Well, well, well.
The news is coming out that she might not be the most reliable of sources for information. (who would have thunk it?) And that she did, in fact, cooperate with the authors of the Finding Freedom book (really?). And that recollections may vary (with emails and texts to back things up).
Do you think the appeal will overturn the prior judgement?
If it doesn't, do you think her reputation of accuracy will be damaged long term? Sometimes wounds may not kill short term but do the damage long term enough to bring them down.
Could this damage her attempts for a trajectory of the new humanitarian shining star?
How do you think it will play out on Netflix? Or will it if it goes against her?
Comments
Friday Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Susan Maughan
Bobby’s Girl
Gobby’s Hurl
When people ask of me
Why did you ghost Big ‘T’
Now he’s no use to you anymore
I answer in my way
He will not have a say
You should all know
I’m keeping score
I used to be Daddy’s Girl
Used to be Daddy’s Girl
What a faithless, thankless brat
that’s me
Each night I’d call his phone
Begging another loan
Hoping he’d give all to me
In my heart I’d pray
He soon would go away
So I could reinvent myself
When I was Daddy’s Girl
When I was Daddy’s Girl
What a lying, tramping skank I’d be
This was a PR run to restore likability after the lying charges. Didn't work. That squat? Are you kidding us? That was gross and humiliating. Ellen got some kind of revenge. We don't know what kind of revenge, but narcissists and borderline personalities are looking for revenge everywhere.
So * if you are reading this, you are one ugly a$$ hag whom we all know to be a malignant narcissist, and sociopath.
And IMO Ellen did not look like she was enjoying time with her friend.
When Ellen's scandal first broke, someone pointed out that the only times she seems truly happy is when she's scaring people or making others humiliate themselves on her show. So she wouldn't have enjoyed the face-to-face moment with *, but the second she got * to squat in public, Ellen would've been in her element.
Earlier in this thread, someone (apologies, I can find who it was now) asked why narcs are as they are, or wtte. Here's what I've concluded and why.
Long before I heard the term `malignant narcissist' I (c.30 yrs ago), I tried to make out how the then-husband's mind worked. I concluded that although what he believed was downright wrong legally, he had his own consistent internal logic which was set in stone.
Thus he believed he owned me, and all that I had, and was thus entitled to it.
That he had no responsibility towards me.
That he was perfect. (He actually said there was no way he would/could change because it could only be a change for the worse).
That I should sign over my (small) share of the house to him if I wanted a divorce.
That there had been no change in the law, that the reforms of the 19thC onward has never happened (despite him being a historian - he was mentally stuck in Tudor times).
When my GP prescribed a tranquilliser for me, he told me I `deserved to be on drugs' and told others that I was.
I concluded that his brain was somehow wired differently from that of other people and nothing was going to change that.
Only 3 weeks after the wedding, it'd dawned on me that he'd married me for money - my salary and, more important, any possible inheritance I might have from parents. Mum later told me I'd have been cut off without a penny if I'd stuck with him.
Once I knew about malignant narcs, everything fell into place.
Just like *.
I do wonder if it's a form of `congenital addiction' or result of damage done in very early childhood when the brain is still developing (in the case above, he was abused by his father - perhaps because he was already a narc - and spoiled rotten by his mother).
Does narcissistic behaviour `light up' the `addiction' neurons of the brain?
"She wants to be part of a working group to work on paid leave long term and she's going to be . . . Whether this comes to fruition now or later, she'll be part of a group of women that hopefully will work on paid leave together."
That's a quote from Senator Gillibrand. Sigh. I guess * does have a foot in the door.
American Nutties: Does anyone know what kind of group is meant here? Would the members essentially be working for the US government? And if so, can * do that using a foreign title?
And how nice of Gillibrand to give other senators a heads up about future harassment from *. I wonder if any of them will let her have a piece of their mind.
What I wish the article had been clearer about is exactly how *'s breach of protocol affected the negotiation process. Is it just that the trust among the senators has been damaged? Or does this throw enough of a spanner into the works that the senators will have to start over completely?
Here's one account of her `group'...
Btw - I think the child is the same `Archie' we've seen before.
@Wild Boar
I glanced at the article about *'s glam squad (what glam) and saw a link to Christmas. They 'have reportedly turned the invitation down in the hopes of "avoiding a media frenzy."' Don't flatter yourselves! They feed on media frenzy butif they were to show their faces over here, it wouldn't be a media frenzy but booing.
kinda like when KimK lobbys goveroners and presidents for amnesty for murders and criminals.
or whenJen Garner tetified before congress for school kids to get apple juice in school… or some such thing.
TBW must think thats her entree into being taken seriously in order to pursue a poloitical career? but with the Title albatross, hypocrisies and other mental issues, I doubt it would happen. sh’s not even a good liar! sure she spins a web but it falls apart with the slightest bit of digging deeper and shes not up to it mentally, too thin skinned, too needy and whiney.
a politician has to be a good lia and very very thick skinned
I thought we'd decided that * claimed that Ellen had been to see them - big difference.
The reference to `tufts of ginger hair' was a `detail' too far - `merely corroborative detail designed to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative'. (Thank you, WS Gilbert!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10220737/Social-media-explodes-memes-mocking-Meghan-Markles-appearance-Ellen-Degeneres-Show.html
Snippet:
Social media is ablaze with hilarious memes including reality star Kris Jenner exclaiming, 'This is ridiculous', Project Runway's Tim Gunn pulling a sick face and Ru Paul declaring: 'Who cares!?'
@Magatha,
"Sending you a virtual cuddle
and a bottle of bolly
Thank you, Magatha!💜
Both were much appreciated. x 😊
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g71ldYuBTYE
kinda like when KimK lobbys goveroners and presidents for amnesty for murders and criminals.
or whenJen Garner tetified before congress for school kids to get apple juice in school… or some such thing.
Thanks. I guess * she's hoping to join an existing group that has already done most of the work, in exchange for bringing her "celebrity" to the table.
The really sad thing is that paid parental leave is a worthwhile cause. It doesn't deserve * trying to build a lucrative brand off of it.
Thank you 😌
Yes, Squatting in the Street is perfect for a dirty duchey ditty Ha ha.
TBW must think thats her entree into being taken seriously in order to pursue a poloitical career? but with the Title albatross, hypocrisies and other mental issues, I doubt it would happen. sh’s not even a good liar! sure she spins a web but it falls apart with the slightest bit of digging deeper and shes not up to it mentally, too thin skinned, too needy and whiney.
a politician has to be a good lia and very very thick skinned
----
This! I have believed for a long time there is no way she can make it in politics here in the U.S. Even local. The TV commercials are so brutal and muddy that a candidate would have to be very, very thick skinned and she is offended at everything. Plus her "privilege" of being a member of the BRF (even if just by injection lol) would create a lot of problems and expectations. How could she ever be considered to be fair with her constituents?
I don't think she's allowed to run while holding a royal title. I think this is why she's now attempting to jump on committies; so she can have the semblance of being a politician without having to do the real work of being in the trenches. But we know that's how she rolls. All the glory with as little effort as possible. Smoke and mirrors.
She's an embarrassment to the RF, more now than even. I love the meme with the guy falling from the top. Sums it up perfectly.
You are asked to bake a wedding cake. You conceive the idea for the cake, bake it, decorate it. Someone else comes in at the last minute and helps load the cake onto the trolly.
She then wheels it out to the crowd, smiling broadly, accepting all of the praise, acting like only she worked on it.
And there you have encapsulated Mm.
Exactly!
Friday’s Singalong 🎤 of Gobby’s Hurl (Bobby’s Girl) is tremendous. Not only are you a master wordsmith but you craft your tuneful poetry with humor, grittiness where warranted, laser insight into the whole revolting cast’s basest instincts, and oblique references to some really bad things they get away with, all interlaced with popular-culture references.
You have your finger on the pulse, and how.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10221481/PIERS-MORGAN-Meghan-behaved-like-desperate-reality-TV-star-vomit-making-Ellen-cheese-fest.html
Plan A is get on committees and push hot topics like paid leave even though she's s not the prototype they are fighting for. There is some push back about how she handled and should she have been given those private phone numbers. That may be in the wind at this point.
Plan B would be: be relatable and have a fun talk show (cue: I see an opening).
Even in the engagement interview she never laughed. We never have seen what they said was her "wickedly funny" side.
Although I don't think the Ellen show was wickedly funny. Just plain stupid.
Vulgar. Uncouth. Crass. Tawdry, coarse, ill-bred.
And she was just lapping it up. She was on a narc high.
On the Angela Levin piece, * should do a reboot of the Jerry Springer Show.
Look at the glee on her face as she did mean things.
