Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10267447/Amol-Rajans-anti-Wills-Kate-tweets-unearthed.html
Matt Wilkinson
@MattSunRoyal
In the interests of accuracy the owner of the Mail on Sunday is not called 'Lord Jonathan Rothermere', as named in Meghan Markle's victory statement. Meghan is maybe referring to Jonathan Harmsworth whose title is Lord (or Viscount) Rothermere
Ouch!
Did she really take a petty swipe against the owner of Mail on Sunday and get his name wrong? Hilarious!
Little Miss.Knowitall is clueless!
@ Sandie His title is Viscount, Lord is the style or how you’d address him in person etc.
Tourre Bakahai
@TourreBakahai
Sorry a bit late with my legal analysis today, guys, but I've been out robbing a bank. No chance of British judges convicting me, though, because I've already had an "unfortunate lapse of memory", and - under the new Meghan Markle Ruling - that will get me off any court trial. 👍🏾
If this court case did set any precedent, it is indeed one about the elite getting away with perjury ... not even a reprimand! I would not be proudly adding that one to my resume, but I am not TBW!
Thanks so much. I may be forgiven for not fully understanding, but surely a royal duchess should know better?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10260913/Today-host-Richard-Wilkins-makes-joke-Meghan-Markles-career-change.html
You can’t make this up, except * actually does make it up.
Happy holidays to you all!
I’ve said previously, the appeal has in the very least revealed what an prolific and atrocious liar Maggot is. Her whole image and what she really stands for……will eventually implode. 🧐😋
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10266873/Associated-Newspapers-considering-Supreme-Court-appeal-privacy-ruling-Meghan-Markle-lawsuit.html
Statement from ANL, posted as an attachment.
What ANL did not convince the judges of, IMO, was at the time, she was a working member of the royal family, representing the Crown, and the government and the British people on overseas tours and at state occassions. She was also fully and generously funded by the monarchy and the British taxpayers at the time. It was in the public interest to expose her true character.
The issue is not how her perjury affected the case but the principle that the courts cannot make sound judgments if it is given false testimony. The following article explains why it is so important:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/perjury.html
I believe the royal family has had a hand in preventing this case from going to trial because of the possibility of royal aides and possibly even William being called to testify due to the fact that Jason Knauf also worked for William and Catherine.
But I think in the royal family's short-term move to protect the monarchy, much long-term damage has been done by essentially allowing a royal to openly commit perjury. When she was outed, she simply claimed forgetfulness.
The long-term fallout will be that by winning this, it will only make Meghan think she is invincible and that she can lie and manipulate without penalty, including against the monarchy and individual members of the royal family. They will continue to be targeted and slated in public by Meghan with the acquiescence of her puppet Harry, as the Sussexes inflict a death by a thousand cuts as the gruesome twosome creates endless public drama and strife in a tremendously privileged family that the public will tire of hearing about and eventually say, “Let’s just toss the whole lot of them out forever.”
The monarchy may have prevented short-term damage to itself, but an increasing number of Brits are likely to call for a republic and abolishing the monarchy, the aristocracy and its titles, and the House of Lords.
If the monarchy ends by a vote of the citizens, I hope all living members of the royal family are stripped of their titles, even titles held by birthright. There is no reason for them to perpetuate titles of a dead monarchy or aristocracy as is done with other dead royal houses and nobilities, such the title of Count held by Beatrice’s husband. There is no reason for him to hold what amounts to a fictitious title of a long-defunct noble family and to be able to pass it on to his children. It is silly.
Winning this court decision will only make Meghan think she is invincible and that she can lie and manipulate without penalty. It is time to strip the Sussexes of all titles bestowed at their marriage and tell Harry he must renounce his birth title of prince and truly become a private citizen he claims he wants to be.
It is better to remove a boil now and leave a scar before it turns into a case of sepsis and puts you in the grave. The royal family just doesn’t understand it.
I have long been a supporter of the British monarchy, but this case is causing me to rethink that support.
Meghan&Harry's MARITAL STRIFE/targeting QUEEN&Charles/Harry setup//BBC DESTROYED DIANA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR94dJ3n8l8
Agree with all you have said.
I can't bring myself to read the papers regarding this win.
The Royals owe us all an apology for allowing this person to use and abuse her position and get away with it.
She was given far too much from day one.
I thought it was shown, but perhaps not!proven, that *'s letter was written with the distinct possibility that it could be leaked, accidentally or otherwise. Didn't Jason Knauf say as much? We all know that to write such a deeply personal letter, an email would have been better. Even better would have been a phone call. She is not the little innocent she portrays herself to be.
Exactly what I said in the previous post: she's now going to believe she's invincible.
What I find worrying is what it means for the press - she sets a precedent in more ways than one. I do hope ANL appeal. The Guardian states 'The court of appeal noted the duchess’s apology, and said that “this was, at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part, but did not bear on the issues”'. 'At best'. And at worst? Then anyone can have a memory lapses.
The Royals owe us all an apology for allowing this person to use and abuse her position and get away with it.
____
Unfortunately, you're not wrong. But it's not just the RF. Aristocracy of all nationalities has been covering up stuff for centuries. This is not any different. Or when PA is exonerated. His grinning in the face of such serious matters only shows they are protected far over the rest of society.
Sorry to go there but it screams to be said.
What will be worse is if she is "vindicated" and PA is not. I shudder to think...
I strongly suspect this is the outcome the royal family wanted. They never wanted Maggot to sue as it could head for a court trial, because then all and sundry about the royal household etc could be exposed. I referred to the Establishment in my first comment (on the previous thread regarding this outcome) without me saying included the Royal family….they wanted the court case to go away, they didn’t want a pantomime played out on the international stage. Not that I think Maggot will ever shut up or give up, she’ll keep chirping away regardless. 😖🙄
It should’ve been…..’could head to a court trial…. To name one🥴
People in the US are catching on to her disingenuousness and pure toxic nature as she and her now puppet Harry flit from cause to cause while signing contracts and appearing on talk shows while simultaneously tossing firebombs at her family, the royal family and anyone else who gets in Meghan’s way.
However, the American public is also fickle and we already have the Kardashians and others who have no true talent or skill, relying solely on the fact that they have been able to make themselves famous for what amounts to shallow nothingness.
Americans also do not like mean, conniving, selfish people, and Meghan is revealing herself to be have all of these attributes and more, which will not endear her to the public enough to cause them to overlook these faults.
Meghan has the money to get her public relations people to churn out and endless articles about her being a saintly victim-fashion icon-activist-do-gooder, but she is already shooting herself in the foot with such frequency that her sources of money will dry up and her celebrity will diminish.
People like Meghan tend to grab the spotlight for a few years, but there is always others who crave the spotlight who will be the next bright, shiny object of public attention until their star dims and they are relegated to the dustbin of American pop culture.
She will still pop up now and then, but her time will have passed and she will be a former celebrity who keeps grasping for any small amount of attention she can get. We’ve all seen these people who just can’t let go, and in a way it is sad, but I doubt there will be very many people who will feel sorry when she reaches this point. By that time, she will have used Harry, her children, and everyone else on the planet and there will be few supporters in her dark little corner of history.
She might have won in court today, but there is another wider court out there where she is already losing.
HappyDays - she wins today and next week is Catherine's nationally televised christmas carols at westminster abbey, there is a "glittery event" for william and the diana awards next week. Layer in the cambridge christmas card, madame just cant keep up.
AntiWokester, NY, United States, about 3 hours ago
She may think she has won but she has lost both sides of the family, her reputation, her credibility and the goodwill of most.
This!
Indeed. She has won the battle but not the war!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10268465/PIERS-MORGAN-gloating-champagne-away-Princess-Pinocchio.html
Just about to read this.
Maneki Neko (from the last post)
In a powerful statement Meghan said: "This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what's right.
There is a part of me which hopes part of this reappears somewhere embedded in something in a statement Jason or the others make when what ever is released about the alleged bullying inquiry.
Others, yeah, I agree. When I was reading your posts, I remembered that phrase someone mentioned earlier: Cui bono? Who benefits?
I can only hope that this is actually planned and hoped that will actually lead to some sort of downfall by her next actions.
One thing which worries me is maybe there is something we don't know about which could (in some way) this court case could benefit the BRF legally? IDK.
If there are, say, charges which come out about fiscal misdoings with charities (maybe not publicly) could that change the ball game the *h and * are playing?
Off Topic: I suspect that part of why Virginia is not part of the GM case is that she doesn't want statements she would need to make which might benefit her case against Andrew but not GM. It could also open up the opportunity for more charges against GM later if this case doesn't goes as the prosecutors are expecting.
It's a dark day for real justice when the woke agenda can deliver this lying raging narcissist a win. We know she perjured herself and we can see how she set up her father, cruelly, but they still won't even hear the case in court.
I hesitate raise the specter of Lainey. I don't frequent her site but I used to visit it all the time before she "got woke." I vividly recall the way she hardcore fan girled over Brangelina. They were THE power couple and but what did it all mean being THE power couple? It meant nothing. It was all a facade and it's the same with these two she's fangirling. I'm afraid Harry will join the ranks of Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard after Megsy-baby's done with him in divorce court. By the time she's done spirit cookin' his goose, Abramovich style, he'll have no reputation to salvage and likely be on suicide watch for the rest of his life. Angie's a saint next to Megsy-baby. She's next level demonic in her will to power. Hillary Clinton could take notes from this one.
