Several sources (Scobie and Morton, possible others) have raised a point about how wonderful Meghan was able to handle and parade about in the tour in Australia and that this is when (unnamed) people allegedly began to worry that Harry and Megan would outshine William and the rest of the family just as there had been similar concerns about Diana.
Their popularity was explosive - Sussexroyal on Instagram hit gained a million followers in the first six hours. The crowds on tours were huge (or so the Scobie's book says).
But was this fear realistic - the concerns, comparisons?
Could someone really outshine The Queen? William and Catherine? Prince Charles?
Consider the structure of the British Royal Family - the title (jewelry, land, power, money) have gone to the first born son (and only recently amended to daughter)? All the ceremonies show rank (status). Just how could they have done this - outshine everyone around them? Would some cause they got funding for suddenly unite people who were ununited before? What cause or idea could do that? And where could you go with it since the line of succession is fixed?
Being popular seems to come off as being very important. Outranking
people in numbers on Instagram or crowd numbers greater than someone
else but does that show what is truly popular or important?
Or it just a comment/data point about the happening today compared to
some other time in history in some segment of interests? So ... so
what? What does it matter? or why should it matter? Is this temporary
ranking all that important in the grand scheme of the future of the UK,
the world? What happens when someone passes you? Then what or where are you?
What can be considered the true scale of how to define popular in the
world? and how much should it sway the future of the monarchy?
Comments
did the BBC reporter insult Prince William on air?
https://www.instagram.com/p/CVLjP1tojx4/
"Harry and Meghan want you to think they're progressive — but they're just trying to get rich"
"Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, have been in desperate need of cash. Last year, after they decided to step back from being working members of the British royal family, they were cut off financially — and were given a mere allowance of some $6 million to transition to “financial independence.”
Fortunately for them, they were able to swiftly leverage their celebrity into some lucrative content partnership deals with Spotify and Netflix, reportedly worth well over $100 million combined. That would seem to mean they’ve secured quite a lot of money. But as Harry and Meghan settled into their modest $15 million estate in Montecito, California, in a bid to “live authentically” and get “back down to basics,” it seems they’ve discovered more money is needed to fund their new earthy lifestyle.
In another stroke of fortune for the couple, they’ve been able to make a major foray into the investment business. This week, The New York Times reported they joined Ethic, “a fintech asset manager in the fast-growing environmental, social and governance space, as ‘impact partners’ and investors.”
This is good news for Harry and Meghan! But they want you to know that it’s also good news for you. The co-founder of the firm said Harry and Meghan joined “in the hope of raising awareness around issues such as racial justice, climate change and income equality,” Bloomberg reported.
According to the Times, they also hope to be poster children for sustainable investing:
Harry and Meghan can make E.S.G. [environmental, social and governance] investing part of pop culture in a way that, say, BlackRock’s Larry Fink can’t. “From the world I come from, you don’t talk about investing, right?” Meghan told DealBook in a joint interview with Harry. “You don’t have the luxury to invest. That sounds so fancy.” “My husband has been saying for years, ‘Gosh, don’t you wish there was a place where if your values were aligned like this, you could put your money to that same sort of thing?’” Meghan said. They were introduced to Ethic by friends, she said. Harry and Meghan said they hoped that their involvement would help democratize investing, making people — especially younger people — more deliberate in their choices and conscious of investing in sustainable companies. “You already have the younger generation voting with their dollars and their pounds, you know, all over the world when it comes to brands they select and choose from,” Harry said, suggesting it was a natural extension to do the same with investments.
OK! Well, let’s speak plainly now: Harry and Meghan are trying to characterize their agenda to get rich in the world of high finance as something intended for the public good — and it’s mostly nonsense.
"ESG investing — investing in assets in an environmentally friendly, socially responsible way — is a highly questionable and sometimes outright deceptive enterprise. As experts and operatives in the finance world have pointed out, the ESG label is unregulated and opaque. Funds can charge clients higher fees for assets that are, in fact, not doing the ethical things they’re supposed to be doing. For example, fossil fuel-free funds can fund fossil fuels, in part because most people don’t actually know what investments they’re holding in their baskets of funds. And because ESG portfolios are guided by such a broad and inconsistent set of criteria (ranging from employee development to health and safety to supply chains), even ExxonMobil, a major oil company, can be rated as a green investment by premier ESG raters.
There’s one clear reason they’d get into finance: to make money, and lots of it.
“There’s a lot of green-washing, of woke-washing, a lot of washing within this category of ESG,” Marilyn Waite, a program officer in environment at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the author of "Sustainability at Work," told Vox’s Emily Stewart recently.
