The stories still keep coming out. Some are true, some we know this can't be right and then there are those somewhere in between. And no definitive end of them either in sight apparently.
Will we find out what happened about the house they allegedly bought and may have sold? Where would they move to next? Montecito was always kind of funny choice for what ever the direction they were trying to move in back then (more towards her having lots of acting options which seemed a lot less likely in that particular geographic spot - farther from centrality of action).
Will we see more pictures of any of the kids?
Is Spotify a lost cause? What about the Netflix venture? Supposedly getting some help to bring Pearl to fruition (thanks to David). Not much about that lately, right?
And book releases? Tom Bower's. And the one to be written by Harry. Tom's will come out but will Harry's?
January can be such a let down kind of month after all the franticness of the holidays and New Year build up.
Chatting to be continued.
General reminder of rules:
Nutty and Mods strive
as much as possible to make this a welcome and friendly blog. Please do
keep in mind that everyone posts with the risk of potential dissent,
criticism, and unpopularity. We depend on Nutties
to keep this place respectful and hopefully fun.
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the
Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off
topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to
the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Anonymous posts are not allowed.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject.
Mods do their best to
ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating
this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families to
care for. If you see overlooked issues, please
feel free to message us so we can address them.
Please get a screen name (not anonymous or unknown) if you do not have one. Other requirements of names: not political or otherwise upsetting/divisive. This is in keeping with the friendly blog.
Instructions:
-Click on your "Unknown" name where you last posted.
-You
should arrive on your profile page where you can then click the "B"
icon; once clicked, you should arrive at the Blogger Info Page.
-Next click the dropdown menu to the left of the "B" icon and click on "Settings" and then click "User Profile."
-Scroll down to "Display Name" and type your name.
-Hit "Save Profile" at the bottom.
-Finally, you can add an image/avatar on this page if you wish; make sure to save any changes if you choose to.
Thank you again for all your patience and support.
Comments
Re: Uncle-comfortable
No apologies needed. That is hilariously witty, naughty and true all rolled into one. Satire at its finest!😂😂😂
https://pixhost.icu/avaxhome/1b/b8/008bb81b.jpg
I don't think the magazine is reliable but they are trying to give this affair story between William and Rose legs
Those insidious and horrid gossip stories surrounding the Cambridge’s are being resurrected by Maggots flying Monkey’s to damage the Cambridge’s relationship and the British monarchy, according to Lady C. She said just because Maggot and Mole aren’t in the media everyday etc, doesn’t mean they are mute from trying to cause more harm and damage. 😟 This I completely agree with.
If he can do that, why can't he do a podcast?
To those interested in the possible sale of the Montecito estate (!) Ms. Sue Hamilton also known as SueMe has a fairly new vid up on that same subject.
Well slap my granny...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10403113/Prince-Charles-ignores-question-Prince-Andrew.html
That video of young Andrew, hate to even say this but Andrew was quite the hot tomato in his youth. And with that title. No wonder the girls were all over him. Ugh. Like the saying goes, 'handsome is as handsome does'.
I feel really bad for his daughters. They seem like solid women and for HM. She's had so much to deal with lately. I feel better when I think she's a pretty tough little lady but still at 95 it has to take it's toll. PA was a selfish lout (as well as Haz) to do this to her.
Looks as if Chas and William are stepping in and good for them! That's a reassurance HM's legacy will continue.
I don't know In Touch magazine but I'd take these affair rumours with a very large pinch of salt. They had to reappear just on Kate's birthday.
I did check the magazine's reliability. Here is an old article from The Atlantic, which seems to be a respected magazine:
'In Touch: "With the magazine relying heavily on Brangelina rumors (almost all of which turned out to be untrue)—and with 19 incorrectly reported pregnancies (Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Eva Longoria) over the 20 months—In Touch's batting average took a hit."2 Oct 2010'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/14/calls-strip-prince-andrew-duke-of-york-title
Thanks for posting the link re: city of York wants to remove PA's title. I failed to post it upthread.
Re Andrew: In one fo the articles about him in either the Times or the Telegraph it was stated that the Queen’s going nuclear on Andrew could serve as a shot across the bow to Harry in advance of the publication of his book.
What are the chances H and * will be allowed to participate in the Platinum Jubilee festivities? I assume they wouldn’t make an appearance on the balcony with the RF, but it would be bad enough to see their smug mugs in Westminster Cathedral for the service of Thanksgiving or even watching any of the parades.
Re Andrew: In one fo the articles about him in either the Times or the Telegraph it was stated that **the Queen’s going nuclear on Andrew could serve as a shot across the bow to Harry in advance of the publication of his book.
___
Oooh this is a delicious thought.
this is a delicious thought.
It is!
_____________________________________
@Magatha—As resident poet here I thought you’d appreciate this verse about the Duke of York from a poster at the Times:
Tony Sutton
27 NOVEMBER, 2019
The Grand Old Duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He also had some little girls
But can't remember them.
He had 10,000 men
He also had some little girls
But can't remember them.
Only they weren’t little girls. Very misleading and incorrect. ☹️🤨
Not at all where they intended to end up.
Thank you for pointing out that they were not little girls. It's too easy to name someone a paedophile. VG was above the age of consent and seems to have been a willing enough participant, to the point that she recruited and even 'trained' other girls.
@Raspberry Ruffle
-----
Yep.
Thank you too for detailing some of V’s background. V was 17 when she met Epstein so at the age of consent there on in and she wasn’t deemed a credible witness for G Maxwell’s case. This case is truly, truly murky. 😟
bigdustup, Boulder, United States, 1 hour ago
If anyone has a right to be mad at Harry and Meghan it's the people of Sussex, who have been left leaderless without their Duke and who are now defenseless against incursions from Hampshire and Kent.
"In May 2009, Giuffre filed a lawsuit as Jane Doe 102 against Epstein and accused Maxwell of recruiting her to a life of being sexually trafficked while she was a minor.[21][46] By late 2009, dozens of Epstein's victims had filed civil lawsuits against him. All suits were settled for undisclosed amounts.[23] In January 2022, unsealed documents revealed that the settlement amount of the 2009 case, entitled Jane Doe No. 102 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, was $500,000 (equivalent to $603,000 in 2020) and other unspecified "valuable consideration."[47]" _______ Wikipedia
Sorry, I can't find the story online.
https://pixhost.icu/avaxhome/b2/b2/008bb2b2.jpg
PA appears to be sleazy. But that's not illegal. Unlikeable, yes.
He may have lied about things related to this case, but he hasn't lied about having children in the LOS when he doesn't have any kids or they're of murky origins. A lot of things that he hasn't lied about. And he hasn't accused the Queen of anything.
The Harkles are very close to, if not over, the treasonous line. They have made monstrous accusations against a head of state...the Queen is a puppet, etc.
They have made monstrous accusations against their former employer, the BRF, which they can't or won't validate.
They appear to have a shady 'charity'.
Many questions about just what kind of visa H is here on and how legal that is.
Extremely shady tracking of dollars which they've been involved with. See Royal Foundation, Travalyst, MWX, etc.
I could go 9n and on.
She's proven to have lied to a court of law.
Sleazy,distasteful, unlikable, yes. Illegal? Sounds like possibly.
I don't know. If PA's behavior is worth yanking his titles, etc., it seems to me that the Harkles are even more worthy of it. PA's been accused of things, he said/she said, nothing proven yet. The Harkles have done things that we've seen with our own eyes and heard with our own ears.
Seems to me that the if PA has to go, so do the Harkles. Even more so.
What on earth do you get for that kind of money? And where on earth do you get to put it if it isn't a cash advance?
Prince Charles and William demanded Andrew's exile: Shamed Duke of York was stripped of titles at crisis summit with Queen in attempt to 'ensure the survival of the Royal Family at all costs' as he faces sex assault lawsuit
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10400375/Prince-Charles-William-demanded-Andrews-exile-Duke-Yorks-crisis-summit-Queen.html
I first saw this on @Scorpiotwentythree's Tumblr. She commented that the clear side Prince William has taken (plus his new authority in the family) must have been why Princess Eugenie was so frosty with the Cambridges last Christmas.
Who could have guessed that Princess Beatrice and Edo would turn out to be the "good" Yorks -- at least in this instance?