Jeffrey Archer was charged with perjury and sentenced to prison time in a civil case, in which he was suing someone else.
Forget the name, but a politician suffered the same fate.
Both were perjury in a civil case in which they were suing someone else.
She got away with it, without even a reprimand, as did Amber Heard.
Heather Mills was reprimanded but not charged with perjury in the case where Paul McCartney was suing her for divorce.
Re Lady C, she continued with the Duo’s marital strife in today’s video, see below. 😜
Meghan&Harry's MARITAL STRIFE/targeting QUEEN&Charles/Harry setup//BBC DESTROYED DIANA
https://youtu.be/hmsgUaS8Sts
Or maybe not? The current bunch won't suffer. They won't be turned out in the street with nothing. Eventually their descendants won't have the same duties and benefits, but will live off the interest, be set for life for generations. Sounds like a nice way out actually.
Hmmmm.
However, the Cambridges have three children, and when they get married and have children, the Sussex children will slip down the line of succession and will have to seek attention because, especially cut off from the UK and the royal family, they will lose relevance wnd simply become curiosities.
A downside for TBW in her bolt to California is that she will get attention but she will not get royal protection or be able to share in the great wealth that the monarch has. For a liar and for someone who is so messy with details, such attention has a huge downside because attentin can mean scrutiny and exposure. So, of course she wants to control the media and she thinks she has won that, but she hasn't. They are not going to stop!
Lady C has a new video and she elaborates a bit about the trouble in the marriage. Basically, in my own words, Harry is starting to see through the BS she spins. Lady C stresses that she is not predicting a divorce. I think he has gone too far and is caught in a trap (and a narc would try to destroy him in a divorce and take away the children), but, despite the happy family PR we are going to get for Christmas, the truth is that it is not happy.
Has anyone done research about a partner who realizes they have been trapped by a toxic narc but can't leave? Maybe he fools himself that he can fix things?
LOL!
What are the copyright laws in Mexico? Is there any news outlet in America that would risk TBW suing them for anything and everything and publish the entire letter? In America, she does not have copyright; her father does.
"The British Courts must consider all members of the BRF as untouchable in matters of law."
I think that's the simple truth of it.
To go back to the original decision (and this one too), does anyone know the strictly legal basis on which this decision was reached. Forget the he said she said stuff, what was the LEGAL reason behind saying that MM had a reasonable expectation for the letter to be private even though her 5 [cough] friends leaked sections of it word for word?
Also, does anyone know why in this judgement this new evidence was ignored:
The fact that she had previously allowed personal bits of her life to be published with her permission (despite claiming in court she never told anyone a thing)
The fact that she had discussed the letter with an aide and that it turned out that it wasn't personal at all.
What is the LEGAL basis/precedent for these decisions as set in law?
I believe I saw him in a garden centre in the `care' of a warder, in transit between jails. I used to have prison officers as neighbours - they are very obvious even when not wearing insignia. Dk blue woolly-pully and trousers but its the key chain poking out of the pocket that's the real give-away!
It may have been criminal because he'd already got his hands on the money and given it to charity.
Either it was him or a lookalike Governor!
I was waiting for it... and it never materialised. I think she simply forgot. lol
I think Brangelina is a good model for The Harry Meg. Angie, like Megsy-baby was never well liked and positively hated post-divorce. I actually didn't hate on Angie as much only because I thought Brad was a tool who skated. Harry's just a tool. I think Meghan will eclipse Angie in the court of public opinion when Harry leaves and you know he can't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome forever.
"Despite the recent revelations that Meghan Markle had been telling porkies to the judge in her privacy case against the Mail on Sunday, the court of appeal has today ruled in her favour and there will be no trial.
The Sussexes will likely spin this as some great David v Goliath success, while the tabloids will cry about an Establishment cover-up – but, really, the legal case was pretty open and shut. Meghan held the copyright to that letter (not her dad, who only owned the paper it was written on) and while the MoS could have had a public interest case in revealing certain aspects of it, they chose to publish way more than was legally necessary.
But to take a step back from the particulars of Meghan v The Mail, the ramifications of this verdict may have a worryingly long tail.
The thing that helped to bring about an end to the notorious celebrity 'superinjunction' era was the principle that a claimant should have clean hands and be truthful. Failing to play straight with the courts is what did for cases like John Terry and Lord Browne.
Today's result waters this principle down and shows there can still be rewards for a celebrity misleading a court. Champagne corks will be popping at Schillings (a legal firm) as we speak."
So it sounds like the 5 friends who leaked contents of the letter has no LEGAL bearing on the case.
Truly baffling. I'd still like to know why the leak by the friends wasn't deemed to be a breach of copyright considering that Thomas wouldn't have leaked the letter in the first place as he was defending himself against this initial leak.
Eurgh. Law.
"Interestingly, the legal principle Meghan benefitted from is the one that stopped James Hewitt from making millions out of Princess Di's private love-letters: Wills and Harry owned the copyright; James just owned the hard copies."
Ok so that's the precedent. But how the hell is it valid as this is an entirely different set of circumstances.
Using the Princess Di case:
Di sends letters to Hewitt.
Friends of hers leak contents of the letter to the media and these leaks make Hewitt look bad. These leaks are so accurate that they repeat parts of the letter word for word (is that correct in the MM case? Just checking!).
In order to respond to these leaks of the letter and to defend his reputation, Hewitt then goes to a paper and they publish parts of the letter that refute these original leaks.
That's not what happened though is it? So what this means in reality:
You can write something to someone. You can then brief the press, via 'friends' about the contents of the letter and spin it how you want to make the recipient look bad.
In order to defend themselves, the recipient cannot publish any part of the letter in order to defend their reputation.
Huh? Talk about muzzling people, but maybe that's the idea in our Brave New World.
Featuring Markle, Teigan, Baldwin and Lady C: high profile ladies’ “Group Death Match” at Madison Square Garden
I can’t wait for this world-class event on the 1st of April to take place: Meghan Markle, Chrissy Teigan, Hilaria Baldwin and Lady Colin Campbell face off in a fight to the finish. Last gal standing wins.
I have the gift of foresight, so I thought I would let you know now how it all plays out on the 1st of April:
Chrissy Teigen will wear her long hair in a bun which conceals a poison-tipped shiv. When the bell rings to start the bout, Chrissy whips out the knife and immediately begins slashing at her opponents. Chrissy, favored to win, is thrown out of the match to cheers and boos from the crowd. Husband John Legend will write a hit song about Chrissy’s down-and-dirty prowess.
Oprah who is doing the color-commentary gives no useful descriptions, but just keeps saying “what?” And “what!” as Chrissy is hustled away.
Hilaria Baldwin is interviewed in advance of this epic event, and with a thickly fake accent announces that she will definitely win since she is Spanish, and has fiery Spanish heritage, and that her Spanish heritage will lead her to sure victory. Hilaria clutches her myriad babies to her bosom in the fight ring, hoping her opponents will therefore stay away. Husband Alec Baldwin stands ringside holding a gun on the ladies in the ring. Hilaria, Alec and their passel of kids are thrown out of the match as Oprah says “what!?!”
…to be continued
Meghan Markle thinks she’s the smartest one in the ring and is certain she will come out the victor. She has sold the rights to a TV Special about the fight, plus sold her story in advance to People, Vanity Fair and their ilk. Checking to make sure her own cameramen are advantageously placed, Meghan enters the ring presumptuously wearing a bright yellow satin banner across her chest already proclaiming her “Winner”. Her weave and extensions artfully cascade to her square waist, and she has perched a party supply Miss America type plastic crown on her head (bought unknowingly from the Middleton party supply business). As the bell sounds, her overly-long bell-bottoms catch on her spike heels, she trips and drops to the ground, while whispering to herself “watch out for my new nose” and “careful of my store-bought teeth”. Handbag Harry bounds into the ring and shoves aside the medics preparing to give her aid, and after making sure her videographers are properly situated Meghan moans loudly to the camera “be careful I am secretly pregnant”. Harry embraces her with hot tears streaming down, and Meghan makes sure she alone is facing the cameras.
Handbag Harry is shuffled out of the ring while Meghan stands up unhurt, readjusts her winner’s satin banner, her weave and her plastic crown and demands a re-take, all this while Oprah mutters “what”.
Lady Colin Campbell to this point has successfully avoided all the “ladies” by simply standing in one corner of the ring, watching. With her worldly experience she knew they would each be the cause of their own demise with no help needed from her. As Meghan stood with her back to Lady C, complaining that the racist media wouldn’t give her a re-take of her graceful fall and announcement of pregnancy, Lady C strode up to Meghan, yanked her extensions out in turn making the plastic crown fly off her head, and in one swift movement kicked Meghan over the ropes and into the audience while pulling the golden winner’s sash off Meghan and onto her own beautifully garbed body.
Lady C then, with impressive pomp and grace and gravity, set her own genuine spectacular bejeweled tiara onto her own blond locks. As Oprah began to sputter to the camera “whhuuttt”, Lady C stepped in front of Oprah stopping her dead cold, gathered pooch Mickey in her arms like a bouquet of winner’s roses, smiled graciously into the camera and said
“If you liked this event, please like, share and subscribe”.
