There just hasn't been a lot from really either of them together or individually lately, has there? But why? Have they blown all their bridges, connections and are down to toss the proverbial kitchen sink for attention? I don't know. We've heard that moving vans showed up at the house. And nothing more like pictures from a neighbor happy to see the back of them. We've heard they bought a house on Portugal. But the wording was kind of funny. Multiple sources of the same thing - yes but that isn't a guarantee of proof as it could all be from the same source. It was more along the lines of "We've been told that...". It came off as a we really don't know if we believe this to be true or not so we are putting it out there but hedging our bets. Or at least it did to me. And nothing more like exactly when, where or for how much or when they might visit it again. Or pictures of the awesome inside. Or outside. Or requisite ...
Comments
I am still giggling over one person's comment (sarcasm at its finest):
"You know, when I first came here I thought it was a warm, welcoming place. I felt comfortable making posts about the Dumb and Dumbass of MonDeceito.
But now, after the relentless barrage of terrifying photos, I don't know if I can continue posting here. I don't know what I did to deserve such treatment. I thought we were all friends here. The mental and emotional trauma inflicted on my psyche has been unbearable. This one in particular has set me over the edge.
I will be setting up a GoFundMyAlleybucks to help with my psycotherapy costs."
Meghan’s letter to father: Privacy overhaul to ‘correct’ the balance after duchess’s court win
An overhaul of human rights laws will aim to “correct” the balance between free speech and privacy after the Duchess of Sussex’s legal victory over The Mail on Sunday, Dominic Raab has said.
The justice secretary told Times Radio that there had been a “drift towards continental-style privacy laws” in the UK because of EU policy such as the right to be forgotten and European Court of Justice case law.
Although he did not comment directly on Meghan’s case, Raab said his overhaul of the Human Rights Act would consider how to ensure that judges put a “heavier emphasis” on freedom of speech. Britain has historically tended to be more favourable to the right of free speech over the right of privacy compared with Germany, France and other European countries.
The reforms would ensure that British judges adopted a “homegrown approach” to privacy cases, Raab said, rather than the “over-reliance on a continental model, which is effectively what the Human Rights Act has left us with”.
The decision by the Court of Appeal to uphold a ruling by the High Court in favour of the duchess has caused a nationwide debate about the balance of privacy versus free speech. The court said that the duchess “had a reasonable expectation of privacy” after the newspaper published large contents of a letter she wrote to Thomas Markle, her estranged father. After the decision last week Downing Street said it would study the judgments carefully because “a free press is one of the cornerstones of any democracy”.
Raab said that the necessary readjustment could be made in the government’s upcoming Online Safety Bill, which will include new protections for freedom of expression, or the reforms being planned to the Human Rights Act. He is due to publish a consultation next week on overhauling the act, which enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.
He said that the interpretation of the legislation over the past two decades had led to “judge-made privacy laws” in the UK. “We don’t have continental-style privacy law protections,” Raab said. “If we were going to go down that route it should have been decided by elected politicians. I think that’s a good example of the kind of balance that we can strike with our own homegrown approach to this rather than the over-reliance on a continental model, which is effectively what the Human Rights Act has left us with.”
He added: “It’s about getting the balance right but certainly I think the drift towards continental-style privacy laws, innovated in the courtroom, not by elected lawmakers in the House of Commons is something that we can and should correct.”
A government source added: “The Strasbourg court reflects a more Germanic balance between freedom of speech and privacy. Since the Human Rights Act there have been a number of cases that have ended with a more Germanic interpretation that verges on the privacy side over freedom of speech.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10275397/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Step-chilling-step-judges-protecting-rich-powerful.html
Part 1:
The American founding father James Madison warned long ago that the freedom of the people was in more danger from 'gradual and silent encroachments by those in power' than through violent and sudden events.
A verdict in the Court of Appeal last week shows this to be true.
Nothing could have been more stately and civilised than the dignified chamber where three highly educated, well-intentioned and experienced judges ruled in favour of the Duchess of Sussex, and against The Mail on Sunday.
The Duchess, better known to the world as Meghan Markle, proclaimed that the decision was a victory for all those who have ever 'felt scared to stand up for what's right'. Yet it is far from clear that this is the case.
A free press, with all its undoubted faults, has always been one of the great defenders of the small against the great.
The mere existence of such a press, the fabled Fourth Estate of the realm, has changed the way we live.
The rich and the powerful know that at any time they are in danger of exposure by independent journalism. But what if a new and ever-expanding law of privacy makes such exposure too difficult and risky?
The implications for press freedom – and for the conduct of the law in general – are severe.
Perhaps most disturbing of all was the core of the ruling, that the Duchess had no need to make her case in court.
If judges can decide – as they did – that they do not even need to hear evidence tested, and witnesses cross-examined, they have given themselves a new and frightening power in a strongly contested privacy case.
The whole idea of a trial has until now rested on the ability of both sides in a dispute to make their case before impartial justice.
Has this idea now been suspended? Do the judges think themselves so wise that they no longer need to listen to argument?
The points that The Mail on Sunday wished to raise were important, concerned key new information and would have been illuminated by the Duchess's response to them.
The whole case came about as the latest episode in a long series of court contests about privacy.
Bit by bit, the courts have appeared to be constructing a new privacy law in this country.
Such a thing never existed before, though such laws greatly protect the rich and powerful in some continental nations.
They have based this process on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the Blair government incorporated into English law, fully intending to bring about profound changes in our society.
But the Charter does not oblige the courts to place privacy above freedom of expression and public interest. 2
Its Article 8 says: 'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.'
But this is balanced by Article 10, which says: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.'
Tory governments have many times promised to give this country its own Freedom Charter, better fitted to our traditions.
But they have so far not actually done anything. This is a pity.
But if we must be governed on the basis of the ECHR, then the judges need reminding that it protects the freedom of all, and that there must be times when this freedom comes before the privacy of the great and the wealthy
This sort of abuse has been around for a long time. IIRC, over 20 years ago, a very wealthy man built a mansion in the New Forest. He’d been refused planning permission because it was such a special landscape but ignored this. The local council took the appropriate action, as per the law – they ordered him to pull it down .
He refused and was in a position to take it to the European Court of Human Rights – and won on the grounds that it to demolish would deprive him of his right to a family life. Presumably the District Council decided not to throw good public money after bad because as far as I know it didn't take the case to Appeal.
The European Charter was set up just after the war (1948?) to protect one’s right not to be murdered by the state on the grounds of being born into a group that the state blames for all their ills. Nobody imagined that this protection would be exploited in such an egregious way by the rich acting against the public good.
Contrary to what many people believe, the European Charter of Human Rights Has nothing to do with the EU , which it predates. Many would like a new charter for the UK but ditching the international version would not be a good look.
