After the Time piece, what do you do for an encore?
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
Bow out, hopefully
They will treat it like the photo was the defining photo of our time
Icons? My foot!
@snarky: Agree. Must be a sh*tstorm of abuse in that house.
It's quite something that a no-talent nobody managed to snag a prince, and do all kinds of hideous things, because all things coming from them are hideous.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9997957/Meghan-Markles-62-000-pinky-ring-diamonds-mystery-donor-Middle-East.html
* Meghan Markle wore $62,000 pinky ring for Time magazine cover, expert claims
* Reportedly turned to celebrity jeweler Lorraine Schwartz to fashion the ring from a gift of diamonds that the couple received from the Middle East
* Comes after royal criticized by lawyer fighting for murdered Jamal Khashoggi
* Michael Eisner said Meghan wore chandelier earrings 'bought with blood money'
* The diamonds were gifted to her by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Prayers and best wishes heading your way. x
best wishes for your husband.
Please look into intravenous Vitamin C for sepsis. The results are amazing.
Here is one link, but I've heard of people responding positively after only 20 minutes of administration:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29684467/
The title of the scientific paper at the link above is Vitamin C for the treatment of sepsis: The scientific rationale This is intravenous vitamin C! your doctor needs to be involved!
I remember that thing about intravenous (IV) vitamin C because I listened to a podcast where a doctor was saying how amazing it was for sepsis.
I hope your husband can get the treatment he needs. Take care x
"Anthony French, diamond expert at Austen & Blake commented: 'I would say it is approximately 2ct emerald solitaire. The diamond is rumoured to be a gift from the Middle East for the time they spent volunteering there, based on this it should be of a decent quality, and I would suspect it to be worth around £45-£50k.'
Who does "they" in the above passage refer to? If it means H&M, what volunteering?
@MsDeb52- Hope your husband is ok.
"People who jump from project to project are always dividing their effort, and producing high quality work becomes difficult without intense effort.
Meanwhile, your average work day can be leisurely, yet also productive, if you return to the same project each day.
Do one thing well and watch it compound."
@MsDeb52-Healing wishes for your husband.
Thanks for the info re TBW's latest (?) piece of jewellery. I wonder what country in the Middle East the gift comes from and also whether she's allowed to keep it. The general info on the BRF accepting gifts is “The fundamental principle governing the acceptance of gifts by Members of The Royal Family is that no gifts, including hospitality or services, should be accepted which would, or might appear to, place the Member of The Royal Family under any obligation to the donor"... It doesn't seem to come under the definition of personal gift but I could be wrong. I would also add that really classy, wealthy women do not wear stacks of jewellery, in fact they hardly wear any most of the time. Does the witch need to show us how rich she is? It's just vulgar.
Someday when they auction off her estate, not even Goodwill would prize it.
They are clowns...
Sending healing and positive vibes for your husband. I hope he gets all the necessary care and treatment he needs. ❤️
" I would also add that really classy, wealthy women do not wear stacks of jewellery,.."
I agree wearing tons of jewelry isn't a very classy look. Wearing lots of rings also is not what many women do who are taking care of an infant or who are spending time cooking.
TBW probably has an ego big enough for both of them.
I think the Time cover with 6's shrunken head and TBW front and center shows how massive her ego is...no self-respecting man--much less a prince--would allow himself to be juggling outside peering in a window in a video like 6 was.
'JUST PATHETIC'
Candace Owens rips Meghan Markle & ’emasculated’ Harry’s Time cover as she says she’d never embarrass husband like this’
• 20:39, 15 Sep 2021
CANDACE Owens took to Twitter to scoff at Time Magazine's top 100 cover featuring Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, quote-tweeting the image with the caption “I honestly cannot.”
“The live emasculation of Prince Harry continues,” the conservative commentator wrote. “I would never want my husband to be embarrassed like this in front of the world.”
...
In her mic-drop moment, Candace ended the tweet by calling the photo and the couple “Just so pathetic.”
The cover reveal, and Candace's comments, come on Harry's 37th birthday.
Body language expert Judi James said that most of the “power signals” in the photo come from Meghan, while Harry “seems happy to endorse her as a wingman."
“Harry stands beside and behind her with one hand placed rather self-consciously on her shoulder while she employs a slightly more tentative hand-touch at waist level,” Judi said.
Interpreting the pose, Judi explained that Harry "seems to be directing us towards his wife in terms of the real power and brains of the family here."
Candace has criticized the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on Twitter several times this year.
Her comments today are in keeping with the stance she held in May when she insisted that Harry is trapped in an “emotionally abusive relationship.”
“Meghan has groomed him to believe that she is his mother reincarnate—only this time, he has a chance to save her,” Candace wrote. “It is so disturbing to watch. Please stop putting cameras on him."
Candace also accused Meghan of lying about royal family members’ comments, prior to her son Archie’s birth, expressing preemptive judgment at the potential color of his skin.
“If you believe Meghan Markle is a victim, you're an idiot," Candace wrote.
The Twitter users who agreed with Candace’s take were quick to make fun of the couple, labeling Harry as an accessory and criticizing his apparently airbrushed bald spot.
“As usual, Meghan's at the front, the Handbag carrier knows his place," one user wrote.
Other photos in the magazine received a better reception.
“Happiness looks good on Meghan and Harry,” wrote user @Qsteph, who shared another photo from the profile that shows the couple walking hand-in-hand through a garden.
And not everyone thought the cover photo was posed awkwardly.
“Beside every compassionate and influential man, there is a compassionate and influential woman. Well done, Harry and Meghan,” said user @CarmenGranddau1.
(Who she? @CarmenGranddau1 = Carmen's granddaughter. I at first thought she was Welsh, you know, like the Carneddau! She isn't)
her hands, wrists and fingers are much fatter than they used to be.
TBW is "Klassy" with a K ;)
This is what The Body Language Guy on YouTube advised us to say to narcissists whom we're unfortunately stuck with. The best strategy is still "to go grey rock," of course, but if they continue to fish for compliments, then say something like:
"Wow! That was such an amazing achievement! I have no idea how you're ever going to top it in the future, because it was so great!"
The question of how he or she is going to top it will haunt the narc for a good while.
My cousin recently shared this comment on Facebook: "Harry looks like the hairdresser explaining how he did her waves."
So spot on!
So sorry about mangling BOTH of your screen names!!! Sigh.
