
Jenn
Intriguingly, those who know the Duchess best agree that while she was sometimes ‘hurt’ by the negative headlines, she never really let them get to her. As one source puts it: ‘She didn’t really complain about how she was treated. She would get upset sometimes and wonder how long it would go on for, but she always adopted a very English, Home Counties sort of approach to life.’
A former employee who first met her in 2004 reveals: ‘She wasn’t fearful of the press, which was quite unanticipated. She understands the media well… she loves a gossip, she loves a good story. Everyone in her family has got opinions that they freely express and she loves that.
‘I’ve always thought if you want to chart the journey, how has she got to where she is now, it starts off with her personality and her character. She’s a brave, strong person.’
Recalling an incident in April 2012, when the royal couple were caught up in a protest on Regent Street, central London, the source adds: ‘Thugs shoved a stick through the window of their Rolls-royce and poked the Duchess… It was pretty terrifying. But when they finally arrived at their destination she was terribly British about it. She said: “Well, that was eventful.” She just cracks on.’
What I read was that the relationship started to fall apart as far back as the Australian trip when JM oddly accompanied the dreaded Markles. During that trip, JM discovered Maggot was faking a pregnancy and was afraid to get caught up in a con job like that. They argued, JM left the trip early, then Maggot gave her a Jaguar - undoubtedly to buy JMs silence. To her credit, JM refused to take the car. Mark my words - JM knows where ALL the bodies are buried.
posted under the article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9914955/Jessica-Mulroneys-silence-Meghan-Markles-40th-enigmatic-post-evidence-rift.html
That would explain the Jaguar. I always thought that was odd.
THE Queen has ordered senior Palace aides to plan a legal fightback amid hurtful attacks by Harry and Meghan — declaring: “Enough is enough.”
The monarchy’s legal team is consulting libel experts after a barrage of criticism from the US-based couple.
Last night a well-placed source revealed the Queen, 95, has become “exasperated with repeated attacks”.
They said: “The feeling, coming right from the top, is that enough is enough.
"There is a limit to how much will be accepted and the Queen and Royal Family can only be pushed so far.
“They are getting lawyered up. Harry and Meghan will be made aware and know repeated attacks will not be tolerated.”
Royals rocked
The Royal Family was rocked last month by Harry’s revelation he was writing a tell-all memoir to be released next year — the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
A legal warning to publishers Penguin Random House is now being considered.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15930851/queen-legal-fightback-harry-meghan/
I can well imagine Harry becoming fed up with Omid and wanting him cut off . . . and his wife going behind his back to feed Omid tidbits anyway.
It would be easier to speculate about Omid if we knew where Markus Andersen was.
Last I heard -- and this was a while ago -- he was in L.A. with MM. Have we had any updates?
no, not better yet. it will take at least six weeks or more. gotta get some rest. somebody tried to break into my house last night. luckily they didn't get in, but it was terrifying because i can't move and i can't protect myself. cops came at 3 a.m. side door was unlocked because the cops broke it to get to me to go to the hospital and it hadn't been fixed. if he'd come in that door, i would have been in real trouble.
great work, jenn and everybody else. i need to go to sleep now.
That is very scary - I hope you can get someone in to fix that door.
Please take care and I hope your health improves soon.
😊
yes, I second Jenn's comment. Do get better soon!
Jessperado
Silly old Jess
No longer bff with the mess
Is desperate to kiss up to the shrew
She should get over her loss
Her mate won’t give a toss
Two me’s in a pod, boohoo you
@Miggy
This is what rough n snuff wanted,
a legal kerfuffle, dragging the Queen
into their mire.
They disgust me.
Regina v. Reviler
It’s so bloody bad
For the Queen, I feel sad
The bastards have forced
this latest play
Whatever they do
No doubt, countersue
The Queen will, have the last say
God Save the Queen
@GWAH
Thank you for your earlier comment.
Won’t happen?
But, you made my day 🥰
Sorry folks, lockdown lurgy 🤣
Apologies:
“I’m a Little Teapot”
Out, damned despot
She’s a mega despot
Short and stout
Heels up, akimbo
Long in the snout
When she gets her call up
Watch her pout
Then pimp her up
and call her tout…
God Save the Queen!
I know @WildBoar
Stay true.
God will overcome
Thank you - I have to hang on to that. Good must prevail.
What we have seen playing out goes some way to explain how someone was able to take over the thinking of almost an entire nation, nearly 90 years ago, though.
On a lighter note, I watched a Jo Brand programme yesterday which included quite a lot of Morecombe & Wise - she discussed the plays `wot Ernie wrote', in particular when André Previn dealt so magnificently with the two of them. She commented about how the comedy lay in the way M&B were acting as idiots who didn't know what they were talking about who thought they knew better than the experts:
https://vimeo.com/479336770
There's quite a long intro, but stick with it!