Ship to S-hore
Hash ‘n’ Trash
Are desperate for cash
Who’s next to offer help, succour
Oprah cried Whaaat!
Ellen said Squaaat!
They’ll be servicing sailors
fore s-hore
Ooh! You are awful - but I like you!
I believe it WildBoar.
What’s next, Harry Worth
and the “window” scene?
No doubt that will trigger
someone, somewhere!!
As for “Come on Down”
“Higher, Lower”
Conniptions all round!!
Has Beatrix Potter been
called out for Animal Appropriation,
coming soon…
"Hash and Trash" is a worthy addition to their list of nicknames!
Inflammatory Flamer
She’s riled up St George
For Blighty, flaming scourge
The dragon also known as
Megorgan
She’ll not win the next round
Penny to a pound
They’ll extinguish pants on fire
mouth organ
Enid Blyton has been criticised for her attitudes yet nobody ever bothered about Noddy and Big-Ears, and what about George in the Famous Five? Yet I found that, at Colchester Museum, a children's book on Gilbert and Sullivan's comic opera `The Pirates of Penzance' is catalogued in the LGBT collection.
`Look Kiddies, they were all into sodomy'
https://cim-web.adlibhosting.com/ais6/Details/collect/102298
You couldn't make it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xVZvo_aA3o
His title: "How * REALLY Thought Everyone Was THIS Stupid". Mr. Rosas doesn't buy any of her BS.
He also notices that * doesn't say Harry's name. He's either "my husband" or "H." (I personally believe that "H" was a slip of the tongue. She was already referring to him that way in private, as a form of devaluation; but she hadn't meant to say it out loud in front of a camera. When she did, she had to pass it off as an affectionate nickname. I just wish Mr. Rosas had analyzed the way her hand went up in front of her mouth really quickly after she said "H.")
Thanks Enbreth, how about
Dirtbag & Teabag?
She acts like a “teenage dirtbag baby”
Harry’s bags are decaffeinated,
not to mention urban dictionaries
connotations 😉
How to solve a problem like familia?
Take a family holiday to Oz,
and claim
“a dingo ate my babies”
- don't give out salt and expect sugar.
Serpents Tooth/Haz’s Truth
Haz has thus
Thrown his dad under a bus
How low will this prat go
Despite his dealings
And madams earrings
He’s denying his hand,
a low blow
@Elsbeth, exactly.
“You can catch more flies
with honey than vinegar”
I have no idea how you can come up with these so easily and quickly.
Pure genius!! 😅
Just Chattin' - Meghan: "Patient in the Face of Deception"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op3202CvLLA
Rule Britannia
On a hill far away
Troublous two made a play
Rocking the Royal boat
What they failed to see
With their hypocrisy
Was that boat was
keeping them afloat
Miggy 😘
You lift me X
SueMe is hilarious, loved
the virgin meg montage!!
MOS and DM allegedly upset that TBW mentioned Lord Rothermere in her statement after her court win!
Meghan - that statement - what went wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ncovRlw4Bc
https://www.fastcompany.com/90702784/prince-harry-says-quitting-can-be-good-for-your-mental-health?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com
It is pure pompous word salad! But I particularly like the following, which sounds very grandiose:
"Part of his role is using his voice, experience, and background for advocacy and leadership around mental health,”...
Do you think they have had to widen doorways, passages and staircases at Mudslide Manor so the two big heads don't accidentally get stuck if ever passing each other?
Harry the Hypocrite can claim the moral ground to "severing ties" with a Saudi prince while his wife keeps the blood diamonds she got from a Saudi prince.
Well recalled! Have any articles about this story included a photo of * wearing the diamonds?
Despite being so whipsmart, H’s bint doesn’t display much command of the English language. It is not actually possible to boycott an event to which one has not been invited. She’s putting this out just as she does all of the routine statements about declining Royal invitations not received. Her Narc ego has to preempt the active rejection which has already occurred. Even when she is being completely and resolutely ignored, she’s frantically trying to manage her façade as an entity so desirable, organizations and yes, the queen of England are clamoring to get her, but they are just not good enough for herself to condescend to accept. We know the Harkles aren’t going to the Oscars. They’ve never been invited before, so why break precedent? * Is profoundly mentally ill, and so these delusions global of importance are never going to stop as long as she is alive. She was so convinced that becoming a British royal Duchess would nab her an invite to present at the Oscars, even when “heavily pregnant with Archie”…remember that one? Three years on, she’s still trying that same tired ploy.
How is this woman out roaming the world and not in a secure mental facility? Her insanity it gets more and more blatant by the day.
In his latest, the Body Language Guy takes on part of the South Africa whine-terview and the "birth" of "Archie":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xVZvo_aA3o
I really enjoyed this video of his.
Falling into the debilitating pit of victimhood is a very human thing to do, but being there distorts how you think, feel and act and becomes a toxic trap. The two seem to feed off each other in their victimhood as well. I kind of feel sorry for them because they seem to have no one in their life who could or would give them a really stern wake up talk (and his therapy seems to have fed the disorder rather than cure it).
The Body Language is spot on: all their struggles and woes are 100% self inflicted
Queen hailed by Joe Biden for setting 'example for the world' as she receives US award
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1532040/Queen-news-Joe-Biden-US-award-Queen-Elizabeth-ii-Royal-Family-update
I think it was River who said, after watching The Princes and the Press, that the problem the press had with Prince William was that he wasn't playing the game he knew he had to play with them. That is, he wasn't giving them anything to build a narrative upon. Which was, given his future position, also irresponsible of him. So partly in retaliation and partly in frustration, they created his "workshy Wills" persona.
Things seem to be different today. Prince William has recognized that the BRF and the press have a symbiotic relationship that can be nurtured and turned to the good, and he is acting accordingly. River likes to call this decisive, action-oriented side of him "big Willy" -- and I suspect that this would be a good nickname for the new persona that the press is promoting. A future leader who is only growing more formidable as time passes and whom you don't want to cross even now.
"* broke the bollocks meter". LOL!
He just gets funnier and funnier about calling * and her BS out!
The comments about H telling people to quick their jobs that dont bring joy are just crazy - clearly he doesnt know how to read the room. He deserves it. No empathy for those who can just get up and quit and go riding their bikes and playing with their dogs. Mrs is probably laughing at him too. Probably makes him squat and drink out of a baby bottle. Would love it like Kamela's staff that everyone around them up and quits. No joy in Montecito!
Dr Ramani: Why do narcissists lie? Do they believe their lies? Can you get them to own up to their lies? Can you get them to stop telling lies?
It's the correct one for her - Sad to say, its the one that goes with the bloody title.