— ends —
THIS IS FAR FROM OVER FOR THE COUNTESS OF DUMBARTON
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukzoT7yefj4
I'm hoping someone in the comments will mention it to her and remind her not to keep us in suspense for much longer! :)
@bootsy - Thank you for the Popbitch article
Thanks to Piers, and OCGal,
both put a smile on my dial,
much needed cackle
with my cuppa.
According Piers the court decided
MoS was not entitled to publish
quite as much of her letter.
Had they run less of it,
the judges said, the Mail
would have been ok.
585 words from a 1,250 word letter.
My apologies Este I thought you were asking for the 2nd part of the marriage strife story which Lady C started to tell us about on Tuesday.
I get the missing bit you mean with Lady C….she started and said she’d answer the writers question first and say later on in the video. We didn’t get to hear, let’s hope she’ll tell us another time. 😄
Robert Jobson
“An Unfortunate Lapse Of Memory”
Sounds like a new Lemony Snicket
series, rather than part of a
High Court ruling.
Hahahaha!
The Fair Use custom says that you may publish parts of copyright material for review purposes, for public interest, and so on. But, there is a limit to how much before you cross the line into copyright infringement. People magazine stayed safely within the rules with a huge safety margin. DM went way over and reproduced half of the letter. As the judges pointed out, DM could have achieved their aims (which the judges acknowledged as being valid) and remained within Fair Use requirements.
DM deliberately poked the bear. I am still not quite sure what the motives were, but I can guess that it is any of the following:
* They counted on her suing and thus being able to dig for and uncover the 'more' that they were sure was there. They did partially achieve that: the correspondence between Jason and the Harkles was published in full because it was evidence, so TBW could not claim copyright or privacy to keep it hidden.
* Politicians and corrupt people use the law to protect themselves against scrutiny. DM tried to challenge this by challenging the application of copyright and privacy in this case. The judges affirmed that TBW's rights trump the public's rights. Lawyers in the UK are speaking up in concern about this, so I don't think the issue dies here, no matter what TBW claims in her gloating victory statement.
* They want to make profits and the more drama there is around the Sussexes, the more stories they have.
I am immensely disappointed that DM was denied the appeal because now we won't get to read the other witness statements or any more of their messages! Has she successfully buried the evidence for good ... that she orchestrated the People article, that they both made further contributions to the Scobie book when they had Latham check it, and who knows what else?
Precisely what Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons said in the video that I posted earlier.
Here it is again- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukzoT7yefj4
@Sandie said: "* Politicians and corrupt people use the law to protect themselves against scrutiny."
My mantra...and let's add "to line their pockets".
I am pleased to see that Brits are not fooled and do know what the real issues are! And this was in Parliament!
I do find it unusual that the courts are meticulously sticking to the status quo. Will DM take it to the Supreme Court?
1 - Sad. I was afraid that the rule of thumb in British law that the author of the letter holds the copyright would win out - and it did. The MonS was told they published "too much" of the letter. As for the perjury et al, i am clueless that it did not figure in.
2 - The power TBW thinks she has by standing up for truth and "right versus wrong." The only good that has come from this fiasco is all the press regarding her sins of omission, for lack of other words.
When does Harry turn age 40 and 6months? Asking for a friend.....
"Calls for parliamentary scrutiny of privacy laws after Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's legal victory
Parliament will now come under pressure to investigate a new bill of rights that would favour freedom of speech over privacy"
...
Thanks to Piers, and OCGal,
both put a smile on my dial,
much needed cackle
with my cuppa.
___
Amen!
Piers eviscerated her LOL. The best thing I've read in a very longtime. :D
Never fear; Its day will come. Not sure how many lives It will destroy before then, and it may take years. Some of us may not live to see it happen. But I believe divine justice is coming for It, even if human justice is elusive. It has no future— not one that matters anyway.
———————————————————
https://youtu.be/3J4MEQ3N03w
*👑 〽️ Hambugger
M and her red headed clown
Opened a dollar joint
way down town
The Golden Arche on display
A giant M, her takeaway
Is open all hours
Offering drive thru golden showers
And her special roast of the day
A double whopper with cheese
And if you please
A side serve of curly fries
with her lies
*Regarding her ridiculous use of
golden coronet and M on her
letterhead!!! Fools gold 🤡
Why does he keep referring to her as the Duchess of Dumbarton instead of the more commonly known as D of S?
Did they lose the S title and we just don't know it yet?
He's a member of the Scottish SNP, so therefore refers to her by her Scottish title.
Cheers Miggy, sleep well 😘
On the third month of megxit
Old megsie did decree
Three bananas ripening
Two surrogate’s
And a thick bush to take a sly pee
@LL
Piers called Doobie an
“odious little weasel”
😂😂😂
A chilling blow to free speech: Even after Meghan Markle admitted she misled court, judges refuse trial over publication of letter to her father.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10269295/Meghan-Markle-admitted-misled-court-trial-refused-publication-letter-father.html
STEPHEN GLOVER: If Meghan Markle really wanted to fight for the truth, she would come to court. And, in a land of liberty, judges who are not awed by Royalty and cherish a free Press would allow a trial.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10269321/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Meghan-Markle-really-
wanted-fight-truth-come-court.html
@Magatha 😂😅😂 Goodnight 😘
What are the chances Parliament will touch this with a ten foot pole?
Has anyone done research about a partner who realizes they have been trapped by a toxic narc but can't leave? Maybe he fools himself that he can fix things?
One aspect of the narc's power and control over their partner is the devaluation and the almost constant psychological and emotional abuse of the partner to keep them under the narc's control. The constant put-downs, gaslighting, ignoring, and silent treatment, to name a few behaviors, results in the weakening of the partner's self-esteem. The partner, who is told lies such as no one else would ever want you, you are nothing, you would never be able to support yourself,no one likes you, and/or I'll take the kids, is worn down to such a degree that leaving the situation ends up feeling impossible or like climbing Mt. Everest.
The other aspect of most narcs is that they are very charming to other people or in public, so they have the reputation of being a "great guy." Their public persona is very different than the private one. So no one outside of the relationship can believe the narc's bad behavior. They are great chameleons who can turn on the charm when necessary.
"The maybe I can fix things?"
When the partner gets fed up and tries to leave, the narc makes all sorts of promises, things will be different, I'll change, etc. But they don't. The honeymoon period lasts for a very short time, and then they are back to their normal MO.
Leaving a narc is very difficult. Especially when you have been out of the workforce raising children and have become financially dependent upon the narc. However, it can be successfully accomplished. I left thirty years ago with two small children. Leaving was very liberating. Not a very easy road, but so much better than the alternative.
@bootst, tho, I did appreciate your questions. Hope we get answers!
Friday Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Various
I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus
Soliciting Sitting Judge
I saw madam bribing Geoffrey Vos
Underneath the table on one knee
She offered him relief
As she fiddled with his brief
All while haz was locked up in
the basement fast asleep
I saw madam nobble Geoffrey Vos
In a locked court room
late at night
As his gavel hit the Bench
She pled to him in French
Merci/y Monsieur
my fees are due, paid for
by l’heure
I’m sure madam perjured, lied, procured
Breached, approached the bench
and her Juror…
Oh how good it would’ve been
If we had only seen
Madam getting banged to rights…
I really do think the British courts would have found it very unseemly to have a member of the BRF in a court case. So unseemly that it would become an embarrassing situation. No one wanted to drag that case out. Thing got away with it, and it's a short-term victory for her. She can gloat, but she's lost big time in the court of public opinion. Thing keeps digging her hole bigger and deeper.
As for someone leaving a Narc, Twit will cheat first instead of leaving. He's a spineless wonder, and cheating is what spineless wonders do to get even with the narc partner. If Thing gets wind of Twit leaving, the charm will be poured on full force. Thing needs Twit's $$$$.
Piers calling Scabie that. LOL. Wasn't it delicious? 😂😂😂
I agree the spare will cheat out of desperation but he's a Virgo so it's unlikely he will ever leave her. Loyal to a fault. Unless she cheats. I doubt she'll do anything to upset that gravy train though.
Sorry that you're down.
I really recommend reading Piers Morgan's article in the Daily Mail as he really puts it in perspective whilst also showing just how hollow this 'victory' actually is.
As he clearly states, the DM were within their rights to publish the letter, the only issue was how much of it.
P.s. I loathe Morgan like most people but he has called out MM correctly for a long time.
'If DM had not gone way over the line in publishing about 50% of the letter, and then challenging the Summary Judgment, we would never have got to see that correspondence with Jason, in full.'
Me still glowering under a dark cloud:
'Now we are not going to hear the evidence from the rest of the Palace Four and there will be no more revealing texts and messages published. Darn, I was really looking forward to that drama!'
Thanks for the latest. I first read Hamburger then realised 🤣. Well done for Soliciting Sitting Judge, it's good to laugh at that witch. Madam getting banged to rights… 😉 🤣🤣🤣 Your creativity knows no bounds 😂
Lawyer Mark Stephens accuses judges of moving goal posts after Meghan won her privacy case against the Mail on Sunday.
"She had a reasonable expectation of privacy but the letter was intended to be publicised. She just didn't like the way it was covered"
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1466687001030234117
The Queen is paying for this out of her private wealth. She is therefore under no legal obligation to make public all the witness statements, etc. However, she may have a moral obligation, and I bet she is doing a lot of praying about that!
