Recently there was an article about how it is unlikely that Harry will return for the Jubilee. The thought was that he would have difficulty looking at his family while knowing what is about to be unleashed against them in the upcoming book.
Other thoughts are that if he did show with the kids (with or without Meghan) that the whole focus would shift to be on them instead of on the long years of work by Her Majesty.
As a side note, think about how different the kingdom has become since her first day on the throne? What has change(s) have you seen?
The security has not resolved so if he does come, what does that say about the future of the lawsuit?
But at the same time, what about that idea that they might be able to come back when Charles takes the throne since the Queen put a kibosh on that return quite decisively?
As always with these things, it is an unnamed source. So how reliable have those sources been in the past? Really. Can you come up with statement(s) which later came true?
As with the can't face them thought, would Charles really be all that willing to accept them back if Camilla is totally trashed in the book? Or he is as well? Would he do this knowing that William would be highly unlikely to allow it to continue (meaning leaving a messy family situation for William)?
By claiming that Charles would be open to it because he is more modern - would that label does that put on the current ruler without actually saying it in print but leaves it in the mind?
Could it be like BLG mentioned, the idea of trying to smear the joy out of the jubilee?
Or a disinformation leak knowing that even it there is some truth to it, the motto of "Never complain, never explain." would continue to allow the idea to be batted about the social media for clicks without a public comment by the Palace.
All of the above or something else?
<b>MODERATION WILL BE ON (sorry)<b>
Comments
The truth about what went down at the Invictis game in Toronto with Mom and Markus present hanging up on * which appeared to be forcing his hand to marry her.
The truth about the kids and their existence.
The truth about the images with the children and Christmas cards.
The truth about the state of the marriage.
Agreement to pay back the British people for her pre-Megxit wardrobe.
Any other ideas, Nutties?
Yes, if Harry did himself in, the grifter wife would be ecstatic to put on widow’s weeds and play the wildly inappropriate, overacted rôle of grieving wealthy sessy widow to her delusional fan club, while trolling for another dupe to marry.
@OCGal:
I don’t think Harry would purposely take himself out, he loves his children and would not leave them without a father, resembling the way he was suddenly left without his mother.
But what concerns me is that because he is married to a profoundly narcissistic woman, Harry is only of value to her as long as he is a useful tool. As long as she can continue to wring benefits for herself out of him, she has a vested interest in protecting him.
However, if Harry becomes less useful to her, or in a worse case scenario, she decides to discard him and set herself on a new path in life, there is little reason for her to protect him from dangerous situations and shady people.
As you wrote, without him, Meghan could play the victim narrative to the hilt. With assistance from Sunshine Sachs, she could easily turn herself into a professional widow. She would be able to milk the royal family for money for the rest of her days while throwing a never-ending pity party that would render her untouchable by her critics and Harry’s family.
No matter who sits on the throne, the royal family wouldn’t dare to even consider the public relations debacle that would result from removing the royal titles from the grieving mother of Harry’s children unless they could somehow say she contributed directly or indirectly to his accidental demise.
Sad times are coming. Inevitable but made so much more tragic by the behaviour of that unspeakable grandson and his woman. Not much hope of the nation being able to scrape them off its collective shoes yet - it'll get worse before it gets better.
Australian actress Rebel Wilson, who hosted the BAFTA 2022 awards, made a shocking jibe at Duke of Sussex Prince Harry and his Meghan Markle's Oprah Winfrey interview.
Rebel Wilson hosted the BAFTA 2022 awards ceremony at the Royal Albert Hall on Sunday night.
The Ghost Rider actress mocked Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's notorious Oprah Winfrey interview, saying it had everything from ‘drama to fantasy’ but ‘unfortunately’ not nominated in the outstanding British Film category at BAFTAs 2022.
The actress, while introducing the nominations, said “From drama to fantasy, Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview had it all.
'Unfortunately, that's not nominated in this category, but some incredible films are.”
😂😂😂
"The Ghost Rider actress mocked Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's notorious Oprah Winfrey interview, saying it had everything from ‘drama to fantasy’ but ‘unfortunately’ not nominated in the outstanding British Film category at BAFTAs 2022."
Oh, I'm so glad she did this! Can we assume that, even though this is a British award show, this is also reflective of Hollywood's opinion of TW?
Re The Queen.
Her diary is being reviewed understandably because of her age and frailties. She is 95 and my personal feeling is, she should’ve scaled back when Philip did. They could’ve had enjoyed their few years final years together as a retired couple. 😍 She’s extremely lucky she’s still as active as she is, and I know The Queen has always said she’d never abdicate, but pride isn’t always a good or great thing. 🥴
@WBBM asked about the recompense for the cost of the 2018 farce
What about the cost of that farce of a wedding estimated at £30M+? That'd be a start.
I thought reimbursement of the cost of the wedding, too. However, where would those funds come from--their finances seem unstable.
I remain convinced his hand was forced to go through with it...related to the scene at the Invictus games when * made her debut in the "husband" shirt and ripped jeans. Ugh. So contrived like everything else * does.
“ You know, I’m not sure anymore the leader and follower are now. I can’t get past the stupendous betrayals Just Harry has made against his family. I’ve come to believe that Harry was always an overindulged fragile and mentally unstable person that the firm has protected and cleaned up for over the years. Without the palace spin we’re seeing the real Harry, in absence of the mental and emotional support he clearly needs to cope as a decent human being.”
“…without him, Meghan could play the victim narrative to the hilt. With assistance from Sunshine Sachs, she could easily turn herself into a professional widow. She would be able to milk the royal family for money for the rest of her days while throwing a never-ending pity party that would render her untouchable by her critics and Harry’s family.