Hates us and our RF, but still expect to flaunt her honours and ponce around as if she's in good standing.
I'm only surprised that she doesn't affect the Macdonald's golden arches... about her level in society.
Unfortunately he wasn't covered as he was way off his route, having driven to see his floozy in the firm's time. Denning ruled he wasn't insured because he was `off on a frolic of his own'.
The *s have been `off on a frolic of their own' for almost 3 yrs now and cannot expect their former privileges and protection from the Firm.
the problem the press had with Prince William was that he wasn't playing the game he knew he had to play with them
-------
William understands the interest of the press in the BRF, which is not to say he likes it. He knows it's give and take. In this, he follows the BRF. For instance, the press agreed to leave William and Harry alone (mostly) when they were young but when William was at St Andrews, or was agreed he would give one interview and then he'd be left alone. William, when flying back from his and Kate's trip to Pakistan, went to see the press at the back of the plane to thank them. Harry used to do the same and was friendly with some of the journalists but his attitude changed once he got involved with a certain person.
NOW we know Harry is WORSE than Meghan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvo2KDJhO0M
Sandie and Jenn, thanks for posting the different versions. (oh my? Is that convenient or is that just my imagination?)
https://archive.md/LuzBk
https://archive.ph/CDAhv
The Oscars invite or not: Este and Sandie = It isn't just trying to claim a moral high ground about severing ties about a prince from somewhere with possible dodgy money donations but about the idea that they would not show at the Oscars based on the film possible up for awards but would continue with another organization which shows some show based on his family and it may or may not give the general public the idea that it maybe more factual than historically accurate.
Reading your review of William's podcase, it makes me so happy that there is a possibility that all will end well with the British monarchy. It has been doom and gloom for them and us recently.
I will surely search for that podcast now to bring some year end cheer into my day.
I hope you can find it. Apple made it sound as though it was being aired just 3 times during the course of one day. But I’m sure there is a demand for it so hopefully I’m wrong.
___________________________________________________________________
Dan Wootton in the DM
DAN WOOTTON: A warning to the unwary; don’t quit your job like holier-than-thou Harry advises unless Silicon Valley’s wokerati are lining up to throw millions at you for doing nothing too
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10281367/DAN-WOOTTON-Dont-quit-job-like-holier-thou-Harry-advises.html
____________________________________________________________________
Parents of boy whose accident is believed to have triggered Prince William's mental trauma praise Duke for his extraordinary 'love and support'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10275901/Parents-Bobby-Hughes-praise-Prince-William-love-support.html
“Paying tribute to William, Bobby's mother, Carly Hughes, 40, told The Mail on Sunday: 'I think he's amazing, a credit to our country. I can't sing his praises enough.
'I've looked into his eyes and, genuinely, he has got a kind heart. He's a lovely man, amazing. I would be proud to call him my King one day.'”
I was referring to the years between St. Andrews and Prince William's current stage of life. When he was working as an air ambulance pilot and was hardly giving the press anything. Contrast that to Prince Harry's (then) pleasant relationship with the press. Thanks to River, I understand why the press would have been frustrated with William, even if they could empathize with his desire for a few more years of privacy and normalcy before finally assuming the heavy yoke he was born to bear.
In that light, they must have been gobsmacked by Harry, when he came under the influence of * and started to trash all the good will they had built up between them. Harry had played the game brilliantly for years; he should have been guiding his wife in the steps. But instead, a total tabloid newbie was the one telling him what to do and how to think. It was a betrayal of sorts. I don't think most people see this perspective when they consider the conflict between the Harkles and the press today.
I'm glad to hear that Prince William's podcast was so lovely and refreshing. Unfortunately, given my schedule, I can't watch or listen to most things live and have to queue them up for when I'm finally free late at night. If it will be available in the future for people like me, I'll definitely give it a listen.
An interesting, balanced view about the court case.
ANL, in my opinion, did not present a convincing argument to challenge the law and how it has been applied in the past. I do think they should have been allowed a trial to do just that, but I wonder why they did not emphasise her public role and funding as a working royal (i.e. a higher level of scrutiny should be applied to her).
What comes through in the article is that she claimed all sorts of victories that are not true, and people see through the BS (e.g. a victory for truth, precedent setting ...).
No doubt she expected a huge PR boost for her reputation and image, but that just has not happened. She is puttng 'lipstick' on a pig'.
My question: Is she going to ignore the truth and put this in her CV as a precedent-setting victory for truth, etc.? How delusional is she?
* Her bullying allegations surfaced in 2019 and were gaining traction. (Possibly there was also a lot of unethical stuff around finances that people were starting to ask questions about.)
* Before the BRF could act (e.g. perhaps ask her to step down as with what happened with Andrew) you ran off and quit.
* Then you tried to spin the story that you were victims.
* Oh, and as late as the Corden appearance you were denying that you quit! I wonder why.
Harry is at the bottom of it. That horrible kid who wasn't corrected when he rammed people's legs with his bike is the real Harry. He took to heart Diana's teaching that he could be as `naughty' as he wanted as long as he's not found out.
Meghan is his cover - it's all a put-up job between the two of them. He hasn't the brains on his own to inflict the damage he wants but he is eaten up with wanting vengeance for, as he sees it, them `killing his mother'.
She has the twisted mind to manipulate others that he lacks - think of what the BLG's analysis of what the chick-coop-Thursday-wedding episode tells us about the situation.
She can work out how to create a double bind whereby it's a win-win for her and others are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
She'll do anything for money, he'll do anything for revenge. The Harry we thought we knew never existed, or if it did it was only when he let go of this obsession Diana's death.
He acts all innocent, seeming to let her walk all over him, because it suits him. This way, he thinks he can keep in with the family and come running back here when it suits him.
The way the pair of them behaved when Prince Philip was dying was unforgivable. I believe it's a perfect fit with his `Grandpa killed Mummy' motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHo35qIAoLA
He adds that Harry is full of s*** for making himself a role model for anyone whose job is affecting their mental health. When Harry walked away from the BRF, he didn't give up a job; he turned his back on his family. And for what? For *.
Did somebody see them a perfect partners-in-crime in such a way that it would support whatever devious scheme the these enemies of the state had?
---
I've been suggesting this for going on two years now.
Destabilization of UK indeed.
The Sussexes are not trustworthy or easy to control (they would take and then do whatever they wanted anyway), so I don't think they were part of a plan, knowingly or unkowingly.
But, they are a gift for those wanting to destabilize the monarchy, the UK, Western society, the values underpinning free speech, equality, human rights... take your pick. I get the sense that people use them rather than join with them as equal (in knowledge, power, authority ...) allies.