Great minds think alike- as they say. May I suggest a reboot of Jerry Springer? LOL.
i havent seen the toe curling street stunts TBW willingly demeaned herself to perform for some chep publicity on that has-been cancelled Ellens show . ive only seen a clip and read about them…. BUT, what is really tlling to me is MM had to know what she’d have to perform/ do in advance, otherwise, why in the world would she hav a bottle of milk in her handbag or so accessible … or even the cat ears. or did a Ellen lacky hand that stuff to her? so the performance shows MM’s a willing puppet, willing to be led by the nose by anyone with power, money, or faux prestige in hopes some will rub off on her. very sad
and the clipi have seen, the rerun one on DM, looks cringeworthy when MM is waving her arms around, playing with her hair telling her Ford story, looking anywhere but at Ellen cause she knows its all a lie. and Ellen avoids looking at her, its like her PR firm, SS, or some other High placed Aquaintance forced her to have MM on the show.
`M-M, the Opera' but who get the mezzo parts aka `Witches, Bitches and Breeches'? So many possibilities for type casting in *'s Ghastly Crew.
Even in the engagement interview she never laughed.
Well, she fake-laughed, when talking about how tricky it was for her and Harry to find time to meet, when both of them had such busy schedules.
Look at the glee on her face as she did mean things.
Someone has pointed out that Ellen is only really happy when she's scaring people (either guests or her hapless employees) or embarrassing them. Like a narcissist, she likes learning what you hate or fear the most, so that she can make you endure it in front of a live audience. I guess people who liked other aspects of her show glossed over those moments as mere pranking from a "fun" boss/host; but fellow celebrities, while guesting, have called her out directly or made unamused side comments about her behavior. And when one finally watches a compilation of those incidents, it becomes really obvious how rude and inconsiderate Ellen has been for years.
Here is a video I watched early last year. It currently has 5.7 million views and 75 thousand likes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSWswBzMP-g
There are several others.
I think Ellen's meanness has been an open secret among celebrities for years. So it's kind of a wonder that her show lasted as long as it has. I'm sure repeat guests dreaded having to make another appearance with her. And yet she was influential enough with viewers (or just powerful enough in Hollywood?) that even other celebrities felt that they had to be guests.
Anyway, I hope * "has to" be a guest on Ellen's show again at least two more times before it's finally cancelled.
so yesterday we had a duchess sucking a baby bottle and squatting in public (thanks ellen what shade!)
When I first heard about the squatting, I thought it had to be made up. To me, it hit too close to the story about her peeing in the woods. As far as I can tell, no one is bringing that up any longer; and to tell you the truth, I had kind of forgotten it, too. But now I've been reminded of it again -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one!
Given Ellen's own narcissistic love of using her guests' vulnerabilities against them, I think there's a good chance that she asked * to squat precisely because she knew it would remind * of a past embarrassment that * would like to keep secret. Maybe not the peeing the woods, but something from the yachting days.
The "mommy" thing and the baby bottle also seem like a sneaky way to say that she knows Fauxrchie and Lilibucks aren't real. And maybe it was the price * had to pay if she wanted Ellen to claim that the children do exist.
As for the cat ears . . . Sigh. Ellen's longevity and the humiliation her guests must go through are enough to make me believe in the most sordid conspiracy theories about Hollywood. And the "symbolism" in this segment isn't helping. It could all be a coincidence, of course. It's just so incredibly weird and off-putting that it defies rational explanation.
To me, it hit too close to the story about her peeing in the woods. As far as I can tell, no one is bringing that up any longer; and to tell you the truth, I had kind of forgotten it, too. But now I've been reminded of it again -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one!
___
That's the first thing that came to my mind as well and wow she sure knows how to squat (in the street no less as our poet laureate Magatha has put it so well).
Typos, autocorrects, they happen to me all the time…there they are glaring at me and laughing.🙄 I rarely bother to correct them now, I’m sure my phone is possessed! 😳😳
Meghan was born in 1981.
She was 12-13 when this film came out, not 10-11.
She probably was 10-11 when that photo of her with that hairstyle was taken, but it was a good two years before the movie.
Why must she lie about everything?
Precisely! Every single one of those was done because of the symbolism of it. Each one was done to remind the audience of some negative stupidity that Mm has done. A sly trolling.
Absolutely the squatting was done to remind everyone of the peeing in the woods. It's a bonus that it reminded people of the squatting when pregnant fiasco.
Well today, he's released 2 new videos about H. (WARNING: lots of swearing!)
Calling out the artist formerly known as Prince (Harry)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO787BYG-K4
Prince Harry has magically earned another medal!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idJwTaJ3GNs
Enjoy! 😁
It's a bonus that it reminded people of the squatting when pregnant fiasco.
I HAD COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN ABOUT THAT ONE! *facepalm*
Wow, Ellen really threw * under the bus there!
How can we ever thank her? :-P
Someone pointed out on Daily Mail that she was borderline harassing the street vendors (people who actually work for a living, unlike her).
It definitely undermines her desire to package herself as a champion of the working class. By eating up the vendors' samples and fooling around with their merchandise, in the name of "entertainment," she was making a mockery of what they do for a living. There's an edge of cruelty to it, too. The vendors didn't sign up to be the butt of two narcissists' "jokes." And I'm sure no one from Ellen's show debriefed the vendors afterward . . . or made a purchase that would make it up to them.
Now it's also occurring to me that street vendors were chosen for her "challenge" to remind people about the market at Fiji!
Why did Meghan do it? Who persuaded her it was a good idea? Her juggling husband?
A genuine A-lister with talent and popularity and a pile of awards could maybe get away with playing along with Ellen, or have the rank to just say no. Meghan is just not in that position. Plus, as a working royal she was a nightmare because she refused to listen to anyone and follow rules, so why did she not be more assertive with Ellen?
Maybe she just has bad judgement. Or maybe the Harkles have a really dumb and childish sense of humour, which they are now unleashing on the world.
Both River and The Body Language Guy have new videos about this new Markle debacle, which I will keep for tomorrow and enjoy.
A genuine A-lister with talent and popularity and a pile of awards could maybe get away with playing along with Ellen, or have the rank to just say no.
Can you guess which word in that jumped out at me?
Plus, as a working royal she was a nightmare because she refused to listen to anyone and follow rules, so why did she not be more assertive with Ellen?
The word was: RANK. * let Ellen call the shots because Ellen still outranks her in Hollywood.
But when it came to actual rank in the BRF, * couldn't give two shakes of her wig. She really did think she was above all of them. Including the Queen, whom she wouldn't even let in the car first.
(Going back to your first question: I was never a big Ellen watcher, but my impression, given all the A-listers who guested repeatedly on her show, is that no one could really say no. There would be some kind of insult or loss of dignity, whether they liked it or not. Even those who surely had other means of promoting their work kept going back. Perhaps the leaking of the bullying stories last year really was the only way her own peers could get her to stop.)
The great irony is that all the examples you mentioned are of * doing the exact opposite of what she was asked to do.
But she was completely submissive with Ellen, doing everything she was ordered to do. The first time in years that her world-famous pig-headedness would have been appropriate and it was nowhere to be seen!
We're supposed to forget that * is a malignant sore upon the face of the earth with that stupid, humiliating performance on Ellen. That squatting was not funny. In fact, I felt sorry for *'s humiliation.
So Lili is teething. More specifically, M said
"She is a good sleeper, but the teeth are coming in, so any mom will understand where you go they may be the best in the world, but the moment that is happening you have so much sympathy, so yes, I am up most of the night."
The first teeth to come in--the lower incisors--generally erupt at 6-10 months. When M did this interview and complained about being up most of the night because "the teeth" were coming in, her child was barely 5 1/2 months old.
Of course, Lili could teeth early. Just like Archie used multisyllabic words very early. But I doubt it. Either Lili doesn't exist or she wasn't born when H&M claim.
I'm also guessing that her fees must have been sufficiently generous for her to have put her political ambitions firmly on the backburner....
OCGal
Thank you, very kind and
much appreciated.
I do sometimes wonder if I’m a bit
too subtle!!
Madam is finally revealing,
relieving, her true true colours 😉
@TheGrangle
Her next political move
could be the homeless.
“Squatters Rights”
Diddler Squat
Madam stripped bare
Of her usual veneer
Gums gripping bottle teat
Moved down to low gear
Y’Ellen in her ear
Start Squatting in the Street
https://www.wengood.com/en/psychology/stress/art-what-narcissists-hate
I am going over old ground here, but I find it to be an interesting article ...
Control is a narcissists best ally and they need it in order to be able to sink their claws into their victims. From deciding where to go out to eat, to taking the lead in conversations, these personalities will want to be the ones pulling the strings and if people don’t get on board, well that’s just too bad. They feel the need to be the one who decides and feel entitled to take the lead in all circumstances. Negotiation with these folks is literally a distant dream because they will only ever take their opinion into consideration.
2) Feeling looked down on
No one likes to feel disrespected, but narcissists simply just can’t accept the feeling. When they believe that someone has started to lose their admiration for them, things could take a dangerous turn because they’ll do anything to win back that triumphant feeling of being looked up to. After all, these guys need to be told that they are the best looking, the smartest and the most interesting people on the block.