TBW & her sidekick don't realise they are like M&W - but for real - in their public acts.
She'd probably be very good in their `Breakfast' sketch, though, - a real pro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFgdhZGLJrY
(re the video: Music is know as `The Stripper' - WARNING - this dates from the 1970s and, and, as the BBC would say, `it reflects the attitudes of the time' - don't watch if if you're likely to be offended)
Jocelyn, take it easy and get your door fixed. Do you have an alarm system? If you live in the US, the Simply Safe system is one you can easily install yourself on literally a few minutes. It and the one from Ring is also good, but Ring costs more, but Ring is like Simply Safe, in that it is a system you can add on to. You can start out with alarming a couple places around your home and then add on to it either system if you wish with cameras etc. Simply Safe is also nice in that if you rent a house or apartment, you can take it with you when you move and your rental that you are leaving won’t be torn up due to you taking the alarm system or cameras with you.
.
Well said!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9918261/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-donate-Women-Afghan-Women-organisation.html
Yes, reportedly via Archewell.
The two biggest nuggets are they have lost 700,00 Instagram followers while William and Kate have gained -million followers in the last 12 months.
The other nugget is that only 66% of Harry and Meghan’s followers are real people, leaving 33% of their followers being due to bots.
As you might recall, the Canadian magazine MacLean’s had an article that hinted that Meghan bought followers to try to make her social media, which included the lifestyle blog The Tig, seem more popular than it really was by purchasing fake followers.
PART ONE:
Headline: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle lose 700,000 Instagram followers in one year, while Prince William and Kate Middleton's Kensington Royal account gains 1m new fans, data reveals
By Claire Toureille For Mailonline
17:24 22 Aug 2021, updated 18:13 22 Aug 2021
Bullet: 700,000 people have stopped following the Sussexes on Instagram this year
Bullet: But Prince William and Kate Middleton's profile now counts 13 million followers
Bullet: Data analysis company Hypeauditor also said accounts followed by bots as well
The Sussexes have been losing followers on Instagram, while the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's follower count keeps on increasing, according to new data.
British data analysis firm Hypeauditor has revealed that 700,000 people have stopped following Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Instagram account in the past year, The Sun reported.
Research by the publication found that only 66 per cent of Harry and Meghan's followers are people, and that the rest of the followers are likely bots who 'mass follow' big names account.
But it wasn't specified how many bots followed the Cambridge's account, who last updated to their Instagram page on Friday 20 August.
Meanwhile, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge now boast 13 million followers on the same platform - gaining 1million new royal fans in 12 months - and the Queen's Royal Family account has 1.3 million more followers.
Royal experts have claimed that people have grown tired of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex attitude.
Royal commentator Angela Levin said: 'They tell people to be compassionate yet neither are compassionate towards their own families.
'They complain of climate change and tell us to be green, yet they then hop on private jets. People are deciding they don't agree with their behaviour and switch off.'
The popularity of the Sussex couple have known highs and lows since they stepped down as senior royals in March 2020.
In April, it was reported that Harry and Meghan's popularity kept dropping and were the lowest they had ever been following Prince Philip's funeral on April 17.
PART TWO:
The popularity of the Sussex couple have known highs and lows since they stepped down as senior royals in March 2020.
In April, it was reported that Harry and Meghan's popularity kept dropping and were the lowest they had ever been following Prince Philip's funeral on April 17.
The couple's popularity previously plummeted in the wake of their explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which they made accusations of racism within the Royal Family.
And they haven't regained favour with the British public since, with Prince Harry's popularity falling another three points following the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh on April 17, a YouGov survey found.
According to the data, of more than 1,700 Britons between April 21 and 22, public opinion of Prince Harry had remained largely negative despite his return home for the funeral of his grandfather.
The figures showed 43 per cent of Britons had a positive opinion of Prince Harry, while 49 per cent regarded him negatively.
This gave the once popular prince a net score of -6 in terms of popularity - a drop of three points from March 12.
Meghan's popularity scores also fell slightly following a sharp decline in March.
Less than a third (29 per cent) of Britons had a positive opinion of the Duchess of Sussex, while more than half (61 per cent) viewed her negatively at the time.
It is unknown how the re-edition, in the upcoming weeks of Finding Freedom, the Sussex's biography penned by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, will affect the couple's popularity.
Scobie claimed that Harry, 36, and Meghan, 40, initially tried to 'find a way to compromise' with the royal family that would have allowed them to be 'half in, half out' as far as their roles were concerned.
However, Scobie told People that the couple made the 'hard' decision to walk away from the royal family because they knew that there 'would have constantly been issues about financial endeavors and business decisions they made' had they maintained any ties with the monarchy.