No matter who sits on the throne, the royal family wouldn’t dare to even consider the public relations debacle that would result from removing the royal titles from the grieving mother of Harry’s children unless they could somehow say she contributed directly or indirectly to his accidental demise.”
everyone looks relaxed and comfortable at Commonweath Day ceremony. gee wonder why. go camilla royal purple. she is a bad you know what 😉
sophie in new york. wonder if we could start an internet rumor she was heading to santa barbara. some must be worried she is in the states. and ha on behalf of the monarchy no less. no montecito crew to plant a tree (well rosemary bush) ans they were practically right there. oh the burn.
finally. ok seriously is it ever finally for me 😉. i am convinced the mrs convinced the mr to do the orange but so now the internet breaks with memes of him and not of her. he musta done something to piss her off (well more than usual). glad he wont be there for Philips memorial. would just take away from the event
If THEY try outshine the true royals during the festivities and rewrite the narrative with their incessant victim narrative, they will alienate more people. THEY disgust me.
Absolutely beautiful.
Rebel Wilson’s Harry and Meghan gag tells us all we need to know about how they might be seen today
Rebel Wilson’s joke at the Baftas might have bombed a year ago, but there was only laughter – from some of the woke-ist people on the planet
By Celia Walden
March 14
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in Montecito Palace as Harry and Meghan settled down to watch the 75th British Academy Film Awards with a tub of ethically sourced kale chips on Sunday. After all it was only a few minutes in, as Rebel Wilson announced the winner of the Outstanding British Film Award, that the evening’s host skewered the pair in front of 2.8 million viewers.
“From drama, to horror, to fantasy... Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah had it all,” deadpanned the 42-year-old Australian actress known for her dry sense of humour. “Unfortunately that’s not nominated in this category, but some incredible films are.” The joke alone could have been shrugged off – if only it had bombed.
I know what bombing looks and sounds like. I’ve sat there quietly crying with laughter in enough hotel ballrooms as (usually British) award ceremony hosts who don’t give a damn (think Ricky Gervais or Jack Whitehall) eviscerate some of the stony-faced celebrities sitting just feet away. I’ve heard the collective gasp of disbelief followed by silence, and winced through the awkward, quickly-hushed-up smatterings of laughter that come after. But there were no sharp intakes of breath on Sunday night. No loud tuts, groans of disapproval or boos. There was only unanimous laughter.
When you consider that these are some of the woke-ist characters on the planet, and more importantly Meghan and Harry’s “people”, it tells you all you need to know about what the accepted view is today, almost exactly a year after that interview.
This time last year it was impossible to question a word the Duchess of Sussex said in her prime time whingeathon, let alone call her a drama queen and a fantasist, as Wilson did. And the reaction from the crowd and an industry intent on virtue signalling at every given opportunity makes Sunday night quite a milestone.
Add to this the general reaction I get from people encountered out and about in LA (I have yet to meet one person who will fight her corner there, and that’s in her hometown), and you have to wonder whether the Oprah interview will turn out to be the Duchess of Sussex’s biggest mistake of all.
One LA actress friend summed up the nature of it perfectly. “A-listers in Hollywood actually have a pretty lofty Royal view of how to behave,” she told me at the time. “That means no tell-alls and no airing of dirty laundry in public. Basically, the whole ‘never complain, never explain’ thing. So as soon as Meghan did that interview she excluded herself from the one group she desperately wanted to be a part of.” And inadvertently became one of the Kardashians instead.
Now that they are an accepted part of the ‘comedy narrative’ – that presenters can get an easy laugh sending up – the couple should steel themselves for more jibes to come. But perhaps even this is preferable to the day the jokes stop, and they are not mentioned at all.
Monday, 14 March 2022
Tragic update.
We have been telling you about HMTQ inability to walk, for weeks now. She can stand, yes, to receive visitors. She is experiencing a lot of back pain, limiting her mobility. While in excruciating pain, she is not intent on masking it with heavy painkillers nor does she want to treat it with typical pain relief.
We have been telling our loyal followers this for weeks. We have very sad news update from our Palace source. Obviously since the death of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, HMTQ has felt an immense sense of loss. The stress of the situation and the total embarrassment of Prince Harry's messy situation has literally been the final straw. While she is steadfastly committed to duty and enjoying her Platinum Jubilee year, she is succumbing to her limited mobility and her spirits have not been lifted. For many in The Family and Firm, Harry's defection is downright disgusting. After the "spectacle" wedding and the immense lengths went to welcome them into the fold, the interview the pair gave on Oprah is considered unforgivable and even slanderous by some.
We can exclusively report that HMTQ has no desire to continue rallying beyond her comfort zone. She is frail and she is indifferent to (rather, accepting of) her decline.
Harry is aware of HMTQ situation; wonder if he feels guilty in part? He refuses to return for Service of Thanksgiving for the life of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - and we have been reporting this since January 2022 before our Twitter account was shut down. We knew there were no itinerary plans for him or his family to make the trip. This is correctly being reported as heart-breaking for HMTQ who wants to meet their daughter.
She may be seen in a wheelchair in the coming months but it is not her desire to be seen this way (for reasons unknown). It will be interesting to see her at the Service of Thanksgiving. She may remain seated, she may stand at times.
This update, while sad, is not to say she is giving up, but her will to continue, and thus her health, has been severely altered by horrific events of 2021 that befell her family. God Save the Queen.
Because if he does there will be some hard questions asked about the existence of the invisible children. That the Queen is supposedly so heartbroken about.
I'm not sure that I believe she's heartbroken about them at all. They are mere great grandchildren of which she has several.
Plus, she's always seemed a little on the cold side about that sort of thing. She's never seemed like she's very touchy feely about that stuff.
Disappointed perhaps, but not heartbroken. I really can't see her having much of an interest in those kids at all.
Orange is the New Black
The oranguman
Has to squeeze what he can
Acting the prat once more
Deciding to inflict us
With his pith take on Invictus
The Dutch should get rid of this boor
@WildBoar
Kate in royal blue,
Camilla in ‘royal’ purple.
Colour coded.
*Violent No-regard turning
50 shades of blueberry 😉
*Violet Beauregarde, Willy Wonka
God Save the Queen - I could weep for what those 2 scits have done to her. As for harry coming back, they may welcome him back to save his life, if only to avoid a Black Widow performance from the scum he married.