Now, the thing is, folks with this personality disorder are completely jealous of other people. Be it for their possessions, their success or their abilities; the bottom line is they’ll always be envious of those they believe are truly respected for their authentic selves. It’s important to remember that these people are only put on a facade that they are strong, confident and respectable, yep, they’re only hiding behind a well-constructed mask and really don’t view themselves very highly.
4) Being lectured and challenged on what they claim to know
Now, this point could really make them see red! It’s not uncommon for sufferers to believe their own hype and to convince themselves and others for that matter of fact that they are experts in certain areas. Whether they believe they are completely up to date with current affairs, foreign policy or even the history of football, they’ll hate anyone else invading their so-called territory and claiming to know a thing or two. Jealousy also comes into play here and makes them feel threatened and undermined by folks they obviously consider to be inferior to themselves.
5) Being told no
Okay, so imagine the consequences of showing a red rag to a bull, well, a victim finally standing up for themselves would probably produce the same effects. People with narcissistic tendencies hate being told no because they believe themselves to be superior and know better than everyone else, so why would anyone need to go against them and affirm their views?
You’ve probably guessed by now, but we’re dealing with inherently unhappy and dissatisfied personalities, who struggle to love themselves. Their battles with their self-image mean they can’t stand being around those that seem secure and happy with their lives and situation.
7) Being confronted with the ugly truth
I’d be lying if I said these guys were the bravest when it comes to facing up to their realities and realizing who they are. In fact, admitting their weaknesses to themselves is something they are equipped to do. After all, feeling bad about themselves goes against their mantra of making themselves look and feel good at all times. Plus, no one really wants to admit that they are manipulative, controlling and dishonest.
8) When someone else steals the limelight
How dare anyone steal a narcissist’s glory and if you choose to do so, you’d best be prepared to face their wrath! The truth of the matter is that these personalities can’t stand the idea of anyone in their entourage succeeding or doing better than them. Competition is everything for them and second place is definitely out of the question.
This is undeniably their biggest source of frustration ever. These personalities don’t exist if they have no one to manipulate and control. Manipulation is their biggest hobby, so when their victims find their voice and decide enough is enough, a feeling of anger and emptiness washes over them.
10) Being ignored
When all eyes aren’t on them and they aren’t being made to feel special, you can count on drama starting. You must remember that these folks have over inflated egos which mean they need to command your attention and have you at their beck and call at all hours of the day and night for that matter.
Dysentery Position
The Queen’s Christmas speech
May mention preach and leach
Annus Defecateous
But I doubt she will spare
Thoughts for Haz and his mare
Heaven will help and protect us
@Golden Retriever
Vive la France
Verite!!
Ha! We think along the same lines - I nearly added that her next soap box would be squatters rights ( or wrongs in her case) but was too lazy to type any more :-)
I mentioned this on another thread when the documentary first aired back in March, and the well respected French journalists who pretty much trounced them in the debate that followed.
They are objects of ridicule here.
@TheGrangle
Good to hear the French
are in accordance with us.
Petty la Pew 🦨
Didn't * do the humiliation walk of shame with Ellen because it's a PR move after the revelation that * lied under oath to a court of law, committed perjury, in order to win a case in court? It was supposed to make * likable, but that was a huge PR fail.
One would have to be a sugar not to see that as a big fail! No one was distracted from the case. Or if they are, it's by the return of some really unsavory memories. Fail-fail.
I'm sure * herself would have liked to appear on a different show, but only Ellen was willing to take her. And after that segment with the vendors, we can see exactly why. It could be pure narc glee at devaluing someone; it could also be revenge for * not defending Ellen last year, when Ellen stuck her neck out to vouch about the existence of "Archie" in 2019.
Auto-Graphic
One foot on the bonnet
The other on the boot
Straddling the car
Was M’s audition route
Despite the locked doors
it was never too late
You could always gain entry
through madams tail gate…
@Enbrethiliel
This is bad, even for her.
She must be desperate, for
money, attention.
Ellen is nasty, they deserve
each other, seems like markle
has been Ellend!
They'll be lucky!!!
Ellen seemed to be a little too gleeful that she was pulling something over on Mm.
The View and the Talk are desperate for controversy and viewers, the View’s whole show operates in the liberal NYC bubble vacuum and they cant keep those mean girls cant keep anyone that dissents from their “View”. Babs doesnt run it anymore so it’s a wreck and is hemmoraging viewers, the harkles would bring a temporay bump for them. The Talk is in th same bubble but on the West Coast, after the fiasco of dumping Sharon (not my fav person but she defended piers who dumps on TBW), the ratings have plummeted, there have been other host issues here as well. Morning shows are in the same boat, and would take a harkle ratings bump in a heartbeat.
the US Public doesn’t like TBW (except the maybe the bubble people?). TBW/Harkles are in the public’s “love to hate” category, meaning they dislike them intensely, but would enjoy watching them in an interview to see them make more fools of themselves.
But usually people dont go onto these talk shows unless they are promoting a project or something. TBW isnt promoting anything, that book is really old news, fish wrapper old news, Pearl isnt out yet and there aren’t any netflix or podcasts projects. why did she expend her very limited ‘personal appearance capital’ and possibly risk more (negative) over-exposure? She’s really bad at self PR and either needs a team, or a better team, or to listen to her team. She looks the fool ( like JH juggling) and got nothing out of it, just more negative Harkle publicity.
The current duke is Charles, Prince of Wales. If the current Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, Prince William will become Duke of Cornwall. When the monarch has no male children, the rights and responsibilities of the duchy revert to the Crown and there is no duke. (The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 does not affect the succession to the duchy, so that if the heir apparent is female she cannot succeed to the duchy.)"
Harry gets nothing ... no inheritance, no income no property ... he does not even get to stand on the balcony without an invitation from the monarch. Hiwever, if he is on good terms with the monarch, and probably the direct heirs as well, and behaves himself as a working royal, he could get a beautiful residence to use (but never own), income from the Sovereign Grant and one of the duchies (depends on if his father is King or Prince of Wales), free security from the state, access to a pile of jewellery and Crown Property facilities for offices, meetings ... and so much more.
Harry gave up a lot so that TBW could tell a whinge fest of lies on Oprah and humiliate herself on Ellen! I wonder what else is on her bucket list from her childhood?
I wonder when the penny dropped for TBW, and if she still stubbornly believes they can somehow get something?
Auto-Graphic
One foot on the bonnet
The other on the boot
Straddling the car
Was M’s audition route
Despite the locked doors
it was never too late
You could always gain entry
through madams tail gate…
___
The best of the best satire. You my dear are an artist.
I’m looking forward to Lady C’s full review of the Ellen and Maggot’s cringe-fest on Tuesday. 😄
Gross. Vomitous. Humiliating. Disgusting.
Well, that's publicity that's hit rock bottom.
Drinking out of the baby bottle was vomitous
--------
Totally unedifying but we know she's well used to this activity (but not on a bottle) 😁
I assume that Prince Phillip left all his personal wealth to the Queen, minus small bequests to staff, friends and favourite charities.
I assume the Queen will leave her personal wealth to her children, minus small bequests as with Prince Phillip, and probably a lot of possessions will remain part of the Royal Collection kept on her private estates, which Charles and then William and then George will control.
My understanding is that sharing it among children and grandchildren (and even great grandchildren) dilutes the wealth, which weakens the monarch. The aristocracy and royalty leave it all to the heir ... the rest must marry well, join the army or clergy (not popular choices today), or go into investment banking!
exactly, my first thought when i read about the baby bottle milk. GROSS.
Ellen didnt do her any favours, and certainly imo, was dissing her big time. And since MM presumably had the baby bottle in her bag so knew about the whole “ improvised” skit / puppetteering script or enough details to it was coming.
She had enough sense and time to find a way to either ‘use her voice’ to avoid humiliation, or subtly clap back. What an absolute climbing faker.
@Snippie - the news of those disasters hasn't made the headlines here, as far as I know, but I'm not surprised at their lack of concern.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/200-old-constitutional-amendment-could-180701177.html
The Telegraph
How Meghan could be stopped from running for US President by a 200-year-old constitutional amendment
Jamie Johnson
Sat, 20 November 2021, 6:07 pm
Part 1
The Duchess of Sussex could only be stopped from running for US President under her royal title by a 211-year-old constitutional amendment proposed to stop Napoleon’s nephew from ever seeking power, experts have said.
The little-known constitutional amendment could technically be revived to halt any serious attempt from the Duchess to run for high office.
Although she has never publicly expressed a wish to run for president since marrying into the Royal Family, she has recently been cold-calling US politicians to lobby for paid leave, and has campaigned to encourage Americans to vote.
Her biographers believe it is "possible...even likely" that she will one day run for office, with one noting she is the "embodiment of the American dream".