In addition to the news that the Harkles’ IG account has lost 700,000 followers in the last year while William and Kate gained 1 million followers, the news that eco-warrior Harry took a $45 million private jet that belonged to a polo buddy to travel the two-hour flight from Aspen back to Santa Barbara after the polo fundraiser.
It’s too bad that Charles and Diana didn’t pledge to have only one child instead of two in order to save the world.
`An heir and a Spare was the order of the day, then. My apologies, I can't recall who said it was a pity the no. 2 wasn't a girl - we could have done with another Princess Anne instead of H.
Well his great-uncle also wanted to be half in and half out as well. He specifically wanted to come back and only do the fun stuff he liked as well but that was also denied.
I am not certain they even considered that as a potential historical precedent impacting their future. When people are looking for what they consider supporting evidence for justifying their choice, they may not be also looking for evidence which would not support their claim as that could scupper the idea or at least go back to the drawing board to think a way through to forestall that problem.
I'm still thinking about the claim about they were the ones trying work out compromise. That word is not the first one which comes to my mind when thinking about their responses to things they didn't like (not owning royal, service and so on). I keep returning to the Manifesto with the list of demands. Perhaps because they didn't ask for certain things (oh, I don't know, bling jewelry or something else which might be useful in the proposed high profile flashy red carpet event life?) that they did feel they were making compromises and not demands?
A better question is when will The Dom and her submissive address the lies that they have put forth during the Oprah interview? We should all be asking this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szRbLZNcdAM
The stepping away from the RF for "financial endeavors and business decisions" is just ludicrous! Negs was never a financial whiz. Everyone in her family has filed for bankruptcy, and Negs can't handle money wisely, it burns a hole in her pocket.
She didn't want to make appearances, and do any royal family duties. She's got the pot-smoking slacker mentality of doing nothing. They both are a couple of layabouts, aren't they. Doing nothing all day long must be absolutely miserable.
They've all been troubled financially due to stupid and poor decisions; and as I recall, pot-smoking slackers, even though Sr. was working.
One cousin has a successful pot farm.
Poor financial decisions - that is easy for most people to do and easy to replicate in succeeding generations. It is not so easy to choose to learn how to save, invest and make good financial decisions.
Isn't that the truth. Family people I know - you just watch them reinvent the wheel every so often. I "pass on" my kid's clothes which sometimes looks shockingly new. Go figure.
In today's column, she asks why Prince Charles printed his editorial about greenhouse gasses in the Daily Mail, which absolutely detests the Harkles and who are being sued by the gruesome twosome.
It must because there is a contract between the DM and the BRF to attack the runaway royals in their pages, in return for Prince Charles to write an editorial in that newspaper according to paranoid Lainey.
It's not because Prince Charles is trying to reach another audience than he would normally, no.... that's too logical and doesn't involve Illuminati and blood rituals!
-------
So true. And if any gentle guidance, or maybe even not so gentle, is offered, it is soundly, disdainful rejected. But they're completely jealous of what they perceive as my successful lifestyle.
Sigh.
They don't see all the hard work and planning and sacrifice that allowed me to have my lifestyle. They don't understand that I've earned every minute of it.
Much like mm, they think they deserve my lifestyle just because they want it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecrsSrDy2CA
You either have BPD or not.
People with BPD each have their own personality and family circumstances, and these differences would account for variances with or without BPD.
This description of the so-called Queen variant sounds like a description of a narcissist. That a person could be a narcissist and have BPD is perhaps possible. But, a person with BPD does feel genuine empathy; a narcissist does not. A person with BPD ends up being abandoned in relationships; a narcissist ghosts others. A person with BPD will actually slit their wrists; a narcissist will threaten to get attention and manipulate but will not actually do self harm. There are other contradictory differences.
I don't believe that TBW will ever want to leave California again, no matter what. The culture, people and weather suit her.
I disagree though with @Sandie's statement "You either have BPD or not."
That's not completely true in terms of psychological functioning. It is true that right now DSM is categorical, not dimensional (although there's talk that may change for PD's fairly soon.) A categorical approach does mean the person either fits in the category of she doesn't. But in reality, practitioners often talk about patients having traits of a particular PD although that's not an official diagnosis on its own. Further, with DSM-5 a person can be diagnosed with Personality Disorder—trait specified (PD-TS). This diagnosis is used when a person clearly exhibits traits of one (or more) PD but doesn't meet the full criteria AND the impairment is severe enough to warrant diagnosis. This diagnosis replaces DSM-IV's "Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS)
I think Diana likely exhibited some traits of BPD.