😂 Don't worry, I think it's funny!
Please keep us all apprised, we’re pulling for Bob and you.
She is preparing her plataform for going into politics soon... the horror!
Well, since TBW always attempts to begin at the top, I am predicting a massive fail here, too. She has already been rebuffed by Gavin Newsom, who refused to gift her with Kamala Harris's open Senate Seat. And TBW will be no more successful with Newsom's Auntie Nan, either. Pelosi is having enough of a problem with the woke members of her caucus, namely "The Squad"....AOC, Ilan Omar, Rashid Talib, etc. The very last thing Bela Pelosi either wants or desires is one more big-mouthed narc trying to upstage her. Mrs. Pelosi will absolutely not support TBW, in California, unless TBW wants to do it the old fashioned way.....start small and work hard. An operator like Pelosi is likely to laugh in TBW's face.
I hope this is going to be a painful lesson for TBW. And I wonder, if she's smart enough to quit before she even starts down this path. Which, of course, begs the question....What is Act III going to be?
Yeah, I know it's a daft idea but think who we're dealing with.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9999419/CLAUDIA-CONNELL-imagines-Harrys-life-hairdresser-wife.html
Sky NewsSky News
Prince Philip's will to be kept a secret to protect Queen's 'dignity', High Court rules
Thu, 16 September 2021, 9:15 pm
The Duke of Edinburgh's will is to remain a secret to protect the Queen's "dignity", the High Court has ruled.
Prince Philip died at the age of 99 in April - just two months before his 100th birthday.
The standard convention following the death of a senior member of the Royal Family is for an application to be sent to the president of the family division of the High Court to seal their will.
This means their wills are not open to public inspection in the way a will would ordinarily be.
On Thursday it was ruled that Prince Philip's will is to be kept sealed for 90 years from the grant of probate - the formal process which confirms the authority of an executor to administer a deceased person's estate.
Even after that period of time, it may only be opened in private.
Judge Sir Andrew McFarlane said: "I have held that, because of the constitutional position of the sovereign, it is appropriate to have a special practice in relation to royal wills.
"There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the sovereign and close members of her family."
He said the ruling was to ensure as much detail was made public as possible, without "compromising the conventional privacy afforded to communications from the sovereign".
The judge made clear to the court that he has not seen, or been told, about anything in Prince Philip's will other than the date of its execution and the identity of the appointed executor.
An earlier hearing was held in private to avoid "very significant publicity and conjecture".
Sir Andrew said: "I accepted the submission that, whilst there may be public curiosity as to the private arrangements that a member of the Royal Family may choose to make in their will, there is no true public interest in the public knowing this wholly private information.
"The media interest in this respect is commercial. The degree of publicity that publication would be likely to attract would be very extensive and wholly contrary to the aim of maintaining the dignity of the sovereign."
Lawyers representing the duke's estate had argued at the private hearing that news of that hearing "might generate wholly unfounded conjecture" which would be "deeply intrusive" to the Queen and the Royal Family.
The first member of the Royal Family whose will was sealed after a ruling from the court was Prince Francis of Teck, who was the younger brother of Queen Mary.
Sir Andrew said he is the custodian of a safe which holds 30 envelopes - each containing the sealed will of a deceased Royal Family member.
The physical process of unsealing a will must be conducted by a professional archivist to ensure that the document and its seals are properly preserved.
The last time a request was made to unseal a will was in 2007.
A man named Robert Andrew Brown made the request to make the will of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret available, claiming he was the illegitimate child of Princess Margaret, but this was not allowed.
His claim was struck out as "vexatious and an abuse of process" - a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Mrs.Hairy is too short and squat to wear The Row, she just looks stumpier.
___
Lol. Very true.
Even tall and thin looks like a grab bag at the expensive rag factory.
Sigh. Why does everything these days look post-apocalyptic? Rhetorical question.
Yes, because Harry is the “favorite grandson!”
And TBW cannot get anything without showing it off!
They wanted to see what they were left in the will? And if it was nothing they were going to stamp their feet and cry racism?
Just a lil something for us oldies but goodies. :D
I think the ask for a christening in England is to strengthen the connection to the Royals i.n addition to seeing if PP left them anything
@SnarkyathetBest
Yes, because Harry is the “favorite grandson!”
And TBW cannot get anything without showing it off!
I'm pretty sure Lady Louise was his favorite grandchild.
I think you are correct about Lady Louise and their shared love of horses and carriage racing(?)
I was speaking from the 6’s POV. They would say that Harry was the “favorite” because that’s how narcs roll. LOL
It also thought earlier today in the 6 “shrunken head” Time cover photo 6 looks like 6 could be TBW’s ventriloquist dummy. After all, she is pulling the strings and has become his voice, too.
Hairbrushed
Haz is no longer follicly challenged
With his plugged, and teased
new hair - apparent
No more touching up her roots
She’s hitting the ground
in her cloven toed boots
Looking dis-tressed
coiffured interruptus, no doubt
Hoping he gives her the chop
permanent wave, Cut and Blowout
Harry is definitely *'s ventriloquist dummy these days, but given their relative positions in the photo, doesn't it look like the reverse?
Plot twist! Harry as the true evil mastermind, using empty-headed * to lash out at his family and take the brunt of the blame. Hahaha!
Under English law, there are limits to the conditions that can be attached to receiving an inheritance.
For example, it's accepted that if the heir to a large estate is related through the female line and doesn't have the `right' surname he can be required to change his name to keep the family name going.
A requirement to do something deemed contrary to the `good of society' (or wtte), such as dumping one's spouse, is not lawful. We may think it would be greatly to the benefit of the UK were he to abandon her but it flies in the face of the idea that marriage is a Good Thing. At the very least such a clause would give rise to nasty court cases.
It's a question that often appears in published guides about writing one's will. One is, however, perfectly free to leave, or not leave, one's money to whomsoever one wishes.
I speak from experience - after I'd walked out on #2, mega-narc husband, my parents told me they had intended to cut me off, literally without a penny, had I stayed with him. They had no wish for him to get his hands on their money. (Only a couple of weeks after the wedding, he'd tried to grill me, out of the blue, about how much their house was worth - I thought `Fu-unny...' then light dawned. I felt sick and trapped.)
If one is cut off, one has to prove that the deceased had been supporting one financially up to the the time of their death - cue another court case. Interesting implications for Charles's Will perhaps - I hope he really has stopped supporting them,.