In other words, investment funds can exploit the ESG label to charge higher fees but benefit from the fact that they’re largely held unaccountable for where investors’ money is actually going.
And while Harry may think these investments involve "voting" with one’s dollars about company behavior, some experts say that’s not actually what's happening. Lisa Sachs, who heads Columbia University’s Center on Sustainable Investment, told me that sustainable investing does “not change the problematic practices in our economy; it just allows an investor to build a portfolio that they’re more comfortable with.”
“That’s fine ... [but] what is concerning is leading millennials or any retail investors or anyone in the economy to believe that we can solve societal problems through ESG portfolios,” she continued. “These are problems that need policy solutions.”
The issue, she pointed out, is that when an ESG portfolio divests from any given company, another investor will simply snap up those assets.
“Excluding certain stocks from a portfolio doesn’t have any impact on the cost of doing business for that company,” she explained. ESG portfolios don't offer the scale or typically the engagement strategy required to get troubling companies to change their management style or practices.
Sachs told me she wasn't previously familiar with Ethic, but based on a brief look at the asset manager's website and publicly available materials she said it did not appear that they offered a drastically different strategy in their approach to ESG funds than other investment firms.
Ethic said in a statement that its creates personalized portfolios based on investors' specific values, and that it offers analytical tools to help clients understand how their holdings are affecting the issues they've designated as a priority.
But perhaps on some level this whole appraisal of ethical investing is taking Harry and Meghan too seriously. We can step back and look at this more simply: These are two intelligent, competent people who are extremely rich and unfathomably socially connected. They’ve spoken over and over again about elevating voices that aren’t being heard and making the world more inclusive. But there’s one clear reason they’d get into finance: to make money, and lots of it.
"Their dressing up this latest gig as something virtuous and socially conscious is a diversion. Their hope of cloaking their role as marketers for this firm as democratization — for a population that can barely even afford to save money for a minor emergency, let alone invest — is insulting to our intelligence. There are a million things this power couple could’ve chosen to do with their money, and they chose to make more money."
CLARIFICATION (Oct. 18, 2021): This article has been edited to clarify that Ethic is an asset manager, not a fund, and to include a statement from Ethic detailing their business practices.
Do you think that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle can provide a model for ethical investment strategies that provide a return but also support ecologically sustainable and socially progressive efforts?
No, I don't think so. 82%
Yes, I think so. 8%
Maybe, I'm not sure. 8%
Other / No opinion
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10106665/Thomas-Markle-claims-Meghan-disowned-sides-family.html
thank you for alerting us.
I too hope that your husband is doing well.
You'd think that Princess Beatrice and Edo walking Sienna in her pram would have triggered the first "sighting" of Baby$2 . . . but nothing. And then the Earthshot Awards went off without a hitch (and with Catherine looking beautiful, if slightly less of a stunner than at the Bond premiere) . . . and more silence.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pleased that more and more people are catching on to them. It's just really odd of * to be willing to go out with barely a whimper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8jk3MWLAlk
Okay, where's my leper bell? *ringing bell* Beware, beware, off topic, runaway rampant speculation!
1) They're getting evicted from somewhere (again) and can't locate a moving truck. For those of you unfamiliar with California, so many people are moving OUT that moving trucks are hard to find. Many have gone to their New State of Choice to rent a truck, drive to California, then drive back to their new digs because it is less expensive. Maybe they are driving a moving truck from New York to California, then back. Together. In the same truck, traveling together for HOURS. (Gleefully sipping more coffee.) *sigh* No, too cruel. Now, I must self debunk. Do they actually "own" enough furniture to move in a truck, or do they just mooch?
2) They thought that going into space on the Blue Origin flight was a great publicity idea and wanted to "secretly" surprise everybody. (Take THAT, William! Not you, Shatner. Stay in your lane. Royalty in space is so much more important than CPT James. T. Kirk.) Jeff Bezos was tired of being importuned and harangued and may have been heard to mutter "Will nobody rid me of these horrible pests?" They may or may not have been allowed into the cargo area prior to launch.
3. Somebody's in reeeeeehab!
4. They're working extremely hard on new content for Spotify and Netflix to rehab their image as slackers.
All of those are plausible except #4. "Working extremely hard"? The Harkles?
I'm thinking that they had been banking on a payment from Netflix, in exchange for footage they made in New York. But as the Nutties have speculated, everything they filmed and recorded was probably completely useless. They're not getting anything from Netflix any time soon.