As for the couple themselves, I would propose that his 'real' motives were in his subconscious or even unconscious, which would make them more powerful and thus easier to manipulate. If those motives (revenge for Mummy, or I hate my Papa, or I envy my brother, or I hate the press ...) had been made conscious and he had constructive help in transcending them, he would not have been so vulnerable to the exploitation of a ruthlessly self-serving narc.
I may be wrong though, and maybe he did get the appropriate help before she appeared on the scene, which made no difference to his essential character. Then, when he met her, he found a powerful ally and helper, so he could act on his true feelings and desires, and he had been aware of them all the time.
Or is this change in how we view him the inevitable devaluing process a person experiences when in a relationship with a toxic/malignant narc?
Tweet from Burger King. Hilarious on so many levels!
The Sussexes are not trustworthy or easy to control (they would take and then do whatever they wanted anyway), so I don't think they were part of a plan, knowingly or unkowingly.
---
I respectfully disagree with this. David and Wallis were consumed with the desire to be idolized and like spare and his thing, created their own court. Spare and DoW knew full well what would bring down the RF and how to involve themselves in dangerous politics. The two money hungry, social climbing American wives knew how to use men to advance themselves.
It is these chips in the armor that lead to destabilization of the RF and in turn, the UK.
I do believe William will be a rebuilder as his Great Grandfather the King was. But yes, every rogue spare and ex king and their choice of wife, can be highly dangerous to that institution and to the country.
The very fact that spare and his thing are allowed to run amuck and do and say whatever they please, is a good indication of the control they do possess, as nefarious as it is...
I will stay on topic so this is just my opinion.
Telling people to quit their jobs! Advice coming from a multi-millionaire weed-smoking slacker who's never lifted a finger in his life except to wipe his own butt. That's proof right there that Twit's got as much depth as a piece of paper.
Perhaps the plan is that she gets a huge divorce settlement which she splits with H if they're both still out in the wilderness -at least that may be H's thinking. She'd then pull a switch on him and ride off into the sunset with all the loot, pulling the rug from under his feet.
Or do they collude like a cat and a dog?
I hope I live long enough to find out - in the reign of Good King William, God willing.
I hope I live long enough to find out - in the reign of Good King William, God willing.
___
Yes!
I've been super busy with family so haven't yet heard the podcast but it's on my must do list. Everyone here knows that now in my dotage, William is my granny crush lol. He is a remarkable man whom I admire for his many good traits.
You're welcome! Most commenters focus on *, but Trevor, being a veteran, has it in for Harry in particular.
'Twit refused to talk to his mother on the phone when she called, the night she died.'
I didn't listen to that Lady C video but would like to offer a correction if I may. They both spoke to her. I'm surprised she got it wrong.
Both William and Harry spoke to Diana the day before she died. They were playing outside [at Balmoral] when she called. William said “Harry and I were in a desperate rush to say goodbye, you know, ‘See you later’…. If I’d known now, obviously, what was going to happen, I wouldn’t have been so blasé about it and everything else,” Prince William says in the documentary. “But that phone call sticks in my mind, quite heavily.”
https://www.glamour.com/story/princes-william-harry-recall-last-phone-call-with-princess-diana
This is exactly my recollection of events at the time (I know recollections may vary!).
Your recollection is I think the correct one. No one to blame as they expected to be reunited with their mother within a couple of days. The last phone call may have been short, but there is nothing to indicate it was not a happy and loving one on the part of mother and both sons.
Theoretically Diana last spoke to her sons the day before she died, but that was because the accident happened late at night, it took hours to get her to hospital, and once there, doctors spent quite some time trying to save her life and then revive her when she died.
HARRY BETRAYS CHARLES/Meghan SCUPPERED with CHANGE in LAW/ Diana's mantle/QUEEN's AWARD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jviBxh5-UAY
Haven't yet listed to Lady C but didn't Harry betray his father when he sat down with Oprah? I mean isn't that old hat. I still can't get over how he can pretend a moral ground over the Suadi prince loot when his wife is wearing blood diamonds gift by another Saudi scum bag.
By the way, I wasn't blaming you, I'm just not sure why Lady C didn't remember both W & H spoke to Diana 🙂.
Which veterans?
Which visas?
Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
BREAKING: Prince Harry backs scrapping visa fees for Commonwealth veterans of UK military, says Tory MP.
Johnny Mercer tells Commons he spoke to Duke of Sussex last night about his cross-party amendment, which would remove charges for veterans of 5 years+ service.
7:50 PM · Dec 7, 2021·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1468276822387343363?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1468276822387343363%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
I believe the lads from SA that I'd used to teach in the late 1960s, although born in Cape Town when that was an `Old Commonwealth' country , had to get `indefinite leave to remain' when they and they & their activist parents fled Apartheid. Had their parents been British, there'd have been no problem. If the family originated in, say, Lithuania, they'd have to apply for permission to stay.
He could mount a mental health defense.
This is the defense that Elizabeth Holmes has floated in her Theranos fraud trial.
'Ms. Holmes claims the abuse by her former business and romantic partner was psychological, emotional, and sexual, according to the documents. Ms. Holmes accused Mr. Balwani of controlling what she ate, when she slept and how she dressed, throwing sharp objects at her and monitoring her text messages and emails, among other things, according to one of the filings.' Mr. Balwani "unequivocally denies that he engaged in any abuse at any time."
(WSJ.com Elizabeth Holmes Might Claim Abusive Relationship in Theranos Fraud Trial Tech 28 August 2021 by Sara Randazzo and Christopher Weaver)
Just watched Lady Colin Campbell's latest. She made reference to knowing information about Twat that would make people's hair stand on end, and never come down. I wonder how long we'll have to wait for all the dirt to come out.
In the past, any formal/official documents which could be acutely embarrassing/painful for the living would be embargoed for decades - longer than most people's lifetimes. It's not clear how that would stand up these days.
Cheers@Snarky
Keep up the fan fiction,
Pegmegliar 😉
Brain’ed
Chuck in the towel
Preached the master of foul
Who needs a job anyway
BetterUp and out
Leaving no-one in doubt
His brain suffers
from major delay
@Sandie
That Burger King tweet,
hahaha, perfick 👌
Berazzled
The biggest dream she fosters
Is a trip to the elusive Oscars
But hazza no longer hazit
They’re so far off the mark
Being kept in the dark
But she will make
top billing at the Razzies
I got the impression Lady C was referring to Maggot (re your hair standing on end) not Mole. She said Meghan Markle has had the privilege of them (the press) suppressing the truth about her… I can’t why the suppressed information wouldn’t ever see the light of day….at some point.😋
@Raspberry
We’ve never heard any
more about the superinjunction?
That was way before the latest
shenanigans.
Something’s gotta give!
Harry Who?