Fifi & Snarky
Thank you, glad to be of service😘
Rebecca, Cheers
hope you don’t mind
I’ve reworked it 😉
The Bland old Duke of Rort
Was friends with Ghislaine’s men
He realised, far too late
One must pay for these women
If PA's behavior is worth yanking his titles, etc., it seems to me that the Harkles are even more worthy of it.
You made really good points in your post. Even though one could confidently say in Prince Andrew's case, "If you lie with dogs, you get up with fleas," there's nothing to convict him of there. We can talk all day about him being sleazy and unlikeable; we could make an excellent case for him having poor character and maybe even a narcissist. But nothing he has done was a direct attack on either the Queen or the two future Kings. Nor has he ever messed with the line of succession. If we overlook his personal life, his record of service to the Crown seems to have been decent.
As with the US trial, the return of his patronages to the Queen doesn't seem to me like justice, but "merely" karma.
But from another perspective, it may also be cool-eyed strategy. Prince Charles doesn't need Andrew's troubles overshadowing what looks to be a short reign. And either he or Prince William will need this precedent for when it's (finally) time to do the same to Harry. I can't blame those who are looking at the future for doing what needs to be done in the present.
@Enbreth
I agree, Andrew is an idiot
arrogant, pompous, sleazy.
But he’s never attacked
his family, unlike Harry.
Hopefully the
“Sins of the Father…”
won’t affect the York girls
too much.
They’ve had a pretty good
run so far, most of the
privilege’s, without much work.
Heir Today, Gone…
Andrew and Harry
ex spares to the heir
Lived all their lives
not giving a care
Both of them greedy
without much “up there”
Arrogant, bumptious
so full of hot air
I agree. Andrew is an immensely arrogant, self-entitled, boorish greedy man. Over the years he’s been reported to have had his hand in more shady deals than I dare mention. 🤨Where’s there’s money and freebies to be had his snout is well and truly in the trough, along with his ex wife’s. His own arrogance has got him where he is. All that said it doesn’t make a person guilty. 😟
Andrew has been requested not to use his style of HRH but he’s still The Duke of York etc. He’s in the same position as Mole. Sarah is still allowed to call herself Duchess (until she remarries). I can’t foresee and despite his arrogance I don’t think Andrew will go against his Mother’s wishes. Mole on the other hand doesn’t give 2 flying *£@%$! The Ducal titles need to be revoked, for entirely different reasons they both need to be cast aside and set adrift from the royal family…..properly. ☹️
I love how Hier Today scans! If I still skipped rope, I would chant it while jumping!
Happily for the York girls, I think that even their father's harshest critics will leave them alone. The Princesses may keep the HRH styling, but they don't receive anything from the sovereign grant. That they never got to be working royals may have grated on them for years, but it may ultimately be their saving grace. Now there's no reason to pick on them!
The Queen was RIGHT to axe Prince Andrew for the sake of the monarchy, but more royal dead wood STILL needs the chop if 'The Firm' is to survive in the long-term, Her Majesty's biographer AN WILSON argues…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10404373/The-Queen-RIGHT-axe-Prince-Andrew-sake-monarchy-says-WILSON.html
Andrew has been requested not to use his style of HRH but he’s still The Duke of York etc. He’s in the same position as Mole.
I'm sure this hasn't been lost on the multitude of royal watchers. And I'll bet that the parallels between Andrew and Harry will be emphasized going forward. Every article about the trial will remind us that Andrew was requested not to use the style and that this happened with the Harkles, too. They will forever be linked in people's minds.
It will be more damaging than the original comparison to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. A lot of people still see what Edward and Wallis did as romantic -- and well, Wallis's personal style was pretty classy, despite her own defects of character. If anything, it helped the vulgar and low-rent Harkles.
But a link between the Yorks and the Harkles will be epic. Harry is definitely the new Andrew, though he can't even seem to pull of a single shady deal. And * is the new Sarah. The next time I see a shooting star, I will wish for this foursome to be mentioned together in all trial coverage going forward.
@Enbreth
The Duke and Duchess
of Windsor
were held in contempt,
still are.
If any Nutties have access to the Telegraph online or in the UK a paper copy of the paper, or there is an article on page13 in the Saturday section about why the 6s have 16 bathrooms in their mansion. A good, light-hearted read.
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were held in contempt, still are.
I'm sure they are in the UK, and that the parallel between them and the Harkles resonated very strongly.
But I personally know some Americans, Filipinos, and one Kiwi who mostly see the abdication as romantic and think that Wallis should be a feminist icon.
There will be no ambiguity of this sort if the royal couple whom the Harkles are constantly compared to is the Yorks.
Ruthless Royals: 'Prince Charles worked out the whole idea' of stripping Prince Andrew of titles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raRMDwxeGQI
Enbreth, I was right.
You are taking the piss.
Personally, I don't see a link between the Yorks and the Harkles, let alone H being the new A and * being the new Sarah. The Yorks' behaviour might not have been impeccable, to say the least, but they have not attacked the Queen and the BRF.
This yank thinks maybe they could represent toxic feminism being that both those women firmly planted their husbands balls and self esteem in their handbags. They were more the female versions of pick up artists. Nothing to be admired by IMO.
I do think Wallis was much, much more stylish than * could ever even dream of but all in all they both have been and should be, considered treasonous...
wallis stylish but much worse. he was the king. harry was always second fiddle.
charles is looking good about now or so the palace insiders are telling us (with his permission). decisive, firm. is he trying to score points for when he becomes king? letting people know through back channels it was your idea in a situation like this isn’t necessarily a good thing. the 98 year old queen who was just widowed last year had to cut off her beloved son. her beloved son was stupid in the first place and put her in this position but now it is a bit unseemly to be using any of this for good pr.
wow. i’m a little harsh on Charles. need my morning coffee. 😉
sadly LL some “feminists” think the ultimate female power comes from collecting men’s……. well you know the rest. demonization of a gender to them is a virtue.
Ahhh sooo true! I'm sick to the back teeth of that neo fem BS in my country.
O/T warning
When I was a college freshman (fresh woman?) living in the dorms, a male friend came to my door. He was in my group/crew so I let him in. He threw me on my bed and tried to assault me. I kicked him in the nuts so hard with my Frye Campus boots that he's probably still singing soprano 40 plus years later. Of course he ran off whimpering like the little bitch he was. I never told anyone because I handled it like a boss. That's how I was taught to be a feminist. BUT I always treated decent men like decent men. Big difference between a would be rapist and an honorable man. And it takes a genuine feminist to know the difference.
Sorry back to the topic.
Looks as if the PR team is trying to deflect. It's a piss poor attempt though. No doubt the PA scandal has set yet another precedent. It came to me yesterday that now maybe some bimbo in Vegas wants a payout too-from the other spare. What happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas if there's bank to be made. Harry's probably sweating bullets as well, and those who fund him. Yikes!
This is why royal life is very specific. Step out of line and lose the family reputation and the fortune.
It also is an easy link back to Diana when they were the Fab Four.
The Windsor case was long time ago and wasn't as widely publicized then, less so now compared to all the in our faces publicity about 6 and 6'wife.
You are taking the piss.
I'm sorry that I'm coming across poorly, but my last comment was written without the intent to mock any of the posters here.
Sometimes I get a brainwave of "What if?" and want to follow that train of thought to its conclusion. And a lot of the time, I do my thinking "aloud." Only later do I see whether it was actually a good idea or, as @LavenderLady would say, daft. In this case, there was an idea I wanted to explore, it turned out to be dumb, and now I feel kind of dumb, too. But I wish to assure all the @Nutties that I didn't bring it up to be offensive. I think that if you did a word search of my comments, the most repeated phrase would be: "I wonder." (I haven't used it on this page yet, but on the last page, two of the four times were from me!) It's all part of my thought process.
@Maneki Neko
Personally, I don't see a link between the Yorks and the Harkles, let alone H being the new A and * being the new Sarah. The Yorks' behaviour might not have been impeccable, to say the least, but they have not attacked the Queen and the BRF.
If you'll indulge me further, this is how my thought process went:
The Harkles have been compared to other historical and/or notorious couples before. The comparison to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor happened soon after Megxit and was pretty good; but in my opinion, it didn't get as much traction as it should have. It did at least go further than the comparison to the very first Duke and Duchess of Sussex. (If you look up their story now, the parallels are eyebrow-raising. But during the wedding, it was just seen as shade.) And the comparison that got the least mileage of all was the one between King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Comparisons to non-royal couples included John and Yoko (the most successful), Paul McCartney and Heather Mills (not so effective) and even Alec and Hilary Baldwin (surprisingly went nowhere). Having fed all of these into my "thought processor," I concluded that IF you really wanted to sink the Harkles by comparing them to a couple, then you would need a couple that is royal but that has more immediate impact. The only couple who fit that bill right now are the Yorks.