As for Spotify . . . Any news on the Content Director or Creative Director or whatever the heck his/her title was whom they were forced to hire?
Whatever they're working out with Guthy-Renker, it doesn't seem to have led to a cash advance. They got some help with a private jet (and possibly the landscaped backyard setting of the Oprah interview) and nothing more since then.
Yes, re the sunsets!😛 Someone took a photo of one where I live, and put it on our local FB page. 🤗
@SwampWoman
All of those are plausible except #4. "Working extremely hard"? The Harkles?
Heh. I thought that ranked up there with "getting abducted by aliens". I can see it was quite irresponsible of me to speculate about working extremely hard and leave off being abducted by aliens because alien abduction is so much more plausible. I stand corrected. (grin)
@SwampWoman
Yes, re the sunsets!😛 Someone took a photo of one where I live, and put it on our local FB page. 🤗
Thanks, Raspberry Ruffle! I've been eyeballing our sunsets lately and they seem to be more colorful, so I wondered about those happening in Europe.
I wonder if a performance or surety bond can be requested of people in the business of selling unicorn farts and snake oil.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2021/10/blind-item-8_19.html#disqus_thread
A royal story to make you smile (and by golly we need it):
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/2021-oldies-of-the-year-sir-geoff-hurst-dame-delia-smith-leslie-caron-b961335.html
Camilla presents the Oldie of the Year Awards, humourous ones celebrating the older generation, The Oldie being a magazine rather like Punch, for those old enough to remember Punch!
--------
That would certainly explain the look of desperation the two of them had at times. They knew that they *had* to deliver something or no $ forthcoming?
I thought at the time that her face especially had the look of...this *has* to work, it's our last chance.
It surely was foolish of them to allow H's wiring to be seen. Whatever it was, no one is *not* going to think that they were mic'd up.
I wonder if a performance or surety bond can be requested of people in the business of selling unicorn farts and snake oil.
Do you suppose Netflix was farsighted enough to add a clause saying that if the Harkles didn't produce something usable by so-and-so time, they'd have to pay the advance back? That would be, for the Harkles, the one scenario worse than not getting any new money.
By the way, has there been any follow-up news on the 40x40 thing? Have any of the 40 women who got 40 minutes of some celebrity's time found success "mobilizing" back into the workforce? Did these women even exist or are they as real as Fauxrchie and Baby$2? In all seriousness, this is a great time for some follow-up PR on that. That nothing is forthcoming tells me one of two things: a) The women don't exist; or b) The Harkles either didn't budget for this no-brainer part of their campaign or genuinely ran out of money.
It does sound like Serena and *.
Reading it, I assumed that Serena had blocked * -- but someone else in the comments points out that the blind is ambiguous enough that it could have been * who had blocked Serena. Humor aside, the first scenario is the more likely one. Serena still has celebrity, money, and an actual daughter, all of which * just pretends she has. But * has nothing that Serena could want. And if Serena's disastrous Markling at the US Open is any indication, * has everything Serena would like to keep far, far away from her.
I also take this as another clue that the Harkles are out of PR money. In the heyday of their PR, * would have gleefully spun herself into the narrative. We'd read that the cracks in the Ohanians' marriage started to show when Alexis made a pass at * at the US Open. Although * gracefully and virtuously rebuffed him, Serena's mother immediately blamed her (hence the very public cold shoulder on the big screen) and Serena soon did, too.
By the way, has there been any follow-up news on the 40x40 thing? Have any of the 40 women who got 40 minutes of some celebrity's time found success "mobilizing" back into the workforce? Did these women even exist or are they as real as Fauxrchie and Baby$2? In all seriousness, this is a great time for some follow-up PR on that. That nothing is forthcoming tells me one of two things: a) The women don't exist; or b) The Harkles either didn't budget for this no-brainer part of their campaign or genuinely ran out of money.
Netflix would certainly have a bigger budget for lawfare than the former royals. If they didn't, then they deserve to lose that money. To be fair, I'm not sure which I dislike the most. Both parties losing the money would make me smile.
I'm guessing the 40x40 thing was PR, all fluff, no substance.
Imagine a 35 year old ginger, entitled, whiny, alcoholic, lazy, dim witted, badly groomed, angry man as your husband.
As for her, I don't have time to list all of her bad qualities.
Do you suppose Netflix was farsighted enough to add a clause saying that if the Harkles didn't produce something usable by so-and-so time, they'd have to pay the advance back?