I've long said that `Old age isn't for wimps' but I'm trying to reframe my ideas. One physician told me that long life should be seen as an `achievement'. Then I saw an online statement that it is a `privilege' that many do not attain - it was illustrated by a photo of a war-grave cemetery...
My prayers are for you and your husband, Miss Debs, also any other Nutties in similar straits. God bless you all.
Philip may have bequeathed sentimental items to family members (like the ponies to Louise) but that's not what H will be after (and after he sold the special hunting rifles Philip gave him, H may have lost out on any sentimental bequests.)
@GWAH-- I'm not an attorney but I'd be quite shocked an attorney would write a Will saying A gets X amount of money but only if he divorces B. It's my understanding in the US conditional gifts usually aren't upheld in court if the condition requires an illegal act OR requires an act not in the interest of society. Divorce, especially when there are young children, generally isn't seen as a societal good. Maybe it's different in the UK.
Oops! Didn't see your discussion of conditional bequests until after I posted. Good to know the US and UK are the same on that question.
on the otherhand, anything like that will not remain private regardless of the judgement. the Harkles are in capble of keeping anything private, they or their friends will spill it in a way to make themselves look like victims.
heck maybe they’ll even contest the judgement and demand to have their lawyers see the will!!
It will be interesting to see if the dastardly duo spread rumours of a huge bequest. I believe they got nothing and were not mentioned in the will at all, but they would think it would benefit their image if the perception is that they got millions. It seems to be of prime importance to them to have an image of being very rich and powerful, even though there is no substance to support that image.
There were rumours that they were going to do something big in September. If the Times debacle is it, how did they know they would make the list of 100, and did it ever occur to them that the response would be immediate gales of laughter and hilarious memes? They have finally hit the right spot for being global entertainment! The blurb Time publshed about them is being ripped to shreds, and rightly so because it is the most outrageous rubbish I have ever seen published. People are not stupid ... they can see the BS!
And the hilarity continues! (Text best enjoyed with accompaning photos.)
Harry does seem to have a fascination with her hair though!
She also wore it in her 40th birthday video. She's a liar!
Apparently the Sussex reps are backtracking and are now saying the stylist's ring was the pinky ring she wore on her left hand. No comment about the huge rock worn on her right pinky that's been seen many times before. Whoops! Hard to keep those stories straight!
Running around in circles ... the hilarity continues:
-------------
They said the ring was sourced by a stylist on the shoot directly from the designer and that there was no link to a mystery donor in the Middle East.
But in a spectacular u-turn, they later rolled back the denial, and clarified that they were referring only to a ring on Meghan's left hand - a $525 pinky ring from Shiffon, which is meant to represent women's empowerment
There was no further mention made of the Lorraine Schwartz ring in question on her right hand, begging the question of whether Meghan has something to hide about the provenance of the diamond.
Meghan sported a staggering $445,000 worth of jewelry while posing for the cover of Time's most influential people issue alongside her husband Prince Harry, including the Lorraine Schwartz piece that's been spotted on her hand several times.
-----------------------
Two pinky rings ... the one made with blood diamonds, which were a gift to her as a full-time working royal and thus belongs to the Crown, not her; the other, if it was borrowed for the shoot, she was supposed to be merching.
So, we have identified a third time she has worn that ring made from a diamond that she stole from the Crown!
Her lies are bizarre ... clear evidence that what she is saying is not true. That guy who is writing the biography, Bower I think, should devote an entire long chapter to 'Lies Meghan has Told the World'.
I think the Time cover will turn more people against TBW and perhaps create more sympathy for Harry.
Liars have to have a good memory and it's quite obvious TBW doesn't! 😄
I've just noticed the new DM article about it but haven't had a spare moment to read.
Will get around to it when time allows.
Bet her pants are burning around her nether regions!! 😂
the diamond was stolen from a Brit crown? or a gift from a MidEast royal or Oligarch?
all speculation, but if it was part of a Brit crown, must be some kind of a “payment” RF made to the Harkles, maybe TBW threw a fit because her engagment wasnt special enough (aka not Di’s, cause JH gave Di’s ring to PW and of course TBW hates that)), or worth enough, and they were attempting to pacify her or JH?
If a gift from some foreign Oligarch or Mid East Royal, it shows they are right on track to be scandel ridden “royals” in 10 or 20 years like PA.
All gifts over a certain value that are given to working royals are deemed to be given to them as representatives of the Crown and thus belong to the Crown. (The Crown neaning the monarchy and not an actual crown.) They may use them while they are working royals but they are kept in the royal vault and do not belong to them.
If she had a pinky ring made from a diamond gifted to her by the Saudis:
* The diamond belongs to the Crown and is not her personal property, even if Harry paid for the diamond to be set in a ring for her.
* Did the Queen give permission for her to take the ring with her when they left? I doubt it.
* Is there an agreement to return the diamond to the Crown when TBW dies? I doubt it.
* Ethically, can she continue to wear the ring if she is no longer a working royal? I doubt it.
'it also is her signal to the BRF. look what i took and you can’t get it back. oh and same sentiment to the guy behind me fluffing my my hair.'
Brilliant comment! Like the Queen's nickname.
She was never going to work out as a working royal as she respects no one and does exactly as she pleases and expects to be top dog in all ways (oh, and she lies and cannot be trusted). That he did not know this about her when he married her shows that William was right and saw what his deluded brother could not.
If he truly loves her, knowing exactly who and what she is, then that is his choice, but he must stop blaming others for the choices he makes and pretending she is something she is not (kind, compassionate, smart, beautiful, talented, victimised ...).
EXCLUSIVE - Meghan Markle's Father Thomas Markle Tell All Interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyOBjukp9I
"i think that most of her tiny jewelry, minus those she was gifted, are cheap gold over silver, not real gold. gold over silver jewelry necklaces, rings and bracelets can cost as little as $50/pc. she did say that she is a fraud, and fake jewelry would be right in line with that statement, especially when she tries to pass it off as real."
I don't think she would wear gold over silver plated jewelries. She looks sweaty most of the time and there wouldn't be any possibility to re-wear anything plated - the gold would wear off.
That said, I have looked at her jewelries closely and they look like either 9k or 14k gold - lowest level of gold content. Not expensive except for the brand name
it was early morning for me and I took it literally like an actual crown ,lol
yes, i think it was a ‘gift’ from someone and they walked off with it… what’s Crown/Monarchy going to do, drag them into court and demand it back ? Do Wedding/ Engagment gifts have different status, can they accept those?