Also, PR is about perception, so having Harry and Andrew connected in people's minds would be, in my opinion, very detrimental to the Harkles. Especially since the sugar "rebuttal" in 2020 was, "What about Andrew???" (Before that, it was "What about Catherine???") Well, why not use their best "weapon" against them? This is why I can definitely imagine reading more of that in the press going forward. It's surely not the only path royal PR could take, but since Andrew has already been sacrificed, this could hardly bring him lower.
But others seem to be disagreeing with that last thought -- reminding me of @Hikari's observation that this thread can put one in the very distasteful position of having to defend Andrew!
That it would also be unfair to the Yorks only highlights how bad the Harkles are. When * offended the King of Morocco and there were whispers that Andrew was sent to apologize, I thought: "Imagine being so horrible that Prince Andrew had to clean up your mess!" Now I can think: "Imagine being so horrible that it would be unjust to Prince Andrew to be compared with you!")
@LavenderLady
Sorry @Enbre but those friends of yours are daft.
No need to apologize. I hope my explanation clears things up.
charles is looking good about now or so the palace insiders are telling us (with his permission). decisive, firm. is he trying to score points for when he becomes king?
That was my first thought, too! I think that since Prince Charles already gets credit for the idea to "streamline the monarchy" and is known for despising his middle brother, this story is credible. But he'll have to worry about overkill. He's not going to undo decades of a waffling, uncertain image in one go.
Especially not when the question has shifted from "What about Andrew?" to "What about Harry?"
Apparently, `David should still have kept the Crown',` Bertie was a usurper' & Elizabeth wasn't our `rightful' Queen, ignoring of course that she would have been next in line. She'd have ascended the throne only in the 1972 when David died.
I'm sure that person went to her grave still believing that, as the anti-Camilla lot will.
On the other hand, my mother could never forgive the DoW for running away from his duty, leaving poor Bertie with the job. He was only 56 when he died, his health problems undoubtedly related to his responsibilities in the War - he was a heavy smoker, not surprising, given all that stress.
Every generation of the family since George III's kids has had an embarrassing idle, high -living, prince in its ranks (I make it 6 in all) - sometimes it's No 2, sometimes the first born (who does make it to the throne). How will young George and Louis turn out?
enbre. yes. charles should gloat too much. he has his own number 2 problem. perhaps he should have been more stately and suggest the same for his second son.
Thank you. I always comment here in good faith.
I agree with @Snarkyatherbest that the Dollars is the best new nickname for them! It's even vaguer than "Harkles," which I will now stop using. May their GoogleTrends results continue to dip abominably in 2022!
I never meant you are daft just your friends thought processes that Wallis could be an icon of feminism. I'm sorry I came across like that's what I was saying.
It really wasn't nice of me either to call your friends daft but ooh wee, just telling an English person that Wallis is looked at in favor is like insulting someone's mama, rather than the carbuncle she was during that horrific time in British history. As you know I'm a yank but I can get into the spirit of the folks from UK in some cases.
Since I am the queen of the unpopular opinion on this blog let me add I think it's OK to state an opposing view. I try to keep it without emotion but I responded with emotion to your post.
Please don't get discouraged. We all make mistakes. I'm the queen of that as well! Ooof.
I know you meant that about my "friends" (thankfully, not all of them are true friends), but it also seemed an appropriate word to apply to those ideas of mine that aren't the best.
Your reply may have been emotional, but I appreciated that it addressed an idea in what I wrote rather than my supposed intention in writing it. Thank you for that.
The Harkles have been compared to other historical and/or notorious couples before. The comparison to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor happened soon after Megxit and was pretty good; but in my opinion, it didn't get as much traction as it should have.
Over the last few years, which incidentally don't have anything to do with a certain American grifter bulldozing her way into the British royal family, I have become a lot more interested in their history. It started in earnest with The King's Speech, and The Crown has given me more to chew on. I know The Crown has many detractors and does need to be taken as a dramatization of events, not straight fact. But the first two seasons in particular are my favorite as they highlight some incidents from the young Queen's reign which might have been familiar to Britons of a certain age but were largely opaque to Americans. The complexities around the Abdication were one area this series covers well, and spurred by it, I've gone on to view several historical documentaries about that period.
I think for the most part, the majority of Americans view Edward's decision through the lens of 'giving it all up for love'. As Prince of Wales, David apparently was considered a heartthrob, a sort of matinee idol. Personally I can't see it at all, though his clothes were first-rate. I guess he would have represented a dashing Gatsby-esque figure to his contemporaries but they didn't know then what we know now. Bertie and his his brother George were the handsome ones. Wallis was hardly an admirable person, but it seems to me that her dalliance with HRH was a good time that got seriously out of hand, and she never intended for it to lead to marriage. She was careless with her love affairs, but her intent was to make her estranged husband Mr. Simpson, realize that he couldn't live without her, even as they were in the midst of getting divorced, at her instigation. I do think Wallis suffered from some of the same personality disorders that afflict the current American Duchess, but their intents in seducing a Prince were maybe not the same. Wallis loved money, of course, and jewels and the jet-set lifestyle; all of which were hers as David's mistress. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too; she may have dallied with David but she she didn't really want to lose Ernest forever. It'd be like if Smug had screwed Harry in order to win back Trevor . which makes no sense but that's how they think. Then David threatened to kill himself unless Wallis agreed to go through with the marriage. I can't help wondering what would have happened if she'd said, "Well, go on, then", and left. Either way, Elizabeth was going to be Queen because David was impotent, probably sterile. Such were the discussions being held in the halls of power when Elizabeth was still a toddler. Even then, years away from the Abdication, it was well-known that David was going to be a disaster as the monarch, an non-starter in every way that counted. She would have had a chance to be that happy naval wife she began her marriage as, and might have ascended the throne in her 50s instead of at only 25. It's hard to believe, considering his subsequent behavior, that any in his former dominions would have thought he was the true king. He was an accident of birth, and even his own parents believed more in Bertie than in David.
As for Wallis vs. The Creature (which Wallis was herself called, in her time), I think if Wallis had been offered the equivilent of $100 million to walk away from her romance with David, she'd have done it in a heartbeat. It seems that she had at least some conscience since he forced through the marriage with the vilest sort of emotional blackmail. Wallis did not want to go down in history as the notorious Jezebel that caused the suicide of a King. Ironically, that's exactly what she went down as--his death just took longer, that's all.
Harry and David are very, very like. David was not above trying to get tittle-tattle published about his family in exchange for cash, just as Harry is doing. I still think Edward's damage to the monarchy was greater, seeing as he was the sovereign . . with enough support even in self-imposed exile to consider mounting a coup with the aid of Herr Hitler. Surely *that* has got to be more heinous treachery than faking up a couple of kids and peddling the Royal brand for Spotify, Netflix, Proctor and Gamble, and sundry. I'm not exonerating the Harkles in any way, shape or form, but Harry's former importance in the Firm cannot be equated to that of his great-uncle's, even though he might think so in his own mind. As the Firm had a steady pair of hands in Bertie, his Queen and ultimately, their daughter, it has a steady pair of hands waiting in the wings with William and his Queen-to-be. At least, I want to believe that William will get his turn. The way things are going, that's anybody's guess.
Also, PR is about perception, so having Harry and Andrew connected in people's minds would be, in my opinion, very detrimental to the Harkles. Especially since the sugar "rebuttal" in 2020 was, "What about Andrew???" (Before that, it was "What about Catherine???") Well, why not use their best "weapon" against them? This is why I can definitely imagine reading more of that in the press going forward. It's surely not the only path royal PR could take, but since Andrew has already been sacrificed, this could hardly bring him lower.
But others seem to be disagreeing with that last thought -- reminding me of @Hikari's observation that this thread can put one in the very distasteful position of having to defend Andrew!
That it would also be unfair to the Yorks only highlights how bad the Harkles are. When * offended the King of Morocco and there were whispers that Andrew was sent to apologize, I thought: "Imagine being so horrible that Prince Andrew had to clean up your mess!" Now I can think: "Imagine being so horrible that it would be unjust to Prince Andrew to be compared with you!")