Perhaps that would be seen through by the likes of the BAFTA crowd anyway.
@Rebecca
“From drama, to horror, to fantasy”
Perfect.
The ‘Doldrums’ have dramatically
been drummed out!
@DesignDoctor
Unfortunately there will be
no recompense for the
deep hurt, heartache,
they’ve caused the Queen.
Shame on them, they disgust me.
God Save the Queen
@Miggy me love
Thanks for the Thomas/Karl Larsen
vid, just watched it.
Shout outs to Lady C, Taz, etc!
(media do read/watch blogs)
Thomas appears to be ailing but,
finally realising what a shyster
cockrache is.
Hope there’s more to come😳
The contrast between the branding of Harry and his wife and the main players in the royal family just leaves me stunned.
Harry and his controller seem to be in a downward spiral. Their thirsty antics as they attempt to garner public attention are not a good look for their “brand.”
Instead, they have turned themselves onto a 24/7 clown show of pretentious faux royal “tours”, high-minded bandwagon statements and endless lawsuits largely fueled by their own inability to get along with pretty much anyone who crosses their path. All of this is punctuated by outright lies and hurled insults at Harry’s family, his homeland, and the institution of the monarchy that provides them with the titles they are tarnishing and abusing that is the now shaky foundation they have built for themselves.
In a relatively short time, they have made themselves objects of derision and the butt of pointed public jokes as evidenced at the recent BAFTA awards. They have apparently not just burned their bridges and sullied their reputation with Harry’s family, but with Hollywood and the corporate brands they covet. Just how damn stupid can two people be?
Meanwhile, the Queen, Harry’s father and his wife, and the Cambridges continue to work as dignified adults dutifully serving their country while paying no attention, at least not in any public form, to the thirsty Sussexes.
Is that the swirling sound of a brand going down the drain I hear coming from Montecito? Yes, I believe so.
It is not a good look for them, but for narcissists like Meghan who collect enemies like some people collect stamps, their worst enemy often turns out to be themselves.
Dollars to Doughnuts
Their rapid descent
Wasn’t her intent
Hoping for much from megxit
She failed to procure
From her red headed boor
The means to finance
their exit…
@Mel
The Queen rarely shows
her feelings.
You don’t have to be
touchy feely to show love.
Behind closed doors,
I think the Queen is a very
loving, caring person.
Agree she will throw herself at men as she sees herself as a femme fatale.
IMO she is very ordinary, not anything special at all. Part of it is that her personality and devious deeds obscure any attractiveness she might possess.
I feel terrible for the Queen, her increasing frailty and what they have done to the Royal Family. It is really despicable. Hope they fade into obscurity. The sooner, the better!
@Magatha
Love, love, love Dollars to Doughnuts. So true!
She is in rage at the audacity her 'low life' sister has shown in dragging her to court. There is no ethical moral compass guiding her as she channels this rage in taking on this case. She wants to finish off Samantha even before the courts discuss the matter. The saddest part is there are too many people willing to do her bidding without questions.
If they are in cahoots as some theorise, that is the father and the two half-sisters, I just don't understand the dynamic at all, at least not in the way it's revealing itself.
It's like the Mrs is the Joker in Batman, it's not the devious mind at the centre as much as there is a web of underlings who do and bring his thoughts to 'fruition' that cause harm. Those deranged people who she inspires are the danger.
Examples:
Direct hit
https://www.insider.com/samantha-markle-twitter-suspended-harassing-meghan-markle-2022-3
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markles-biggest-troll-is-her-half-sister-samantha
Trivializing her lawsuit
https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/2542066/meghan-markle-sister-samantha-lawsuit/
Setting up pained victim profile
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10611911/Meghan-Markles-lawyers-braced-personal-attacks-father-Thomas.html
@Magatha,
Love, love, love Dollars to Doughnuts. So true!
From me, too!
the queen is making me sad. if the theresa longos fan account is correct and she is not taking pain meds perhaps it’s her faith that guides her to suffer as a means of atonement as she makes peace with her life. John Paul II did the same in his later years and was an inspiration to those around him but for him it was a matter of suffering for Christ. never explain never complain.
Vanity Fair notes that 'During this trip, Prince Edward's wife will also attend 100 Women in Finance's First Impressions event as one of the organization's Global Ambassadors, meeting with those aspiring to join the global finance industry.'
Sophie also spoke in New York two and a half years ago :A speech by The Countess of Wessex at the 100 Women in Finance 18th Annual New York Gala. A bit more inspiring than *'s word salad 😉
https://www.royal.uk/speech-countess-wessex-100-women-finance-18th-annual-new-york-gala
Well, Megsy babe, you missed the boat on that one.
Oh.my.G_d! the Nobel Peace Prize for planting flowers once at a preschool.
I applaud this campaign as it will show the world just how crazy and power hungry she is.
I think the Queen should get the Prize before she passes. She has done a lot to improve the world.
these are the people who can nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize
If * can bribe one of these people, it might work, but the nominees are kept secret for 50 years, so she can tell us that she was nominated, and we'll never find out the truth, unless there is a whistle blower or a leak.
What this says about Trotter is that she is bottomless. There is no low that she can sink to, she just keeps doing vile things, and things get viler and viler. There is no bottom to her ugliness and evil. Trotter is truly evil. I don't believe there is any "good" in her at all.
Nominated for a Nobel peace prize... The mind boggles.
Richard Eden tweeted this:
#PrinceHarry and #Meghan's cheerleaders are tweeting me - seriously - suggesting that, next, the couple will be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. #royal
https://tinyurl.com/4uyymkyd
Note the word 'cheerleaders'.
What peace when they antagonised the BRF and soured relations with their respective families, practically declaring war on them?
One of the replies to that tweet was 'I doubt Sunshine Sachs works for the Noble Price Committee…' 🤣🤣
@Sir StinxAlot - did we ever hear the outcome of that case?