There have been rumors in the DM comment section that the Netflix deal has been cancelled. The next time I see one of the comments, I'll bring it over.
the commenters over at CDAN are saying that Meghan is cheating on Harry. I heard this rumour before, about her stepping out with someone from Netflix.
I wouldn't be at all surprised. I was watching The Body Language Guy, Jesus Enrique Rosas, about the emotional pump and dump that the narcissist engages in. Narcissists only have friends if they have a use for them; the use ends, the friends are unceremoniously, suddenly dumped. Her intimate relationships have followed the same path. Faithful is not in her lexicon. Used until no longer useful towards her reaching her goal of the moment is how she operates.
Harry doesn't seem to have ever been faithful to a woman, either. Maybe a man, I dunno.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10108181/Queen-welcomes-billionaire-business-leaders-tech-entrepreneurs-Windsor-Castle.html
I am sure that * is throwing things and screaming at everyone in Montecito.
"the cracks in the Ohanians' marriage started to show when Alexis made a pass at * at the US Open."
Au contraire, it was Meghan who blatantly flirted with Serena's husband by flashing her crotch at him. See pic: http://disq.us/p/2k8l0kq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=222&v=AlTLIfhGA04&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=TheMemeLanguageGuy
Gosh, I love the driver.
I am sure that * is throwing things and screaming at everyone in Montecito.
@GWAH: I don’t if it was Blind Gossip or Crazy Days and Nights that had this item, but the blind item said that during the spring as it was looking like the Bill and Melinda Gates marriage was headed for a split, before the official announcement they were divorcing, pregnant Meghan attempted to contact Bill Gates with a proposal for her to meet with him to discuss the possibility of doing charitable project together. The blind said that Meghan offered to travel to meet with him.
There was no mention of Harry in the blind, so apparently she was planning on doing this trip herself. I am guessing a trip wasn’t the only thing she planned to be doing.
My last paragraph was a satire of the kind of PR the Harkles used to engage in. It was certainly * who threw herself at Alexis, but she'd love to say that it was he who made a pass at her. She wouldn't care that it might hurt a woman whom she once called a friend. As @SwampWoman reminds us, narcs don't consider people friends, but tools, accessories or appliances that should be replaced when they're no longer useful. Flipping the situation like that would also be out of the narc playbook: They love to accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. It's as good as an actual admission of guilt.
I'm guessing the 40x40 thing was PR, all fluff, no substance.
Fluff would at least put it on the level of the SmartWorks capsule collection. Flashy, but useless -- and leaving the participants with the burden of being gracious to someone who just wasted their time.
What I'm genuinely wondering is whether the 40 "ordinary" women even existed. Did Melissa McCarthy lend her talents to the equivalent of an SNL skit meant to be nothing but a smokescreen, while the women who lent their names to the "initiative" did so with the full knowledge that they wouldn't have to do anything but support * in the most superficial way?
Thanks Nutties, gave me
a much needed boost 🥰
@GWAH @Observant One
Hahaha, Mag-Z
cheers for the compliment 😘
@WildBoar
Will have a think about ‘Biliousmare’
Speaking of Eartha Kitt:
“Phanta Baby” 😉
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10106665/Thomas-Markle-claims-Meghan-disowned-sides-family.html
@Magatha - I look forward to the result of your deliberations!
@GWAH
Haz’s book title:
“Up Schitt’s Creek with a Peddle-ho”
O/T @WildBoar
What’s your take on Bishop John Fisher?
On yer Bike!
I’m beginning to think what @Swampie
said
Is true, they’re flitting,
burning another wet bed
Saddled with his bike, cycle too
The anus is on Haz
he’s peddling for two
His heart, pump, pump, pump
as they clock up the miles
All they have gained
are red faces, and piles
What we’ve all gathered
from their latest skid mark
Is a Pass from the UN
and a No from New York
Thanks for the reminder about the Bill Gates blind! If Catherine happens to be in a picture with Bill Gates, too, I'd imagine that life for everyone in Montecito -- Harry, Doria, staff and chickens -- is very unpleasant right now.
Tom-Tom Schtum
Time has come for madams dad
To realise that his daughter’s bad
No doubt hurting, somewhat sad
The world can see
he’s been rachely had!
There are fortune tellers that say that the absence of * and 6 is because of a court battle with the surrogate (who was defeated). If that's the case, I expect that the alleged child images will be for sale everywhere, and the merching onslaught will begin! It will be difficult to merch merch that isn't in the stores but instead sitting in cargo ships off the coast of California. That merch is also not being produced by the slave labor in Chinese factories due to energy shortages, but that is none of my business.