Uneasy posting this, but got a very pointed "tweet" referencing an I.V.F. clinic and a mistake in a "designer" baby. Baby not as ordered. Reason why no photos. Anyone else heard anything or just gossipy speculation?
---------
I saw something about that also. If they ordered blond blue-eyed and didn't get it, it kinda makes you wonder what they got that would cause them not to share pictures.
It's not like they're going to sue the IVF place. Because that would out them.
And, if it was only IVF and not a surrogacy also, they can't just give the baby back in that there's no one to give the baby back to.
1) admits defeat. she couldn’t make it in socal
2) new yorkers don’t take bs from anyone. entourages are not encouraged
3) too many people can find out the truth if those babies are with her. harder to hide unless she’s on a big spread in the hamptons
4) while she could be papped on every corner it would be a lot of work walking the streets everday (yes i meant that 😉) waiting for a photog to snap a pic and merch some clothes.
Or, a further possibility, is the babe disabled in some way & her name was intended not as `honouring' the Queen but as yet a further insult?
I wouldn't put it past her - perhaps she wanted the Windsor Christening as the great reveal of a child with major developmental issues?
`Ta-dah, Queenie! Just take a look at your namesake... Look what you've done to us!'
Just guessing, but I can't escape the image of her as the Red Duchess holding a piglet. She seems that depraved. The only movie she might ever star in is a horror one.
Perhaps it's simply not attractive enough to be the offspring of the Most Famous and Beautiful Woman in the World?
Poor child.
I wonder what she's referring to. Does anyone have any ideas?
They scrubbed her past from the internet very well before the wedding. Maybe they're thinking of releasing some of what they scrubbed?
I did finally find the picture of MM in a wedding gown surrounded by bridesmaids in dark purple gowns. Some of the bridesmaids even looked African-American! I assume it was from her first wedding to Joe Giuliano.
We have people here from all different political parties so I am trying to avoid escalation by someone who disagreed with a label description.
Thank you.
Regarding that photo, I thought it has surfaced in the past and was written off as more of a prom thing.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle donate to the World Central Kitchen - run by their friend Jose Andre - via the Archewell Foundation to support Haiti earthquake victims
Great comment about the article:
“Its a good thing they don’t attend church or we would have a press release every week when they put something into the collection plate.”
@WBBM: That's probably the case with both children, if they exist--not attractive enough to be the child of the world's most beautiful woman. Then again, if the children are adorable, Negs will feel threatened by them, and massively jealous.
Uneasy posting this, but got a very pointed "tweet" referencing an I.V.F. clinic and a mistake in a "designer" baby. Baby not as ordered. Reason why no photos. Anyone else heard anything or just gossipy speculation?
@MsDeb52: I have wondered this myself. There are so many disorders that are not detectable by amniocentesis unless you test for the SPECIFIC disorder. There are hundreds pf genetic disorders, so unless you know what to test for beyond looking for Down syndrome or other common disorders, you do not know. Some disorders do not immediately manifest themselves at birth. Some do not become apparent until until the child is several months or even several years old, and some as late as teens, or even as an adult.
I am wondering if this child has a craniofacial problem such as a cleft lip and or cleft palate. It would be visible in a sonogram, but if the child was otherwise healthy, I can’t see Harry approving an abortion for something that can be corrected with surgery. However, Meghan might not have felt the same as Harry because narcissists see their children as extensions of themselves. Yes, many parents do this, but narcissists do it to the extreme.
However, Meghan is a huge game player, which to me is at the emotional level of a middle schooler. So she may be playing games, partly with the public and partly with the royal family after allegedly showing her to the Queen on a video call.
Hiding this child is a control move and a manipulation. She also might be trying to get a magazine to cough up big bucks for an exclusive photo session.
I believe I read that when Archie was born, Meghan tried to command a high price for first photos of Archie, but there were no takers.
Regarding that photo, I thought it has surfaced in the past and was written off as more of a prom thing.
Where I grew up, prom kings and queens are typically elected and announced at the dance itself. The queen and her court would not be wearing identical dresses; they would be wearing their own prom dresses; the dresses wouldn't match.
Good thinking. I hadn't thought of that.
Abbyh said:
Regarding that photo, I thought it has surfaced in the past and was written off as more of a prom thing.
Where I grew up, prom kings and queens are typically elected and announced at the dance itself. The queen and her court would not be wearing identical dresses; they would be wearing their own prom dresses; the dresses wouldn't match.
@Henrietta: It might be a Homecoming court, which could have matching dresses or not matching dresses.
Jocelyn Bellinis and JennS: Good to see both of you back.
............
Hi HappyDays!
I too have seen that photo explained as a homecoming court but it IS odd and is worthy of some investigation.
I have my research blog open now for discussion and 'Harkle investigators' - come visit us. You can get there by clicking on my avatar.