A stubborn fool
An easily used tool
He really haz gone too far
No coming back
He’s emptied his sack
The door’s slammed shut
not ajar
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/daniela-elser-prince-harry-makes-biggest-blunder-yet/3Z42NO24EFT4Z5FEFQ2IT5CZXY/
Hazard of Woz
As we await her stagnant breath
To blow life into Lil beth
We wonder about megs
Christmas photo
Will it be black and white
Shining on her, spot light
Or a picture of madam
peddling Toto…
her stagnant breath - To blow life into Lil beth *snigger* 😅
Only just noticed your new profile pic. How apt!! 😁
@Miggy
Bugger Marie Antionette.
“You can never be too rich
or too thin”
According to Wallis Simpson.
Madam is neither rich, nor thin!
Regarding profile pics,
just noticed @Maneki profile.
A rather stern, knowing look
from the Queen at Harry’s
wedding!!
Yes, @Maneki's profile pic of the Queen's stern glance at the pair is priceless.
It says, "There will be trouble ahead" rather that "There may be....."
She knew!
Nah, Miggy, done with songs,
no-one singsalong
apart from @Swampie.
Fergie appears to have waded in...
Titles ALERT ! MEGHAN - HARRY LATEST NEWS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B56ZfdLMPIg
Unfortunately, as the law stands, individuals can't be removed from the line of succession. For either Parliament or Monarch to act unilaterally would be a dangerous echo of the 1640s.
I've no doubt they are guilty of sedition but they'd have to be proved guilty beyond all doubt in order to be convicted - can you see that happening as things stand. No neither can I.
* thinks that the title is vital for her ambitions but cannot see that it's a stumbling block for a political career in the US, besides which she's still married to H so if the Sussex handle were removed she's be Princess Henry, as per Princess Michael. Doubtless she'd call herself `Princess Meghan'.
Archewell is only one removed from Trotters Independent Trading
I've had my avatar for at least 6 months 😂! The photo was a bit dark originally so I made it brighter a few weeks later so as to better capture the Queen's look 😉. Her look says it all 😁. I love your new avatar, little miss liar aka Princess Pinocchio as Piers Morgan calls her🤥.
Well worth a watch, as is a previous one concerning the WE charity.
WHERE DO MEGHAN AND HARRY GET THEIR IDEAS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRuBvKqRWIg
___
That vid was hard to watch. I advise certain people to not go there. It is very triggering.
And I thought the grafitti all over Belfast whether F the Queen or F the Pope were bad. From both sides of the Peace Line... Eeee gads....
This is what I meant when I said upthread how the Dumbarton's are politically dangerous especially to the BRF.
Back in 1968 I saw this on a loo door in the Irish Republic:
`F--- Arkle' presumably from a disgruntled punter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkle
at least he was a horse...;)
Thanks for the link to the Daniela Elser commentary. Excellent.
The red dresses. Hmmm. Picture those two side by side.
Mm's dress was bad enough by itself. Now picture her standing there with her dented tits and extreme tan lines next to Catherine's classy look.
Thankfully, no Harry’s wife on the list. I guess the folks Sunshine Sachs will get a directive from TW to attempt to buy a spot on the list for next year, but I don’t think Forbes would accept her check.
The women who appear on it actually have notable accomplishments other than being good enough in the sack to marry a dumb prince.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqKgq8Gv5gU
He analyzes photos of * with a former friend (from 2016) and gives us more insight into the narcissist move of ghosting.
This link may have already been posted awhile ago but it’s another site that alleges the 6s are spending $$$ like water and rehashes the 40x40 birthday initiative as a complete failure and money loss. Interesting that there has been no follow up on the 26 people who signed on to her birthday initiative.
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog/meghan-markle-and-prince-harrys-struggle-with-their-finances
Interesting that there has been no follow up on the 26 people who signed on to her birthday initiative.
Do you mean the mentors or the women who were offered mentoring? I don't know which would be more embarrassing: Not being able to get 40 of your peers to contribute less than an hour of their time . . . or not being able to get 40 of your fans to sign up for a once-in-a-lifetime thing sponsored by you.
I'm also open to the possibility that it was all a charade. All the famous women just pretended to participate, for PR points. A "Let's not do it and say we did" thing. The public wouldn't be the wiser.
I've noticed that mood has shifted and that the covers, when they mention *, talk about lies, treason, back stabbing, etc. Previously, they showed her as being rebellious and a breath of fresh air.
He mentions the creepy draping of her body over her "friends".
I have always brushed people's arms off me when they do that. I wouldn't allow even my closet family member do it; just my children when they were very little.
Now for sure I will put people who do that on notice!
Bitch and Snitch have told so many lies, nobody accepts a word they say.
There would still be interest in "Archie" if his parents were still working royals. Now that they're just another quasi-Hollywood couple with children, no one cares.
But I agree with you that the lack of interest in "Lili" is so scant as to be insulting. One of the few celebrity accounts I follow on Instagram belongs to a model who just had a baby boy. As is the trend these days, she covers his face with an emoji when she shares photos of him from the front. And as is the case with "Lili," we know almost nothing about him except his birthday and what his parents dressed him in for Halloween. And yet there's more curiosity and general goodwill towards him than "Lili" ever got. And I think it has a lot to do with his parents coming off as decent people.
My point is, people do notice that Lili is being kept from view. Lili is just not trending so the question remains; why is she not trending as Archie was?
I'd say that a *lot* of people don't want to be splattered when the excrement hits the oscillating device.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10291799/Queen-reveals-unseen-photo-cuddling-Philip-five-great-grandchildren.html
And since * thrives on coverage and attention, this win is already starting to bite her in the butt.
Seriously, after the news of her win broke, we've heard nothing more about it. (At least I haven't, but if someone else is still noticing headlines, please correct me!) The case was the last big narrative still connecting her to her working royal days. It kept her halfway interesting. Now that it's over (pending an appeal from ANL, of course), she's in danger of becoming as uninteresting as she has made "Lili."
I've just heard about the win in the context that the law must be amended to deal with people like her who take advantage of the system.