Royal-watchers and critics have argued her continued use of her title is inappropriate when it comes to political or business matters, which have seen her introduce herself as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex".
Her allies have always insisted it is simply her legal name, having changed it from Meghan Markle when she married, leaving her with no option but to use it.
Constitutional experts said there was no technical reason why the Duchess could not run under her title, despite the lack of precedent and a "very controversial" decision.
They pointed to an 1810 tweak to the constitution, proposed and passed in Congress, called the Titles of Nobility Amendment. It stated that anyone who "accepts, claims, receives or retains a title of nobility bestowed by a foreign power" would be barred from holding federal office.
The amendment was sent out to the individual state legislatures, and three quarters needed to vote in favour for it to become law. While 12 did, the required number at that time was 14, and the amendment never passed. But it was never thrown out either, and has remained on the table for more than two centuries.
It followed a period of nervousness in America, which was surrounded by foreign superpowers: Canada was occupied by Britain, Florida by Spain and Louisiana by France.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s younger brother Jérôme had married American socialite Elizabeth "Betsy" Patterson in what was the sensational tabloid story of the day, and there was fevered speculation that their son Jerome might run for office and that the US would be subsumed into the French empire.
Constitutional experts have told The Telegraph that were the amendment to be revived, the 12 votes in favour are likely to still count, meaning that 26 states outside those which have voted already would be the new threshold for the amendment to pass.
'More intrusive than anything a royal would dare do in Britain'
“It wouldn't take long for people to look at this as an opportunity,” said John Kowal, the co-author of a history of constitutional amendments, ‘The People’s Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union.’
“I'm not aware of any precedent, where someone who is publicly known and publicly uses a noble title from another country has run for political office,” he said. “I think it would be very controversial.
“Britain has a very strong tradition of keeping royals out of politics and so this is perhaps more intrusive than anything a royal would dare to do in Britain. Meeting with senators to lobby for a bill - this is her injecting herself into US politics.”
As things stand, the Duchess is eligible to run because she is a native-born citizen, but many questions remain unanswered, including which party she would belong to.
“She clearly seems to have progressive politics and so maybe she would run as a Democrat, but what if she ran as an independent?" Mr Kowal said. “Then you would have Democrats and Republicans all eager to prevent her from running by using this and there might be a rare bipartisan consensus if she were to run as an independent.”
If there was a groundswell of demand for states to pick up the legislation and vote on it, the electoral map of America is currently leaning in the Republican’s favour.
When the state legislatures convene in January 2022 (almost all are out of session now), Republicans will control 30 states versus 17 for the Democrats. In three states (Minnesota, Virginia, and Alaska), control of the two legislative houses will be split.
But timing could be an issue.
“One obstacle, I think, would be just acting quickly enough, because you need to get 26 more states to ratify in what would probably be a short period of time. But I would give this a fair chance of moving forward and maybe being ratified,” added Mr Kowal.
The idea of the Duchess running for the presidency is not far-fetched.
After being given the private phone numbers of Republican senators Shelley Capito and Susan Collins she phoned them out of the blue to press her case for paid parental leave being signed into law. The US does not have a federal paid parental leave programme, and the Duchess said on an appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres show: “I will do everything I can to make sure we can implement that for people.”
Prospect of Duchess running for president 'possible' and 'likely'
Tom Bower, who is currently working on an unauthorised biography of the Duchess, told Closer magazine: “The prospect of Meghan running for president is possible and I'd even say likely. I really believe it's where she sees herself going.”
Omid Scobie, the co-author of the book Finding Freedom, the biography which the Duchess did co-operate with, said: “Meghan is the embodiment of the American dream. One day we may see Meghan become president.”
Last year, one unnamed friend told Vanity Fair that “one of the reasons she was so keen not to give up her American citizenship was so she had the option to go into politics.” The Duchess “would seriously consider running for president,” they added.
The Duchess, who is expected to be in Washington in the coming weeks for a dinner with female senators who have backed the campaign for paid parental leave, may decide against a run for the top job.
In the early 1800s, the fears of Jerome Bonaparte’s ascension were never realised. Instead, he became chairman of the Maryland Agricultural Society and founded one of the oldest private member’s clubs in America. .
Why should this surface now?
The Queen’s Christmas speech
May mention preach and leach
Annus Defecateous
😂
I read a great comment in the DM recently about * saying that it is perfectly logical for her to champion paid family leave, because she has been on PFL from the royal family for over three years.
Blogger JHanoi said...
I disagree with the above, I think any of the (Lame) talk shows/ morning shows would still love interview TBW or the JH or the pair to attempt to boost their horrible ratings.
Sadly I agree. Those shows have so much air time to fill that interviews with * and H would be a godsend to them.
"...I assume the Queen will leave her personal wealth to her children, minus small bequests as with Prince Phillip, and probably a lot of possessions will remain part of the Royal Collection..."
I expect you are mostly correct @Sandie, probably even entirely correct. But...I may be wrong but I think the "possessions" that are part of the Royal Collection have to remain in it. Those things aren't the Queen's personal possessions and she can't give them away even in death. She can choose to add personal possessions to the Collection in her will and I'd think she probably will do that. She personally owns alot of jewelry (gifts from her parents and from Philip, for example, and bequests in wills)
I don't know what she'll leave to her children (or to anyone else.) I think (but again could be wrong) death duties don't have to be paid on anything left to Charles as the next monarch but would be owed on bequests to anyone else. That's another reason the heir tends to be favored in royal wills.
Royals at war with BBC over 'tittle tattle' documentary: The Queen, Charles and Cambridges unite in threat to boycott corporation over show alleging 'briefing wars between William and Harry'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225185/The-Queen-Charles-Cambridges-unite-threat-boycott-BBC-tittle-tattle-documentary.html
So O got black and white video of Archie and Ellen got a color picture of Archie but his back was turned.
What about the new baby? What are they saving that for? Netflix maybe?
She doesn’t realize it of course. I think she and Harry together have the IQ Of a bag of rocks.
The last name should ring a bell. She's the wife of James Murdoch, son of Rupert, formerly of News Corp -- the publisher of a number of rags including the News of the World -- until the Leveson Inquiry.
Yes, there's a Fox in the chicken coop. No mention at all about her family ties in her bio/profile. So much for truth and transparency. I wonder if din Harry knows who she is.
Wonder where their funding comes from
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/commission-on-information-disorder/meet-the-commissioners/
Swamp woman, I think your names of twit and twat are the best for the mexit duo. Since twit hates the term, I’ll try to use Mexit frequently.
Wonder if the rf has TwitTwat dirty laundry in reserve to detract from any further action/charges against Andrew or others.
I am hoping someone flips scobie to dish dirt on the duo. I am experimenting with brewing kombucha. His face is the texture of the scobie ( the floating mass of probiotics that ferment kombucha.
I imagine American Sen. Gillebrand is wiping some egg off her face.
So are Meghan's legal counsel, who now go about under suspicion of suborning
Meghan's attempt to lie to the court.
So is the Queen for leaving Harry his ducal title so Meghan can disgrace the name of Sussex (it's a real place with real people in it).
So is the publisher of that staggeringly bad AND financial loser of her "book".
Then there's Princess Eugenie, oozing cousinly affection.
Even Oprah, despite the $7 million she got for the interview, has some egg left on her face as it turned out she just gave Meghan a platform for clues and slander.
Did I forget to mention Gloria Steinem? And that "linked not ranked" wristband she gave Meghan?
And Tyler Perry, whose kindness Meghan repaid by treating his staff the way she did her own back at the Palace?
Ooops. Forgot the Archbishop of Canterbury, also taken in by her before having to correct publicly one of her Oprah lies.
I think we might have to add Serena Williams, who at least appeared to have bailed fast.
Eh, the NY TIMES, trying like hell not to make too fine a point of the clear attempt at connivance and perjury of its darling mixed race duchess.
And the biggest fool of them all covered in egg from head to foot: Harry Windsor.
Ironically, only Ellen DeGeneres will come out alright after a public encounter with Meghan, because everyone knew Ellen was a psycho bitch.
You'd think that alone would open ears everywhere to the sound of pennies dropping.
The only Post-Meghan winners?
The Cambridges.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2021
Blind Item #8
With the second in line now leaking to the media, there will either be a truce or an all out war where all of the dirty laundry of the family will be aired, including of course that background report prepared about the alliterate one by the security services in advance of her marriage. That would mean of course other affairs involving the second in line would also be leaked. A truce might be the better way to go for them. For us, the public, the all out war would be best.
******************
My thinking is perhaps the royal family has realized there is something terribly wrong with Meghan or they have been informed of it by a mental health professional. If one way or another they know there’s something off with her, they may have held back releasing negative information about Meghan in order to not lower themselves to her level and to stay above the Sussex mudslinging. Their personal feelings for not wanting to harm Harry also likely has been strongly considered in the way they are handling this debacle. He is still a brother, a son, and grandson even if he has been a jerk.