😊
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-markle-dazzles-homecoming-queen-10827866
I don't know if it's typical of Catholic schools, but Meghan's school seemed to have a bunch of formal dances. (We had one prom in my public school. Other dances weren't formal.) But we know at Immaculate Heart High School the Homecoming dance was formal, they had a formal Christmas dance, they had prom in late spring, and I think I saw mention of one more but can't remember what it celebrated. Because it was a girls school, they wouldn't have been electing kings, so I expect the elections for queens wouldn't have been done at the dance since half the attendees wouldn't be eligible to vote.
If Meghan did marry Joe G while at Northwestern, I really doubt she had a big wedding with bridesmaids. Besides, isn't the story that when his parents found out about the marriage, they persuaded him to get an annulment? Would he have really had a big wedding (paid for by Thomas?) without telling his parents? Yet be persuaded by them later to undo it? Sounds fishy. If she did marry him, I expect it was at city hall.
@WildBoar
Thank you for Morecombe & Wise,
really good belly laugh, much needed.
Well played Andre Previn!!
Eric “not too heavy on the banjoes” 😂
The ‘Stripper’ perfick 👌
Angela Rippon, she did have mile long legs!
Our ‘legends in their own mind’
Merescum & Lies!
A bit of a jingle from the 70’s?
Martini ad
Anytime, any place, anywhere
Taken, and Shared
Anytime, any place, any spare
The slogan for madam sur mer
Picked the white one
Not the bright one
That’s Megtini
Sans Bikini…
Madam sur mer or madam sur merde?
I can't remember the Martini as, I was thinking of the Cinzano Bianco one with Joan Collins and Leonard Rossiter!
Of course, we're only assuming that the case we've heard whispers of involves the Dastardly Duo...
Ah Maneki, that is good, tres sur merde!!
Google Martini ad song
Anytime….
The warter in Majorka
don’t taste like what it orter..
Re: Megs Manhattan Manoeuvres
The Meg Fall
Hopeless Haz, and Mega Sue
Trawling down 5th Avenue
Begging for an In, at least
From those on the Upper East
Silly sods, will never happen
Already toast, in Manhattan…
*What- Wat 😉
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9925375/Royals-pleased-Meghan-didnt-attend-Philips-funeral-new-Finding-Freedom-book-says.html
Is it officially unofficial or unofficially official?
Or does it vary minute by minute?
Wow! I bet that's the first true statement to emerge from their camp since she first darkened (it I dare use that word?) our shores.
@magatha
There's an acute shortage of bottled water in UK supermarkets, thanks to delivery problems (no drivers!) Apart from water from the Harrogate springs, that is- such is its `acquired' taste. That stays on the shelf, showing we're not that desperate...
Is it the Yorkshire equivalent of Icelandic `fermented' (to British palates, rotten!) shark - only Yorkshire ultra-patriots consume the stuff?
Am delighted you enjoyed M&W - both Lancastrians!
It's a very American thing the statement teeshirt. No one else I know wears a teeshirt with a slogan showing their political opinions, etc.
I've seen teeshirts with band logos in other countries but never the slogan filled teeshirts the Americans love.
At the time of the Manhattan baby shower way back in February 2019 (what halcyon innocent pre-virus insanity days those seem now), with Amal Clooney and Serena Williams in attendance, there was speculation that the true purpose of the trip, for which the celebrity-studded baby shower was a cover was Mugsy coming to scope out potential bolthole properties in NYC, and that Serena and Amal were going to jointly put a luxury apartment (no other kind would do for La Duckarse of course) in their names so as to disguise Meg's trail.
Such a property in Manhattan would have made sense for a 'half-in/half-out' commuter Royal scheme from London, if the cards had fallen that way, but I seriously do not see Mugsy relocating from SoCal to New York at this stage. Her currency as a potential multimedia personality is about void now. Back then, as a newly-minted Duchess of less than a year, she could have become a commodity in New York. Mugs doesn't have the nads for New York and New Yorkers and the New York media scene do not have the indulgent attitude for West Coast stoner-time wasters, and Negs and Hazmat's only area of stellar achievements are in the wasting of money and time. It's all they are good at.
As for the unseen American Royal children, I find the easiest and most cohesive explanation for their chronic invisibility to be the one which no mainstream commentator and precious few Internet ones will dare to make for fear of being sued into oblivion by Her Royal Litigiousness, and it's the same one I've adhered to since October 2018: There are no children. 'Archie' ostensibly turned two in May and apart from a photo of 'a' curly haired toddler shot from the back holding balloons . . we haven't seen hide nor hair of him since. Negs' narcissism would make it impossible for her to resist a papp stroll or photo shoot for some quick cash. With every day that passes, 'her kids' become less and less and less desirable as money-making outlets, and she's got to know this.