From https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace (Thanks GWAH)
50 year secrecy rule
The Committee does not itself announce the names of nominees, neither to the media nor to the candidates themselves. In so far as certain names crop up in the advance speculations as to who will be awarded any given year’s prize, this is either sheer guesswork or information put out by the person or persons behind the nomination.
Information in the Nobel Committee’s nomination database is not made public until after fifty years.
So, guesswork unless there's a deluded qualifying person who doesn't understand the meaning of the word `Peace'.
I hope it's true - another homegrown beauty to put the *'s nose out of joint, and less than half her age too.
-----
So...he's gonna trash everyone in the family but her...and expects her to feel *good* that at least he didn't trash her?
Talk about shallow. Tells you that he has no understanding of this much loved monarch's personality.
Trigger warning: the following contains distressing word salad - reader discretion is advised.
The Duke and Duchess' Archewell foundation confirmed the news via a statement, which read: "As we all continue to tackle the misinformation era, Archewell Audio has found it important to work with our partners at Spotify to ensure that the digital technologies so many of us use every day are rooted in strong principles of trust and safety."
It continued: "We are encouraged by ongoing conversations we've had with Spotify on this shared goal and have been working closely with their team—as well as their senior leadership—towards policies, practices, and strategies meant to raise creator awareness, minimize the spread of misinformation, and support transparency.
. . .
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20220318135746/meghan-markle-spotify-podcast-summer-release/
Friday Singalong 🎤
Apologies:Elvis
Rock-A-Hula Baby
Hullabaloo
When she moved her lips
over Haz’s hips
She thought herself now crowned
And when she’d had her way
He had no say
She had him trussed and tightly bound
Crock a *pula, shock
She loves to diss
and take the piss
He never stood a chance
She holds on tight
with all her might
As haz sways around in a trance
Whack a moula, mock
Crock a baby doula gold mine…
*Currency of Botswana
@WildBoar
She should win the ‘piece’ prize.
Also services rendered to
able/unable seamen deserves
an award, a peddle-ho…
@Ralph
The photos in page six
hahahaha.
In the white dress she looks
like she’s wearing someone
else’s teeth!
The red dress shows the white
bits she forgot to colour!!
Love it!!
@Maneki
Sophie Wessexed megsy baby!!
Does meh realise that rooted
has a different meaning in Oz.
I thought they were in touch
with the Commonwealth.
Misconstrued as safe sex 😳
Furious virtue-signalling in their latest utterance which, being interpreted, means `How could you possibly think we spread porkies & fibs?'
Thanks for the latest offerings 😂. Cut her down to size, that's the only way 😁
Say what you will about Brangelina or Tom and Nicole being real or not, they were true pop culture power couples back in the day. The Harry Meg have never enjoyed that level of interest or frenzy. Infamy yes. Genuine interest in THEM as celebrities, as people we care about, as people who we can't wait to see what they do next? Well. They had 2 years to win us over and they haven't. Nope. They aren't loved but they want us to believe they are feared, hated and attacked and need to be protected at all times. They are all Sunshine Sachs PR fluff. Looking back, I bet they wished they spent their coin on Fluffenutter and not Sunshine Sachs.
"There's speculation abroad in some press quarters that Lady Louise Windsor (Sophie & Edward's daughter, she of the dashing pony equipage at the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral) may be given many of Harry's duties) now she's of age and able to opt for the title of `HRH Princess ...'."
Maybe. But I'd think 18-yr old Louise might go on to earn a university degree. After all, even Will-- the 2nd in line--didn't take on many royal duties at age 18. A search of the court circular, for example, reveals from 2000-2002 (age 18-20) Will did things like attend Golden Jubilee events with his family, attend a service of Thanksgiving for the Queen Mother's birthday, attend the Queen Mother's funeral, and attend an occasional reception with Charles and Harry. Assigning Harry's duties to Louise officially would give her a much heavier burden than Will faced at her age.
I have mixed feelings about Louise taking on royal duties. I think she's a lovely young woman but my feeling is Edward and Sophie have raised their children to not expect to take on royal roles. I don't think she'd ever be a full-time working royal. And while a duty here or there would be fine, she needs to devote her attention and her time to doing things that will matter for the happiness and success of the rest of her life IMO.
There aren't enough royals to do what has been done in the past. Even if Harry hadn't turned out the way he has, Charles & Camilla plus his 2 sons & wives could never do what the Queen's cousins, plus her 4 children and some spouses, plus a few grandchildren and spouses have done. I think it's sad but that's the reality of a "slimmed down" monarchy. And Will does not want to continue ribbon-cuttings and opening libraries. He's said so.
I hope nobody pressures Louise at least.
I agree with you. As lovely as Lady Louise is, and a good a job as I think she would do, I think she should be educated and pursue a vocation that will fulfill her and make her happy. Education can never be taken away from you! I also agree with your assessment that neither she nor her brother were raised with the expectation of fulfilling Royal duties as their main vocation.
@Magatha
Brilliant as always!
The Met Gala has been scheduled for its regular seasonal slot the first week of May. Anyone think Anna Wintour has been deeply impressed by the fashion choices of Mrs. Trotter and Mr. Twit? First the powers have to be impressed by Trotter's and Twit's grooming, which seems to be really iffy.
It had to happen:
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/harry-praises-amazing-efforts-ukrainian-171016269.html
@ Design Doctor: It should be perfectly possible to take some of the load off the other Royals as well as pursue a vocation she might love - how about a degree in Equine studies/science as available at our Land-based Colleges?
Here's one possibility for starters: https://www.duchy.ac.uk/subject-areas/equine/ - I expect she could take her ponies with her.
Obviously being student nurse would be out of the question.
nor was
George VI,
George V,
Victoria,
Mary II,
James II,
Charles I,
Elizabeth I,
Mary I,
Henry VIII...
Other celebrities have concrete amounts.
Theirs is probably pretty chintz if they won't say how much.
Work with = what exactly?
A 5am email? A Zoom saying, good job?
Now all of a sudden we have organizations rushing to thank the Harkles for nebulous amounts. Fishy.