From Merriam-Webster: Definition of woo-woo
: dubiously or outlandishly mystical, supernatural, or unscientific
Haz’s book title:
“Up Schitt’s Creek with a Peddle-ho”
I'd buy that before it hits the discount bin!
If they can't merch physical products, they'll at least be able to sell photos. Baby$2 is still enough of a novelty that many people will be curious, so that will tide Harry and * over somewhat until they can figure out the next (very reduced) paycheck.
To be honest, I'd really like to see a photo of both alleged children with Harry. It was he whom I saw as a child and pretty much grew up with; it is he whose features I would scan the children's faces for. And I don't think I'm in a minority. * might just hit the roof when she learns a photo of Harry with the children will be worth much more than a photo of her with the children.
@Enbrethiliel
Lilibaby photos would garner much attention.
Why isn’t she merching her?
The couple that sold his granny are
now shy at flogging their ‘daughter’
Doesn’t make sense?
Unless there is no daughter,
or son?
I don’t believe she gave birth,
she’s not capable of giving anything.
Just read in DM
The Queen cancelled NI tour,
taking a rest.
God Bless the Queen
I agree with everyone who believes that she doesn't have access to any children (apart from the occasional child actor); but if @SwampWoman's source is right and she actually got a surrogate this time, Baby$2 may live up to the dollar sign in her monicker.
I thought she was looking a little thinner again in last weeks pictures and thought maybe she lost some weightwhile in Balmoral. I hope she rests up and takes it easy!
I know the press say that it is not Covid related and I pray that that is the truth.
As for the Harkles former driver, so he was warned never to look her in the eyes. Sounds very familiar.................
That's the problem. Being vaccinated does not mean you are immune to covid infection. In fact, vaccinated people poses a higher risk of spreading covid as often they are asymptomatic.
UK has mainly done away with masks. Not a good idea for the elderlies.
Imo, the only satisfactory precaution is if everyone takes an antigen test right before an event. Only then can we be sure that everyone is safe mingling among each other.
If you recall, after the summit in Cornwall, lots of people who were there came down with covid.
Ok, I am starting the conspiracy theory - The woman next to Bill Gates at the Windsor Castle summit broke protocol and shook the queen's hand. And today - the queen cannot travel. Bill Gates is trying to off the queen (allegedly)
It sure looks like NYC was a last hurrah Not much from 6 and his wife since then and we had Thomas Markle trotted out to keep her in the news - and his conclusion is it was all harry's fault Post divorce narrative beginning already
Earthshot - good Cambridge pics Actually wish they didnt have the one published of the two of them holding hands - looks too Harkles to me. Or was that a bit of taunting
Hmmm thoughts on Lilbuck$ The way she could get custody without issue is if the baby had her or harry's DNA. Maybe she has neither which would make an adoption from surrogacy more complicated. And that could be why there is no baby number 2 in any pictures ever
At 95, both are understandable, but she also recently lost her husband of nearly 74 years.
Of course at 95, she obviously doesn’t have more than 10 years at the very most. But as many of you know, very often when one spouse in a long marriage passes on, the surviving spouse follows soon after. In a way, the surviving spouse losers their raison d’etre.
I wonder if this is the beginning of her exit from this life. No matter when she passes, it will be a sad day and most certainly a change in the monarchy when feckless Charles becomes king. I just think he will never be able to command the respect and fondness of the world that the Queen has.
Charles isn’t my idea of a great monarch. William will likely be much better — and William won’t take any crap from Harry and TBW. William appears to have them sussed.
lots of good tea - where is Doria? is * doing something behind the scenes to Catherine? is Netflix fed up with the 6's?
I finally saw the video with the driver. It is hilarious. The punchline is the best!
So this was for the second Trooping, when she wore black and got scolded by Harry on the balcony? I guess he's better at standing up to her when he has family around him.
Did they really have to call * an Über, though? That's the part I find most far-fetched. You'd think they'd have at least one other car.
* writes a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer to ask for paid maternity leave.
Being a mother of dolls, actors and empty strollers doesn't count Meghan. The fact this reject continues to be unsupervised and unmedicated is a problem. Remove the titles or shut her up.
what's more, it is the top comment for that article :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJ2PKp200I
Goodto.com
By Selena Goodcock
10-18-2021
Headline:
Princess Charlotte is expected to be given the ultimate Princess Diana heirloom instead of Lilibet Diana.