Neither Negs' nor Harry's statements or demeanor have ever suggested to me with an ounce of authenticity that they are parents or have any idea how real parents would comport themselves, even parents that have money to hire help.
I remember the reports about her sneaking out of the back door of the hotel in NYC (without baby bump, IIRC) to go apartment-hunting with Amal but there was no follow up.
Did she buy anything? I wonder?
Blogger lizzie, said...
If one of these is the photo being discussed, clearly it's a homecoming dance photo, not a wedding photo.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-markle-dazzles-homecoming-queen-10827866
It isn't any of these pictures, and if you look at the one of her prom "court," all the women are wearing different dresses.
The Negs are the epitome of borderline personality disorder (Queen borderline), and narcissist (King narcissist).
ha! there's a DM article about the new version of "Funding Freebies" with comments by Vomid Scobie.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9925375/Royals-pleased-Meghan-didnt-attend-Philips-funeral-new-Finding-Freedom-book-says.html
Yankee Wally has some pictures on Instagram of the "new chapter" of Finding Freedom, and they're saying it's only something like 25 pages, double-spaced, and poorly written.
I'm not very good at copying links, but here goes:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CS3voeln2GC/?utm_medium=copy_link
The way the pictures are posted, you can't really read the content. (Or if you can, I don't know how.)
IMO the revised edition of FF probably has more to do with the publisher than the Markles. The publisher probably didn't make as much off the book as they had planned, and they're trying to squeeze out the last pennies.
https://tattle.life/threads/harry-meghan-22-a-woke-broke-joke.5968/page-15
The sensational claims made in leaks of the epilogue last night included that:
*Members of the Royal Family were 'quietly pleased' that the Duchess of Sussex missed Prince Philip's funeral because they feared she would 'create a spectacle' if she attended;
*While Harry and his brother have spoken on multiple occasions, Harry and his father Charles were only on 'light speaking terms';
*The book alleges that palace courtiers had lied to the media over Meghan and Harry's wishes on the issue of Archie not being made a prince, claiming that the couple did in fact want this option;
*It criticises the monarchy after courtiers ordered an inquiry into claims of bullying against the duchess while the couple's allegations of racism did not receive the same treatment;
*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 because he was no longer a 'frontline royal';
*The authors also 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 his mother Diana;
*The epilogue also claims Meghan had no idea that 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.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9927115/Harry-Meghan-considered-naming-royal-racist-asked-Archies-skin-colour-book-claims.html
The book also suggests that Meghan personally contacted one of the authors to see if they were OK after they allegedly received abuse on social media.
Oh, Scoobie Doo you really are a prat!
Have any sub-editors been fired for not doing their job?
Whatever's going on at Penguin/Random House? Sir Allen Lane must be turning in his grave.
Brilliant phrase!
Thanks for posting the summary of FF updates. In addition, the update repeats the claim that they wanted Archie to be a prince so that he would have security!
I do wish that someone would clearly debunk all the delusions and lies and clearly explain to the Sussexes and those who believe them what the truth actually is.
* Being titled a prince and having taxpayer-funded scurity are not related at all. Security is provided according to risk and the royal family have nothing to do with assessing that.
* The racism claim did not warrant a full-scale public investigation. It was indeed a private matter between family. The Queen made it clear in her statement that the Sussexes had lied. They never named the family member nor engaged with that person directly (i.e. they never sorted it out but flung contradictory and misleading accusations on a public platform). The bullying investigatiin had to be done because it involved staff. In fact, the monarchy looks bad because they buried it instead of dealing with it at the time (i.e. they did not protect staff despite having an official policy to do so).
* Staff say they did inform Meghan about the diamond earrings and why wearing them would be problematic, and it is inconceivable that they did not.
* As others have pointed out, the inheritance from Diana was her divorce settlement from Charles (paid by the Queen). The book also ignores the huge amount of money Charles gave them after they had left. What is also ignored is that they had significant funding from the Sovereign Grant after they left and were sulking and plotting in Canada and then fleeing to America.
* As with Andrew, Harry could not lay a wreath because he no longer had his honorary military positions. The royal family lay wreaths as representatives of various military, navy or airforce divisions and not in a personal capacity. Note that he did not arrange for someone to lay the wreath at one of the many memorials as a personal tribute, which he could have done.
Any more delusions and lies to debunk? Is this a narcissist trait - to manipulate the truth or tell outright lies in order to control information in a self-serving way? It is kind of like gaslighting. I have personally experienced it and it really is very destructive.
Pengun/ Random House used to have an excellent reputation. No fact checking was done for FF. Nor was there any editing of the text to distinguish fact from opinion.
Penguin used to be so reliable.