I have a colleague who I have known for about 7 or 8 years now. When she first came to my workplace, she volunteered that she was married and had a two-year-old son. As the years have gone by, though she occasionally mentions her family, and has collected free children’s items we have given away, None of us who work with her have ever seen corroborating evidence that this child, or indeed this family life she speaks of actually exists. Ever. Other library staff frequently bring their children, grand children, and sometimes spouses to the library, for story time or to visit various programs or just to get books. None of us have ever seen our colleague’s child in any capacity, not a single photograph. The child would now be, according to regular maturational standards, in the fourth or fifth grade, and she has stopped speaking about him much. But for quite a few years she would make comments about this child is though he was still a toddler and not actually getting older. According to another colleague, who has contacts at this person’s former place of work, she had a history of telling similar stories about a toddler child of the identical age. She has also claimed to have experienced a number of miscarriages while working for us. I can’t speak for everyone, but a significant number of her colleagues do not believe that the child actually exists, and we are leaning toward the same for the husband and the phantom babies. We can respect that she values privacy for her child, but a library has a more family oriented environment than a typical office, so it’s just odd that even the collies that she is the closest to have never even seen a photograph of her family. Generally, proud mothers are eager to share photos and stories of their child with people they work with, But this particular mother is as tightlipped is if she is in WitSec. Since she has a public facing job and is seen by hundreds of people every day, she isn’t exactly obscure. Yet nobody I know has yet run into This mom out and about in the community with her son, seen them in the neighborhood or Found a teacher or a school mate that knows this little boy. It’s quite unsettling, and it’s the elephant in the room in interactions with her. Years ago, when her child was supposedly little, I asked after him and said she should bring him to a library program sometime, as all of our other library moms had done at some time or other. Now people just don’t ask, because it’s a very awkward situation. Having personal life chitchat off the table means that my interactions with her are pretty much limited to hello and goodbye. I completely understand your desire to separate work and private life, but she has taken it to such an extreme that we smell a rat. I feel like there’s definitely mental issues in play, but she is a very sweet and reliable person, who almost never calls in with a sick child such as is a common occurrence when someone has school age children at home. She does her work competently And is otherwise pleasant and does not act erratic. So, failing any proof of a negative, on the surface at least we take her at her word and pretend that everything is normal. Even The coworker she was closest to and viewed as a mentor feels something is very off, but short of surveilling her and breaking any number Of privacy laws, we can’t prove her motherhood is all a fantasy.
Part 2 of above
I draw a parallel between my colleague’s situations and *. If the woman I know concocted a story about having a baby as A means of getting positive attention and out of a deep seated psychological craving to be a mom, and has found it impossible to extricate herself…I sympathize because she is obviously in pain and needs help. If this is what she’s doing, her motives are not mercenary like *’s. She is not a public figure making money off her fabrication and giving everyone two fingers up as she laughs at us. She has not attempted to subvert the line of succession to an ancestral monarchy. Her pain is a private matter, so we leave it alone. The Suxxits have patented their colossal fibs in a worldwide public forum, so I feel that we—And certainly the crown of Great Britain—Has a right to demand proofs of authenticity & legitimacy as to these children, and to make it known. It is a matter of public trust. And that trust has been completely eroded by their lack of transparency. It’s beyond insulting now, and I cannot believe that the Queen, or the world press Is content with being complicit in playing along with these stupendous lies.
I am amazed that people try to do things like that at work. Don't they realise they have to work with people for years after their lies sometimes?
Lili is just not trending so the question remains; why is she not trending as Archie was?
So much for *'s big dream to have a baby girl for merching. "Lili" would at least be trending if her parents were still working royals.
If what @SwampWoman means is that too many people in media know that both "Archie" and "Lili" don't actually exist and want to avoid having to explain why they helped perpetuate the lie, I agree. The media has backed off when it comes to her, though "Archie" still has a teeny-tiny bit of royal baby momentum.
But if what you mean, LavenderLady, is why the consumers of media don't care much about "Lili," either, then I think that the Harkles themselves are solely to blame. Not just because they're repulsive, but also because they didn't strike while the iron was hot. "Archie's" existence was teased with all those dumb first photos, but we got absolutely nothing to make us feel attached to "Lili." She might as well not exist, which is really ironic!
It's also possible that * wanted to take advantage of merching opportunities immediately. (Remember the story about the subscription service for baby clothes?) But BP might have found a way to keep them from using the Queen's nickname in that way or from dropping it in interviews in order to increase their cred as parents. If so, then I love how they're playing the long game. Not only are they protecting the Queen's beloved childhood name, but they are also hamstringing the Harkles very effectively.
I'd say that a *lot* of people don't want to be splattered when the excrement hits the oscillating device.
____
What people? What excrement? Please clarify.
If what @SwampWoman means is that too many people in media know that both "Archie" and "Lili" don't actually exist and want to avoid having to explain why they helped perpetuate the lie, I agree. The media has backed off when it comes to her, though "Archie" still has a teeny-tiny bit of royal baby momentum.
But if what you mean, LavenderLady, is why the consumers of media don't care much about "Lili," either, then I think that the Harkles themselves are solely to blame. Not just because they're repulsive, but also because they didn't strike while the iron was hot. "Archie's" existence was teased with all those dumb first photos, but we got absolutely nothing to make us feel attached to "Lili." She might as well not exist, which is really ironic!
___
I think by now if the media that detests her knows something they would spill in a way so as not to be sued. Unless they are protected as members of the RF...
As for consumers of media, no one gives a toot because the Dumbarton's have proven over and over what a lying farce their Cali style American life is.
I feel sympathy for your colleague as well. If I worked with someone like that and she did her job well and was pleasant to be around, my main concern would be to spare her embarrassment and shame over what is clearly a painful personal situation. And I'd hope that she'd get some help for herself soon. From your explanations, it's clear that no one at work could reach out without overstepping, which adds another layer of sadness to the story.
In contrast, * doesn't seem to have done any of her jobs well and has not been pleasant to anyone she considers beneath her for years. (She's also hostile to anyone she considers above her.) Her lies have affected the public record and have been damaging to an institution that means a lot to millions of people. What I care about here is mocking her in real time and using her as a case study to spread the word about malignant narcissists.
Unless they are protected as members of the RF...
This seems to be the Harkles' last trump card. The BRF went along with the lie about "Archie" for all ten months of her "pregnancy" and allowed a doll to be presented at Windsor. They have some plausible deniability where "Lili" is concerned, as that whole fiasco unfolded in California. But if the truth about "Archie" ever came out, there would be a lot of anger directed at the BRF and particularly at the next King. And we all know how touchy Prince Charles is about his reputation.
If the truth ever came out, the BRF would have far more to lose than the morally, socially and possibly financially bankrupt Harkles.
Re: your coworker.
Weird! Those are the women who buy those realistic fake baby dolls and say they are "doll collectors" Ha! Quess who is just as cray cray? LOL.
Yup!
We all have had our suspicions almost from the beginning, but I feel like we got the definitive answer just a couple of years ago when one evening as staff where leaving, my supervisor was chatting with this colleague, who was telling a story About her son, I think it was about his Halloween costume or some thing like that. And my boss said, as normal people do in that situation, “Oh, do you have a picture? I’d love to see that.” Put on the spot, our friend got her phone out—Yes, a late model smart phone such as most people have got—And proceeded to spend several minutes scrolling through her pictures. As the second ticked by, She apologized and said how weird it was that she couldn’t find those photos! She was sure she taking some—where were they? Must be a phone malfunction, she was going to have to talk to her cell phone provider, etc. etc. It was getting increasingly uncomfortable so my boss finally said, that’s OK, you can show me another time.