* Princess Charlotte is set to get the ultimate Princess Diana heirloom instead of Lilibet Diana.
* The royal youngster will be given her late grandmother’s Spencer tiara.
As the only daughter of the future King of England, with Prince William second in line to the throne in royal succession, the Cambridge youngster is in line to be given Princess Diana’s Spencer tiara.
According to Palace insiders, when Charlotte, six, is all grown up and her father the Duke of Cambridge is sovereign, she will have “the pick of the palace jewels” and there are two pieces in particular that have been earmarked for the youngster.
It’s understood that discussions are already in place for Charlotte to inherit the Spencer Tiara, which belongs to the family of her late grandmother Princess Diana, who tragically died in 1997 following a car crash.
You might recognise the headpiece as Princess Diana wore it to her 1981 wedding to Prince Charles, as well as other special occasions including a state dinner in Brisbane, Australia, in 1983.
The tiara is currently in the possession of Princess Diana’s younger brother, Charles, 9th Earl Spencer who lives at the family’s Althorp House.
An insider said, “William is close with his uncle and has asked if his mother’s namesake tiara can be given to Charlotte someday,”
“William is quite aware the earl has daughters of his own, but the two have agreed that Diana’s iconic piece belongs to her first granddaughter.”
A second insider told New Idea exclusively that astute little Charlotte “is aware” of the discussions and is said to be “giddy with excitement” about inheriting the “treasure”.
“Lotte knows all about her ‘Granny Diana’ – after all, Diana is one of her middle names. She’s also seen pictures of her wearing the tiara,” said the source.
“Charlotte is more than aware that she’s a princess, and she’s already got plastic tiaras and gowns to play dress-ups in. It’s very cute.”
But it’s not the only piece of tiara heading Charlotte’s way.
The Queen, 95, and Prince Charles, 72, are currently tabling the crown jewels as they sort out Her Majesty’s wishes for inheritances.
Both the monarch and her heir agree that the $18.5 million Vladimir Tiara – which was refurbished in the early 1900s with Cambridge emeralds from the Queen’s grandmother, Queen Mary – belongs with the next Cambridge princess.
https://www.goodto.com/royal-news/the-ultimate-princess-diana-heirloom-princess-charlotte-is-set-to-be-given-instead-of-lilibet-diana-624776
Seriously though this kind of a move (despite the BRF does not get involved in politics) just sounds like the middle aged housewife version of her letter about dishwashing liquid.
(40 is middle aged)
Where is all the "doing" that they said they were going to do?
All those big, global impact ideas?
I mean...200 beanies? Really? You or I could do that. How about 200,000 beanies. And some jackets to go with them.
Repair ceiling tile in one room? How about donate 1,000 roofs. And big rolls of plastic, wooden lathes, nails, to use until the roof is repaired.
Donate a washer? Really? You couldn't spring for a dryer, too? And some laundry detergent and dryer sheets for a year? And winter jackets and hats and mittens for every kid there? And some boots.
Donated a microwave and coffee machine? How about coffee and food supplies for a year?
They don't think big scale at all. They do the least amount possible and then want all the kudos for it.
You are right, the new letter is exactly the same as her dishwashing detergent letter. * views herself as some sort of feminist superhero, with special skills designed to reveal all of the dreadful issues that women face - like targeted advertising back in the 1970’s (shocking, I know) and paid Family Leave laws (that many states have already implemented, with several more coming into play each year).
If the feds DO implement a federal FML law, she’ll take credit for it and you know that she will harp about that forever, along with that damn dishwashing liquid letter.
Let me spell it out - some of the Sussex Squad have given the game away and started moaning about not getting their monthly `salary' from via Sunshine Sachs, presumably from *
Wally would like it to be spread to the papers, all RR's etc.
They discuss not getting their Christmas bonus' of1K, dollars, I assume, rather than pounds.
They describe people like us as a `leaderless right-wing trolls' - I'm proud to be a patriotic troll in that case (with a black ancestor) They call themselves `left-wing anti-racists'.
Doesn't go as far as preventing them from loving the money - we do it for free.
The first city without a cathedral was Birmingham(1889) Cambridge achieved the status only in 1952 (Cambridge comes under Ely in the Anglican scheme of things) Wikipedia explains all. City status has been awarded in recognition to other towns on the occasion of Royal Jubilees. Sunderland, a former very important ship-building borough in Co. Durham, became city in 1992, on the 40th anniversary of of HM's succession.
Some places have `City' in the name, eg Welwyn (pronounced `Wellin') Garden City, because of a 19thC planning concept - `The Garden City'.