I dont like tiny jewelry, seems filmsy/frail/disposable to me, so I dont like most of TBW’s stuff. I think it’s friend/designer so it’s relatively expensive for the general public, and is also proably merched/ freeebie gifts from those ‘friends’ for publicity.
and also agree a huge pinkie rock is kinda tacky for everyday/daytime wear. (and impractical…that thing would be spinning all the time!)
Don’t the BRF save the big stuff for special occasions and evening wear only? just shows she’s an SoCal girl with nouveau riche tastes.
It’s not their relative position that made me think of 6 being her dummy. It’s his shrunken head, his vacuous expression, her masculine power stance in the photo, and the obvious use of her words or “voice” in his speeches.
You are correct. Normally the dummy is in front on the ventriloquist’s lap.
As far as I can work out, the only jewellery that Meghan ever wore from the vault was on her wedding day ... the bandeau tiara. Supposedly she got a diamond bracelet from Charles and pearl earrings (pearls or diamonds?) from the Queen as a personal gift, so those she could keep but I don't think she has ever worn them since she left. Same with the aquamarine ring of Diana's. The controversial chandelier diamond earrings were an official gift and they should be in the vault at BP.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a catalogue available to the public that lists all gifts, so the press notes the jewellery the royals wear and asks questions, and often the giver of the gift likes to boast about it and so makes sure the media knows!
If TBW had treated those chandelier earrings as Crown property and respected them as such, she would never have felt entitled to wear them when she was advised not to. For gifts like that, royalty say thank you graciously and then keep them in the vault, where most of the stuff stays.
Early during the Australia tour M wore a pair of yellow gold and diamond butterfly earrings reported to have been Diana's. She also wore a gold bangle that day said to be Diana's. I don't know if those pieces actually were Diana's.
`Look, that proves he's her ventriloquist's dummy - she's got her hand up his back, pulling the strings!'
"It’s not that Meghan can’t compete with the A+ of entertainment, in her mind she is not competing she is above them, when you model your business plan on a popular former President and leader of the free world and his First Lady, you don’t consider Rihanna or Kim to be your competition, they should be there to worship at your Royal feet. The problem is she is the only one who sees herself at that level and unless strong armed by Sunshine Sachs nobody wants to be associated never mind work with her. I am convinced they think people would want them back leading the Royals with their unique commercial experience, I just wonder how you can burn so many bridges and still not smell the smoke, they aren’t coming back, and I don’t think they will ever realise what they have done was so final."
Thanks for sharing that - it's very succinct and very perceptive
To me, it points to a very serious shared delusional state - are there any cases of folie à deux in history to compare with it? I shall start looking!
I seem to recall that there were side by side photos of the earrings worn by each woman. I thought there were slight differences enough to think they were copies and not the same thing but it has been years since I remember looking. In my quick look, you can see closeups of the Diana wearing but not for her so you can't really tell much about anything (for the earrings anyway).
I don't know if the above article has a full list of Diana's jewellery worn by Catherine and TBW.
@lizzie
Yes, the butterfly earrings and the bracelet - worn early on in the marriage.
Anything Catherine wears could be from Diana's personal collection or official gifts and thus Crown property.
Anything the TBW wears and has taken to America with her should be personal gifts Diana received.
Would we say, as this article and others say, that the woman inherited the jewellery from Diana? Surely it is her sons who inherited and their wives get to wear it as their wives? Does TBW have to give it back if she divorces her husband, or he divorces her?
I whizzed through some of the better-known cases online but there's nothing to compare with these two among those where the diagnosis is generally accepted. Nothing at all on the world stage, at least, not between a married couple.
More and more people on social media are commenting on how deluded TBW is, with some quoting unnamed insiders.
'folie à deux' indeed!
The only other case I know of is those Scandanavian sisters who went onto the freeway in the UK and repeatedly threw themselves in front of cars. It was bizarre, but the delusional state shared by a pair kind of makes sense, and I think part of the disorder is fuelled because the pair are isolated in some way and are very close.
I certainly would not consider that either Kate or Meghan "inherited" jewelry from Diana.
I think the magazine article writer is using an unfortunate term. If it's true Diana wrote in a note accompanying her Will (kind of doubt it was in the actual Will) "I would like you to allocate all my jewellery to the share to be held by my sons, so that their wives may, in due course, have it or use it," maybe the writer thinks the jewelry was bequeathed to the wives in that way. But even the precise words Diana used "so their wives may, in due course, have it or use it" seems to leave wiggle room re: ownership. What is considered "due course" to have it? Is the due course for having it different from the due course to merely use it? Does "have it" mean to "own it?"
I don't know if the jewelry would have to be returned in case of a divorce if the woman resisted. I know people have said pre-nups aren't automatically upheld by courts in the UK. (A pre-nup could have been used to cover Kate's "Big Blue" & M's aquamarine ring if it was really Diana's.) If there were other written agreements I just don't know if a court would enforce them IF the jewelry was actually gifted to the wives. But would W&H be content to merely "loan" jewelry they own to their wives? Many men would not be (and some definitely live to regret that they didn't just loan stuff!)
https://mobile.twitter.com/Murky__Meg/status/1438911277229821953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1438911277229821953%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
I would guess that this is something someone made up, posted, and is now spreading. The tabloids do not seem to do due diligence, so if the story appears there, it does not mean it is true.
But, just desserts for a couple who sue and send threatening lawyers' letters at the drop of a hat?
While DSM-5 doesn't recognize Shared Psychotic Disorder as a separate disorder, DSM-IV did. Now it's attached to either Delusional Disorder or to Other Schizophrenia Syndromes. But either way, it's a pretty rare psychotic illness.
While we say H&M are delusional (I admit, I say it!) I honestly don't think their beliefs rise to the level of psychiatric delusions. Do they have an over-valued sense of their worth? Do they hold the belief that people will and should financially support them? Do they think people want to hear them preach? Do they act like bratty children when they don't get their way? Yes, yes, yes, & yes. But I just don't think that's delusional thinking re: psychiatry.