Yes. You are correct things can change. They certainly did for the York princesses. They were raised with the clear expectation they would be working royals. So much for that!
The people you listed who hadn't expected to lead "royal lives" from George VI to Elizabeth II all became monarchs. Lady Louise is currently 16th in the LoS and will only drop farther from the throne as time passes.
So far as I know, none of the younger royals higher up in the LoS than Louise have attended a university while simultaneously taking on royal duties (I don't count going to church, family weddings, and family funerals as "duties.") To carry significant royal duties so early while also engaged in higher ed seems a bit unreasonable for the 16th in line. In effect Louise's education and career would be highjacked to serve the Crown yet the higher in line Cambridge children would likely be allowed to concentrate on THEIR university degrees when the time comes and spend THEIR time exploring the world before going to work.
I have little sympathy for Harry. Less & less by the day. But before he met M he said something in an interview about having only a certain amount of time before William's kids took the stage. I can see H&M could have easily persuaded themselves they could have been out at 55 without owning real estate and with no great wealth in the bank. I'd hate to see Louise not do what she wants now just so other people can do what they want now and in the future. If she did, I could easily see her being at loose ends at 35-40 when the Cambridge kids are in their 20s & ready to be fulltime working royals (assuming they are-- Will wasn't until 35 or so.)
I read Crawfie’s book, and according to her, the distinct possibility that Elizabeth might become the Heiress Presumptive was being discussed by the time she was 3 years old. There was still a chance that the Duke and Duchess of York could produce the sun, but after five more years produce to only another girl, Lilibet’s future of the crown was looking more secure. At that time of course, it was presumed that she would be her uncle’s eventual heir. This was accepted and even approved by her doting grandfather George V.
Edward and Sophie chose a life out of the Royal limelight for their children as much as possible—but they nor indeed anyone could have foreseen how the fortunes of Wessex would change with the implosion of Andrew and Hapless. If those two had remained in position, Edward and Sophie would not have been called upon for the Firm nearly as much as they now must be. The likelihood of Louise or James being offered royal patronages was slim as long as their parents were so far down on the pecking order. Now they have become indispensable to the Queen, And I don’t think Charles will be able to do without them either, as much as that may have been his original plan. Andy and the ginger Twat have scuppered the original plans. I’m sure that neither Wessex child would be forced into any sort of role, but there may be a niche for them if they expressed interest in some of the lower key patronages. I’m sure Louise will definitely finish her education, and prepare for a career but I could see her as at least a part-time helper going forward with a few organizations that are meaningful to her. It is very unlikely that she will opt for the HRH title but even without it, I think organizations would be happy to have her as their patron, Considering how close she was to her late grandfather, and the good relationship she appears to have with both parents. Since Williams children are still so young, Sophie and James are going to be the only Broyles under the age of 60, other than Kate and William, until the little Cambridge’s are of age. I like Louise and hope she will have the future she wants.
I agree with alot of what you wrote. But you also wrote "Since Williams children are still so young, Sophie and James are going to be the only Broyles [royals] under the age of 60, other than Kate and William, until the little Cambridge’s are of age."
Although Sophie and Edward are both currently under 60, from the context of your comment I think you meant to write "Louise" in the passage above, not "Sophie." And in some ways that's a true statement but in other ways it is not.
George will turn 9 this summer. James turned 14 a few months ago. Although James is a royal grandchild and George is a royal great grandchild, only about 5 1/2 years in age separate them. Even Charlotte is about to turn 7 meaning she's less than 7 1/2 years younger than James. So suggesting James is close to the age where he may need to step up and take on royal responsibilities while ALL the Cambridge children are so young doesn't really make sense. But I think many people DO see the Cambridge children as decades away from any royal work (other than balcony appearances.) That's fine but it's odd that Louise and James aren't seen as relatively young too.
Re 6's grooming.
On a TV show today I saw a model sporting the same 90's hairstyle that Trotter is so fond of--two thick hanks of hair in tendril curls on either side of the face and the rest of the hair pulled back. Did not look good on her, either. It is so weirdly out of date!
The public assumed David would marry and have children. Did the family know he "wasn't heir-conditioned" in the words of Wallis--sterile?
Yes, I meant Louise when I accidentally typed her mother. It’s true that James is now the age Harry was when he was newly bereaved of his Mum and began to go off the rails in earnest…definitely a decade at least away from “adult” career concerns. Lady Louise will likely graduate from uni in the next 4 years, presuming she does the traditional gap year. It will be interesting to see what direction she heads in. I think the Wessexes will continue to grow in stature. When her father becomes Duke of Edinburgh, she will be in her mid-20s and could be a resource if they choose to use her. The slate of Edward’s patronages will probably become even fuller then. But I’m sure the two kids will have civilian careers. It’s just nice to think of them being a part of things going forward, in some way.
@Ralph
The public perception of David as the Prince of Wales seemed to be overwhelmingly favorable..he was received everywhere and covered in the press like he was some dazzlingly glamorous film star. With the benefit of knowledge of his subsequent actions and character, I can’t see any glamour at all— just a little, silly weak peevish and emotionally arrested case. His family knew him far better… His father despaired of him and whether or not he was medically sterile, it seems that his parents had resigned themselves to David being a dead branch of the family tree, At least in terms of legitimate heirs, owing to his penchant for only pursuing dalliances with married women. Long before the Abdication, it seems George V recognized the potential in his granddaughter Lilibet. I think behind Palace walls, as David’s temperamental unsuitability for the Job grew more and more apparent, the private hpe, if not the publicly expressed desire was that David would not produce children to keep the way clear for Bertie’s heir(s), eventually. The thought that David would completely refuse to be King had not entered the conversation…But no doubt it should’ve been a consideration. Then perhaps both Bertie and Elizabeth would have been better prepared from their youths for their eventual shared destiny. ER’s great-grandmother Victoria had herself been the dark horse heir—the closest niece of a childless King. It took only three generations for it to happen again so it shouldn’t of been a complete surprise.