Andrew and Harry suffer from the same affliction--that of being born the Spare. In Andrew's case, 12 long years passed between him and Charles, though that huge gap did not affect his position as next in line after his brother. With William and Harry being close enough in age, just two years and a few months apart, they in all senses shared pretty much the identical childhood experiences together. Harry followed his brother to all the same schools and they had the same circle of little playmates and the same outings with Mum, etc. William's private teas with Granny aside, the two boys basically shared everything the same until adolescence. Which is why, I think, Harry is especially jealous of William and bitter about his status in life. I don't think any of the Royals would qualify as rocket scientist material but Harry is particularly deficient. Andy might be pretty dull-witted too, but for a while at least, he had looks and a naval career. What has Harry got that William hasn't already got, and better?
The Yorks have been a disaster, both together and separately, but they were compartmentalizing--they never meant for their misbehavior to splash back on the Queen. The Harkles have made it their mission in life to actively attack a 95-year old monarch, and that is the salient difference between them. The Harkles' motives are worse, in my view.
I believe that Baldwin (PM) played a significant part in David's downfall but was able to use Wallis' divorced status against her. The general view then was that divorcees were scarlet women and entirely unfit to to be a king's consort, regardless of their political views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLetyf2b-s
There's a little joke in it that makes me wonder if Mr. Rosas is a secret Nutty!
Then there was another joke that genuinely got me nervous. I don't think * has enough power to go after Mr. Rosas. (The best she could do was get her sugars to report him for racism -- the only effect of which was to make him produce more and more videos about her, with more and more obvious delight each time.) But here he implied something about a different famous figure which made me fear he was skating on thin ice.
I will have to study the BLG's new video to see what you mean, but do you think that Jesus' status as an immigrant of Hispanic descent might mitigate charges of racism against him? I don't know enough of his bio to know, he might be American-born but his accent is so heavy, he did not learn English as his first language. Other minority racial groups can be racist against one another, of course. The blacks hate the Koreans and everybody hates the Chinese these days. It'd be worse for Jesus if he were an Anglo guy with a Midwestern accent, is what I'm getting at.
His remarks about Harry's tart are getting more pointed, so it's very possible that he's experiencing trolling from Herself or her monkeys. All the vloggers who are onto her have got to have her running scared. I'm just shocked that with her NPD being common currency in the blogosphre that the mainstream media never ever has attributed any of her heinous behavior to mental/personality disorders. She's universally portrayed as the functional one in that marriage, even after she claimed to be suicidal while pregnant. Her demeanor never matches her words so nobody really buys her victim stuff. Her sugars always go for "Meghan, Warrior Princess". Herself is always trying to have it both ways. It's not the suicidal little quivering lip put-upon mommy who is trying to destroy her critics.
The poem about Andrew from the poster at the Times was offered in a spirit of levity. I know PA is not a pedophile. But I also believe he is a reprehensible human being for maintaining a decades-long friendship with two notorious sex traffickers. I hope he ends up in permanent exile from the RF.
Give me back my bodyguards: Prince Harry threatens legal action against the UK Government and demands return of taxpayer-funded security two years after Megxit drama began
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406391/Prince-Harry-says-bodyguards.html
•Lawyers acting for Harry, who stepped down from Royal duties two years ago, wrote 'pre-action protocol' letter to Home Office, indicating they'll seek judicial review if continued security isn't provided by UK
•If the case proceeds, it will lead to a battle in the High Court between Ministers and Prince Harry
Queen is understood to have been made aware of her grandson's action, which is thought to be first time a member of Royal Family has brought a case against Her Majesty's Government
•Harry's decision to instruct his lawyers, Schillings, to threaten legal action against Government could inflame tensions with his family
Etc.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406391/Prince-Harry-says-bodyguards.html
And we thought they'd been quiet for a while. They have to heap more cr@p on the Queen. I wonder why this is surfacing now. Are they living in less salubrious surroundings? The Queen and the BRF can never relax with those two.
https://draft.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3778463271788751650&blogID=6384787764455104958&isPopup=false&page=2
It begins with:
Prince Harry does pick his moments, doesn't he? Just in case the Queen had temporarily forgotten about the nightmare that he and the Duchess of Sussex have visited upon her in recent months, here he is to remind her that, whatever other pressing issues she might have on her plate, it's all about HIM.
What a whining, pathetic bore this man has become.
What an entitled, tedious little ingrate.
Not content with trashing his family, splashing his grievances all over the world's front pages and kicking his 95-year-old granny when she's down, he's now demanding that she – and the British taxpayer – stump up for the privilege.
Full of self-importance and lacking funds is the issue methinks. 🙄
I’ve been listening to Lady C’s latest offering, it sounds dire what’s going on and I want to hope she’s wrong, but as she said herself…..she hasn’t been proved wrong yet with past things she’s written about and said.😟
Please get a name as soon as you can. Unknown comments generally will be deleted. Here is a set of instructions to help you get a name. Hope this helps.
Instructions:
-Click on your "Unknown" name where you last posted.
-You should arrive on your profile page where you can then click the "B" icon; once clicked, you should arrive at the Blogger Info Page.
-Next click the dropdown menu to the left of the "B" icon and click on "Settings" and then click "User Profile."
-Scroll down to "Display Name" and type your name.
-Hit "Save Profile" at the bottom.
-Finally, you can add an image/avatar on this page if you wish; make sure to save any changes if you choose to.
It'd be worse for Jesus if he were an Anglo guy with a Midwestern accent, is what I'm getting at.
Oh, I know what you mean!
It has been about two months since Mr. Rosas shared the tweet that reported him to Amnesty International (!!!), which reads in part: "He is white Hispanic who hates black women and he monetizes his channel by spreading hate speech."
There has definitely been an attempt to shoehorn him into *'s favorite narrative, but his obvious outsider (some might say "minority") status in the English-speaking world (either in the US or the UK) may have indeed protected him.
Maybe River being another kind of minority protects him as well, though for some reason, I don't see the Dollars being equally angry about his videos. Possibly because he believes * was truly pregnant both times.
She's universally portrayed as the functional one in that marriage, even after she claimed to be suicidal while pregnant.
And maybe she is? My impression is that she's practically Harry's handler at this point. He does what she says, goes where she goes, and juggles when she lets him have his balls back for an hour. He doesn't seem to have a sense of purpose or direction of his own.
But I share your surprise that the NPD angle hasn't been explored by the mainstream media yet. I suppose it's because there are too many fellow narcissists in entertainment and media, so it would hit too close to home.
Legal representatives for the Duke said Harry has offered to pay for the police protection himself and that he wants to bring his son Archie and baby daughter Lilibet to visit from the US, but is “unable to return to his home”.
Now, the Duke has requested to pay for police protection himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill.
According to his representatives, Harry is arguing his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed keep the Sussex family safe.
This just seems like a really convenient excuse for not visiting.
@UK-based Nutties
Is it possible for someone to pay for police protection in the UK? To me, it sounds like hiring the police for a private service, which sounds a little wrong.
According to this article in express.co..uk ( https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1516362/prince-harry-showed-face-of-joy-during-oprah-interview-says-body-language-expert-ont ) he lives in USA.
Prince Andrew still has police protection. (I don't think the Queen will ever remove that.) If Harry came back to the UK on his own, would he get police protection, too? Or has his decision to step back from being a "senior" royal mean that he won't?
But deciphering from the above comments....is Harry threatening to sue to get UK Security...that will be paid by him? If so what is the point of this; does he think every other security firm is inept or is this for status only? Or does he/she think that this tenuous connection might help them get information and therefore power over the BRF?
Just very strange.
So this demand for UK Security is for their future "visit." Hmmm....
The income from Netflix and Spotify mustn't be the millions that the 6s told us/were expecting.
This only makes H even more petulant and entitled.
Does he think he's a big target? Who does he think he is? (And seriously, how did he get this way? Is it the bad Spencer blood? Or maybe half that and maybe half Lady *Beth's doing.)
Or is this just HER latest idea to hide the fact that there are no children? "We can't come, because we have no security." (Sad face emoticon)
To my knowledge private security protection is just that, it wouldn’t include the police or royal protection officers, as they are all
Government/UK tax payer funded. The fact it’s reported Mole would pay is farcical, he’s just on another whine-fest! The Express is their UK mouthpiece along with The Guardian newspaper.🙄
I think Andrew”s security will be reviewed going on what I read yesterday. 🥴
It says he is under threat, at the unveiling of the statue, there was a security lapse.