Delusions in psychiatry are beliefs clearly inconsistent with reality that are firmly held despite the presence of disconfirming evidence. But what's the reality? They got some sort of deal with Netflix and Spotify (although not for nearly as much money as has been suggested, I bet.) Meghan published that idiotic book. Sugars who likely have little money themselves collect money for them. They MAY live in a 16-bathroom mansion. Harry gets speaking gigs and Meghan has forced her way into some too like Girls Up and that Madonna-pose graduation speech.
IMO they are thoroughly dislikeable spoiled immature elitists willing to jump on any "woke" bandwagon that might give them fortune or fame. But I just don't think either is psychotic much less both of them.
after all Victims must be allowed to Speak their Truth Freely… so should the nanny …..lol
Imagine the thinking that you rank above the Queen of England. That takes some balls.
And yet how many photos have we seen of MM standing behind the queen looking down her nose at the Queen, with a demeaning, condescending look.
I think Mm truly does think she is better than the Queen of England.
ℳ�������� ℳ����
@Murky__Meg
·
15 Sep
Clapping hands signClapping hands signClapping hands sign
Quote Tweet
david barry cox
@davidbarrycox1
· 15 Sep
#HarryAndMeghan
There once was a Royal sort of bloke
who's turned out incredibly woke
with his Wife at the helm
he gave up the Realm
and now he's a bit of a joke.......
Yes, I recall seeing the side by side butterfly earring photos and there were slight differences between the earrings Diana wore and Meghan wore. Frankly, I do not trust any claims by TBW.
@WBBM
I recall your ventriloquist comment after spotting the Claw on his back!
Lizzie - so the test will be if they still believe it when they're living in a cardboard box alongside the rest of LA's down & outs?
“Has anyone figured out who these two are influencing yet?”
My comment: Maybe they only influence each other..,and not positively.
No need to apologize. I appreciated the reminder. It was a great comment.
------------------------------
Anonymous asked:
Archewell Foundation: filed as a Delaware corporation way back in Apr. 2020. Then finally filed as a California foreign corporation--as they were required to do since they have a physical "address" in Beverly Hills. They didn't file in CA until mid-July 2021. They were then FINALLY approved by California as a charity, but not until Sept. 7th of this year after CA sent them a "you must register" letter in mid-June. Wait to see their IRS 990 form. It will be very telling. Delaware: hiding what?
skippyv20 answered:
An additional note regarding Archewell Foundation charity: Meghan lawyer buddy, Richard Genow, has himself as the “President” and “Secretary.” And her business manager friend, Andrew Meyer is “Treasurer” while she and Harry are “Directors.” Major info on the filed charity form available on the California Office of Atty Gen. website in their Charities section. On the form: “Archewell Foundation does NOT currently engage in active [donation] solicitation in California or elsewhere.” That’s FALSE.
And part 3 of the Archewell Foundation charity info now available online (California Attorney General’s site in the “Registry of Charity Trusts” section/search tool): on the form, they admit that they first received assets on Feb. 2, 2021, however, according to the letter from the CA DoJ, it was dated mid June and at that point the state was saying to them “Uh, why haven’t you registered with us yet?” For some reason, Meghan’s people waited 5 months to register as a charity until told to do so.
------------------------------
They are going to amputate Bob's left leg, mid calf. It will be next week.
Please keep him in your prayers.
I'm so sorry to hear this news about Bob. My thoughts and prayers to you both. Virtual hugs X
internet comment about the chances of 6/6w going end the we are popular in the USA campaign and try to go back to the BRF:
something about how they are not popular (definitive) and cannot return (definitive) as the S.S. Sussex has sailed and that it sank.
As a side note, they seem to be out and about less and less, more bigger (slingshot Look at me/us) type of appearances with more visible/faster to appear public commenting about this is anything but a success.
OT: MsDeb - I will keep Bob in my prayers.
Continuing to believe what they appear to believe now while living in a cardboard box would do it! Or Meghan morphing into Blanche Dubois from A Streetcar Named Desire. But seriously, it wouldn't even have to be quite that extreme. "Demoted" to living in an ordinary nice but not quite upper-class 1% neighborhood, still trying to get invitations to preach to the "masses" about changing the world when working ordinary 9-5 jobs and whining about not having "security," expecting red carpet invites to be forthcoming, feeling hurt and surprised when A-listers or government officials they've never met don't take their calls so they start stalking them to "have a conversation"...
As it stands now, there's just not enough "space" between what they believe and aspects of reality to call them delusional/psychotic. At least not in my opinion from what we can see. Now the difference between what they believe and what I see as reality is the sort of thing that causes people at worst to roll their eyes and giggle behind their backs. Not the sort of thing that causes people to call social services because their break from reality means they need protection.
----
@MsDeb, I'm sorry about your husband's situation.
I'm so sorry it's come to that. Caring thoughts and virtual hugs x
Sending prayers and hugs to you both.
@MsDeb52, So very sorry to hear your news about Bob. Wishing you both strength at this difficult time and will offer up prayers for his operation and recovery. x
This looks interesting...
"so why does meg Markle still want to be associated with the brf?
even naming her child after them"
#makesnosense
---
Another one says the same but adds why keep the titles then and still trying for realtionship with the Queen?
The plot thickens.
Whipper Snipper
Folie du jour, stripped and whipped
Photos bombed, their masking slipped
Whatever the message
it’s been totally eclipsed
By the perception that Haz’s
balls have been snipped
Have I missed something? What do other Nutties think?
@WildBoar
No, alas, I can’t take credit
I rather wish, that I had said it
@LL@WildBoar
It’s a strange one!
Didn’t see the interview, I don’t watch
breakfast TV.
Listening to that snippet it sounds
like Mr Markle is implying the
UK press/RF tried to scuttle
the wedding? Bizarre.
Mentions Jeff Rayner, isn’t he
connected to backgrid/splash?
And Dylan Howard, Aus/US journo.
I can’t see the RF pulling the plug last
minute on a 30 million quid extravaganza.
Earlier maybe, before the eggless dishes
and tasteless dresses had been
hatched/dispatched.
As for the press, they like to hold the muck,
timing their drop, for maximum effect.
Nothing new there, storm in a eggcup.
Saturday Singalong 🎤
Apologies:Simon and Garfunkel
The Sound of Silence
The Silence of the Hams
Hello darkness, megsies friend
She’s come to preach to us again
Posted a vision, so creepy
Wake up Harry, still sleepy
And the vision had the markle of Cain,
evil twain
Please, take a Vow of Silence
And the people laughed and nay-ed
To see these fools get fully played
She’s still talking, we’re not listening
No-one’s hearing, but she’s still speaking
And the words of the muppets
can be heard on the hills of
Mons Deceito
The Sounds of Violence
@Sandie
I’m wondering if Mr Markle
is now in receipt of a monthly pension.