Then again if Spencer was up for a best picture award, i could see them pushing to introduce it
https://twitter.com/jiminycriket/status/1504968144779202566
Not very dark. George IV's estranged wife or the then Duchess of Clarence would have had to have died and her fat, old (my age!) husband remarry and beget a legitimate child to supersede her. The childless Duchess of York did die in 1820, but the Duke didn't remarry and died in 1827. James II was able to pull it off, to his downfall, but these three were older and more debauched/decrepit. V's father conveniently died months after she was born, so he couldn't have a son to take precedence.
Thus Louise is no longer a `minor' ie a child in the eyes of the law - even before the change in the law, 18yr olds could legally buy alcohol or drink in a pub. As I understand it, the US may have different views.
....
Sometime back, Nutties may recall, I worked out that, since the Battle of Bosworth (1485) when the last Plantagenet was ousted from the throne by the Henry Tudor, only about half of the Princes of Wales have made it to the throne - there have been a fair number of cases of the Crown going sideways to a younger brother.
I count David as one of the failures because, although briefly king, he was never crowned, even though the commemorative china had been produced (my parents had one of the mugs. Printing the monarch's face on tea-towels would, at that time, probably have been considered deeply disrespectful.
On a TV show today I saw a model sporting the same 90's hairstyle that
Trotter is so fond of--two thick hanks of hair in tendril curls on either side of the face and the rest of the hair pulled back.
* thinks the style is sexy and girlish. It was totally unsuitable for a so-called duchess and still is now they're out of the BRF. * obviously thinks it makes her attractive, not understanding that no amount of hairstyles and makeup can hide her hideous persona.
Did the family know he 'wasn't heir-conditioned' in the words of Wallis--sterile?
I thought David had several unacknowledged illegitimate children?
Then again if Spencer was up for a best picture award, i could see them pushing to introduce it.
One of the nominees is "Belfast." Has anyone seen it? Kenneth Branaugh is the director. (I don't particularly like him.)
Yes, the awards are presented by the previous year's winner in that category. I agree Trotter is projecting.
@Maneki
Agreed. Nothing can cover up such an ugly personality.
Girlish? Ha. She is no spring chicken. That tired, 90s look is not sexy on any one!
You have GOT to listen. If the possibility Lady C moots is true, I forgive all the moon bump excess as playing along. Maybe it was a joke Meghan played on the source years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVqkBEak-eE
Copy and paste in your browser. Listen to all of it.
Thanks for the link. Interesting listening from Lady C.
OMG Lady C. It's titled "Is Meghan Cis Trans or intersex"? What a story that would be.
You have GOT to listen. If the possibility Lady C moots is true, I forgive all the moon bump excess as playing along. Maybe it was a joke Meghan played on the source years ago.
The rumor that * was born male was making the rounds as early as the engagement, IIRC. It was no doubt in response to her b@ll-breaking, aggressive mannish personality. Despite her go-to persona being the "girlish coquette in distress/sex kitten", actually her demeanor and body language are very often masculine in flavor. The barrelling and pushing ahead of everyone. The graceless clomping around in her shoes. The big strides. For all that she's always touching/fiddling with her wig to the point of distraction--a very girlish (insecure) gesture, her squared-off spatulate hands with the double-jointed digits put me right off. Her hands are more masculine than Harry's by far.
I think *'s petite (albeit weirdly elongated in spots/double-jointed, squarish) build does not say 'bio male on hormones'. She's too small and built too much like Doria. There is nearly zero evidence of muscle tone anywhere. Her face is much more angular now, through surgeries and makeup than it was as a child. Her pudgy pre-pubescent frame was definitely that of a female child, though she was always homely as dirt. Some intersex children present as very much one or the other, so * 'might' be, possibly, but I don't see how this could possibly be legitimate common knowledge. Maybe it's just a b*tchy rumor that has unknowingly hit the mark. If * has managed to so successfully obfuscate her actual birth date (possibly) along with her alleged date of college commencement and other tidbits which should be matters of public record, very private medical information wouldn't be in the actual public domain anywhere. And she'd not confide anything that potentially damaging/shameful to her 'brand' to anyone that could get out.
I don't think she's secretly a dude, or was. I could easily believe, though, that she's gay or bisexual. Like many (alleged) sex workers and those who profit off their sexuality by just always wheedling male attention, she may not actually like sex with men or sex at all for its own sake. It's just a commodity that she's monetized like everything else she does. Does anyone doubt that she and Messica Baloney weren't purposely advertising themselves as Up for Whatever with Whomever, a la Menage when they draped themselves all over each other like that in so many photos? She looked way more intimate with Messica than she has ever looked with Hazmat.
I shall watch that video though. Lady C. herself is an intersex person, and has dealt with a lot of pain in her life because of it. Maybe she's got some actual tea . . ?
SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 2022
Blind Item #1
Don't believe the hype. The alliterate one and her ginger pup were not going to present the Best Actress award. It will be presented in the same format it has been for years.
still pretty sure the $ won’t be at the oscars but with all the stuff being put out what will the reason be when they aren’t there. all so strange
The Dollars have been putting out PR that they are going to present the Best Picture award. Hmmm. And not the Best Actress award either. I think the Dollars, if presenting, will be damned with faint applause, and maybe a few boos, and catcalls.
So true! Gone are the days when I wanted to see all the movies nominated for Best Picture before the Academy Awards. Gone are the days when the Oscars had great, funny, hosts and every comment was not about politics or if not, politicized afterwards. Gone are the days when the movies themselves were not so woke but instead were great stories. I miss the good old days of really good films.
@Fifi @Hikari
Totally agree with your assessment that Trotter and Messica have always looked way more into each other and intimate than Trotter has ever looked with the Mister.
For me, something seemingly arbitrary, the awfully ill fitting red dress waved flags of….nope.