How interesting that we're only hearing about this now . . .
That his security team is inept in the UK because of lack of jurisdiction and security intel.
I'll bet the company he has hired for security isn't too happy that he has so publicly put down the quality of its service.
You are welcome my dear. I also think Mr. Rosas reads this blog. He seems to come up with content very close to our thoughts.
https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1482477713680216065
One of my favorites:
"It’s too dangerous as the real parents of the 2 children won’t allow h snd tw to be in the company of their kids for an extended period of time."
The way the article is written - it is the intel access that Harry wants; his private security teams are not given access to that type of intel.
Surely Scotland Yard knows how much it costs to guard X Number of dignitaries for X days. Write up the quote and present it to Harry and demand pre payment.
Meghan has to be behind this somehow. It has control, control, and more control written all over it. It also gives credence to my theory that as a narcissist, she is using those two children as hostages. “You won’t see them unless you cave in to MY DEMANDS!!!” Perhaps this is a move keep herself in the news and feed her victim narrative. It will also create drama to overshadow the Queen’s jubilee year with a “will they or won’t they” come to the UK storyline.
In late 2021, I saw a couple of articles or blog posts that said Meghan was making outrageous security demands to the palace in order for her and the kids to visit the UK for the jubilee. It sounded like she wanted to be treated like a Head of State instead of a secondary toxic social climber with a title by marriage.
To add to what Humor Me wrote, check more out more info from Town and Country magazine , a Sussex mouthpiece here in the US:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prince-harry-says-cannot-bring-005600740.html
Headline: Prince Harry Says He Cannot Bring Archie and Lilibet to the UK Without Police Protection
Sub headline: The Prince is seeking a review of decision not to allow him to pay for police protection, which he says is necessary if the family is to return to his home.
By Victoria Murphy January 16, 2022
Since Harry and Meghan stepped back from royal life in early 2020, they have made their home in the U.S. And today it has emerged that they feel they are “unable” to return to the UK unless the police protection they feel is necessary to keep them safe is in place.
A legal representative for the Sussexes issued a statement this evening after newspaper the Mail on Sunday broke the story that the Prince had sought a judicial review of a Home Office decision not to allow him to pay for police protection when in the UK. The statement says that Harry “inherited a security risk at birth, for life,” that his private security team “cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK,” and that without such protection “Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
“Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family,” the statement reads. “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
she is fanning flames of “i’m not safe see all these people threatening me” making him stay to protect her.
or they want the funding for security to be paid to archwell and then they contract the security. themselves. a sort of money laundering thing where they get cash for phantom security.
maybe they owe money to people and feel unsafe
maybe he’s worried that he comes to the UK and the family will all line up and slap him with little louis kicking him in the shins. 😉
this is all very weird. how on earth does he really believe his life is in danger. with dishes and wigs being thrown in montecito everytime there cambridges are in the spotlight i would think the danger is really at home.
or maybe he wants it so he can leave her and is afraid she will stalk him.
help. i need answers!!!😉
@Mel: That's about what it is.
The Duke of Sussex applied for a judicial review of a Home Office decision not to allow him to personally pay for police protection for himself and his family when they are in the UK.
Prince Harry wants to bring his two-year-old son Archie and baby daughter Lilibet to visit from the United States but claims that he and his family are “unable to return to his home” because it is too dangerous, a legal representative said.
This follows an incident in London last summer when his car was chased by photographers as he left a charity event.
The legal representative said that the duke wanted to fund the security himself rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill. It is understood that the Sussexes are keen to return to Britain with their children for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June.
The duke, 37, is arguing that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information. “The UK will always be Prince Harry’s home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in,” the legal representative for the duke said. “With the lack of police protection comes too great a personal risk.
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.”
Lilibet, who is seven months old, has yet to meet her great-grandmother, the Queen, the Prince of Wales and other members of the family. Meghan, 40, has not returned to the UK since March 2020.
The duke briefly returned from Los Angeles last July for the unveiling of the Diana, Princess of Wales memorial statue in the public grounds of Kensington Palace. He also met seriously ill children and young people at a WellChild garden party and afternoon tea in Kew Gardens, west London.
It is understood that the duke’s car was chased by photographers as he left. His mother, Diana, the Princess of Wales, died in a car crash after she was chased by paparazzi in Paris in 1997.
The legal representative added: “Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne, served two tours of combat duty in Afghanistan, and in recent years his family has been subjected to well-documented neo-Nazi and extremist threats. While his role within the institution has changed, his profile as a member of the royal family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.”
The application for a judicial review was filed in September.
Harry and Meghan lost their taxpayer-funded police protection after quitting as senior working royals in 2020. Their website at the time suggested that the Home Office, through the Metropolitan Police, should continue to provide protection for them and Archie.
The couple were forced to disclose that they had put in place “privately funded security arrangements” for their move to the US after Donald Trump, then president, said that his country would not pay for their protection.
The legal representative added: “The duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham. That offer was dismissed.
“He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer. As is widely known, others who have left public office and have an inherent threat risk receive police protection at no cost to them. The goal for Prince Harry has been simple – to ensure the safety of himself and his family while in the UK so his children can know his home country.
“After another attempt at negotiations was also rejected he sought a judicial review in September 2021 to challenge the decision-making behind the security procedures, in the hope that this could be re-evaluated.”
A spokesman for the Sussexes described the Home Office’s decision-making as “unreasonable, opaque and inconsistent” and claimed that it had taken “insufficient account of the duke’s position, undiminished threats and the impact on the UK’s reputation of a senior member of the royal family being harmed on UK soil”.
It is understood that Harry is concerned that his US security team “cannot replicate the standard of security” that he feels he should “receive from the state”. The spokesperson added that “the controversy surrounding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s departure from full-time royal service and the hostility of a range of extremist groups and fixated people makes the environment particularly risky.”
A government spokesman said: “The UK government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our longstanding policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements. To do so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security. It would also not be appropriate to comment on the detail of any legal proceedings.”
S
Snowy Woods
6 HOURS AGO
"The legal representative added: 'Prince Harry inherited a security risk at birth, for life. He remains sixth in line to the throne....'"
Well, surely that's easily fixed; if the poor man could simply be removed from the line of succession and relieved of the burden of his princely status and dukedom and allowed to return to ordinary status as a fully private citizen, presumably those contributory triggers for the threat he perceives would be removed too. All the more reason for the remainder of his monarchical trappings, including place in line of succession, UK dukedom, royal website profile etc, to be mercifully removed for his own sake, so that he no longer has to bear the burden of such dangerous things....
PossiblyNot
5 HOURS AGO
Indeed. It’s too heavy a burden for him to carry, bless him. It’d be a loss for us all, but I think we might just get over it.
J
Joseph Garcia
5 HOURS AGO
In a previous comment I said that should Meghan return to the UK she would be booed and pelted with rotton tomatoes. I stand corrected. It's now both Meghan and Harry would be booed and pelted with rotten tomatoes.
I was too tired to investigate this last night and so far I've heard only the BBC's take on it.
In short, their version is that he's seeking a judicial review of the Home Office decision to give police protection but not allow him to pay for it. He says he doesn't want it paid out of public funds. Yeah, I chuckled at that.
`Jurisdiction'? Presumably he means his private guys wouldn't be permitted to carry arms. I imagine he's afraid of the British police telling tales. S/he wants to be in charge. All very peculiar.
As if we'd be upset if they never set foot here again...
Surely Scotland Yard knows how much it costs to guard X Number of dignitaries for X days. Write up the quote and present it to Harry and demand pre payment.
Part of me wishes that Scotland Yard would call his bluff. Whatever the amount is, I'm sure it's more than he could ever afford.
But the risk of doing this is that they would come anyway, backed by someone wishing to destabilize the BRF (or maybe just Netflix). They'd bring two child actors and maybe a third Moonbump (TM), and would risk boos and rotten tomatoes, in order to turn the Jubilee into another personal circus. Which would later air on Netflix, which they've been future-faking for a year now.
Everyone can see that this is one big ploy and that Harry is lying through his teeth. Let the Dollars miss the Jubilee and make sure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very prominent in all the events and photos.
In short, their version is that he's seeking a judicial review of the Home Office decision to give police protection but not allow him to pay for it. He says he doesn't want it paid out of public funds. Yeah, I chuckled at that.