The royal family must know that one way or another that people like Meghan eventually cause their own downfall, so they have stayed relatively silent and are allowing her to continue.
Perhaps legal counsel advised them they needed to allow Jason Knauf and any others who may have relevant information about Meghan’s letter to her father and the Sussexes involvement in Finding Freedom, to submit what they know and can prove and that it would be best to submit that info to the courts even if it does put Harry in a very bad light.
The RF may also realize that the faster the Sussexes damage their brand and public image via their own self-inflicted wounding, the faster they will sink out of the public eye. It already seems that A-listers such as the Obamas have stepped back from Harry and his wife, and likely others have or will also distance themselves from the Sussexes. This will especially be true as the Cambridges continue their rise as the future of the British monarchy while Harry and Meghan unwittingly started their descent by leaving the royal fold to satisfy the demands of Meghan’s narcissism.
However, in a relatively short period of time since Megxit, much has changed. The Cambridge star is just starting to rev up and truly rise while the Sussex star already appears to be in its early stages of fading.
William and Kate have a much brighter future than the Sussexes because they are the REAL royals and they are not just any garden variety royals. They are the future King and Queen Consort. How’s that for a topper?
Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan are making themselves look like a pair of sour grapes scroungers, so the royal family may just letting be it take its course with some occasional assistance from people such as Jason Knauf to provide clarity to the waters that have purposely been muddied by the Sussxes.
As the Sussex star loses its shine and decision makers at large businesses and organizations realize they are toxic, untrustworthy, and have nothing discernible to market beyond their tarnished and dented royal titles, their contracts and other important associations will decline. The Sussexes will become irrelevant largely due to their own behaviors and bad decisions.
While William and Kate will likely be megawatt A-listers for life, the Sussexes will likely become a footnote in their own story as they flame out and end up in the dustbin of pop culture with others who started out as the latest bright and shiny object to catch the public eye, but eventually revealed themselves to be nothing more than cheap knockoffs of the genuine article.
It is also MO that Twat reads CDAN, and responds by defending TBW (herself). As someone above said, * believes her own reality, lies, and narrative. She believes her own lies. BTW, she uses several aliases on CDAN.
The link should take you to The Body Language Guy's analysis of TBW making a fool of herself on Ellen. His conclusion as to why she did it? Desperate for attention!
CDAN blinds about the royals always get it wrong. William did not leak to the media. He gave Jason his approval (we don't know but assume this must have happened) to give evidence (in the form of emails and messages) to ANL lawyers to be used in defence against Meghan's lawsuit against them. In response to the blind, @HappyDays gives a brillant analysis of the future of the two brothers and their wives.
@Hikari, great to have your razor sharp, take no prisoners analysis again. You were never fooled by all the hyperbole about the Sussexes and their future.
@RaspberryRuffle
Thanks for the info about the BBC article and the anti-monarchist there. Maybe this is time for William to 'leak' to the press: 'I have never in any way briefed the press with negative stories about my brother and his wife; I am not aware of my brother ever having briefed the press with negative stories about me and Catherine.'
I'm very sorry to hear the news from British Columbia. It hasn't made the news where I live, either. And perhaps it hasn't reached the Harkles' ears in California. Had they kept the same staff from when they stayed there, I'm sure they would have been briefed; but with no continuity in staffers, they would have lost the connection. As far as I can tell, even the BRF hasn't said anything.
This isn't to defend the Harkles. In fact, I agree with you that they owe the people of British Columbia a lot for hosting them after Megxit. The least they could do is keep up with the news from the area, precisely so that they could offer assistance or even raise (other people's money) at times like this.
Markle can kiss goodbye to all of her political aspirations, because the opposition will only have to queue up the Ellen segment to make her a continual a laughing stock.
This is precisely why I'd like her to appear on Ellen's show at least two more times before it is finally cancelled. Let her give any political opposition all the ammo they will need to bring her down.
It's great to read your comments again, by the way!
Ironically, only Ellen DeGeneres will come out alright after a public encounter with Meghan, because everyone knew Ellen was a psycho bitch.
How true. Even those of us who greatly dislike Ellen see it as a great positive that * has finally met her match.
And it seems that everyone knew Ellen was a nightmare except * herself. If someone asks her why she appeared on the show of a proven and disgraced bully, will she feign as much ignorance as she did when she claimed not to know anything about the British Royal Family?
So much duplicity with the Aspen Institute. Daddy Rupert Murdoch is an anti-monarchist. It looks like whole Aspen Institute etc is getting its funding from a despicable source. 😳 The Institute is about anything other than the truth. 🥺🧐😖
She ghosted her uncle and did not have the decency to even acknowledge his death (which was not quick and would have involved increasing incapacity in the time leading up to his death, which could be years, as with my Mom). He was Doria's half brother, a decent and respectable man, and a talented artist. Did she ghost him and his family because they spoke to the press and handed over photos of her in childhood? The narcissist must have complete and absolute control over her image. Or as it because that part of her family were not useful to her in her climb up the greasy pole to fame and wealth and power? Or both?
I still do not understand why she ghosted her father and siblings, because evidence shows that the ghosting, or road to ghosting, started way before they spoke to the press or Thomas did those staged photos (really minor transgressions, and I am sure Harry's family are stil perplexed). Perhaps she was inspired by very famous Hollywood stars (e.g. Angelina Jolie rejected her father in adulthood, didn't she?).
I don't think she has ghosted Jessica. Surely her foolish stupidity would not be that great? Jessica not only knows where the skeletons are buried, but she knows the full story about each one. Maybe Jessica won't talk to the press, but she would talk to someone else, who would talk to the press, unless, in secret/private Meghan is still love bombing Jessica.
However, outside of romantic adventures, normal people ghost toxic people, like malignant narcissists, if they know what's good for them. The irony baffles me. Meghan ghosted Trevor, but he was the one who had every motive to ghost her. Same with Cory. In cases such as this, is her ghosting her way of running away from something bad she did and then pretending it didn't happen?
Thomas Markle:
"Contradicting what Meghan said about her car, Thomas said: “The Ford Explorer she had in her early 20s that she mentioned was a good running vehicle. I don’t remember any time she had to crawl out of the back of it to get out, like she said.
“The doors worked fine on that vehicle until the day she got rid of it.”
You can read the rest of the interview here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/meghan-markles-dad-brands-ellen-25507743
Brilliant analysis of Eugenie’s role as “sanctioned lifeline” for Harry. It puts her often mystifying press items about contact with the Sussexes in a much more favorable light. Many of us, including me, found it so bizarre that Eugenie would be content to live in Smeg’s cast-off cottage, and appear to Offer so many placating olive branches to a woman who treated her so shabbily on her own wedding day, and who has dissed the House of York in so many ways—culminating in destroying the close friendship E. once enjoyed with her cousin. We’ve been assuming that Markle Scum is holding some juicy blackmail over E.’s head, either in regards to her self or her father, But what if we’ve had the wrong end of the stick? Having actually been part of the circle that introduced Twat to Harry, perhaps E. Actually holds the cards and Twat Scum is frightened about what E. knows. E. has probably managed to stay friendly with all those folks Twat has ghosted on her way up. Now that she’s on her way down at rocket speed, this Soho coterie still knows what they know about her And after she’s abused and increasingly frail and bereaved nonagenarian Royal grandmama in law for the last two years, They’ve got increasingly less incentive to keep quiet.
Eugenie was the closest to Harry, End it makes sense that he might feel more comfortable reaching out to her than to Anyone else in the family. In exchange for being gifted expensively renovated Frogmore Cottage, her job may be to keep the Channel of communication open with Harry, and provide updates on his state of mind if she is the only one that he will speak to. His frequent tails of joyous zoom calls with the queen and his brother and dad to share at milestones of his children And Mark holidays are all fantastical PR snippets dreamt up by Meghan to fuel the facade of a relationship with the Royal family. If things get really bad for H…Worse than they are now, I mean—Euge Will probably be the first to know, if anyone does.
"I’m looking forward to Lady C’s full review of the Ellen and Maggot’s cringe-fest on Tuesday. 😄"
She brought it forward and did it yesterday! 😉
Oh, I thought she said her full review was coming on Tuesday in yesterday’s (below) video. 🥴I guess we can only wait and see. 😉
https://youtu.be/yK52fR9v190
You may well be correct. I was multi-tasking at the time of listening, so wasn't giving it my full attention.
Roll on Tuesday then! 😊
If not (apologies),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGNg4GTfW9I
Ellen is one of the most despicible creatures in the entertainment industry. I have picked up bad vibes from her for years so I'm glad she is being outed as the trash human being she is. She really must have something huge on * for getting her to debase herself on camera (!). Malignant narcs don't go down that route unless they are forced from what I have read.
I'm not one for conspiracy therories-which can lead the illogical mind down the rabbit hole- but I do wonder at times if there is a secret society in HW and amoung the upper crusts. If so, Ellen must be one of the big Kahuna's to have that much power over *. Or, she knows something...