As Wikipedia says: Sir Allen Lane CH was a British publisher who together with his brothers Richard and John Lane founded Penguin Books in 1935, bringing high-quality paperback fiction and non-fiction to the mass market. (my emphasis)
FF is very low-quality fiction, masquerading as non-fiction.
As for the children, I think part of the problem in trying to explain the hidden children is that we take a rational approach in our explanations of their behaviour. Think crazy/that makes no sense and we might find the explanation!
@lizzie
Thanks for your post about BPD and NPD. I think part of the problem is the whole idea of traits.
* To be classified as having a disorder one should have significant and sufficient traits that interfere with functioning 'normally'. On that score, Meghan may be a toxic narcissist but she does not necessarily meet the requirements for being classified as having a disorder. So, narcissist traits versus narcissistic personality disorder.
* Equally, we can see BPD traits in Diana but not at the level or extent of her being classified as having BPD. So, borderline personality traits versus borderline personality disorder.
* Meghan is actually highly functional in that she is still married, still has friends, still gets deals, has aquired great wealth and influence, manages to side step real accountability, succeeds in falsely blaming others ... Amber Heard is another similar example that springs to mind. My questions are do they eventually cross over into extreme NPD and everything comes crashing down or does acquiring great wealth protect them from that? Wealth did not protect Weinstein or Epstein in the end?
Does anyone know when these photographs were taken?
She claims to have miscarried in July ... in hospital.
I remember us investigating the miscarriage claims and concluding that it was probably failed IVF or a very early miscarriage, which is not unusual.
Would she be under the care of a gynaecologist at that medical centre?
Re: Personality Disorders
You are correct that a DSM diagnosis of any PD requires maladaptive personality traits that are inflexible & pervasive enough to cause significant distress and/or impair work and/or interpersonal functioning.
The distress felt may be in response to consequences encountered because of one's own behavior. It's not that the person realizes she's "brought it on herself" although one hopes some insight will arise during therapy. But prior to that, someone with a PD is more likely to see herself as misunderstood, ahead of her time, or as a victim who is being treated unfairly. So I'm not sure whether M would qualify for a PD diagnosis. That's not a question I can answer only knowing her in the press. And let's face it-- we don't know anything about the state of her marriage, how lucrative any of their "deals" have been, how active her social life is, and so forth. We don't even know if she sometimes stays in bed all day with a bottle of wine. (I think it was suggested maybe she used to do that after a bad audition.)
I definitely agree M is higher functioning compared to some people but those with PDs can be and still meet the DSM criterion listed above. (After all, we've had more than one president in the US people claimed-- with some credibility-- had a PD.)
Periodically someone will post here that she thinks Meghan should be involuntarily committed. That she is so extremely mentally ill that commitment should be possible. I can say without reservation given what we know right now, that's not going to happen (nor should it. Involuntary commitment needs to be reserved for extreme situations.)
People have also opined that she's schizophrenic and I certainly don't see that. Others have suggested she's bipolar. Maybe but if so, I think she's being successfully treated with meds. Other than her self-proclaimed bout of depression back in 2019 when pregnant, she's not shown symptoms of depression or mania publicly.
You asked what happens over time---I don't think either Epstein or Weinstein should be held up as typical of those with PDs. They both had lots more going on. Historically though, PDs have had only moderate diagnostic stability over time. PD traits are more stable than disorders. And it has been shown that the symptoms of BPD (and Antisocial PD) tend to lessen over time. The most "dramatic erratic" symptoms in BPD tend to be seen in late adolescence and early adulthood. (20s)
Suffering is suffering; pain is pain. The humane response is compassion and empathy.
I can believe that the Harkles have and are experiencing some level of pain and suffering. It reached acute levels while they were working royals, when they were expected to follow rules, respect hierarchy and traditions, and so on.
However, if the main cause of the suffering and pain is delusions and lies and the construction of a false narrative to support a stance of victimhood and falsely accuse others and do them harm ... surely the remedy is to deal with the delusions and lies and false narratives? In short, surely the remedy should be one that should include protecting others?
In my opinion, the direct and indirect responses from the royal family have been exactly that, and thus seems to suggest that Harry's family are well aware of the lies and false narratives, but think that the pain and suffering is real, albeit it the result of delusional thinking and feeding the media with a false narrative. Hence the compassion and restrain in exposing the lies and delusions. Now they seem to understand that protecting those who are being attacked must be a part of the strategy and is perhaps the best way to help the Harkles in the long run.
------
I thought they said they were declining a title for the kid so that he could have a normal childhood.
They wouldn't let you just wander on out by yourself, would they?
No way paps would have been there anyway unless she called them. I can't fathom that they hang out by hospitals just in case somebody important walks out.