From the profitable, typo,
prodigal daughter…
Have I missed something? What do other Nutties think?
That thread ties in with the Australian video that I posted yesterday and I agree, it appears to be a sugar thread!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyOBjukp9I
I was reading the comments under the video last night and couldn't understand why Sunrise issued an apology and deleted parts of the video. Having now read the LSA thread that @LavenderLady posted, it seems that because Thomas accused the photographer and one other person of conning him, (and Samantha) and setting him up for the photo shoot, they have now deleted that from the original.
Maybe they were told Thomas's claims were slander??
Or, more likely, Megsie fed them her revisionist view of history, d'ye think?
If you have time, watch the video. :)
Meanwhile, did we comment on this about 10days ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnRCKu9oaB8 Neil Sean on H's GQ speech.
NB `Going to pot' has a double meaning, it's been used here for years, long before marijuana was well known.
I think Thomas may be past coping - he's still holding on to his fantasy of her, judging from the photos behind him. Does he still see her as his adored little girl?
He's quite critical of her during parts of the video. She's his daughter and he loves her but I get the feeling he's waking up and smelling the coffee!
As for the video by Neil Sean, I think he's cheekily hinting that Haz may possibly smoke the weed!
@Miggy
Just watched it, please post the
link again.
Nutties you need to watch it!
EXCLUSIVE - Meghan Markle's Father Thomas Markle Tell All Interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyOBjukp9I
Oh wow! Only just noticed Saturday Singalong 🎤 Apologies:Simon and Garfunkel
The Sound of Silence.
I will be singing that all day now. Absobloodylutely brilliant! 😅😂😁
Cheers @Miggy
But more important, that interview!!
Quite! I couldn't understand why no one commented when I posted it yesterday!
I thought it was excellent.
@LL@WildBoar
@Miggy has your answer!
Thanks for reposting the link to the interview. I only got the twitter snipet and it didn't make sense to me.
I think your analysis of what went down sounds very plausible. I read the entire 8 pages of the LSA thread and it wasn't easy. Puke worthy and yes, sugarville to the max-agreeing with @WBBM. I got zero answers there.
I don't get into the nuts and bolts of the whole thing. I don't have the time nor the stomach for it so I put it out there to get some answers from the Nuttiesl. I will look at the entire interview you reposted and see what I make of it. It's very early in the morning in my neck of the woods.
@Magatha,
Your version of Sounds of Silence is *chef's kiss*. Thank you once again! Hugs
Sighing a prayer for you and your hubs that all will be well.
@Magatha,
A storm in a teacup indeed. Mr. Markle's comments come with out receipts as one LSA non-sugar reminded that thread. He seems scattered, poor old dude.
We shall see what comes of it. Probably nothing. Let's hope. Fingers crossed.
Thank you for posting the youtube link to the interview. I think Thomas Markle comes off rather well. He seems intelligent and a sensible man. He has revealed as what many of us suspected - that Samantha and he were set up by Raynor. When he mentioned it was to spoil the wedding plans, I think he meant to ensure that he did not attend the wedding. Now, if the interviewers had dug further, would he have said Meghan arranged with Raynor?
@WildBoar
I do worry
God Save the Queen
I suspect he has been bought/paid by SS or her PR.
My suspicion was first aroused when he said that Scoobie Doo was not in contact with Meghan. He is not their mouthpiece, at least not anymore. Hmmm, I found it hard to believe .River also attempted to make us ashamed for laughing about her tellytubby body; he said something about natural glow and wonderful softness of a woman who had just given birth.
In River's latest video, my suspicion was confirmed when claimed that he was told that Meghan had actually received an invitation to Obama's birthday and turned it down because she had body dysmorphia - embarrassed of her rounder face and body. My head went ding, ding, ding, ding!!! River was lying. We all know that she would have done anything, just anything to attend and be associated with the Obamas. If she had to lipo out 10kg of fat to achieve a waist, she would have done it as long as she could attend that party. You and I know if she had received an invitation and for whatever reason could not attend, we would have known about it. She would have sent out a pic of the invitation and a birthday greeting to Obama.
River, we all know you lied. You are either - a sugar or money is more important than your integrity.
I am watching the interview now as I have my coffee. I will post as I get into it because I will forget my thoughts if I don't. Age related memory loss:
The Twitter snippet I saw was misleading in that it show a muddled man, yet in hearing Mr.M speak to the host, he actually sounds rather stable in his thought processes. I feel for him, yet I also think he was a big player in creating the mess that TBW is. He does what she does and she does what he does: blabs to the press for financial gain. Is it possible that she inherited, or environmentally picked up the narcissism from him? Or both her parents? Doria is playing the long game/end game and keeping silent. I don't know if she's being smart or getting paid to stay silent.
I'm a big fan of Samantha. I just love that she's a corker and very intelligent. I always read anything she has to say and am in 100% agreement with her. Their dad, eh...not so much anymore...I would give my eye teeth to hear Sam's take on what dad is saying.
To be continued.
Thanks for posting the link for the video, which I watched.
I don't understand his reference to spoiling the wedding plans (and find the reference to Weinstein strange). Natalier gives a reasonable explanation, but I still have questions. The goal of the paparrazi seems clear enough ... unprotected (the Harkles refused to allow help and support for anyone in her family other than her mother), the family were sitting ducks for photos that would sell, but they were all much the same until those set-up photos of Thomas. Surely the goal of the paps was simply to make money?
Other than that, he comes across as reasonable and still seeing no wrong in his daughter (he thinks being controlling is good and what he taught her; he agrees she can throw tantrums but sees nothing wrong with that; he thinks she probably was firing out instructions to staff at 5 a.m. but sees nothing wrong with that because she was used to starting the day early for TV; he desparately wants her to go back to the UK and be royal again because he thinks it is safer and that life is what the children are entitled to ...).
The interview does not give any new information so I do not understand the point of it.
As a cult survivor, I agree completely with the host's statement that Doria listen's to TBW as a cult leader. I'm a cult survivor so I get that totally.
I also agree with the host's assessment of TBW being a total pompous ass social climber, who is obsessed with her own bloody image. She is ashamed of her dad and he keeps her on her toes by saying really controversial things, which I applaud him for. She's lucky he hasn't gone completely overboard...