What a clown show.
😂😛😂@ Rapberry!
I’m always dropping clangers….I just laugh! 😂
By stating a malignant narc won't debase themself on camera, I meant humiliate. We know some narc individuals have debased themselves for financial gain; example sex tapes purposely released to the public by the subject of said tape.
In the case of * I can't see her falling for filmed humiliation unless there is something huge involved and I can't see Ellen paying her enough money to do do. It must be something else.
RE: the newest vid by The Body Language Guy. He really nails it. He is so good, I can't even... I don't analyze her every move so I missed the great points he makes. Definately worth a watch. I think someone up thread posted the link?
If not (apologies),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGNg4GTfW9I
Thanks for the link. Body Language Guy gets it right in this Ellen vs fake duchess showdown. Not an interview, this was a showdown and confrontation by mean girl E. Ellen makes her clown around, in ways that Body Language Guy had to point out to me.
I think Ellen lives in Montecito, so she is kicking her neighbor out. Every old fogey actor/actress in Montecito saw this. Hapless Megs, hapless Harry = Hapless duplicitous Duo.
If she's willing to humiliate herself for a tv show ....imagine how open to manipulation and bribes she would be in politics?! 😬
In the case of * I can't see her falling for filmed humiliation unless there is something huge involved and I can't see Ellen paying her enough money to do do. It must be something else.
I think it's all about "Archie." Ellen is one of the few people who have claimed to have seen (and even held!) him.
If it were leaked that she watched the South Africa footage in disbelief because the baby in it wasn't the original baby with "tufts of red hair" whom she had met in the UK, that would really damage the Harkles.
And that's why the new photo of the small boy with a backwards hand has such obviously red hair.
Joy for Queen Elizabeth as Great-Grandchildren Baptized on Special Weekend
Simon Perry
Sat, 20 November 2021, 1:46 pm
Queen Elizabeth is celebrating with her family on a special weekend.
That's because two of her great-grandchildren are being baptized at Windsor on Sunday.
Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank and Zara and Mike Tindall have organized for the christenings of their sons, August and Lucas, respectively, to take place at a poignant time as Queen Elizabeth is marking her first wedding anniversary since the death of her beloved husband Prince Philip today.
There's added symbolism in that both boys are partly named after Philip — it is a middle name for each of them.
The couples will be joined by their parents — including Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson for Eugenie and Princess Anne for Zara — and cousin Prince William and his wife Kate Middleton, The Sun, which broke the news of the occasion, said on Saturday.
The service is set to take place at All Saints Chapel, in Windsor Great Park and a regular place of worship for the Queen. It's also where Eugenie's sister Princess Beatrice got married last year.
Fresh holy water brought from the River Jordan by Prince Charles following his tour there last week will likely be used in the ceremony.
Philip and the Queen married 74 years ago on Nov. 20, 1947, at Westminster Abbey. A royal source says she is privately celebrating their anniversary on Saturday following his death on Apr. 9 at age 99.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment when contacted by PEOPLE.
I think I can hear crockery being smashed on the other side of the world...
I can see why you made an exception for that article!
It's interesting that PEOPLE, which used to be one of *'s most reliable mouthpieces, doesn't even mention that there is supposedly another great-grandchild in Montecito whose own parents made a big deal about being "happy to wait until circumstances allow" for her own christening at Windsor, in the presence of the Queen.
Yes I've heard that about Archie. I am open to that possibility.
It was either her decision, or her PR firm that got her on Ellen. What a terrible, unfortunate move.
Ellen is a way bigger narc than *. Remember at the beginning of the lockdown for Covid, and Ellen sat in her $45 million mansion, crying (tears streaming down her face) to her viewers that she was homebound. Yeah, that was the beginning of the end for Ellen.
Look what's coming for *.
Queen attends great-grandsons' double christening amid back sprain battle: Relief as British monarch, 95, turns up to Windsor chapel for baptism after fears she'd stayed away on doctor's orders.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10226523/Princess-Eugenie-Zara-Tindall-christen-babies-Windsor.html
Good.
Cressida and a Harry who is handsome, classy and pretty much everything that her ex is not. A peek at what might have been, perhaps? In any case, this Harry and wife pair must have been model guests who didn't try to grab the spotlight or to pull the rug out from under the parents' feet.
'I think the entire royal family is tiptoeing on egg shells around a completely insane woman, in the hopes of getting back one of their own.'
I kind of wish that as best-case scenario. Keep the Harkles a continent away, and leave a door ajar for Harry, because he is their kin and they do love him. But her? As they used to say on LSA, she is batsh*t crazy, so not to be trusted, ever!
I was perplexed for a moment and then the penny dropped. Yes, of course you are right.
Huge difference between ghosting and an unpleasant/hurtful/messy breakup.
Joy for Queen Elizabeth as Great-Grandchildren Baptized on Special Weekend
Simon Perry
___
How fantastic the two baby "Phillips" are christened this weekened as HM marks her wedding anniversary to her Prince Phillip. So happy she has this moment to rest in!
I still find this aspect of Meghan's court case perplexing. Her lawyers issued emphatic and scathing denials on her behalf to the court, which turned out to be a lie. Since she started the legal action against ANL, she has been exposed as a liar in more than a dozen things she said in public. How can lawyers continue representing her and trust anything she says? Can they be censured by the court for not doing due diligence after she was exposed as a liar, or do they just keep spinning for her and hope for a win?
PS… Lili, If she actually exists, is nearly 6 months old, so if christening this child were actually truly important to her parents, they would’ve had it done months ago. Obviously Netflix footage which is royal adjacent is way more important then a child’s immortal soul. My cats are more Religious than either Twit or Twat. We know where their priorities lie.
@Hikari: I keep a folder of some of the wittiest DM comments as I see them. Two comment fit in with what you are saying about the Harkles’ and religion.
I always remember that for something to be humorous or witty an element of truth helps make the joke or observation funnier.
DM Comment 1: It’s a good thing they don’t attend church because we’d see a press release every week when they put something into the collection plate.
DM Comment 2: Seeing as how Harry and Meghan obviously worship the almighty dollar, perhaps they should have Lilibucks christened at a bank.
However ...
Omid Scobie features in the documentary.
The presenter and writer is an outspoken anti-monarchist.
The royals have not been given right of reply.
A claim made in the documentary is that the two brothers briefed the press with stories against the other.
It is bad, especially with the stench of the Bashir interview still hanging in the air.
I do believe that TBW fed stories against the royals to her pet media outlets.
I do not believe that William did, nor did Harry willingly do so.
Daily Mail has extensive coverage, including this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10227777/RICHARD-KAY-timing-new-royal-documentary-isnt-just-awful-incendiary.html
Aides and former aides of William and Harry have strenuously denied that the brothers ever briefed the media against each other.
Is the time to expose that TBW was the instigator of the William and Rose affair smear?
It would be an overstatement to say that David Foster (the father Harry never had, as you've reminded us!), "doesn't have regular contact" with him. I think the Fosters no longer have anything to do with the Harkles. When Harry said to Oprah that "his father" had cut him off, maybe he was talking about Foster as much as Prince Charles!
So the idea of waiting months and months to invite a baby into the family of faith is foreign to me . . .
Lili, If she actually exists, is nearly 6 months old, so if christening this child were actually truly important to her parents, they would’ve had it done months ago. Obviously Netflix footage which is royal adjacent is way more important then a child’s immortal soul.
I wish I could say it's foreign to me, too, but there are many parents where I live who think they need to spring for a big party after a baptism, so they can put off the baptism for up to a year until they have enough money saved up!
It is, however, illogical to me. Not to step on any religious toes here, but if one truly believes that baptism is essential, then shouldn't one want to give it to one's child as soon as possible? There used to be a device that could be inserted into the birth canal to baptize stuck babies; that was how adamant parents used to be about it. I know that infant mortality rates are very low these days (Deo gratias!), but occasionally one still hears of worst-case scenarios: Parents who could have performed emergency baptisms for sick babies and were talked out of being "irrational," only for the babies to die anyway, experience guilt and agony beyond description.
Having said all that, it's clear that Harry and * aren't very religious at all -- unless we're speaking of the altars of money and celebrity. In which case their behavior is very logical! And very transparent! It's amazing to me that sugars still spin this as racism on the part of the BRF rather than opportunism on the part of parents who obviously don't even value the sacrament. (Well, apart from possible monetary value, that is. Which is like simony in reverse.)
The 6s would want their own photographer at the Christening of Lili and they would use a videographer up until entering the church for Netflix. Well, that isn’t going to fly with HMTQ! No way would they share the limelight with Eugenie’s or Zara Tindall’s baby! Wonder if the Cambridges would show up to Lili’s christening like they did for August and Lucas?