For a random, non planned shot, those paps sure were in a good position to get nice clear pictures.
Ah but it would mean that her child is treated the same as Prince George or any of the other Camb's kids.
What everyone believes: Princess Charlene of Monaco was in floods of tears on her wedding day (plus ...).
The truth: There was a civil ceremony. Then there was a religious ceremony on a separate day. Following the religious ceremony, the coyple were driven in an open-top car to a shrine, where a woman and child sang a song (the venue was pretty crowded with people) and then Charlene put her bouquet on an altar and bowed her head in prayer. The only time she cried in all this time was when the woman and child were singing in the shrine. Interestingly, Princess Stephanie was in floods of tears during the civil ceremony!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9925773/Princess-Charlene-Monaco-showed-no-emotional-bond-Prince-Albert-says-body-language-expert.html
Once a false narrative is out there, it takes hold and spawns all sorts of other stories and fixed beliefs. That is perhaps why the Harkles are so dangerous.
http://www.meghansmirror.com/shop/magic-linen-toscana-dress/
Still waiting for photos of the littlest princess, Lilibet. Blurry photos on Zoom videos don't count. They looked like photos that came with the frames.
Since they're getting along so well with the Cambridges & the Queen, surely the little tyke will get a royal baptism soon! Can't wait! Archie's baptism was already photoshopped long before he was the age that little Lili is now. Why the wait? The 'young family' obviously could bunk with the Brooksbanks while undergoing quarantine. Does a group of 7 count as a 'bubble' in the UK, so Archie could meet his 'dear' cousins? Please fill us in, Scabies.
Thank you so much for your very thoughtful and insightful response.
Epstein and Weinstein were bad examples as I do not know if they could be classified with a personality disorder.
What I was trying to say is that wealth (or even exceptional talent) can enable one to function at a high level, and buy influence as protection. Until a group of people commit themselves to putting a stop to the behaviour and hold the person accountable for the harm caused.
Spot on that the distress was caused by their own behaviour (and thinking patterns etc.). The remedy thus lies within themselves. Am astonished that Harry has been in therapy for years and does not seem to get it! Meghan seems incapable of comprehending or acknowledging that she is the problem at all. I think this blindness could lead them into a heap of trouble that they will not be able to get out of. If Harry's family are aware of this, they must be very worried about him, or do you think they are burying their heads in the sand or have written him off and are just getting on with things?
Supposedly those were taken in LA on Friday July 10, 2020.
The Independent article says it's unclear if the photos were supposed to be from the hospital visit at the time of the miscarriage or from a follow-up office appt. If taken at the hospital did they drive 90 miles to Beverly Hills while she was miscarrying? And wasn't it determined when the photos were first published that they came out of a medical building, not a hospital? (And she claims she went to a hospital in her article.)
In my experience, if patients are being discharged from the Emergency Dept, they aren't always wheeled out in a wheelchair. But if the person has been admitted to a floor and then discharged, a wheelchair is used.
I'm a bit surprised M would choose to wear a white/cream dress under the circumstances. If she was leaving the hospital, I strongly suspect (for obvious reasons) she was not discharged in the clothes she was wearing when she arrived, especially if it took nearly 2 hours to arrive from Montecito. And if she sent H home to get her something clean to wear or even ordered something from a store, why a white/cream dress? And even if it was a follow up appt, the photo was from July 10. She claimed she miscarried in July. She and Harry were Zooming in July 1 with the QCT. So not many days to have recovered and be comfortable wearing white.
Here's the article that the DM published at the time. (11th July 2020)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8513577/No-sweat-Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-step-appointment-scorching-Beverly-Hills.html
I think I see what you are asking. The relationship between SES and mental illness is not very straightforward though. You are correct money may "buy cover." It can also buy therapy. (Even in countries with socialized medicine, mental health treatment is often hard to get.) Certainly some disorders like Major Depressive Disorder occur more often in lower economic groups. Of course, MDD occurs more often in women and women make less money than men so sex and SES are confounded.
But, if we think about it, DSM uses level of occupational functioning as a criterion for diagnosing many disorders, not just personality disorders. So someone who is wealthy & doesn't need to work can't have problems at work or if he/she does, it's still not seen as an issue in tbe same way.
On the other hand, a person who lives as a hermit "off the grid" may totally escape notice too (& without paying for cover!)
People also talk about "successful sociopaths." Rather than fitting with the outright criminal picture of Antisocial Personality Disorder, these folks feel no remorse either but have used their sociopathy in more (outwardly) socially acceptable roles. Some suggest some politicians and televangelists fit here (the ones that take grandma's last dollar to buy themselves a fancy car.) One could argue Epstein fit here at times. It's not as though PA is the only well-known person to hang out with him, after all.