The new Milton Keynes is a bit like that - it was conceived as a `city but I don't think it had the status yet, for all that it has a fine university that pioneered open access to higher education and distance learning.
----
@ Magatha I'm still reflecting on John Fisher and agree with Erasmus:
"He is the one man at this time who is incomparable for uprightness of life, for learning and for greatness of soul" - a very fine man honoured now by both Catholics and Anglicans.
I regard both Catholic and Protestant martyrdoms as criminal murder but those were dangerous times. There was no belief in a `plural' society which could still function safely even if people were allowed to have different opinions from those of the rulers (that idea is being severely tested here, by more than one group that thinks we should all think like them).
Southend the latest town to become a city, it has no cathedral. 🤗
Surely the rest of what Yankee Wally has to say is more important than this?
I posted that link about what Yankee Wally had to say earlier.
Not sure who you’re replying to, but I wasn’t criticising your comment in anyway, I making a random comment about the latest city we’ve gained after I saw your comment about cities etc. 🤗 I don’t listen to Yankee Wally, she rambles too much for me. 😟
For the avoidance of doubt, Everyone, all honours to GWAH for posting what is possibly the most import item ever on this site.
GWAH, do you think this may be the evidence that the H&Ms have, at last, run out of cash?
I'm ambivalent about Princess Charlotte getting the Spencer tiara. It's an heirloom of the entire Spencer family, not just Diana. It's the only one that Spencer women get to wear, while royal women in Charlotte's position have their pick of the Crown's many tiaras. If Charlotte gets it, does that mean future Spencer brides will have to request permission to use it (which implies that they might be denied)? Will the Spencers have to commission a new tiara for the family? If they can, and if it turns out to be beautiful, this might not seem like such a big deal. But no new tiara will have the ineffable historical value of a centuries-old one -- and that's really what William will be taking from the Spencers.
If I recall correctly, Diana's pride in her Spencer heritage was due to the Spencers being more English than the Windsors. Her family might have been less rich and less powerful by the time she was born, but they had much better historical cred. I think she, too, would have had mixed feelings about this decision.
As melodramatic as this sounds, I'm reminded of the Prophet Nathan telling King David that story about a rich man with many flocks taking a poor man's only lamb away!
Apart from this, I had really been hoping that we could all lay Diana's memory to rest. I saw the apology from the BBC, as demanded by Prince William, as the final word in her mythos -- and the statue as her final image, as determined by her sons. William seemed especially intent on giving her a proper place in the past. And why not? When he becomes king, the majority of his subjects will have no living memories of her and no relevant connections to her. In this light, the future Princess Royal getting "Diana's tiara" seems like it would have the opposite effect. Every time Charlotte wears it, there will be side-by-side photo comparisons with her grandmother. I'm starting to find it tiring when the press does it with Catherine and Diana; I'm not looking forward to several more decades of it with Charlotte. I had hoped that Prince William was doing all he can to stop the Diana juggernaut at last, but I guess my reading of his previous actions was off.
I meant, of course, the most important item so far - the smoking gun?
Perhaps you should repost it at regular intervals throughout the day until more Nutties pick up on it? Just a suggestion...
Am I forgiven?
Another apology from me, I misread your tone. Sorry.
I don't think YW is rambling this time. If the SS is only in it for the money, they might not care about blowing the gaff. I'd have expected a discussion about it here, though.
I did listen/watch to the first half of Wally’s video. I’m wary that she and others like her are being set-up, because I’m suspicious as to why such tweets would exist unless someone wanted them/info out there? 🤨
yes, you are forgiven.
Please go ahead and post it often. I am dealing with some extraneous circumstances at this time.
This is all very odd to me. I agree with the commenters who are suspicious. The quote that I have the biggest problem with: "I know I'm blasting this on Twitter, but try and be discreet." Seriously? If you care about discretion, why are you "blasting"?
Or am I giving Harkle fans a lot more intellectual credit than they deserve?
Again, I don't see this as very damning when it comes to PR. It has been common knowledge for years that * was paying to make sure there would be THREE articles about her published per DAY. So I think many people already took for granted that some fans with big social media accounts were also getting kickbacks. Well, at least I did.
On the other hand, as evidence that * has run out of money, it makes much hotter tea. Is anyone other than the Nutties making this connection? (If this is the point Yankee Wally makes at the end of the video, I'm sorry I missed it. But just as some of us don't like River's or Lady C's styles, I'm not the hugest fan of YW's.)