I love that Cressida and her gorgeous husband, Harry, were included in the DM article. I hope the dimwit Harry was annoyed and envious.😀
@Miggy
Thank you for the DM Christening link. Enjoyed reading the mostly positive comments.
It really floors me that they think they can have whatever they want and that anyone who denies it to them is flat-out wrong!
There are subreddits about extremely entitled people, with stories to take one's breath away, but all of them come a distant second to Haz and *.
"Journalists interviewed for the programme are thought to include BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond, the Daily Telegraph’s associate editor Camilla Tominey and US journalist Omid Scobie, who co-authored a biography of Harry and Meghan, Finding Freedom.
The film is presented by Amol Rajan ..."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10227785/Royal-insiders-fight-Palace-braces-BBC-documentary-William-Harry.html
Clearly, a Christening for * and Handbag would be solely an occasion for publicity photographs, nothing to do with religious observance or Respect for God, or the monarch when it comes to that. Very like the complete sh*tshow that was the corpse bride wedding, in which * donned not one but 2 costumes for her third marriage. Actresses are very used to repeating scenes over and over. Let’s hope for Harry’s sake that this marriage is as short-lived as her other two, but it’s already been as long as the others put together. Not from sentiment on other side, I’m sure.
I was born 10 weeks premature and so was baptized in the hospital on my first or 2nd day of life. There was about a 50-50 chance that I wouldn’t make it. I guess there’s no great haste to baptize a Reborn. Let us see what kind of response the news from the UK brings… Will the Harkle‘s try to stage their own christening in Montecito? There’s really nothing stopping them, and arranging for their own photos just like the delightful cemetery walk series they inflicted on us last year…just months after her mythcarriage that would have been, when she was ostensibly pregs with Lili. The best she can do for attention is showing the back of a dispirited toddlers’ head standing in a chicken coop.
They could have Archie baptize his sister in the chicken coop…Wouldn’t that be oodles of organic fun?
Lavender lady did i see “sex tape”. there is not enough coffee or booze in the world to cleanse that one out of my brain
so 6s wife mentioning jack and eugenie was in poor taste as we just saw reporter his dad died last week and had been quite ill. bringing them into a story (and probably one they do t want to be associated with) and bringing extra headlines to them while his dad was dying was in extremely poor taste. send bea over to california to make it clear in what poor taste that was she strikes me as a good fighter 😉
Not that it would have mattered, had they known. * would have told that Halloween story anyway.
LOL that comment about baptising Lilibucks at a bank. Thanks for sharing. My laugh for the day:)
@Snarky,
Ewww I've never watched porn, this is why I stay away from Netflix LOL. Really most of cable TV and streaming. Porno as we used to call it in the 70s, right in your living room at primetime. I'm no prude but ewww.
I wouldn't be surprised one bit of there is a sex tape of *. She's low class enough and the desparate type.
@Enbre,
Cressida's Harry is gorg. Swoon! Too bad he can't be second in line instead of Bozo the Clown.
I used to feel that she missed a stellar opportunity to have some kind of semi-pagan naming ceremony under that "tree of life" from the pregnancy photos. With Oprah as a godmother, of course. It would have reestablished her California roots and given her a brand distinct from the royals.
Maybe she even pitched it to Netflix, hoping that a show with her at the center of it (the way she was at the center of that hilarious "pregnancy" photo in which you can see neither Harry's nor Fauxrchie's faces) would take off. If she did, though, she would have learned pretty quickly that there is no interest in her outside the shadow of the BRF. So she keeps clinging to what she can.
am glad about the baptisms with the queen there. made it for a nice family get together and the added bonus it made wigs fly in Montecito. poor harry, probably doesn’t even get to sleep in the chicken coop because we know it’s all his fault 😉
I remember when Harry Wentworth-Stanley first got media coverage for dating Cressida. Royal watchers were referring to him as "hot Harry" to distinguish him from, you know, her ex-boyfriend Harry. What shade even then!
And I wonder whether their inclusion on the guest list was also some shade. The family get-together had a dignified, healthy-looking Harry with a beautiful, well-groomed actress wife. Why would they miss the clownish, wan-looking Harry whose messy wife's latest "acting" project was pretending to enjoy being told to squat in the street?
That Cressida was there as a friend of Princess Eugenie's seems to hint that the latter, for all her friendly overtures toward her "dear cousins" in Montecito, can let a bit of snark loose once in a while. She may be the designated go-between whom Harry can always approach, but that doesn't mean she'll take every insult against her grandmother lying down.
And I wonder whether their inclusion on the guest list was also some shade. The family get-together had a dignified, healthy-looking Harry with a beautiful, well-groomed actress wife. Why would they miss the clownish, wan-looking Harry whose messy wife's latest "acting" project was pretending to enjoy being told to squat in the street?
Truth! You are so perceptive. I admire that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10231235/Prince-William-looks-dashing-royal-blue-suit-attends-Tusk-Conservation-Awards.html
William looks very dashing indeed and regal. He radiates confidence and strength. Also attending the event was Emma Weymouth, Marchioness of Bath, looking elegant glamorous. Emma is biracial (Nigerian father) and did complain of racism but also said she ‘wouldn’t want to compare myself to Meghan’ and has always behaved impeccably and with dignity. I hope * reads about it and throws a hissy fit.
Thanks for your kind words! However, it seems that my perceptiveness in this matter was merely perception, as was just explained above.
@Natalier
And thanks for the additional information!
Inasmuch as "the best revenge is living well," then any positive moment in Cressida's life (and every positive moment for the BRF!) will probably seem like shade to anyone who has hurt them. And well, to fascinated bystanders such as we! Even if it's totally innocent or coincidental.
Re Henry Wenworth-Stanley, I'm pretty sure he was going out with Cressida before she went out with 6, then they reconnected after 6 and she split up.
Thanks for the education. Perception vs. perceptive😔
Snippy said...
The duo lived in British Columbia for 5 months, and BC taxpayers footed the bill for their RCMP security. BC has had 2 catastrophic weather events since June, a heat dome where over 500 people, mostly seniors, died. Now, an unprecedented flood which has left people dead in mudslides, entire towns evacuated, thousands displaced and thousands of animals in the Fraser Valley drowned or starving to death. Has either of the self-proclaimed humanitarians and animal lovers offered one iota of assistance or expressed concern for BC? That cringeworthy Ellen appearance should have at least been postponed out of respect for the people of the Province that treated them so graciously and gave them their desired privacy when they lived here. The woman makes a fool of herself while dead bodies are still being recovered here. Absolutely disgusting.
Sadly, the only news that I've seen about this has been on YouTube where people watching strange weather events reported about this event (and I believe the report originated in Canada). It sounds absolutely horrific; a huge blow to Canada and, per the report that I saw, port damage seems to have cut off the majority of their imports (and exports) on the west coast. Indeed, roads and train service have largely been cut off per the report due to washed away bridges and widespread flooding. The person reporting it was concerned for Canada's having future food shortages due to livestock drownings and possible destruction of stored grains.
I find it bizarre that 'journalists' from the MSM find time to report on twit and twat, but *not* on things that will negatively impact our neighbors to the north for months (if not years) to come. If I'm mistaken on any (or all) of those things, please correct me!
If there's anything scurrilous in it, it'll do for the BBC rather than than the RF. The Beeb has been tottering on a knife edge about its lack of impartiality for some time now. There's been criticism from the Government about the news-reporters being less than impartial eg Kuenssberg and others, for making personal opinions public (mind you, it was worth staying up on Referendum Night in 2016 just to see her expression when it became clear that she was on the losing side. Her `nippy-sweetie' face would have curdled milk even faster than her usual expression does.)
It is predicted that the Beeb will not be permitted to broadcast whichever royal event does take place next year ie Jubilee and/or funeral. (God willing, it'll be the former.)
A real disgrace, they are undermining our Constitution, that of a democratic monarchy. I totally agree with the DM comment that a Presidency would be far worse. I gather we have to pay for lifetime security for all our PMs - Blair must cost us a fortune.
@LL @Observant One
She’s a dab hand with spare parts😉
@Rebecca
Most efficacious 😛
@Hikari
Glad to see you back 😋
Tinselcrown
What kind of phuckery is this
Being squatted by
Ellen DeGeneres
Not quite the entree
madam had wished
For Hollywood,
she’s been royally dissed
Since then, Markle has apologized for misleading the court on this matter.
Now, she has her lawyer denying that Markle was/is a bully. How could the lawyer possibly know whether or not Markle was a bully towards her employees?? She wasn't present. She is only repeating what Markle told her, having not learned her lesson the first time. I can't believe that a lawyer would get twice caught in this trap.
And why was Markle's lawyer allowed to rebut when the Royal Family was not?