The investigation brings into question the whole nature of monarchy. Working royals, funded by income from Crown Estates (which the Queen manages) and directly by the taxpayer (security, foreign tours, etc.) are not elected nor have formal job descriptions nor are subjected to any formal performance management. How does the Queen manage people like Andrew and the Sussexes? The latter simply ignored reprimands, advice from courtiers, and any traditional rules. The henpecked husband was bought into line as a good and popular working royal the traditional way (guidance, carefully chosen staff, etc.), but then he met TBW, who was a disaster, and she corrupted the husband. They went rogue long before they bolted, and TBW is still trying to destroy the monarchy.
What powers does the Queen have? What precedents are there? Why did she let the situation get out of hand? How can her control/management of working royals be strengthened?
Is there a simple solution? The Sussexes would never have stepped down as Andrew did, and, when they bolted, they painted themselves as victims instead of feeling any guilt at all about the many millions wasted on them.
Perhaps working royals, like the Queen, should be required to make an oath of service, and that oath can be used as a yardstick to 'keep them in line'.
Or, Thomas could hold an exhibition and display the full letter, for free. He is not publishing it and not making any money from the display! My suggestion: Include in the display analysis of handwriting, news reports about the court case, sworn affidavits, proof that exposes her lies ...
Thomas would never do that to his daughter (and she knows that) even though she would do that to him in a heartbeat. But it is fun to imagine what he could do!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c86rFdYm8KE
Yes! We are in agreement.
Though there are some exceptions, Virgos are known to stay in a relationship that no longer works. For decades! Unless they are so disgusted that they get out but it takes something really bad to get them to pull the plug. She would have to continue to emasculate him in public AND humiliate him by having other men, in public.
Otherwise he will stay co-dependant. Ugh!
That title is her priority over everything so she isn't going anywhere until she has enough "fame"/infamy(!) and money so she can live large without him yet keep the title.
She knew from day one what she was doing. Double ugh!
https://countesscuriosity.tumblr.com/post/669551523205922816
Yes, it was online.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10269295/Meghan-Markle-admitted-misled-court-trial-refused-publication-letter-father.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1530901/boris-johnson-meghan-markle-court-case-row-latest-free-press
I agree that he will not leave her but find ways to cope with being in this toxic situation. (Divorce and fighting for custody with a malignant narc is a nightmare, but he may genuinely love her unconditionally.) But, I do think that there can be convincing arguments made to the contrary, just not from me, for now!
I must find the link, but an experiential expert on being in a relationship with a narcissist predicts that he will resort to some kind of addiction/substance abuse and will act out inappropriately in public. I think we have seen both, but not in one huge 'fall down and can't get back up again' meltdown episode. Unless he gets professional help, and/or has huge support from family and friends, and/or has tremendous courage and strength of character, it will be almost impossible for him to leave.
She won't leave him for various reasons: if he marries again, attention switches to the new Duchess of Sussex; she completely dominates and controls him and it would not be easy for her to find a wealthier man who would allow that; as long as she is married to him, she could potentially become Queen of England; if she leaves him, doors stay closed for her; she has accumulated far too much baggage so it would be difficult to find a very wealthy man to take that on; she is financially dependent on Harry and will continue to be so because every project she has taken on has, in reality, bombed financially. But, her grandiosity and hubris is so immense that I doubt she would use the same reasoning as I do.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/16929653/boris-johnson-meghan-markle-champions-free-press/
I think when she declared with much grandiosity that she had won a victory that was precedent-setting, this is not what she meant!
I am still not sure how this would have gone down in my country, but we have only seen the publication of communications without permission in corruption investigations (including one case where the whistleblower who handed over the hard drive remained anonymous and fled the country). No one has ever tried to sue the press as TBW did. And copyright infringement issues are almost always settled without going to court.
This is what I said:
"That title is her priority over everything so she isn't going anywhere until she has enough "fame"/infamy(!) and money so she can live large without him yet keep the title."
Sounds to me like we are are the same page?
I will add yes she will cheat because she *is looking for a better gig (which she will never find; better than the BRF) and to reiterate, he will tolerate it until he doesn't.
Unless she can wrangle Jeff Bezos away from Dirty Sanchez lol.
-------
William and Harry’s former private secretary, Miguel Head shared a story about how William stood up mid press conference and put a stop to it after William saw how much Harry was struggling after returning home from his deployment in Afghanistan in 2008. Someone who doesn’t care for their younger brother wouldn’t have done this. “It was the first time I realized, that I saw with my own eyes, the closeness of the relationship between the two brothers. Think about the mixed emotions Prince William would have had, because he wasn’t allowed…he never got to go. So he would have known how Prince Harry felt, and he was very protective of him. So Prince Harry comes off his aircraft, and he’s exhausted. He hasn’t washed for a day and a half. He’s still wearing what he was wearing in the desert in Afghanistan. He still has sand all over him. And so he’s really tired; he slept overnight on the plane. And he’s also just deeply upset. The interviewer and the producer start asking the pre-agreed questions…We get about two questions into this list of questions, and Prince William suddenly stands up. He’s at the back of the room — he stood kind of behind me. He stands up and does a cutting motion with his hand across his throat, saying, this is over. It was simply a brother realizing that at that point nothing was more important than his welfare, and none of the other agreements mattered at that point. And it says something about the closeness of the two brothers and their authenticity, as well. They will not fake who they are simply to play a game or to go along with other people’s expectations. And they are perfectly courteous and loyal and they will abide by agreements up to a point. But there will come a point where they say, “Well, actually our humanity is more important.” And so I look at Prince William. I look at the broadcasters. And I think, I have a split-second choice here. Do I go with this very carefully calibrated agreement with the broadcasters and just say to Prince William, “No, I’m sorry; this has got to continue?” Or, do I go with Prince William, who is going to be the king one day? This is the first time I’ve ever met him, and at that point I had no idea, by the way, that I’d ever work for him. And then I looked at Prince Harry and thought, you’re exhausted. This is not the time or the place for you to be here doing an interview. And so I did something I’ve never done any other time in my career. I stood up and said, “Thank you very much, gentlemen. This is over.” Prince Harry looked at me. I remember the relief in his face. And he left the room. And I got screamed at — I mean, literally screamed at, particularly by the BBC producer.”
--------
That would be epic :D
Jesús Enrique Rosas - The Body Language Guy
@Knesix
Holy Mother of God. I hadn't seen Meg on Larry King. The whole half hour is Body Language GOLD.
I see someone else is promising a podcast finally. Ha - looks like they are following Prince William - again, yesterday may be a "win" but she can never keep up with the Cambridges
* may have given the 5 friends (tacit) approval to leak - or to be judged to have done so, as she didn't sue them.
One may assign rights/give permission to copy/publish/quote at length one's work (eg a novel) but it doesn't follow that anyone else can exploit that for their own, pirate, edition.
The copyright on work done in the course of one's paid employment usually belongs to the employer if they have required you to do it. Had one of the staff published *'s work off their own bat, they'd be in difficulty.
One may use a portion of a work without permission for review but only a limited amount. It's already been pointed out here that had the MOS kept within that limit, they'd have been OK.
Not to have come down on the MOS for exceeding the legal limit would have driven a coach & horses through copyright law, which is, IIRC, by international agreement. There would have been rightly a loud protest from authors whose work hade been stolen.
Even with permission to copy once, one may not do it twice.
To argue the case as one of public interest, as opposed to something the public are interested in (there is a difference) would have opened a shocking can of worms that would have dragged innocent parties into the row.
I cling to the hope that she gets only £1 in damages.
I'm not a lawyer, I've just been sent on courses when I was working in a library.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10272455/Downing-Street-responds-Meghan-Markle-legal-case.html
Indeed. The Scots Nat would have choked, had he been told to use the ducal title. Yet the trial was in England, there was no specifically Scottish dimension to it.
Yep, she was always on solid ground on the copyright charge. These matters are usually settled by an apology and a removal of the work containing the copyright material. I think TBW went straight to suing instead of doing what is normal practice and sending a letter to the publisher. She wanted a righteous war and ANL said 'bring it on'!
I think ANL had a case to argue on the privacy issue. I think they should have pushed harder on the 'working royal' aspect. As a very highly paid and privileged public servant she should be subject to greater scrutiny. After all, she used staff and office resources paid for by taxpayers to write the darn letter, and I bet she charged the courier service to office expenses. ANL did not steal the letter or obtain it by any illegal means. The recepient gave it to DM, and contacted them. What was in that letter proved that she was not who she pretended to be, and the People article, authorised by her, was a spiteful piece of PR that was misleading. The public had a right to know.
I don't think the Russian who supposedly owns the Canadian mansion was ever named. Maybe on social media someone did some digging but I would not know where to start looking.
Sergey Grishin is the name of the Russian gangster from whom they bought the Montecito monstrosity.
https://archive.ph/xMWV4
Give her time lol! I'm sure once she gets it through her narc head that she's the most hated woman on earth, she'll capitalize on it. Right now she's in LaLa land in her head. A legend in her own mind.
Indeed. The Scots Nat would have choked, had he been told to use the ducal title. Yet the trial was in England, there was no specifically Scottish dimension to it.
___
I have used the Dumbarton's on this site often but only because I think they're dumb. No offense to Scots. Sometimes I wonder if HM did it to stick it to them lol.
If she did, I love her all the more. Chef's kiss for her!
Some animals are more equal than others. Like mr and mrs Napoleon.