Wait a minute. He and his "family" will be getting police protection if they go to the UK, but he doesn't want it unless he can pay for it? Mr. Dollar was notorious for never picking up the tab when out with friends and is on the record for grumbling that his father cut him off; since when does he want to pay his own way? And * takes private jets owned by friends and once made a charity pay to fly her and her husband out for five minutes of "work;" since when was she ever happy with paying over getting a freebie?
This is more likely what happened:
@HappyDays
In late 2021, I saw a couple of articles or blog posts that said Meghan was making outrageous security demands to the palace in order for her and the kids to visit the UK for the jubilee. It sounded like she wanted to be treated like a Head of State instead of a secondary toxic social climber with a title by marriage.
I wonder if it would be possible to leak some of those demands.
As presented, none of the story makes sense to me, except the reports that * is making outrageous demands.
It could be a blackmailing ploy to say to the Royal family , you aren’t seeing Lil and Archie unless we get paid for security.
I hardly think the BRF feel deprived of seeing children who don't exist, but let's play anyway!
If I remember correctly, it was @Hikari who said that the BRF should say to them: "We will agree to all your demands once you present us definite evidence that both "Archie" and "Lili" not only exist, but were gestated and birthed by *." I can't remember the actual conditions Hikari laid out, but they were very thorough (almost overkill) and wouldn't leave any doubt that "Archie" and "Lili" are exactly who their parents said they are.
The BRF surely know that the children either don't exist at all or were carried by surrogates while * wore an inflatable belly. Telling the Dollars that this is the condition for everything they want is just an elaborate way of saying no and letting them know exactly why.
And you know, the BRF probably already did say that. Which is why we're now getting a dog-and-pony show about them wanting to pay for police protection. It's the "best" story they can come up with for why they're not going to be there.
The Duo are beneath contempt but yes, we have to imagine scenarios that could exist. 😳😂 If they do exist, I’m not entirely sure how much the royal family might care. I’m positive they’d be concerned for their welfare etc., but I’m certain they aren’t going to get involved in the RPO drama. It could also be an excuse (not suitable protection) for Maggot to stay at home if Mole dares to set foot in Blighty. 🤔🧐😖
It’s all about creating upset and drama (putting it mildly) with Maggot and Mole….topped off with impeccable timing of course! 😳😖
Now VG has vowed to 'destroy' him [A] and leave him penniless. So she's after revenge as well as a fortune,then? She needs to go after all the men she was with or none. She is not doing herself any favours.
What are the chances that Harry will end up going to his grandmother's Jubilee on his own, mumbling about the unfairness to his "family" all the way?
While * would be furious about not getting to create more chaos in person, the Dollars may genuinely need both footage for Netflix and new material for Harry's memoir.
And anyway, * could always fake another very sensitive pregnancy starting right now, so she is as "heavily pregnant" as possible during the Jubiliee. If she does that, it will be a toss up whether that will end in a faked miscarriage as well. I think a third fake live child would be really hard to pull off . . . and besides, the BRF are running out of names for her to take.
I personally don’t think either have been invited, I mean why on earth would the royal family want them there and them thinking the UK would too? 🤔🙄😳
If the royal family is so deplorable and awful why do Maggot and Mole want to be around them? They don’t ever see just how contradictory they truly are!
Of course they'll spin it as the family being horrible to them yet again. Anything to spoil it for everyone.
Yea, the topic was discussed last year. 🥴
Smeg named “Most Brilliant British Royal.” Did you know she holds a masters degree in international diplomacy from Northwestern? How brilliant of her to keep that from us for so long.
https://youtube.com/shorts/6Ke1fR1Ze8Q?feature=share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjOBjjtHLlY
harry chased by photographers after the diana event. did this happen? where are the pics? if it did, did someone call the paps so he would feel threatened after an event about his mom who died in a crash (if she did that’s just evil)
they got a lawyer involved. that is a ballsy move if you don’t want to go to the UK. and it’s a costly move. lawyers want money.
these two things have me confused.
maybe the crown is playing with them and invited the family only on the condition they bring both kidswith birth certificates (not photoshopped ones) we will call this the Hikari hypothesis (for which i subscribe) knowing that they would try to find a way not to come. that would be a brilliant move. otherwise just keep the “kids” at home. the brf can now say we invited you and you chose not to attend now bye bye while we enjoy the festivities
fyi. here in the states it is taking roughly 12 weeks to get a passport as covid is slowing down everything unless they already obtained one for lilibuck$ that would be a better excuse. passport delays. 😉
If the 6s can't get a US passport for Lilibuck$, H can apply for a British one. You can apply online in the UK (maybe not abroad) so the excuse of a passport delay mightn't wash 😁
I agree, it's extraordinary how they make claims long after the event and expect us to believe them.
Oh oh oh ho.
For a passport, you need a birth certificate. And that would create a lot of problems for any actor. Someone might want the money for their kid to do a couple of shots here and there but potential passport fraud is a whole different kettle of fish.
So Harry picks the worst time for his gran to start legal crap against her government?
What a buffoon... he's lost the plot.
also:
Best DM comment on security hoo haw:
DNA.jab, Manchester, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago
"In a nutshell, its costing a fortune and she doesnt like it"
Yup. She's driving the crazy train. No doubt about it.
And a random thought,
So they are receiving threats from neo Nazi's and other extremists? Hmmm I would love to know what other extremists. I have my theories but won't go into it again.
Another random thought on her Master's degree in International Diplomacy:
Right. Because she's such a brilliant diplomat. Guffawing as I type that... :D :D :D ROTFLMAO!!
Neil Sean says that Hairy has been phoning his friends in Blighty and telling them that he's homesick.
He got this info directly from one of the friends Hairy called.
I think this is a ploy to make it seem like Hairy is trying to visit because he's homesick, and not because he's trying to attach himself to his family for the Jubilee to boost his marketability.
harry chased by photographers after the diana event. did this happen? where are the pics?
My initial reaction was that it was a made-up story (cut out of the same cloth as the secret wedding three days earlier) to fit the new narrative.
For a passport, you need a birth certificate. And that would create a lot of problems for any actor. Someone might want the money for their kid to do a couple of shots here and there but potential passport fraud is a whole different kettle of fish.
When not a pillow, "Archie" has probably always been played by local actors, first in the UK (Christening photos), then in South Africa, one sketchy time in Canada, and finally in the US. When * was under the aegis of the BRF, I suppose cover ups were easy; but today, it would simply be too "hot" to try something like that in the UK. I imagine even the pushiest stage parents in Britain would find that a force greater than ambition is the national loathing of *.
And if she contracted a child actor from elsewhere in the EU, who would have to travel to London for this "gig" . . . well, he might never land another role again. His face would be too recognizable after that. And no one would be too fooled by the inevitable damage control of headlines like, "Irish family delighted to learn that their son is a dead ringer for Fauxrchie!"
the Handbag's latest legal jab at his family is "pay (us) to play (with the grandkids)."
To which the perfect rebuttal is: "What grandkids?"
By not showing their faces, they can use the excuse that it's too dangerous. I'm sure the Queen has invited them to the Jubilee because she knows the optics of excluding them.
I think this is it in a nutshell. The Queen will invite them, as they are still family. But as much as they want to go (Harry because he might truly miss his home and family; * because she wants to give the British people the finger one more time, in their own homeland), they know that too many of their lies will be exposed if they do. So their solution is . . . to tell another lie! And this time, they're starting early.
Within the next few weeks, I think we'll hear of a security breach in Montecito which will seem to justify Harry's fears. It will be as genuine as the break-in in *'s apartment when thy were still dating.
We don't know what will happen with the pandemic but if the 6s have used child actors - a big 'if' IMO - does anyone think parents would 'loan' their child and let him travel during these covid times? Nothing, however, surprises us anymore with those two.
Maybe it is her plan all along - the ultimate overshadow by unveiling the live Lilibutt in London during the Queen's Jubilee.
I'm sure she has feverish dreams of this. But she'd be really happy if a new celebrity friend hosted a huge birthday bash for Lilibucks and a bunch of other age-appropriate celebrity offspring.
Unfortunately for her, the Fosters, who actually have a new baby, don't seem to be giving her the time of day any longer. Heidi Klum might still be playing ball, but her own children are already in their teens.
It is a big IF. Perhaps you're right that she has already tried looking for a child outside the UK and realized it would be harder (or more expensive) than the plan is worth. So she's resorting to the story of a security risk to stay behind.