I submit that no Millennial mom with an iPhone living in the 21st-century hasn’t got a single photograph on her phone of her only child, the one she mentions with regularity. Case closed as far as I’m concerned, because you know she never did find any pictures to share with us, and by my reckoning her child is now in secondary school. we are all playing along with her delusion because we feel sorry for her, she obviously suffers from depression among other issues, and to confront her might be to shove her into a full on breakdown. Her private fantasy life does not interfere with her capacity to do her job as far as I can see, And if she were bluesy on the job over a ostensible a miscarriage or 3 or four— those may have happened. Fertility issues and wacky hormones make some women do bizarre things. If my feeling is correct, and she’s made up an entire family and continues to prop up the façade, I feel incredibly sorry for her. She has never turned up at work with a fake belly or a reborn or anything of the sort. It’s just words. But stories and assertions without corroborating proof soon wear thin. Has * gotten this through her thick weave yet? Lili is hardly invoked compared to “Arch”—Though over the last few days I’ve had a rush of “Lilibet Diana is six months old!” The magazines crow about This mile stone for the alleged baby, but the photos that accompany it are Inevitably an 18 month old picture of Archie or else of “breast-feeding mommy” in her smooshed boobs Red Harlot Horror. All of The Suxxit PR is so cognitively dissonant—Either or both of them are stark raving insane or else taking the piss to a level never before seen. Some of each? I just marvel that anybody whatsoever in the media is still playing along with this insanity/p*sstaking. They both need to be locked up for our protection. Certainly for OUR mental health. H and $lut Do not suffer from poor mental health so much is inflict it. On a global scale. It’s pretty effing reMARKLEble.
Maybe all we'll see is a basket with four different-colored chicken eggs in it -- one for each member of the family. (Doria will be forgotten again, of course.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSh4jl3GbaE
she claims that Lillibucks is already disqualified from the line of succession and that Charles and Harry still speak regularly up to 2 weeks ago
IMO I also think/believe that the BRF is completely hands-off with Twat and Twit. No communication, no acknowledgement directly, nothing except Beatrice as a life-line for Hazbeen. Wasn't that a faked photograph of the "christening"? The Cambridges keep living their best life with public service; and, Catherine dresses elegantly with clothes that fit her perfectly.
The dented nipples of witch's dress? Poor thing doesn't have a mirror, and surrounds herself with yes people when asked how she looks, or else someone is trashing her on purpose by making her look ridiculous. When dealing with a nasty person like witch, people can be driven to passive aggressive behavior in retaliation. Witch's red dress was a retaliation dress by whoever dressed her.
yes, the media and the BRF are complicit (of course not about the biden thing ha!) The BRF could say, we only found out after the fact with archie, we tried to get her help, we couldnt commit her (its hard to involuntary commit anyone one) and they just fled (or she fled first) so there was nothing we could do. Charles could do the interview as dad, and then talk about the pain of trying all you can and still cant help them. If played right he could get himself about 10 points of popularity.
Enbre- oh that is good chicken eggs - I like it. I am guessing there will be 5 with a due date on the fifth so she can get out of the queen's jubilee for which she wasnt invited. Heck if you have to fake two babies why not three. Go big or go home!
Kate at the Christmas carol was with her family and the Queen lent her some sapphire and diamond earrings that belonged to the Queen mother. Had she played her cards right, * could have had the same. The fur must have been flying in Montecito if she read about Kate.
Not sure whether to believe this but * allegedly revealed her 'true age' in UK court. Allegedly, she is 44, it seems. I know her real age has been a topic of discussion so nothing is impossible.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/386735-meghan-markle-revealed-her-true-age-in-uk-court
Yes, Samantha has said *'s age is the one * says, which is why I'm not sure there's any truth in the article. Wouldn't it be glorious, though, if it was found that she'd lied about her age? What's another lie anyway?
Daily mail has a piece about a previously unseen photo with the queen and prince philip and their great grandchildren. It was in the background at a recent meeting she had. Someone is gonna be flipping in Montecito.
If you zoom in you can see that Charlotte is very young in the photo—which was clearly taken before * and H were married.
As for her “shocking revelations”…I didn’t find anything relevantly, as such. She makes some pretty big assertions via her “very very well-connected source”. Just like Lady C, She’s claiming an impeachable insider knowledge. Frankly, I find her insistence that Charles is still regularly in touch with the SixSh*ts And plans to reinstate them to a senior role once he is King quite ludicrous. All other indications we’ve received are that “Pa” Wants nothing to do with his ginger loser son. Charles is a Scorpio, and a Scorpio is good opinion once lost, is lost forever. HazNowt Has been a headache to his father since he was in short pants. H Was wild, unruly and incorrigible long before $lutbag arrived. This whole Saudi thing might be the final straw. Personally, I think Harry’s been dead to the family since the Oprah interview…That was the final nail really, I think he’s been dead to them at least officially for 2 years, Ever since he ran away and then published his manifesto.
But according to bookworm, Charles’ public froideur is an elaborate blind and he can’t wait to reinstate his traitor kid at his left hand. Presumably because the right hand will be the new Prince of Wales, William.
I give credit to Charles for more intelligence. Loyalty Is the signal virtue Among Royals, and Harry has failed to display any, not to his family, his charities, his former servicemembers, or his country. He’s thrown it all away.
Bookworm’s other big assertion, that Charles and the rest of the royal family by extension is fully aware that Harry’s children don’t actually exist, But keeps them in the line of succession “on paper” for expediency, this I can believe. They must maintain deniability of the truth at all times. "Archie" It’s like a Dumas tale in reverse..in “The Man in the Iron Mask”, The true son of the king and heir to a throne is hidden away in a Dungeon and an imposter put in his place. * is hiding away two counterfeit heirs and they have been accepted as real—At least for public view—by the Royal court. Mr. Dumas would be aghast That situation crazier than one of his novels is unfolding in our modern age when deceptions of this magnitude really shouldn’t be possible.
I hope I live long enough to read all the books that are going to be published about this one day. What a black blot on the annals of British history Maggot will be…And her dumb addled Prince of Nothing and Nowhere. Bookworm refers to them as the Montesh*t show… and I couldn’t agree more.
Hi.
You are correct on her accent, she is from Southern Africa. (She mentioned a Scottish heritage.)
At the moment she is visiting relatives in Canada and perhaps getting a medical procedure(?).