I don't know if you've watched the Craig Ferguson interview with *. I wonder what the Body Language Guy would make of it...
https://youtu.be/-EM2xi5Jnd0
The Body Language Guy did do a short analysis of her on the Ferguson show. He says her body language is confusing. Who is the real Meghan?
https://youtu.be/bMo-Dyk1960
Craig’s interview of $lut was potentially the most uncomfortable piece of television I ever sat through. I was a long time Ferguson watcher, no I picked up with him some years after this interview in 2013. I have watched many hundreds of hours of The famously Flirtatious Craig interviewing celebrities of all sorts. He stayed professional, but he was repulsed by her nakedly aggressive come-ons. He’s naturally pretty hyper, but she was literally climbing the furniture. The more hyped up she got, the calmer and more detached he became. He could not wait to get her off his stage at the end.
She is a human repellent. Or in another word that fits her so well, repugnant.
You see that in the photos with her dad, too. Draped all over him.
If someone did that in front of me, we would be having a conversation about boundaries and appearances. With both the dad and the kid. I wish he would have made her stop doing that.
Thanks for the link to the Body Language Guy video. It's hard to say who the real M is, I don't think she knows herself. Is there even a real one?
@Hikari
I agree the Craig Ferguson interview was uncomfortable. * tried the sex kitten image, unashamedly flirting. She wasn't remotely interested in attracting Ferguson, I don't think, but wanted to be seen as very sexy. The choice of dress was questionable but that was her idea of sexy. Repugnant is indeed a good adjective to describe her and don't forget that a reporter described her as such when she barged in in front of H to greet the king of Morocco.
Privacy laws are being established through the back door, by judicial powers which lack a democratic mandate
https://archive.ph/dH7dl#selection-1103.1-1103.109
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/03/prince-harry-phone-hackers-lawsuit
TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp says Duchess of Cambridge was in tears after losing control during an argument with her future sister-in-law.
https://archive.ph/1stko#selection-1071.1-1071.138
A free press is a cornerstone of any democracy, says No 10 as it pledges to 'study the implications' of Court of Appeal decision.
Snipet: Downing Street has hinted at introducing new safeguards to protect the freedom of the press, in the wake of the Duchess of Sussex’s legal victory over the Mail on Sunday.
https://archive.ph/8gmA4#selection-599.0-599.170
With thanks to LSA for the above links.
I also believe that $LUT was coked up during her Ferguson appearance. At that time she was extremely thin and had a manic edge that wasn’t just nerves. I do believe The crotch skimming négligée posing as a dress she had on qualifies as the sluttiest and least substantial garment ever modeled (To say “worn” in this case would imply that it was actual clothing) on the Late Late Show. With that face full of Garish make up And the collection of spindly limbs every which way and her shiny shiny dolphin like greased up skin she looked like a circus freak.
Five years after that gyrating display that might have embarrassed some hard-core pole dancers, this thing became a Duchess of the United Kingdom. Truth is seriously stranger than fiction—Couldn’t make this shit up.
Please do not watch the interview if you have a weak constitution. 🤮
Thanks Maneki,
I rather enjoyed soliciting 😜
Craig Ferguson's show was never aired where I live, so the very first interview of his I watched was the one with * -- at your "recommendation." Not having a proper baseline of what Ferguson is like as an interviewer, I had to watch other interviews (including the other one you mentioned with Russell Brand, so I could get a sense of him being unhappy with a guest). And then I saw what you meant. For a man who enjoys being around good-looking women and flustering them with compliments, he was really uncomfortable!
I think this is the first "red flag" most people get when they encounter a malignant narc. But it's such an intuitive thing that it's easy to brush off as subjective, or prejudiced, or a bad mood on your part. This is why I'm a big believer in trusting intuition. If you have a bad feeling about someone, you should listen to it. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall of wherever Ferguson was when he learnd that Prince Harry was dating * -- and also wherever he was when he learned about the engagement.
👑
〽️
The Pen is mightier than the Claw
Less is more
MoS should’ve lowered
the word score
Hollow victory on a point of law
Retribution will be sweet
They’ll repeat, no retreat
She’ll be battling the torrent
of Fleet Street
The hounds are unbound,
this is War!
I just watched the Body Language Guy's video on the Larry King interview. Wow, how did we all not watch this before?!
She is so contemptuous of her co-star -- a lead whom her character is supposed to be supporting -- that I find it hard to imagine their working relationship, much less their chemistry on the show. Has anyone here watched Suits? Does she at least act her way out of a paper bag in it?
For everyone who needs the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVZO1tW0saQ
Miggy, I’m sure Kirstie Allsopp
was given the go-ahead
by the palace to release the
Kate crying article.
Ma-dams cracking,
Kraken Fraken 😋
@Enbreth
Wow!! She is utterly mad,
and evil.
No rhyme nor reason for her
attitude/actions.
The Body Language Guy is
also stumped by her!!!
Mad Markle Manifestation
Incurable
The Body Language Guy looks at Meghan on Larry King Live.
He actually does not do an indepth analysis, but like the Craig Ferguson interview, the video is very revealing. I always thought she tipped over from pretty standard and relatively harmless nacissism to toxic malignant mode when she got into a position of power as Duchess of Sussex at the palace, but these videos do not support that theory.
I do wish The Body Language Panel would analyse both videos because they would pick up on each nuance in detail.
Harry fell in love with this?
But I think both these videos were done before she started the global humanitarian at the UN campaign, mixed with fun-loving gal, down-to-earth cook in her casually stylish home ... a whole mix of stuff. Almost makes you wonder if she cultivated a mixed bag image to 'trip into' a Prince's life and capture him!
@Hikari
You have a talent for seeing right through the BS and calling it for what it is! It might not have been cocaine, but I would not be surprised if she was using some kind of chemical aids to stay so thin, especially as she was eating out a lot as a wannabe foodie once she met the chef, and the only exercise she was doing was some yoga. I grew up in a time when just about every girl was on diet by the age of 13, and know full well that there are many unhealthy ways that a person can be skinny that are not full-blown anorexia and bulimia (which are actually psychological disorders).
She really did pull off a major con to capture a British prince. I wonder if they bolted because people at the palace not only saw through the act, but were calling her out for it. I think initially she thought she could conquer Hollywood and the monarchy and have both. What does she do now that she has failed in both? Lash out in spite ... and set her eyes on Washington. Maybe she will end up as a governor of a small colony on Mars or supervisor of a refuelling station on the Moon!
@Enbrethiliel
Yep, Ferguson's body language was so clear. He almost fell off his chair trying to distance himself from her!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10273417/Ministers-consider-law-free-speech-Sussex-ruling.html
Let’s hope there’s law changes! 🧐
Poetic Justice
The Litigious Louse
And her Spaced out Spouse
Are heading for a bloody
great fall
She’s scored an own goal
Digging deeper, a..hole
As they end up with sweet
Feck All…
Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Evidence emerges that Epstein probably was indeed a paedophile! Unfortunately, by calling it without evidence, the media have blurred if not obliterated the distinction between paedophilia and sex with someone below the age of consent, which hinders the ability to deal effectively with both. But, Andrew's troubles have nose dived into the irretrievable. Virginia Guiffre is going to profit hugely from this.
Would the Sussexes sink so low that they are going to see this as a bandwagon to climb onto and they will be 'campaigning' on this issue now? They are supposed to be friends with Eugenie and Jack, so that could be awkward!
“Lilibet is the only ‘thing’ in this world which is absolutely real to me and my ambition is to weld the two of us into a new combined existence that will not only be able to withstand the shocks directed at us but will also have a positive existence for the good … Cherish Lilibet? I wonder if that word is enough to express what is in me. Does one cherish one’s sense of humour or one’s musical ear or one’s eyes? I am not sure, but I know that I thank God for them and so, very humbly, I thank God for Lilibet and for us.”
And that crazy narc took that precious name and used it without permission!
Thank you Sandie for posting
Prince Philip’s letter.
Beautiful, such love.
How she must miss him,
such a gallant, principled,
handsome man, who steadfastly
walked two steps behind
her, yet always by her side.
*Beebzebub
Amol Rajan
Is a bit of a cant
His impartiality rather scant
He’s dissed Will and Kate
Apologised too late
As WildBoar did state
A small man…
*Beeb, referring to the BBC
It’s odd you mentioned how the Government will nothing to protect our Freedom of Expression. I was thinking that changing the law would serve no purpose to any MP who could now use this precedent to protect themselves for what they consider private matters etc . Our laws are also too entangled in The Human Rights Act for any hope of radical change. All that considered and said, I still hope we may see change..🥴
@Raspberry
We can only hope that common
sense prevails.
Neil Sean report: Did I imagine it or did he say that despite having signed an NDA, Samantha Cohen is going to be spilling some tea?
My guess: Sanantha has the Queen's blessing to publish her memoirs of her time with the royal households. She will expose TBW's lies by telling all about how much help she got, all she was taught (supposedly even how and when to curtsy), not as a tell-all about the Sussexes but as a monarchy-friendly inside peek of what it is like to work for the royal family.
Unfortunately for TBW, people have kept a meticulous and detailed list of all the lies told to Oprah, including the British tabloids! She should go into politics. In what other occupation are you expected to be a compulsive liar?
I wonder if they bolted because people at the palace not only saw through the act, but were calling her out for it.
Highly likely! Not everyone would have been shell shocked bullying victims. Some would have seen through the act soon and been able to stand up for themselves within the organization. And as the numbers of both groups increased, it became harder and harder for * to have her way.