Much better to stick with the American child actors in California. I wonder if she's watching birthday party episodes of Keeping Up with the Kardashians for inspiration for Lilibucks'birthday bash.
But there are flights to get to the UK passport control. Lots of opportunities for an general public person to snap a candid of who should be present or isn't which could blow holes in plans. Unless they all flew private.
But once at passport, there are more than just TSA or passport people around who have a legal right to be passing through as well. None of them can be tossed to the ground and be made to sign an NDA before they can get up and move on.
I could see the idea of everyone of them on a different flight but the difficulty would be if there was some sort of a hiccup where the person with one or both kids didn't handle it well enough to suit her or it created problems for her.
If she did decide to pull something off, the whole thing would be a stress induced nightmare of potential bombs bursting the whole time.
None of their security could pack heat on the plane. Just US Marshall and TSA types so that would be where the security would start to fall apart (hint: to UK for where to start adding numbers).
As for the idea of some "incident" in CA ... that might be more difficult to pull off than before. CC and Ring were not as big back then as they are now. My guess is that with all the big (well publicized) crimes happening in LA, whom ever did not have cameras before now has them or they are in line to get them this week. Some crimes fall apart because there is no evidence in the film. And then there are questions of whether or not charges being brought up.
as for breach in montecito i’m going with another pap walk. perhaps the mrs could put on her best scared face when pushing a stroller near the house. don’t need a kid just the old archie doll and lots of blankets. sell the pics. ? is does the hubby l know she sets it up
i’m so curricula since lawyers are now involved
the story in the Star about them owing $480k to the credit card companies is posted in this thread over at CDAN:
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/01/blind-item-2_16.html#disqus_thread
Maybe it is her plan all along - the ultimate overshadow by unveiling the live Lilibutt in London during the Queen's Jubilee. It wouldn't surprise me - these two grifters are missing the self-awareness gene.
I totally agree.
Harry's Legal TANTRUM Is Plan To SMEAR The Queen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD1C8ulZjTw
She never presented her firstborn to the American embassy to register him as an American citizen born abroad. Wouldn’t that have been fantastic photo op? Something just hers that Catherine could not replicate? Really ODD that she never did so, if one believes she actually had a baby. River, God bless him—so chivalrous. More likely that he is just choosing to stay out of the Harkles sordid procreation drama.
She has painted herself into a corner. She can’t possibly control the images in England or import her little actors. But a “security breach” at Mudslide Manor will be useful on 2 fronts: it will be a convenient cover for dumping the property and selling the “We are in too much danger” tale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD1C8ulZjTw
The link (with the comments) below is one of BLG’s older videos showing Harry and Catherine’s relationship before Maggot arrived on the scene. 😳
https://youtu.be/-gtkrirlacQ
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10408827/Backlash-Prince-Harrys-legal-threat-ministers-row-security.html
With this latest rage at Her Majesty, The Queen, I shall now refer to Mr. Dollar as Mr. Glassbowl.
I was going to comment and say why hasn’t Mole been sectioned? He’s clearly off the charts barking! 😳
The Dollars seem to be attempting some chess moves with this ‘request’. I agree with the comment below taken from the daily mail today (other than a reference to Dollar dude being cunning, that’s far too complimentary). What do fellow Nutties think about this idea?
Pondering, UK, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Royal protection officers, with all their security intelligence, in this country do not operate a pay as you go service. Harry has offered to pay but he knows there's nothing for sale so that's a red herring. He wants his status revised to qualify for RPO's which he would not pay for because it's not for sale to private citizens. If he gets it here it would qualify him for same in all commonwealth countries and maybe for paid for protection in the US. He's a cunning so and so who I suspect is running out of his own money.
ReplyNew Comment
3
He absolutely nails it!
I love the comments on TBG's videos. So entertaining!
@Rebecca
I am unsure whether they will attend the Jubilee or not. However, I am positive if they do * will bulldoze her way to the front at Westminster just like they ran through the chairs before to get in front.
Beibg stripped of their RPOs still rankles because having Royal protection really meant they were Somebodies in their minds. Plus the taxpayers were footing the bill.
Numpties like Whac a Mole were the reason revolutions were fought. He is every bit as odious as his wife. Worse really because his family and the traditions to which he was born should have meant more to him than to her. It’s too bad he was ever born, frankly.
HazNowt may be stupid enough to think his “suggestion” would be accepted…but supposing that he knows how outlandish his demand is, they are making this big show in the knowledge that it’s futile—but that gets them out of having to produce those kids.
There was a story planted a coupe weeks ago about the Harkles not liking their Mansion and looking for a new place to live (in Montecieto). Maybe they are broke and are considering moving back to the UK and want their free security aka entourage?
Many believed those zillion dollar paychecks were all PR and little substance/reality. perhaps theyve blown thru JH’s money ?
When I look at his arrogant claims as to why he has to have it I giggle.
He claims he’s an internationally protected person. seems to me the average person living in NYC, London, or any major city is at huge risk and doesnt have the gated mansions/ houses that the Harkles have.
They are no longer working members of the BRF, so I’d vote no free security. plus with those zillion dollar deals, why does he need Granny to pay for his luxuries ? he certainly is the eptiome of entitled!
@Hikari
Yes, I think Harry is definitely trying to create leverage for their ridiculous smoke and mirrors circus they are running.
Playing these games like Russian Roulette
Now that the chips are down
Are they still gonna bet?
Desperately trying to rattle the Crown.
Dollar chick does not care
She has far less to lose
than the brother
of the heir
Dollar chick just wants
to her value added
Her schtick is so classic
Obvs only money has mattered
But dollar dude
Led by his * and ego
Keeps regressing further
A puppet
in his own shit show
Amongst moves we hear about
And actions we see
When ‘reality aligns’
Will the bairns we see?
“… dollar dude
Led by his * and ego
Keeps regressing further
A puppet
in his own shit show”
Haha, thank you!
Cheers @OCGal
Full disclaimer: I ain’t no Magatha Mistee, nor could anyone be, just having fun
Have any Nutties read any of the comments on the BLG’s videos? Maggot’s delusional flying monkey’s are disturbing to say the least! Plus they clearly have far too much time on their hands!
By the time I watch Mr. Rosas's videos, the flying monkey comments have been downvoted into oblivion. I never get to read them!
On the downside, this means I don't get a clear view of how popular the Dollar remain. So it's surprising to check out neutral gossip accounts (like @Deuxmoix on Instagram) and see that William vs. Harry polls can still be 55/45% -- or that a significant number of people actually believe Harry's latest sob story about security.
Mr. Dollar, when he lived under the auspices of the BRF, must have had regular psychiatrist visits, had his medicine regulated, and said Rx checked regularly for effectiveness.
This is an angle I hadn't considered. What if Harry's relative stability in both the military and his life as a working royal were due not just to the highly structured lifestyle, but also to regular therapy sessions and prescription medication? He is awfully erratic now, and while it's fair for us to hold him to account as an adult, mental illness may also be a big factor. In this case, * is even more evil than we thought. (How does she manage to raise the bar every month?)
I believe the odious pair will attend the Platinum Jubilee come hell or high water. They need the exposure to juice their marketing power (such as it is) in the States. The service at Westminster will surely be filmed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if * wore another attention getting frock and bulldozed her way to the front of the Royal queue leaving the Abbey.
Yesterday we speculated that Harry's whining over security was part of a longer ploy to have an excuse not to go. Perhaps we gave him too much credit? If he himself isn't a narc, then his ugly wife's narcissism is rubbing off on him. The only purpose behind his latest tantrum is to grab attention for himself, to make others look as bad as possible , and to create a disturbance where there was formerly order. And then, no matter how this turns out, he will get disloyal arse back to the UK for all the publicity he feels entitled to grab.
They do need -- I emphasize, need -- to be at the Jubilee, for a variety of reasons. First, probably to fulfill a promise to Netflix. (I think Spotify has either written them off or settled quietly with them.) Second, to resurrect their dying "royal" cred. Third, to merch. Fourth, to make Prince William and Catherine as miserable as possible.
I don't know how the BRF want to play this. If the Dollars do make it to the UK, even people who don't care for royal news will be watching. It will be a trainwreck in slow motion. We won't be able to avert our eyes. Even if they manage to be completely well behaved, they will steal the show.