(My information is a bit vague because I tend to listen to her, Lady C and River most nights, on my phone with ear pods in, to help me sleep.)
Just Chattin' - Harry & Meghan - Harry: Quest for Joy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wu-fefDvaU
However, I do believe that TBW really wanted to do that interview, and her and her idiot husband did not care about Prince Phillip in hospital and in the last stage of his life at the time (other people are just things to be used and discarded). There is more than a hint of the victim narrative in this tea, but also some truth.
THERESA LONGO FANS
@BarkJack
The reasons for the ill timed Oprah interview were contractual and in exchange for “help” previously provided by Oprah. Basically, Oprah had them by the balls. This will come out. #megxit
I wouldn't put anything past Oprah. Both O and * are narcs. Causing distress to the BRF at such a sad time, while getting a lot of fuel for it, would have delighted both of them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10296631/Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-release-2021-Christmas-card.html
@Hikari
Hi.
You are correct on her accent, she is from Southern Africa. (She mentioned a Scottish heritage.)
At the moment she is visiting relatives in Canada and perhaps getting a medical procedure(?).
(My information is a bit vague because I tend to listen to her, Lady C and River most nights, on my phone with ear pods in, to help me sleep.)
I do the same thing! The voices soothe me to sleep and I remember nothing from the content in the morning (grin).
I've been listening to Zuby podcasts about personal responsibility. * and husband could have been making content like that, but nooooooo. They've never actually TAKEN personal responsibility.
My recap of any or all of the following:
The tree of life included
A bench included (extra marks if the ridiculous book is also included)
Children definitely hidden in some way (but neither will show a bond with mother, which she will not notice when she chooses which pic to use)
Earth mother (fierce protector and nurturer of family) vibe from her
New designer outfit and lots of 'meaningful' itty bitty jewellery on display
Hint of another pregnancy
He will be barefoot and will have grown more hair where that spreading bald patch is
The card will be followed by lots of PR-generated stories in the media
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/28/the-offensive-meghan-markle-racism-fable/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6s375KHY9AIV-CitBh2L4A5eEAAYASAAEgLsHvD_BwE
You should find the full article here:
https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/post/670155051391680512/thank-you-bizzymommy
They're wearing a lot of green in this one, though there's also a lot of their trademark blue. I think it's a nod to Prince William's commitment to conservation and a hint about what his focus will be when he is King.
___
She has many interesting vids that I have been watching.
I would bet Sue is a member of this blog lol.
This rumour has been swirling for some time on social media.
According to what TBW said in her emails to Jason, she was two years' old when Doria and Thomas split. She then goes on to say that her half siblings were 15 and 17 at the time, which would make her 44. Samantha was actually a couole of months short of her 18th birthday when TBW turned 2.
But there is a birth certificate that states that she was born in 1981, and Samantha would have spilled the beans if she was lying about her age.
Why is this woman incapable of telling the truth about anything? (i.e. the information she gave to Jason to pass on to Scobie included false information) Has she made her half-siblings younger to make them look bad? Why does she lie about stuff that can be checked?
New Palace Confidential ...
so ball is in montecito’s court. i agree i think a tree of life with archie and lilibuck$ feet dangling. from a limb and faces obscured by branches and leaves. wife up front. hubby peaking behind the tree like he snuck in when not invited. posted to an obscure black bakery instagram page.
Hairy toes indeed!
So folks, your opinion:
She lied about her age and is actually 44. Very believable. But, if that is so, what happened to the missing 4 years? Between her finishing school and going to college? Besides, her college graduation date matches with her being 40, not 44.
She lied in the email to Jason. How could 'the smartest person in the room, most highly educated royal ever' make such a mistake like that (4 years is big)? But, a toxic narcissist would not remember correct details about others, and would simply 'adjust' the facts to suit 'her truth', which in this scenario was trashing her siblings and making them look bad. We saw this nasty streak in her during the Oprah interview and in her 'victory' letter.
Did Jason correct the errors before the briefing? If Scobie was given this information (as in the email) and did any kind of basic research, he has known right from the start that she is a liar.
She is a real piece of work, isn't she?
i agree i think a tree of life with archie and lilibuck$ feet dangling. from a limb and faces obscured by branches and leaves. wife up front. hubby peaking behind the tree like he snuck in when not invited. posted to an obscure black bakery instagram page.
Your guess is probably going to come the closest! We'll have dangling feet from a child meant to stand in for "Archie" and a bassinet hanging from another branch meant to suggest the existence of a six-month-old baby. * will be posed front and center like the star of the shoot. Harry will either be peeking from behind, as an afterthought, or shown from the back. It will be another version of the "tree of life" pregnancy shoot in which * obscured everyone's face with her own.
ok what is with the Charles abs Camila card. yes it’s touching he is helping her with her mask but for a christmas card?
I agree that this one is a fail. What an awful photo to pick.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2021
Blind Item #3
Don't believe the hype about how the alliterate one wants some high brow talk show. The truth is she wants to replace the one named talk show host, but only for a few days per month as a guest host which is probably not something the new host, whoever that is, would like.
Maybe I am reading too much into it. On the other hand, maybe others can see symbolism that I have missed!
So there were amused smiles in the congregation when they opened the service sheet to find the Cambridges’ little nod to the royal twosome in California: the Sussex Carol. It was sung just after the Duke of Cambridge had read, from St Luke’s Gospel, that “there was no room for them in the inn”. Oh dear.
https://archive.ph/sY6Jb
This is from CDAN, who is not high on the accuracy scale, but knowing what we know about their work ethic, it sounds right:
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2021
Blind Item #3
Don't believe the hype about how the alliterate one wants some high brow talk show. The truth is she wants to replace the one named talk show host, but only for a few days per month as a guest host which is probably not something the new host, whoever that is, would like.
@Sandie: You are spot on about Meghan not having much of a work ethic. She basically wants to flit in a few times a month to gain narcissistic fuel and keep herself in the public eye. It shows her narcissistic traits of having a huge sense of entitlement that she thinks she deserves "special" treatment and can host only when she wants to. She would want all the best guests that would help her network, leaving the second-tier guests for the person who hosts most of the time. She would also probably demand to be paid the same or more than the host who works most of the show days.
She would be a nightmare to work with.
Camilla Tominey is fuming!
Paywall, but I am sure someone will post the full archived copy soon.
And here it is ...
https://archive.ph/qWX58
Her behaviour just confirms the diagnosis of toxic malignant narc! And you describe it well.
Daily Mail has done some digging and it seems as if the bullying investigation is being buried and sanitized.
A few of those disgruntled ex-employees should write a memoir under a pseudonym!
thanks for that link. It's quite a good column.
John Lenin and Woko Ono. LOL