Though I do think she wanted to bolt as soon as possible after "giving birth." She was able to grab a christening photo before she did, but after she figured out it was the last big thing she'd ever get, she knew it was time to find a new host to attach her suckers to.
Sorry. Just catching up.
I saw that interview a good while back. My first impression was "what a bimbo". From there I knew spare was making a really stupid choice. It was clear then what she was after...
By the time the Craig interview came to my attention, she was already engaged to Harry and I was already predisposed to be critical of her based on her behavior during the engagement photos/interview. But even if I'd only seen the Ferguson interview when it was au courant, I still would have drawn the impression of her as a desperate, awkward, semi-homely wannbe starlet who was trying so, so so hard and incredibly awkwardly, to be 'Hot Sexy Thang'.
She really played all her cards (being half black/American . .'a breath of fresh air') just right, aided and abetted by the larger Zeitgeist of Wokeism. Really, at no other time in history would somebody like her--a bottom trawler of the worst possible kind--been permitted to even see Harry more than once, never mind marry him. 'Tis a Pity She's a Wh*re', indeed. Back in the 1980s, Andrew was quite smitten with adult film actress Koo Stark--also American--and rumor has it that the Queen met and quite liked her. But--decorum demanded that the spare to the British throne marry someone who was not in the porn business, and regretfully, Andrew had to give Koo up.
Due to $lut's racial background, any due diligence which the courtiers tried to do on her got tossed out the window as 'discriminatory' . . though nobody forced * into making R-rated burger grilling videos, appearing mostly nekkid and lecherous on American chat telly or, for her day job, portraying the office $lut who routinely de-briefed her bosses and got banged in the copy room. *Even* if the rest of *'s puff PR about being a globe-trotting humanitarian who sang to deployed military, brought clean water to poor Third World children, addressed the U.N. and held a degree in international relations in addition to being a multi-millionaire lifestyle blogger and women's empowerment coach were true (which they aren't)--these tasteless and lewd appearances in entertainment media should have disqualified her from consideration as a royal bride. If Haz was so adamant that she was the only woman in the world for him AND they were the greatest love story since Romeo & Juliet . .AND that he wanted nothing more than a private life outside of the burdens of the Royal family . . he should have renounced his titles and buggered off to America *before* the wedding. That would have been the morally and ethically sound thing to do. She would have burned rubber so fast it would have knocked his blockhead off. She ONLY wanted Harry for his titles and his perceived family money. Do we think that has dawned on Harry yet?
Can we imagine Harry being allowed to marry Chelsy or Cressida or any others of his former girlfriends if they had even one risque photo or personal appearance on their resumes? No, no, and no. * skated on every last single thing normally required of someone to be a decent person or marriageable prospect by dint of marketing herself as black. How 'black' do we think she was actually attempting to be at any time prior to 2016?
But even if I'd only seen the Ferguson interview when it was au courant, I still would have drawn the impression of her as a desperate, awkward, semi-homely wannbe starlet who was trying so, so so hard and incredibly awkwardly, to be 'Hot Sexy Thang'.
Hot, sexy, yet also "whip smart." She made sure everyone knew about her double major (lie), her job at the US embassy in Argentina (blown up to the point of lying), and her Spanish speaking skills (hahahahaha).
I wonder if they bolted because people at the palace not only saw through the act, but were calling her out for it.
Highly likely! Not everyone would have been shell shocked bullying victims. Some would have seen through the act soon and been able to stand up for themselves within the organization. And as the numbers of both groups increased, it became harder and harder for * to have her way.
Though I do think she wanted to bolt as soon as possible after "giving birth." She was able to grab a christening photo before she did, but after she figured out it was the last big thing she'd ever get, she knew it was time to find a new host to attach her suckers to.
The shenanigans during "the pregnancy with Archie" were head-scratching to downright disturbing . . but even very awkward photos of an obviously FAKE bump sliding to her knees was not proof in itself that she wasn't pregnant. Nor was declining the Queen's doctors in favor of her own selected medical team and keeping her obstetric treatment private--to a degree. * never accepted that as a member of the RF and therefore a civil servant living on the public purse, she had an obligation to abide by some of the traditions whereby the British royals share curated bits of themselves with the public as a gesture of good faith . . and also because 'the Boss' expects it. This would include communicating with the Palace about said birth plans and making sure the Palace was not embarrassed over misinformation. Allowing her doctors to sign off on the birth announcement, as has been protocol for 100+ years. Posing for a brief photo call outside the hospital.
* did none of this. Why would an attention-craving Narc who eats up red (or urine-yellow) carpet events decline 'THE' most iconic photo opportunity of a Royal new mother--that first shot of the newborn with his/her tired yet smiling parents as they begin their journey as a family? The BRF would have provided a full glam squad for the purpose and whisked her off in a luxury car to go have a lie-down after this public service was done.
Maybe the Queen and the Palace agreed to play along with the Duchess's exercises in Photoshop while they sought some way out of this legal and psychological mire * had embroiled them in with months' and months' worth of brazen public lies and cosplay as an expectant mum--but when the couple arrived in South Africa with a child no one in Britain had ever seen--including anybody supposedly related to him, I'd wager and 'introduced' him to Bishop Tutu and the world . . .well, that was just Too Much. Coupled with their mutual egregious behavior on that tour and culminating in the whingy Tom Bradby whinefest--all unsanctioned by the Palace . . .Well. My working theory is that Maggot and Mole were given their walking papers upon their return from South Africa. Out. Leave. Remove yourselves from any Royal properties as you are now trespassing. Go away, far, far away, preferably to another continent. After the holidays and a decent interval, We will Deal with You and craft a public statement to save us all embarrassment. We are magnanimous enough to make it seem like we are granting your wish. We will even give you a generous severance package for you to set up a new life elsewhere. But you absolutely cannot stay near Us any longer.
I think that was the agreement, but after seething in butthurt rage for some weeks, the Suxxits preempted the Queen's plans for the rollout of the severing of ties on her terms with their 'manifesto'. They knew they would be in huge trouble for doing so, hence the flop-sweat on Mugsy which will be preserved in photos for all time. If they had played nice and allowed her to announce things her way, the Queen might have relented and allowed them to appear sometimes, with the proper demeanor, for large events and they might not have completely blown up any bridge to a way back, at least as family members. But--the spectre of treasonous interference in the line of succession cannot be forgotten or forgiven. If the Crown admits to knowing that the Sussex spawn are both figments of *'s avaricious, malicious imagination and have abetted the ruse--well, that would be the end of of the institution.
The cash spigot has dried up and the drawbridge is up, so the Narc had to double down on her massive lie and 'produce another kid' . . this time, attacking the Queen directly with the use of her deeply personal family nickname. Is * really that evil and twisted? Yeah, I believe she is.
My above comments are also to you, who was responding to Sandie there. Cut you off, sorry.
Yep, Ferguson's body language was so clear. He almost fell off his chair trying to distance himself from her!
You'd have to watch more of Craig's show to get a feel for how he is with other guests. That was an uncomfortable interview for Craig, for sure, who is a very warm and gregarious person, very tactile and, unlike most others of his cohort in the talk show business . .actually enjoys talking to and interacting with his guests.
Though he has been sober since circa 1991, CF spent nearly all of the 1980s in an alcohol and cocaine haze. He quite nearly was going to commit suicide in London on the New Year's Day just before he got clean, but he met a guy who invited him for some beers so he reasoned that he could enjoy the free beer first and then come back later and jump off of London Bridge. He never kept that appointment and went to rehab instead. Cocaine was his drug of choice so I am confident that CF immediately recognizes the signs of someone who is using. He normally leans into a guest's personal space when he is really connecting with them and so it was hilarious to see him inch his chair away so as to be as far from her as he could get on the tiny stage. His chair was practically hanging off the riser.
The only other guest who I think Craig disliked more was Russell Brand--another notorious druggie--because he broke Geoff Peterson, the robot skeleton sidekick by roughhousing even when asked to calm down. Craig was not pleased. Neither Russell Brand nor ** was ever invited back to the Late Late Show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwGIpL3fY-8
(approx 44:20)
Why comparing SUSSEXES to CAMBRIDGES is inevitable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QdYsMzD5vA
We are in complete agreement re: the Ferguson interview. She is rank!
@mel
Gee, It feels like no sooner had I posted my *Thoughts and opinions which are for entertainment purposes only; I must advise you to do your own research*, than Kneepads Comes out with this pile of tripe. Apparently, today marks the six month anniversary of the birth of *’s younger figment child. “Everything We Know about Lilibet Diana!!!” Crows Kneepads. Turns out what we know us near nil. It might’ve been a nice time to present a family picture don’t we think? Poor little baby—half a year old and never been seen. No christening, no outings of any kind…does this child ever get taken out of her box to get some fresh air in the chicken coop with big brother Archie?
No pictures of Lili in here, but we do get the Duck Rabbit kid again…from Arch’s first birthday. And * in the hideous red dress. Because that is certainly relevant to her daughter’s half birthday.
The situation is so utterly ridiculous. How can anyone actually believe the stories she tells? She presents absolutely no evidence at all of her motherhood. Wearing zodiac necklaces in a photo shoot is not proof—That’s merching. Does she really really think the entire world is this stupid and gullible, or are we on some level supposed to be congratulating her on her audacious con of a 95-year-old woman? One day, just a couple of years from now, Master Arch will be old enough To commence his education. We’ve already seen her carrying a little toddler girl to daycare who is supposed to be Archie, but 100% as I breathe is NOT Balloon arch/Chicken coop Arch. She must think we’re right mugs, I’m blind as well.
https://people.com/royals/lilibet-diana-is-6-months-everything-we-know-about-meghan-markle-and-prince-harrys-daughter/?amp=true
NOTE: Due to the length, this is a two-part post.