My questions are, does Mr. Markle know Weinstein? Does TBW know Weinstein? We have discussed that here before. Is this why Sam is so quiet now?
Dad seems sue happy. Who does this sound like?
On her feeling of her suicide, Dad says he has doubts that TBW was telling the truth on the Big O interview. Anybody with any logic can see that interview was a crock of BS. He says Harry "dropped the ball" in that situation and is a total failure as a husband. He also says she was being overly dramatic. Dad created this monster so...
Dad then drops the bombshell that he believes 100 percent that Megan is very controlling and controls the puppet strings, in reference to Harry. He continues that Harry acts like a "12 year old boy". The Sunrise host then asks Dad what does he mean by TBW being raised as very controlling. Dad gets out of it by saying she is "very confident". Ha! What a joke. The YT host says the newer generations are too entitled and it shows in their behavior. So true!!
He then throws Jason Knauph under the bus saying JK helped him out "in many ways". What the hell does this mean??? This question is the crux of the hoohaw and I believe it will never be answered.
He ends with a grand scenario of everyone reconciling. The YT host says TM is a very wise man. I see it as very conniving just like his daughter TBW.
The YT host says he and Piers Morgan have things in common. This Nuttie would LOVE a Piers interview with Thomas Markle. I would pay money to see that! And with Sam. Sounds like a Dr. Phil episode LOL.
Dad concludes he is financially ok and doesn't need TBWs money.
What a toxic mess. But then TBW's signature scent is Toxic by The House of Evil.
Just my opinion ... TBW is pure Markle and not so much Ragland, in terms of keeping her mouth shut, but more her mother in terms of keeping those close who benefit her the most.
@Miggy,
Thanks again for the link! I enjoyed it.
I too worry.
Apparently Welsh Republicans are getting in on the act -
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/wales-doesnt-prince-anti-monarchy-102200224.html
Billboards with a huge pic. of PC plus a bilingual message `Wales doesn't need a prince.'
At least there's a bit of a backlash.
TBW is pure Markle and not so much Ragland, in terms of keeping her mouth shut,
____
Truth. The Raglands have shown themselves to be decent human beings-as far as I can tell. I don't have the time to go on deep dives for people I don't know.
The Markles (some of them), not so much. I'm on team Sam all the way though.
I know how hard it is to see the old ways die. It hurts like hell. Believe me, if any people know how this feels, it's my people. Any yet, we are blessed here in the US to have sovereignty over our culture.
With that said, I am so sorry that your culture is taking a hit. I believe this modern view of the world of no boundaries nor borders is upsetting and traumatizing. All people's culture should be preserved not just a select few. Our culture is what makes us. To rip this away is akin to abuse.
I wish world leaders agree with me but most do not. The ones that do seem way out in left field. So IMO there is no solution to what is coming outside of belonging to God and no one else but Him. This thought is what keeps me sane...
Good day Nutties.
Hugs ❤️
This isn't the whole programme, but it struck me that Harry did not share any personal memories of his grandfather. Everything he says as reported in this article comes across as a justification for his behaviour and his marriage. (Harry, your wife is not the Queen! Plus you confuse being honest and straightforward with being outspokenly stupid; your grandfather was never the latter, which you frequently are.)
Perhaps I am being unfair and biased.
They deleted all clips in which Thomas said the pap walk was all a plan between him and palace officials to ruin the wedding.
https://eminetracanada.com/australian-news-apologizes-for-interview-after-thomas-markle-became-rogue/282181/
Just catching up quickly, I find myself singing your version of the Sound of Silence in my head! Very good! 🎶 I'm not sure there's much silence from them, though. Speech is silver, but silence is golden is definitely not their motto 😆
But I saw the uncut version and Thomas did NOT say that the pap photos were a plan between him and the Palace to ruin the wedding.
He still claims that him and Samantha thought it would clean up his image before the wedding. He was embarrassed at how he was being portrayed by the pap shots that were being published of him.
One could read what he did say as implying that someone set him up to spoil the plans to include him in the wedding. Perhaps his reference to Weinstein's victims means that he thinks someone wanted to set him up to look bad.
@LavenderLady
I understood from what Thomas said that Jason Kanuff was the only one communicating with him and trying to help and support him, until the Harkles put a stop to that. I took it as a positive statement about Jason.
Overall, I find most interviewers are really bad at what they do. They let ambiguity just lie there instead of asking numerous and probing follow-up questions.
Do you think someone set you up with the paparazzi? Who? Why?
What arrangements had actually been made for you to go to the wedding? How were you going to get to the airport? Which flight were you booked on? When were you booked to return? Did you ever have an actual ticket in your possession? Where were you going to be staying? What were the arrangements for the dress rehearsal? Did the person in Canada who was supposedly making your suit ever measure you? How were you going to have a fitting for a suit if it was being made in Canada?
I've seen the un-edited video and Thomas never said that. Why are you lying?
I agree with some of what's been pointed out but disagree on certain other aspects.
@LavenderLady, I'm not sure why you think that Thomas threw Jason Knauf under a bus? As far as I can tell, he was simply pointing out that the Jason was his only contact at the Palace and the only one to offer him help pre the wedding. Help that M & H refused him. He sounded grateful to Jason.
@Sandie, you asked: "I don't understand his reference to spoiling the wedding plans"
Surely he's referring to the staged pap shots that he took part in, which ended up with him having a heart attack, not attending the wedding and falling out with the obnoxious couple?
I don't understand why everyone doesn't recognize the fact that he received no invitation to his daughter's wedding, and this, long before he said he had heart issues. There was no plan to have him there. He would have been fitted for the proper clothing weeks before.
So she ruined her own wedding by not inviting her father. He may have acted out because that was a pretty big slap in the face, but the first person to ruin the wedding was herself.
I agree... and after having read your questions, I wish it was you asking them! :)
YES! Exactly what you have said. Thank you!
I should also add that I think she played him along to begin with and that he did at first think that he was invited! When Doria received her printed invitation and he didn't... the penny must have dropped!
Diamonds used for Meghan's mysterious pinky ring were 'also turned into earrings she wore at Trooping the Colour' after being 'gifted from the Middle East'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10004365/Diamonds-used-Meghans-earrings-gifted-Middle-East.html
I know enough of the Firm to say with certainty I am sure they are not happy with his saying that. Too much talking causes problems that may not really be a problem. Isn't this why they practice the dignified silence? There are too many people out there ready to misinterpret what is said, so say nothing.