Lost Paws
According to DM
yesterday’s news
Trouble and mayhem
at markled Mayhew’s
Bullying, racism, lost money
The charity appears
to be in jeopardy
Just a paws for thought
Whatever she touches
ends up in a rort… 🐾
I’ve neither watched, nor listened to msm for more than two years, so didn’t know this wasn’t “out there”. I do know our esteemed PM hasn’t paid it any heed, but that’s par for the course. He’s too busy lining his pockets. Emo while Rome burns, I guess
I know the second of the two programmes has had to be extensively rewritten since Meghan was forced to apologise for “unintentionally” misleading the court over whether she collaborated with the authors of Finding Freedom during a Court of Appeal hearing of her case against the Mail on Sunday earlier this month.
Interesting that you should mention HAARP. It was *supposed* to have been defunded/discontinued because of 'bad publicity' some years ago. I believe some limited refunding was restored this past summer for studies of the upper atmosphere. I don't for a moment believe that if it worked (whether for good or ill), it was actually defunded. (I denounce myself for my lack of faith in politicians regardless of which political system it is.)
Several other countries have their own version of ionospheric heaters. I would hope that it is for actual research and not a MAD scenario; i.e., if one country sneaky wants to cause a big earthquake, other country might retaliate with multiple earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Of course I do not know whether it actually works that way.
It is hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. The people purporting to 'save the planet' by eliminating fossil fuels and fertilizers would, if successful, kill half the world's population in a *very* short period of time.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021/11/22/princes-press-review-no-bombshells-amol-rajan-led-us-already/
The Princes and the Press, review: the documentary with no bombshells
Relaxed presenter Amol Rajan is very smart, but this programme about the Royal family’s relations with the media wasn’t his finest work
ByAnita Singh, ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR22 November 2021 • 11:23pm
For an organisation in need of friends, the BBC doesn’t half like making enemies. Nobody was crying out for a documentary about the Royal family’s relations with the media and yet the corporation decided to make one, sparking a row with the Palace. Cue dark threats about BBC boycotts; the broadcaster, for its part, refusing to let anyone see the contents ahead of transmission.
Well, what a storm in a royal teacup that turned out to be. The Princes and the Press, on the evidence of this first episode at least, contained no bombshells. Instead, presenter Amol Rajan led us through what we already knew, albeit with some canny insider takes from the royal press pack.
The timeline was laid out. Princes William and Harry developed an early hatred of the press after witnessing what happened to their mother, and later became the victims of phone hacking. William learned to play the game, Harry refused. The media’s love affair with Harry and Meghan turned sour, and paved the way for Megxit.
The Sussex Squad, as Harry and Meghan’s fans like to be known, complain that the media is biased. But here was a reminder that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge took their fair share of flak at one point, with William dismissed as workshy. Rajan wasn’t here to decide whether that was true or not, he explained, but to find out how those narratives took hold. He wanted to explore how “the deal” between press and Palace works, and what happens if one side doesn’t keep their side of the bargain.
That’s not to say that Rajan didn’t share his own opinions. It is clear, he concluded, that “in some tabloid quarters, racially charged tropes were evoked and gave a xenophobic whiff” to coverage of Meghan.
One of the factors that marks out Rajan from his peers is his relaxed presenting style. If he leaned back any further in that chair, he’d be horizontal. It makes his fellow news presenters seem stuffy by comparison. He’s also very smart, but this programme wasn’t his finest work. Perhaps he felt under certain constraints, the BBC having a chequered history when it comes to covering the royals. Remember the BBC One controller having to resign after wrongly claiming that the Queen had stormed out of an Annie Leibovitz photoshoot in a huff? I’m sure Rajan would say he shows no fear or favour, but he also knows when not to overstep the mark.
Bar one former courtier, nobody from the royal side of things was involved in the programme, so instead Rajan interviewed various royal correspondents and commentators. Rachel Johnson made a self-flagellating appearance, admitting that her notorious reference to Meghan’s “rich and exotic DNA” would get her cancelled now and “rightly” so.
Rajan once expressed republican sympathies in print, but he understands the new BBC mantra: personal politics should be left at the door. His journalistic skills failed him only once, when he allowed Meghan’s cheerleader-in-chief Omid Scobie to paint himself as the “only” mixed-race royal correspondent. Technically true, but it ignores the fact that a non-white royal correspondent appeared in this very programme (Roya Nikkhah of the Sunday Times), while the Press Association’s royal correspondent is black. A small fact but - as Prince Harry would say in his fight against fake news - truth matters.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/22/bbc-documentary-will-give-credibility-unsubstantiated-rumours/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10231911/Royal-Family-issue-extraordinary-joint-statement-blasting-BBC-Princes-Press-series.html
I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, I’m not surprised at the fall-out so far. 😖
Could it be construed as affecting the legal case - to the detriment of one party or the other?
Thanks for the education. Perception vs. perceptive😔
Oh, dear! I hope you don't think I was correcting your word choice. "Perceptive" was a very nice compliment from you. Unfortunately, I didn't deserve it!
I can't really claim to have been perceptive where the Wentworth-Stanleys are concerned. As other Nutties have pointed out, there was no shady reason for inviting them to the christenings. They have both been close family friends of the Yorks for a long time. So I didn't pick up on any hidden meanings.
On the other hand, I was carried away by my (admittedly very biased) perception of the guest list. The symmetry of a slovenly Harry and actress wife in Montecito vs. a dignified Harry and actress wife at a royal event was just too sweet not to comment on. But it was pure coincidence and not something arranged to send a message.
Tinselcrown is an excellent summary -- and in verse form! -- of the "phuckery" we all just witnessed!
Thanks @Enbreth
The first line was “borrowed”
from the fabulous
Amy Winehouse.
“phuckery” suits
madam to a ‘P’ 😳
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/nov/23/the-princes-and-the-press-review-more-degrading-airing-of-the-royal-dirty-laundry
No worries :)
I appreciate learning something new about words. Just as I appreciate when someone is more observant than the average bear.
Now that I'm a senior, I'm not as lazer focused as I was previously. Plus due to my diminished eyesight, I tend to skim over when reading. So when someone goes a bit deeper into detail, I'm intrigued.
I enjoy your posts quite a bit!
Thanks for the links. I'm glad the RF are taking a stand and saying "enough". I know they are careful to not use their power but there comes a time when bull puckey needs to be shut down.
I hope this means they are going to get tougher on the culprits in their family, namely the spare and his moll. ��
May I suggest a guillotine? A tower somewhere? Just kidding. Metaphors.
"No one can work with the DoS" and "everyone had to leave" was what she said was the narrative in the media. That was not accurate. No one, outside social media, has made such an absolute claim. Why did the BBC not challenge her on that? Why would a lawyer risk her reputation making absolute claims for a client who is a liar? Shouldn't she have said 'my client insists that no one was bullied ever and all the stories in the media about her treatment of staff are lies intended to smear her'. Is the lawyer not bright enough to work out that once proof is produced, she (the lawyer) is going to have a hugely damaged reputation?
Scobie has been outed as a liar (as indeed have the Sussexes), but he was not challenged either.
I have not yet watched the whole documentary, but do think it is a very relevant topic that perhaps was not treated with the thoroughness and objectivity it should have been. On the other hand, anyone reporting on anything to do with the Sussexes has stepped into a patch of sinking sand! No one seems to be immune to the craziness and sheer madness of that couple.
Meghan Markle's lawyer says Duchess of Sussex 'wasn't a bully', in appearance on BBC documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY3oIOT14No
Working royals are both public servants and in an incredibly privileged position simply because of birth or marriage. They do not go through normal recruitment procedures (qualifications, experience, background check), can easily evade or ignore any kind of training and rules, without any significance consequence, are not subject to any kind of performance management nor supervision from senior management. Public opinion (boost followers and likes with bots) the media (with folk like Scobie telling lies for the Sussexes) and a reprimand from the Queen is pretty much all there is to keep them in check.
The Palace has what is called a dignity at work policy for people who work for the royals. The complaints about ongoing and severe bullying from a couple of principals got as far as HR and nothing at all was done. Meghan walked away without consequence and hugely enriched in terms of fame, wealth and power. What happened to the staff who were not protected, as the Palace promised to do through its employment policies?
I think the investigation is taking so long because it is so tricky ... reasons that have nothing to do with the Sussexes personally. They are too shallow, stupid and self-focused to see that and I have come to believe will never understand because they are just not capable of doing so ... the dangers of too much navel gazing and self-admiration!
Here in New York, most churches were forced to postpone weddings, first communions, confirmations and christenings in 2020 due to COVID restrictions. In 2021, they are doing catch-up on the postponed 2020 celebrations as well as the scheduled 2021 dates. My neighbor's son and his wife had a baby in April and he was just christened a week ago. They had to wait their turn, and there were eight babies in church that day. Most churches do christenings once a month or maybe twice if it is a large parish. Sometimes if you have a personal relationship with a priest, you can get a private christening.
Like you, I was christened early, when I was a month old and it was in January so it must have been cold, but for my parents it was a priority.
https://youtu.be/lLsH2NJD1Vo