———————-
PART ONE
For me, astrology predictions are fun to read, but I do not run my life by them.
That said, I saw this article from Stylecaster.com titled “Sorry in Advance — These 3 Zodiac Signs will have the Worst 2022” as I was scrolling through my general news article feed on Yahoo.com today, and I just couldn’t resist reading it.
In addition, remembering that we have had some tarot card observations posted here, I thought it might be fun to post the astrology outlooks for Meghan and Harry.
Hint: 2022 will be terrible for Meghan, who is a Leo, and it will be great for Harry, who is a Virgo.
I have included the links to the worst signs for 2022 article and a companion article for the three signs that will have a great 2022 if you want to read each complete article. I am only posting the outlook for Meghan, for 2022, who is forecast to have a bad 2022, and for Harry, who is a Virgo, who is forecast to have an exceptional 2022.
The links will take you to read what each has to say for all three signs that have the best outlook for 2022 (Pisces, Cancer, and Virgo), and a separate article for the three signs with the worst outlook for 2022 ( Libra, Leo, and Aquarius).
I think they are interesting predictions. I love how Harry’s prediction starts out as it says 2022 will be a year of letting go. Let’s hope he lets go of Meghan and the silly notion that she loves him.
Stylecaster.com
Sorry In Advance—These 3 Zodiac Signs Will Have the Worst 2022
By Brenna Lilly
Fri, December 3, 2021, 11:43 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/sorry-advance-3-zodiac-signs-164357654.html
Leo
Prepare for the “Year of Discomfort,” Leo. 2022 is going to flip you around, shake up your world and teach you that you can withstand even more discomfort than you think. 2022 will undeniably be difficult for you, but not needlessly. It’s your job to learn from the annoyances that the cosmos throw your way.
All four of this year’s eclipses (happening on April 30, May 16, October 25 and November 8) square your sign. When planets in their normal state square aspects of your chart, it signals stagnation and unease. Combine this square with eclipse energy and you’ve produced a cosmic catalyst for immense change and upheaval.
Right after the first eclipse cycle of 2022, you also have the unfortunate luck of being influenced by Mercury retrograde squaring your sign from May 22 to June 3. This will be an opportune time to practice mindfulness of speech; while I know you love having all eyes on you, Leo, 2022 (and this part of the year in particular) is a time to introspect and work inside yourself.
Additionally, Uranus retrograde squares you around August 24 and stays there until 2023, forcing you to identify where you’re “stuck” and forcing you to change.
You’re not the kind of person who likes being stopped in their tracks, but in 2022, you’ll have to get used to it. Can you use this time to learn to sit with discomfort? The discomfort of silence when you’d rather be talking about yourself, the discomfort of being alone and the discomfort of, perhaps, being without the luxuries you take for granted? I have faith in you, dear Leo.
COMPANION ARTICLE NAMING ZODIAC SIGNS TO HAVE A GREAT 2022:
The three signs that are forecast to have an exceptional 2022 are Pisces, Cancer, and Virgo. In the interest of brevity, I am only posting the prediction for Harry’s sign, which is Virgo.
I love how the second sentence in the predictions for Harry’s sign says 2022 will be the “Year of Letting Go,” so perhaps he will wake up and break free of Meghan. Also the part that reads, “this year’s planetary lineup is just right to help you choose a new life.”
ARTICLE PREDICTIONS FOR VIRGO, WHICH IS HARRY’S SIGN:
————————
Stylecaster.com
These Zodiac Signs Are Guaranteed to Have the Best 2022
By BRENNA LILLY
DEC 02, 2021 AT 9:38 AM EST
https://stylecaster.com/zodiac-signs-best-2022/
Virgo
Virgo, 2022 is going to be one of your best years yet. For you, 2022 is the “Year of Letting Go.” Patterns of disempowerment, anger and old habits—what are you prepared to let go of? The same outer planets due to enhance the intuitive capabilities of Cancer and Pisces are also the ones that will help cool you down and release some pressure.
Even though you claim to be averse to stress, we both know that you thrive on a jam-packed schedule, making you prone to burnout and frustration. Haven’t you gotten tired of that? 2022 gives you an opportunity to break that pattern: Jupiter and Neptune in Pisces (opposing you) will swing through your chart to soothe the rockiness of your character.
You’ll also continue to experience some of the intensity of Pluto in Capricorn. What can you learn from this existentially-charged planet’s movement through the sign of hard work and power? Along with your tendency to overwork yourself is a sense of timidity. You don’t have to shelter yourself and be afraid of the world—this year’s planetary lineup is just right to help you choose a new life. Just do your magic when most planets aren’t in retrograde.
SARAH VINE: A rare insight into Prince William's charming character... and the clearest explanation yet of why relations with his brother are so strained
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10275769/SARAH-VINE-rare-insight-Prince-Williams-charming-character.html
And if you want to listen to it:
Apple’s Exclusive ‘Time To Walk’ With Prince William: Fun, Fascinating & Moving
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2021/12/04/apples-exclusive-time-to-walk-with-prince-william-fun-fascinating--moving/
'WHOLE WORLD WAS DYING' Prince William reveals emotional crisis he suffered as an air ambulance pilot
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16942362/prince-william-air-ambulance-trauma/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10276201/Human-rights-barrister-GEOFFREY-ROBERTSON-gives-stark-warning-Meghans-attack-Press.html
Thank you for the Sarah Vine article link. This article was so simply written yet gets to the heart of the differences between Prince William and Prince Harry. Prince William is a doer, releasing a podcast about his need to walk about outside appreciating nature whilst settling his thoughts for better mental health in an effort to help others. All monies raised will go to charity. Ms Vine also discussed how PW’s choice of mate was/will be crucial in his continued success as future King keeping him grounded and supported.
We’re still waiting for another Spotify podcast, it’s been a year, from the 6s with money earned going into their coffers. PH is a talker, has grandiose ideas that are impossible to implement and is too self-absorbed. I won’t belabor the point, but we know PH’s choice of mate was/is disastrous.
I highly recommend you read this article.
SARAH VINE: A rare insight into Prince William's charming character... and the clearest explanation yet of why relations with his brother are so strained
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10275769/SARAH-VINE-rare-insight-Prince-Williams-charming-character.html
Interesting ... Neil Sean says, in his opinion, that TBW is in real trouble because the British press will dig and do serious extensive investigations to uncover the truth about her. Kirstie Allsopp (sp?) speaking out about who made who cry, and thus exposing another lie from TBW, is just the beginning.
He suggest that Harry clears the air and draws a line under the crying incident by getting his wife to come out and tell the truth of what really happened. That really made me laugh!
@Miggy
That article from Geoffrey Robertsn is very interesting, and a very balanced and factual view of the débâcle. The first couple of paragraphs expose her grandiose narcissism without him actually saying it:
"This win is precedent setting,' proclaimed Meghan Markle, immediately after last week's Court of Appeal decision against The Mail on Sunday – even though the court took pains to explain that it was not setting a precedent at all.
The Appeal Court judges ruled that this newspaper's decision to publish half of a letter from Meghan to her father had indeed been a breach of her privacy, as she claimed. Yet her 'win' was simply an application of laws that had been 'developed' – in fact, created – by judges over the past 15 years. ..."
The cards for the marriage spread were mostly negative and just bloody awful. Separation, divorce, marriage in trouble ... proclaim tarot readers. Nope, this toxic mix of lies, manipulation, cruelty, malice, slander, ill will, destructiveness, lack of persistence, obssession with details and not seeing the big picture, promise of success unfulfilled ... It is their normal. If you have been in or know someone in a toxic co-dependent relationship, you know that such a relationship can endure.
I saw nothing in the readings that indicate separation or divorce, and no sign of the children either. The card in the position of 'what happens next' in the marriage screams divorce to a normal person: "End of pleasure; disturbance when least expected; misfortune; disappointment in love; unkindness from friends; loss of friendship; treachery; ill will; sadness; vain regret." However, I must stress that I have seen toxic co-dependent relationships endure, even though the couple act as if they hate each other. Part of what leads me to this conclusion is that in their individual readings the other showed as hugely important, even though their priorities and paths are different, and there was nothing that indicated separation or divorce to me (and no sign of the children). She would lose so much in a divorce; he has burned bridges and has nowhere to go or no one to protect him and the children from her (she would destroy him in a divorce and custody battle ... the crusade against her father, siblings and the Daily Mail is a foretaste).
Is there anyone who disagrees and sees something I am not seeing? That she would be foolish enough to dump him and deluded enough to think she is greater and more powerful in all ways? That she would cross a line for him and he would run like hell? Or do they fade into the obscurity of page 6 of the tabloids, along with a bizarre woman called Katie Price?
"Prince Harry’s pub chat with Saudi in royal cash for access scandal
A meeting with the duke after a charity donation helped the foreign billionaire gain access to Charles"
My opinions:
* The questionable Saudi billionaire targeted Harry because he was so popular at the time (e.g. the Saudi's young sons wanted access to Harry).