One would hope that the BRF would draw the line against having child actors on the balcony. But hey, they were already complicit in covering up the ten-month Moonbump-cy and are happy to lie about the line of succession. So who knows?
Security!
Harry’s out of bed, Again!
Threatening the British Government
Not a clevr move, cupid stunt
Demanding rights to
Royal protection
Loss of which
he caused by defection
Desperate to appease
Netflix/Spot
With that all important
balcony shot
Forgot to mention
pleasing Thot…
‘This is a very bitter unhappy person who wants to get revenge on the Royal Family’ says commentator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM3nZczKw1Q
Patrick Christys: The British public would be happy if Prince Harry never set foot in the UK again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kcDXJwvBEM
Andrew lost all his patronages and positions. The dastardly duo not only kept theirs for a year, but retained some, like the lucrative connection with the Invictus Games. They wasted an entire year, culminating in the Oprah whinefest of lies, instead of building on that fantastic platform.
Andrew lives in Crown property in Windsor Great Park. He has a lease but also spent a couple of million on refurbishments. He also gets the benefit of security since Windsor Castle is a royal residence, but always had to pay for his own personal security when he was not doing royal engagements. The dastardly duo could have had the same arrangement, but chose to live in America and buy expensive property there.
Andrew is the Queens's son and has served the Crown for his entire life, including fighting in a war, actually flying helicopters. Even his tacky ex-wife served for much longer than the Montecito Madam, who is not even a British citizen.
What I have not seen covered in the media is that the Queen has very high standards for and an exceptional definition of service. She can do nothing about how government behaves, but she can be active in managing her family. She has the right to fire those who do not align themselves with her reign. That she takes so long to act is simply because of her tolerance and Christian values of kindness and forgiveness rather than because of anyone being her favourite.
I am wondering what was happening last September that the former prince decided that he could threaten to sue the British government.
A lot of people, including TBLG, are blaming him, but she has been so successful in tapping into his weaknesses and fears, and completely isolating him from family, friends, structure, every support system and guide he had. Most evil is the stirring up of issues and grief around his mother. The nasty part of me feels that her failures and humiliation have not been enough. As for him, even if he escapes from her, he is forever broken. He will be lucky if he can heal the broken relationships with family who have always loved him and cared for him.
Lastly, may they never get that precious meeting and photo op between the Queen and the namesake child, or anyone else in his family (what about father, brother, sister-in-law, niece, nephews?).
Thanks sooo much for the Patrick Christy clip. It's sublime lol. It should be a Public Service Announcement in your country and mine 😉
I had that very same thought while watching it. It should be spread far & wide! 😊
Scobie is busy busy busy making comparisons with Andrew, but that is a deflection rather than a valid argument.
Is he still one of their lackeys or is this covert revenge on his part? I agree that a comparison isn't a valid argument (and is actually unfair to the Yorks!), but for reasons stated above, the last think the Dollars want is for their brand to be linked to Prince Andrew and Sarah. Even if it is just to contrast them all the time. (What they would like, I'm 100% certain, is for their brand to be linked with the Cambridges.)
What I have not seen covered in the media is that the Queen has very high standards for and an exceptional definition of service. She can do nothing about how government behaves, but she can be active in managing her family. She has the right to fire those who do not align themselves with her reign. That she takes so long to act is simply because of her tolerance and Christian values of kindness and forgiveness rather than because of anyone being her favourite.
This is an angle that is not just charitable to the Queen, but also a fair assessment. A lot of people who wanted Andrew to get his comeuppance immediately dealt with the delayed gratification by grumbling that the Queen would always protect her "favorite." I'm reminded of the meme that you can't have a family reunion during a holiday without starting World War III with Uncle Bob or Aunt Helen over politics -- and of the quick-fix Millennial/Zoomer solution of going NC or LC (no contact or low contact) with family members. While this is certainly the right strategy if a family member is a narcissist, I think that politics or hot-button issues in the news are poor reasons to be estranged from family. The Queen didn't let the controversies of 2021 push her into a knee-jerk decision, and I think that is a big factor in why Andrew's (seemingly) belated punishment feels so satisfying.
And speaking of family . . .
Lastly, may they never get that precious meeting and photo op between the Queen and the namesake child, or anyone else in his family (what about father, brother, sister-in-law, niece, nephews?).
You know what would actually grab a ton of headlines? A reunion between Thomas Markle and *, in which Thomas finally gets to meet his son-in-law. (His grandchildren, too, of course, assuming that they exist. And it would be easier to hire child actors for a photo-op with Thomas than it would to hire them for a photo-op with any member of the BRF.) But as media-hungry as * is, it would infuriate her to reunite with the father who worked hard to send her to a good school and made her feel good about being biracial. The only thing that will please her is a reunion with a family that she claims is full of racist members that made her cry.
I found their house in CA, the address and one website has it listed for $16,0000 and that is has been on the market for 146 days. The listing still says active. So if they were not trying to sell it, the listing would be taken down. I know it is their house because I compared the aerial shots that paps have taken, it is the same swing set, pool, tennis courts. All of it.
January 17, 2022 at 4:05 PM
___
Do you have links?
Ellen may have advised them to house flip, but being $450,000 (let's round it up to half a mil, $500,000) in debt says they are living far above their means. They can only retain lawyers as long as they have the funds to do so.
As I said before, Mrs. Glassbowl has never set down roots. Mr. Glassbowl has no idea how to live in the real world.
Together, they will take each other down.
It's a lot of sword rattling coming from the Glassbowls.
Meghan's friend Omid Scobie puts the boot in over Prince Andrew: Journalist compares how Duke of York kept his titles until the Queen's 'hand was finally forced'... while Prince Harry was 'stripped of privilege' after Megxit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10410623/Meghans-friend-Omid-Scobie-puts-boot-Prince-Andrew.html#comments
That doesn't mean I am rootless, or irresponsible. It means that I don't want to pollute the environment by squatting in a house miles from work and putting out gas fumes while stuck in traffic every day.
But he told Oprah that they were informed suddenly in Canada which was 3-4 months later.
So...which story is it?
Good.
Some posters are simply giving their opinion on that question. Given Mrs. Dollar’s proven instability and Mr. Dollar’s complete lack of life experience, I vote with the others in thinking those two never bought a palatial mansion, ever. My opinion doesn’t throw shade on your choice to be a homeowner — or not — in any way.
The Pay-Per-View Prince
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2022/01/17/the-pay-per-view-prince/
No, they weren't. The Harkles quit. In a huff. Hurled insults as they left, and continue to do so.
They were even given *a year* grace period to decide if they wanted to stay gone or come back. (Who gets that after they quit their job???? And after they've hurled non-stop insults at their former firm?)
And they got to keep their non-royal patronages.
Thanks for your kind words.
I just think that the terms "rootless" and "irresponsible" are bandied a lot around here and the fact that * wasn't a property owner was used as proof of that.
Just because one isn't suburban, doesn't mean one isn't a responsible adult. Maybe more so, as one has decided to be less wasteful.
yes i’m full of theories 😉
That * is burning Harry's bridges with the public the same way she did with his family? I think so because I don't think Harry is smart enough for these Machiavellian schemes.
Re: owning a house
Like you, I would choose to rent a place that will let me walk to work over owning a house that would force me to use a car to get to work. Traffic is really bad where I live, public transportation can be a nightmare, and parking fees are unreasonable. There's also the environmental factor to consider.
Like a lot of people, you and I have thought about our options and made a decision that we're happy to stick to. But I also think this is a generational thing. The cultural shift that makes our lifestyle look equally respectable to the traditional model of owning property is still happening.
I know ,many older people who live in the downtown core and are happy to pay rent for the ability to be easily involved in the cultural aspects of the city as well.
I chose this area because my favourite bookstore is one block, the university and its library, 4 blocks, the area where the music festivals are held in the summer, 10 blocks, and my job, 3 blocks. There is a taxi stand 2 blocks away.
I know all the merchants in the area, taxi drivers and the bus drivers and police as well. They all wave to me when I walk by. I patronize all the shops in my area and have done so even throughout the lockdown. I made sure I bought from them regularly, even when I didn't need or even want anything from their shops, because my life wouldn't be as good if they were gone one day.
Is that putting down "roots" in one's community or not?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-complains-to-bbc-over-claim-she-misled-privacy-case-vj8mj25xj
https://archive.fo/YSfqN#selection-735.0-735.58
Reminds me a lot of the Bill Clinton “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.