To be honest, I don't associate the Spencer tiara with Diana as much as I do the Lover's Knot tiara. I suspect that's because I've seen pictures of other women--Spencer women or women marrying Spencer men--wearing the Spencer tiara in the nearly 25 years since Diana died. But no one has worn the Lover's Knot except Kate. Charlotte certain could wear that one (if Kate were willing to give it up ;-))
I am surprised Charles Spencer would ever agree for the tiara to go to the BRF myself. Lending it for an event, sure. But transferring ownership? After all, Charles has a daughter named Charlotte Diana too. She's not much older than Princess Charlotte. What is the plan, just buy a brand-new "Spencer tiara?" With all the historic royal jewelry that exists, I really can't understand Will insisting his family should have this piece too. Maybe he's a bit more like Queen Mary than I knew!
So far as Will wanting to finally lay Diana to rest, I'm not so sure. Both Will and Harry seem to have dealt with Diana's death in ways that ultimately may not be so healthy.
I'm not saying Will is using Diana the way Harry seems to. He's not. But personally I thought the whole "let's raise money from the public for a Diana statue to put in our backyard" was kind of icky. While we don't know whose idea it was (Will's or Harry's?), I'm pretty sure it never ever would have happened had Will not strongly supported the idea. And while we ridiculed Harry (well, at least I did) for claiming one of Archie's many first words was "Grandma Diana" Will having his children make Mother's Day cards for Diana every year and telling them nightly bedtime stories about her...a bit much IMO. But if that's what he wants to do and Kate's ok with it, fine. But why do we need to know about all of that? Even down to the "papa's sad" message Charlotte wrote? TMI. So I don't know how willing Will is for there not to continue to be Diana stories in the news. And I think on some level he is competing with Harry for ownership of the Diana legacy. We always say Harry is trying to compete with Will for what Will has because of his first-born, heir to the throne status. But there's likely some personal competition that goes the other direction too.
Those are good points in your last paragraph. I was aware of the Mother's Day cards at the time and had heard of the bedtime stories, so I should have factored them in. If we get more cards next year, also for Mother's Day or for Diana's birthday, that will be truly -- as the young 'uns say these days -- cringe.
And by "we," I mean we the public. As you say, if it's something they want to do as a family in private, that's one thing; but to make it so open invites some side-eye!
I look at it that if these people are vile enough to be `guns for hire' and accept payment for being vile, they may be nasty enough to turn their fire on their paymaster/mistress when the cash dries up - and not care who knows it.
Yankee's screenshots looked genuine to me.
I wonder if the S-quad have been using * for their own SJW purposes and are cut from the same cloth as * and H? Biting the hand that feeds them when the juicy morsels stop coming?
We knew that some at least of the bot a/cs traced back to * and that she would have to be paying Sunshine Sachs for their services. We only surmised that the S-squad was actually being paid, and by whom. As far as I recall, there wasn't any hard evidence for this.
It's still possible the the text of these messages is written by * and she just paying them to input the data, so to speak, but that's speculation.
This is the first time we've seen anything that looks like hard evidence for how the S-squad works, I believe.
You beat me to it and I completely agree. Lending absolutely, but giving an hereditary heirloom away, no. The royal family have enough tiara’s of their own to use. 🥴
Earl Spencer has daughters of his own that would want to have the tiara.
Exactly that, plus I personally can’t recall a time any aristocrat (marrying into the royal family family) giving away the family’s most notable tiara. 🥴
Tiara - i agree, doesnt seem like Earl of Spencer would give the family Tiara to the Crown. he been married 3 times and I think had kids with each wife. Usually the Tiara stays with the estate so it would go to the eldest inheritor, probably son, because I dont think that estate goes to the girls ….yet. Whomever he allows , daughters, neices, etc, could wear the tiara. But there was a close HM friend that gave her Jewels to HM upon her death, presumably she had no descendants?
Tiaras- I’ve read HM believes that unmarried girls shouldn’t wear the big honking tiaras, and she allows them to wear the bandeas/ smaller delicate tiaras. Once the marry (and are mature?) she allows them to wear the big showstoppers. I think its one of the older type unwritten etiquette rules, like first-time brides can wear white but 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc weddings they should NOT wear white. So if HM is giving a honking tiara to PC, I think there are strings attached or it’s a fake. plus her dad will be able to give her whatever tiara she wants!
To my knowledge, unmarried ladies of the aristocracy (at least) do not wear a tiara until they are married, the tiara itself signifies they are taken. Unsure if this also relates to royal princesses. 🥴