The Academy is not above courting controversy for viewers, but would it really indulge Smeg’s Hollywood Princess fantasy at a time when public interest in the self congratulatory wokie insider party is at an all-time low? If the Academy is stupid enough to Markle itself, it’s welcome to go ahead. Rebel Wilson’s roast at the BAFTAs resounded across the Atlantic and that can’t be unrung. Let’s see what excuses she pulls out of her weave when it’s clear she was fantasizing again. Even if she and Harry weren’t already notorious figures, having him appear on stage when a speculative melodrama about his late mother’s fragile emotional state, as played by an American is like cannibaling her memory all over again. Had Harry been a producer, there would be a reason for his presence…But surely it would be a conflict of interest. Keep the popcorn buckets ready, everyone.
I’m fresh from Lady C.’s latest video. I dare say I find the timing quite interesting. I remember reading comments online to the effect that Megan was actually a man at least four years ago. No one with the profile as high as was suggesting any such thing. But now, she feels comfortable devoting an entire 30 minute video to the subject. The “evidence” which she make sure to say many times is only speculation is that according to one of her sources, Smeg allegedly told a friend back in her teens her devastating secret. One of the commentators suggested that this is Lady C.’s discreet way of supporting similar allegations made by Yankee Wally whose channel has been shut down (again). It seems fairly sure that if Smeg had confided in one teenage friend 25 years ago that it wouldn’t have stayed such a well-kept secret. I have assumed all along that she, Harry or both was incapable of having children, hence the subterfuge of two fake pregnancies. But there are lots of more mundane reasons for that. The state of her genitalia and being a money hungry attention-seeker can be exclusive of one another. I admit that it would delight me on some level to find out that Smeg is a hermaphrodite, But it still wouldn’t give her a pass for being an absolutely vile person. Zero sympathy here for either of them and I feel that both of them deserve whatever horrible fate they might have coming.
Lady C. Is very connected, So the fact that she’s put that out there, Along with all it could potentially mean for the line of succession of Great Britain…AND Considering her own personal experience of this condition which means that she would not introducing into the conversation so leave for titillation purposes…Well, we may see the Kraken this year. Lady C. has 138,000 followers on her channel and several Royal books to her credit. She has thrown down a gauntlet; let’s see what the response from the Land of Monteshitto might be.
@Seriously
In all honesty, my WTF moment with those two was the Corpse Bride Wedding. I still can’t believe I got up at four in the morning for that travesty. There has never been a moment of normality since that most bizarre creepy spectacle in the history of Royal weddings.
Well, that could explain why she didn't feel a need to use HM's doctors at any point.
I think you are confusing hermaphrodite with an intersex person.
A hermaphrodite has external genitalia that are ambiguous. That is what Lady C suffered from. The person could be genetically male or female and have characteristics of the genitalia of the other sex. For example, a male who presents with a vagina.
An intersex person has the genetics of one sex, but the outward appearance of the other sex. Because of how we develop as foetuses, where all foetuses are formed as female, and then develop as male, it's exclusively people who are genetically male but appear as female, including external genitalia. Testosterone has no effect on that person, hence the description of being androgen insensitive. Testosterone is what makes the foetus develop the male genitalia. These people also do not have the internal reproductive organs of a female, so no uterus. To the entire world, and to themselves, they appear as female. They might have one or two characteristics of males.
H might be sensitive about having been engaged sexually with someone not entirely female?
Probably some video to go along with that, that he wouldn't want publicized?
Maybe he personally doesn't care about that stuff, but is afraid of what others might think.
Could also explain the looks of despair on his face during his wedding. For some reason he felt trapped at that point. If only in his mind.
I'm sure that if he had come clean to his family about whatever his concerns were, they would have solved it for him.
Even now they would fix it if he wanted them to.
All he would have to do is tell his brother that he wanted out. He would be extracted in a matter of hours, at the most a day.
If Oprah did not invite the Duckarses to the Adele concert, then the Duckarses are not invited to the Oscars. Oprah's phone must be hot from all the calls originating from Monteshiteshow (the second e is silent.) Oprah has a lot of inner reserve for the phonies of the world, even promoting them, but the Duckarses have used up all of Oprah's goodwill and tolerance. If Oprah does indeed bring out the Duckarses as surprise presenters/guests, then Oprah is finished. She will retain all her billions, but she will be finished in power circles. Oprah was told sob stories, and more stories to come, by Mrs. Duckarse, re: the total, obliterating racism of the BRF. Oprah was ready to expose the Royal evil doers. She believed what Mrs. Duckarse said, and what she was going to elaborate on without her staff doing a thorough check of the facts. Oprah got markled.
The Duckarses bought an award from the NAACP. They are attempting to buy an award from the Nobel Prize Committee. How much does anyone think the Duckarses are offering for two seats at the Oscars? Who do they pay? Does Mrs. Duckarse have a gown at the ready? Does Mrs. Duckarse have a hair stylist and a make-up artist on reserve? Or, is she going to style herself with two wigs and LOTS of bronzer? Don't forget your ears this time, Mrs. Duckarse.
Mr. Duckarse has lost any and all of the charm he had before Trotter showed up on the scene. At the NAACP show he was all full of nervous ticks, so much so he's annoying to look at. I'm going to venture that Trotter shames him mercilessly and endlessly about his conduct in public, and he has lost all self-confidence he used to display pre-Trotter.
Can you reframe watching it as `being present at a historic event'? On a par with being at, say, the execution of Charles I? A critical but deeply unpleasant moment? Something to tell one's grandchildren about in the future, assuming one has them?
The Triumphant expression as she came up to the altar (clearly didn't want C to get an iota of attention and diminish her) the `procreation' smirk, the Fly?