The RF could have said they were working with her dad to get him ready for the wedding but they stayed silent. Why did they?
It had already been reported in the British press well over a year ago, so he wasn't really dragging them into anything.
Snippet:
PRINCE Harry and Meghan Markle rejected offers to help protect Thomas Markle, sources have claimed.
Palace aides have revealed the pair refused to "engage" with Meghan's dad ahead of their wedding in 2018.
Sources told the Sunday Times they didn't listen to suggestions they should meet Thomas, 76, before and after announcing their plans to get married.
And when courtiers raised worries the retired lighting director would be overwhelmed without support, Harry and Meghan are said to have rejected ideas on how to prepare him.
A source told the newspaper: "We repeatedly sat down with Harry and Meghan before the engagement announcement to say this needed to be handled sensitively, but that it had to be handled.
"We desperately asked them to engage with Thomas, but they wouldn’t. Aides also offered to go personally and see him to try and find a way to protect him.
"There is genuine disbelief and bemusement in the household at the couple’s approach to him and that Harry has still not met his father-in-law.”
More here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12230560/meghan-harry-rejected-help-protect-dad/
Ok, then he's dragging them into something by repeating it again.
That's how I would see it if I were them.
Meaning, due to this latest snafu, he's yet again bringing unwanted attention to the Palace.
I get what you are saying. So they stated they offered him help. By referring to Jason at this time, he's giving the sugars ammo to misinterpret his words. And that's what I find unsettling.
I should have worded it as such rather than saying he threw Jason under the bus. Mia culpa.
P.S. we are on the same side, right?
If reports are to be believed that even Catherine was shocked that Harry had never met Thomas, then I would imagine that the RF might actually sympathise with him. (at least I'd like to think so!)
I flipping well hope so! :)
You have my prayers for your husband’s fight. Hugs.
And
I personally had a chuckle at BP’s response of telling the press to talk to US PR for the couple. Hah!
She had no personal relationship with the person who gave the gift, so the diamonds are actually Crown property.
If they were an honourable couple, they would have left the jewellery made from the gift of diamonds in the UK when they left. They would have at least asked the Queen's permission to take them with them.
I suspect she considers them to be her property, and it would just not occur to her to show the Queen and the institution she heads any respect.
@LavenderLady
It would be expected that staff at Kensington Palace would brief and take care of arrangements for Meghan's parents. Royals don't actually arrange for transport, accommodation and so on ... they instruct staff to do so. What was surprising to the British press was that the Harkles stopped Jason from assisting her father and said they were taking care of all arrangements themselves, personally.
Like Meghan, Thomas does not seem to be good with other people's rules. Staff are not usually named. So one would say 'a member of their staff at Kensington Palace ...'. But Jason was simply doing his job as expected to do so there was nothing odd about his behaviour that required any comment. The odd behaviour of the Harkles was something I think the royal family tried to brush under the carpet, and they certainly were not going to make any kind of public comment that would raise questions, at that stage.
Royals have had always had staff that leak to the press, or make a living post royal employment by blabbing to the media about the royals. Thank goodness, otherwise from where else would we get the good gossip?!
Sandie: Like Meghan, Thomas does not seem to be good with other people's rules. Staff are not usually named. So one would say 'a member of their staff at Kensington Palace ...'.
Points well made by you both. I agree.
https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1439273856787574785/photo/1
Yes we are!! :)
@Sandie said,
What was surprising to the British press was that the Harkles stopped Jason from assisting her father and said they were taking care of all arrangements themselves, personally.
---
Yes, it would be expected the "the Palace" is the staff, not the RF themselves.
Harkles perhaps wanted full control of the Dad situation because as the Dad says, his daughter is very controlling and that way she could polish him up or chuck him; whichever she felt worked in her narrative as the Queen of Hollywood, for that wedding.
Hilarious!😂 I do believe the dog is better looking.
Most definitely! 😂
Please get a name as soon as you can. Unknown comments generally will be deleted. Here is a set of instructions to help you get a name. Hope this helps.
Instructions:
-Click on your "Unknown" name where you last posted.
-You should arrive on your profile page where you can then click the "B" icon; once clicked, you should arrive at the Blogger Info Page.
-Next click the dropdown menu to the left of the "B" icon and click on "Settings" and then click "User Profile."
-Scroll down to "Display Name" and type your name.
-Hit "Save Profile" at the bottom.
-Finally, you can add an image/avatar on this page if you wish; make sure to save any changes if you choose to.
>
Do you have any idea when Nutty will pen a new post for us? So much has happened since she last posted and it would be good to hear her take on things.
If you're still in touch with Charade, send her my best wishes. TIA
https://twitter.com/Murky__Meg/status/1439244416959619075
Lol! No kidding!😂😂😂
People are so creative.
Well done, St. Andy’s! I imagine the other two, which may have become complacent, are foaming at the mouth
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2F2021-09-17%2Foxford-and-cambridge-lose-top-spot-in-u-k-university-ranking
God job I didn't have a drink in my hand when I saw this... 😂
https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1439273856787574785/photo/1
I think this is the funniest meme so far. Thank you Miggy, for the link.
Time Magazine’s Airheads of the Year By DAVID HARSANYI
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/time-magazines-airheads-of-the-year/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Last year, BioNTech, a German start-up founded by the husband-and-wife team of Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci, utilized cutting-edge technology, mRNA, to help create a vaccine for COVID. And through a partnership with Pfizer, their invention was quickly put into mass production, saving millions of lives around the world.
Below is a portrait of two privileged dolts — the Duke and Duchess of Sussex — who Time magazine says are the most influential couple in the world:
(pic of the two dolts)
Time contends that the prince and former actress, who specialize in the cringe-inducing regurgitation of every trendy puerile progressive societal grievance they hear, “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.” This might come as a surprise to Time editors, but the British have been re-appraising the monarchy’s role for quite some time! Ask Robert Fitzwalter or Johnny Rotten. Of course, Time is in the business of selling magazines — just as People and Us are. There’s nothing at all wrong with it. But there’s no reason anyone should take the publication seriously anymore. As Walter Kirn notes, Time is alive in name, but its “original, defining mission — grounding the American mind in a moderate, shared reality — is dead.”