* Harry's aides pulled him back from the association before things got out of hand. (The article is an interesting look into just how difficult the job of aide is). He no longer has such a safety net.
* All royals face the risks of having to get huge donations to support their causes and projects ... Except the Queen, who has vast personal wealth but also operates differently (she does not do fund raising, although she does award honours of various kind to those who do so).
* He is probably going to be angry that he is now linked to this scandal (not William, who was not involved) and may lash out at his father. Although the article seems to try to blame Harry for getting his father involved with this Saudi, I think it is a real stretch to come to this conclusion. Once Charles got involved, he could have done due diligence and 'saved' his son from further involvement.
* Mark Dyer does not come out of this looking good. There is the implication that he was not a good influence on Harry.
* Overall, Harry could not offer honours of any kind or access to anyone but himself for group photos with the Saudi's sons. He doesn't actually come out of this looking bad, but Charles could be portrayed as a father who did not protect his son. Rather them smearing Harry, I think his link to this scandal will drive a further wedge between him and his father, drive resentment of his brother, and give the Sussexes more ammo for victimhood.
However, couples who meet that profile often stay together for many reasons. History, money, stubbornness, insecurities (better the devil you know than the devil you don't), guilt, children etc, etc.
I am grateful I have not allowed myself this long-term torture. I left as soon as I could safely get out.
Harry is more prone to this imo than she is BUT she will stay for the title. It's really not rocket science to come to this conclusion. If she remarries, she loses the title. It's not hard to guess she will try to find high powered men to bankroll her but without marriage. At her age it doesn't look good unless as I said recently she wrestles Bezos away from Lauren Sanchez since he clearly does not care about age nor looks.
I predict she will make as much bank as she possibly can and *however she can, until she's loaded, then leave spare. She will then find some man who has a decent amount of social status and contine with him until she milks him dry as well. She will continue in this pattern until she is much older then settle down with a gay man-for cover.
What a pickle these two idiot adults have chosen for themselves...what a mess but it's fun fan fiction😂
Just my opinions based on celebrity watching and social studies lol.
OR she will be like Brittney Spears and get snagged by a much younger hot guy, so he can enjoy the lifestyle and perks the children of a royal Prince will bring to the table.
So many scenarios...
Whether the toxic duo stay together and maintain an immature, tumultuous relationship or divorce and move on, the innocent children will be forever changed by their parents’ flaws. My hope is that there is a nanny or in-home worker who is a stable, soft, maternal loving ballast as the two little ones grow up and are willing to call the authorities if there is emotional and/ physical abuse witnessed in that household.
I believe what we are seeing with the spare's relationshit is renactments of their own childhood traumas, picked up from their parent's marriages.
Thank God William is of a stronger constitution and was perhaps more sheltered and assisted as he grew, being he is the heir to the throne. British Nutties would have much better and realistic insight here since they lived it in their recent history.
As far as children, I believe they have some sort of arrangement with surrogates; for PR as a "little family" and $$$$$ for her for when she bolts and leaves spare flat, as she will (I've known too many women like her).
In any event, I truly pity what ever vunerable children that go anywhere near those two. I would hope the RF has some protective measure in place if children are involved. That royal arm reaches very far from what I can gather.
Charles seems to be obsessed with material wealth. He is always involved in these schemes that gives honours to donors - remember Amal Clooney and the Clooney's donations to Charles' pet charities.
Charles also wants to turn part of Buckingham Palace into a museum and leave the other half for the use of the BRF although he would probably spend most of his time living elsewhere.
Then there's the selling of much land in Cornwall to develop into housing that has engendered a lot of opposition.
Finally, there's this new scandal for honours for donations. I am sure there's lots of other examples to add to the list. He may think he is just looking out for the family's future, but others might say that he's driven by greed.
I forgot to add she will continue to stay in the limelight so I sure do agree with you, she will find some dumbass and use the H out of him lol. Until she ages out and they will use her!
I love Joan Collins (whom some titled as the poor man's Elizabeth Taylor) but a *small part* of her relationship story is what I used for my * senario. Though Dame Collins did not have to worry about losing a royal title so she married her much younger man...(!)
And then there's Madonna...another Leo LOL!
I agree. If the British media are digging for dirt on the Sussexes, and perhaps even trying to deflect attention from Charles in this scandal about the Saudi billionaire donor, it is not going to work.
Charles has a lifetime's body of a wide range of work, so it is easy to find lots to criticise him about. But, his involvement with this Saudi billionnaire cannot be blamed on Harry, as the article seems to be trying to do.
The Sussexes seem to want to get lots of good publicity and be seen as powerful and influential. They no longer have Palace aides protecting and advising them, so the pitfalls are many. At least Charles was taking money from donors for projects rather than to fund his lifestyle. Not so the Sussexes. Plus, they have lost most of their currency for trading (royals) and cannot provide royal honours nor provide access to royal properties or senior royals. I think they are in a perilous position.
Even if she keeps the title by not remarrying, if he remarries, all attention goes to the new duchess and more doors close for her.
The children give her royal currency (very much dimmed because she has kept them out of sight and she has refused the titles they have because they are not HRH Prince/Princess), but once they reach the age of consent, she can no longer control them. Besides, there are many inconsequential royals in the world. Harry is the only one with actual royal currency in that family - his father and then brother will be king, and that can never be taken away from him.
Maybe she will settle for a man much wealthier than Harry and be that awful aging empty celebrity, like Katie Price. And she will insist that the servants call her 'your royal highness' and will put her gold royal monogrammon on everything!
My above comments are also to you, who was responding to Sandie there. Cut you off, sorry.
Thanks! And no worries!
Cocaine was his drug of choice so I am confident that CF immediately recognizes the signs of someone who is using.
I recall CDAN blinds about * having difficulty getting coke in the UK and having to fly back to North America.
Gabriel Pogrund says he has emails that show that Harry was instrumental in connecting his father with the shady Saudi billionnaire! He sounds like a credible and thorough reporter/journalist. He implies that his evidence does not match up with what Harry says in his statement.
In his statement, Harry claims that he cut all ties with the Saudi billionnaire (true), a personal decision he made based on his superior judgment (could be true), and had nothing to do with connecting the Saudi with Charles (seems to be having a 'recollections may vary' moment here).
Imagine if his statement had given the full story without any pats on the back for himself and included a defence for his father (my father has always had honourable motives and done much good so, as the person who facilitated the initial meeting, it is troubling for me, as his son, ...).
It really perks you up, so you can literally party all night without flagging.
It makes you feel super sharp and focused, brilliant, super talented, unstoppable ... (Note, that reactions do vary so this is not true of absolutely everyone.)
It does not necessarily lead to drastic weight loss. If you are eating too much of the wrong stuff, not exercising, and have a genetic tendency to be porky, you will be porky!
Many cocaine users are not and do not become 'fall down' reach rock bottom drug addicts. That tends to happen if they are also alcoholics or start using other much more dangerous drugs, like crack. (Other dangers are financial, because the drug is pricy, and a supply that is mixed with dangerous substances, plus of course any health risks.)
It all depends on the person, their lfestyle, their supply and how much they are using.
on the one occasion that I've been around people using cocaine, I was shocked by the effect the drug had. While everyone was in good spirits, they waited eagerly around the table for the time when they had agreed they would take another hit. They had only bought a small amount and were rationing it, but they didn't seem to have any other concern other than when they could get their next hit or whatever they call it. These were medical students in their last months of study, who didn't use cocaine often and as far as I knew, never used it again. I was just amazed at how much they resembled the movie depictions of heroin addicts waiting to get their next fix.
Yes, that's right! I was sent on a copyright course at our county library HQ shortly before that, as I was the designated `copyright czar' at the college where I worked. That was in anticipation of an international agreement coming into effect.
It was coming in, as Statute Law, all of which is open to being clarified and refined in Court as Case Law:
`Case Law (or judicial precedent) is law which is made by the courts and decided by judges. Judicial precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis which literally means “to stand by decisions”. This principle means that a court must follow and apply the law as set out in the decisions of higher courts in previous cases.'
IIRC, she wasn't suing under privacy law but copyright law, something which first appeared in English Law at the start of the 18th century w.ref to books. Wm Hogarth campaigned for it to be extended to art work as others were making knock-off copies of his engravings. `The Engravers' Copyright Act (known as 'Hogarth's Act') became law on 25 June 1735'.(Wikipedia - Hogarth)
I'd laugh if the judgement was based only on copyright and, as I understand the law, she shouldn't get a penny for the privacy issues, even if MOS got a judicial scolding.
Cupid Stunt doesn't understand the meaning of `precedent' either.
She clearly hasn't heard of Karen Silkwood, she stood up to a big corporation - she may have lost her life but the organisation lost the case. That's what I call courage but it was before *'s lifetime.
@GWH: PS & BTW - Not all Duchy land is in Cornwall - Poundbury is on the edge of Dorchester, Dorset.
i do wonder when the ever talented archie is ready for school what will they do? someone needs to be enrolled unless she home schools and even then you have to register with the local education authorities who follow up on the education plans.
Perhaps they'll move out of California before that, to a state where homeschoolers don't have to answer to local authorities?
You've asked a great question. The older "Archie" gets, the more people the Harkles will need to keep up the charade of his existence. They could never pick a local school for him without blowing the lid off the whole thing. They might end up sending him to boarding school at the tender age of six. Its name would be withheld, of course, for the sake of the privacy they claim to treasure so much.