Pre-Harvey Weinstein’s disgrace, I hadn’t realized just how easy it is to purchase an Oscar. I won’t be that naïve again. In 1998, which was the last year I can recall watching an entire Oscars broadcast and being invested in the outcome, Weinstein waged a very expensive campaign on a par with a Presidential election to ensure not only a Best Picture win for Shakespeare in Love, but a golden statuette for his ingenue, Gwyneth Paltrow…one of his “muses”. The best supporting actress ask her for Judi Dench who’s turn is Elizabeth I ran to something less than eight minutes of screen time, half of that non-verbal, was icing in the cake. At the time I didn’t know about all of the mass nations, but I felt that it had to have been rigged. Cate Blanchett was robbed for Elizabeth. I saw Shakespeare in love in the theater, and having had some thing of a Shakespeare minor in college, I enjoyed it. It was a charming and frothy romp. But compared with the other film, it’s a little more than Disneyland dinner theater. If the awards themselves can be purchased, I’m sure front row seats and presenting gigs are up for grabs as well. Only, Hollywood does not want that to be common knowledge, and fresh on the heels of buying themselves the NAACP Award, everyone will know why they’re up on that stage if they are there, seeing as neither one of them has any connection to the Hollywood film business or any of the movies under consideration this year. They are both fantasists. But the Oscars broadcast has been hemorrhaging money for years now. They can’t even seem to afford a decent host. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the Academy would accept some “donation” from the Harkles in exchange for a few minutes onstage. They should take the money and then tell Madam two minutes before that she will be presenting Best Animated Short Film instead…just to see what she does.
@Girl
My use of “hermaphrodite” was provocative on purpose…I just like that combination with * in mind. I’m sure the word has been discontinued along with the likes of the R word to describe mentally disabled people. I am aware of the external/internal differences that distinguish intersex, though it seems to me that the word should cover both internal and external conditions. This is a fascinating subject for debate in what actually constitutes “male” and “female”, if someone with XY chromosomes could develop both female sex organs and a feminine appearance. I’m just wondering why this particular rumor about * is gaining traction now, as their 4th anniversary looms. If this does indeed come out as a truth, then there is no way that the two children who have been presented as the heirs of her body and Harry’s together can possibly be legitimate. It would also put paid to that persistent rumor that * gave birth to a child in high school who has subsequently raised by her sister.
It’s the most outlandish slander if it’s false, but if there is truth to it—wow, are we in for a show.
It’s always been my contention that Harry was blackmailed into this marriage. The reason is murky, But I think it’s definitely sexual in nature, and Soho House is behind it. I was leaning more toward orgies with underage boys, or perhaps a death by misadventure of a young lady or man as a result of a sex game gone wrong, and there is proof of this being held over H’s head. There isn’t quite the stigma attached to an intersex liaison that they would’ve been in the 1970s s when Lady C.’s condition Scandalized the aristocracy. I think * would have far more to lose than H if this were made public. After all, she presents entirely as a female and worked incredibly hard to create the image of an alluring
Sex kitten. Harry would only be guilty of falling for a carefully curated ruse. If however it came to light that H had form for sexually harassing Invictus veterans, or male Palace staff or of hiring rent boys, I think that would be more damaging. In the other scenario, Smeg’s is a con artist taking pecuniary advantage of a man allegedly in love. But we knew that already. I think in the end she probably trapped him with a faults pregnancy which she conveniently “lost” after that engagement ring was on her finger. But there is a very good reason why she never allowed herself to be examined by Royal doctors— if she is demonstrably infertile through any number of reasons, take your pick: previous sterilization because she didn’t want to be pregnant due to her acting career; residual effects of past STDs or abortions, or just inability to conceive Which plagues millions of women who are not intersex—The subterfuge of continually getting pregnant or having miscarriages when convenient to achieve her ends would be proved false and therefore not binding on Harry. Even now, he could likely obtain an annulment due to fraud if he were willing to come clean. Whatever she’s got on him must be really bad, because this certainly ain’t love.
I remember distinctly in the engagement interview where they talked about wanting to be the first Royals to adopt children…Rather an interesting point to emphasize in their first appearance together before they were married. Given her age and previous history, she was not coming to the Royals as a traditional bride to say the least, and her age as a first time mother… As far as we know… Would have been a concern. But their haste to mention adoption upfront so quickly tells me that there were issues in this area for them. Well, after the interview was out there it’s probably when they found out that adopted or surrogate children could not be considered in the line of succession or accorded titles. It was quite dizzying how quickly she went from speaking publicly about wanting to be the royal version of Angelina Jolie and adopting many children, to “conceiving” one of the quickest geriatric pregnancies—effortlessly, She’d have us believe, just six or eight weeks after her wedding. Uh huh.
As Lady C. is careful to say, this is only speculation.
I wonder is this is just another instance of Meghan creating a rumor furled by wishful thinking and grandiosity in an attempt to exert control and pressure on the object of her rumor to make it come true.
Two examples pop into mind.
First, does anyone remember the rumor that The Queen had invited Doria to beca guest along with Meghan at Christmas 2017?
As I recall, in the royal family's big effort to make Meghan feel welcome and to blunt her being able to call them a bunch of racists, which she eventually did anyway, was to take the unprecedented step to include her in their family Christmas celebrations even though no other fiancee had been invited to participate in the Royal Family Christmas prior to actually marrying into the family.
This is when Meghan wore the hat that looked like a turd (perhaps a cosmic hit of her true nature) and stuck her tongue out at the press and public outside of church Christmas morning.
The rumor that was floated was that in addition to inviting Meghan, Doria had also been invited to celebrate Christmas with the royal family.
Well, that didn’t happen, did it?
The second instance of a rumor to enhance her image while attempting to pressure the subject of the rumor was the rumor that The Queen was going to throw a birthday party for Meghan during The Quern’s summer break. I believe that was in 2018.
No birthday party happened for Meghan hosted by HMTQ.
I tend to think that the rumor is somehow linked to the Harkles as the source. It is an attempt to manipulate and pressure the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences into lowering itself into asking an aging, D-list mediocre-at-best actress who conned a numpty prince into marriage present a major award at its big annual event.
I hope the Oscars do not stoop so low, but in today’s woke environment, lowering itself into the dregs of the Sussexes just might happen. I just hope the Oscars has at least some standards and keeps the Harkles off a stage they have not earned.
Adele Arthur, New York, United States, 1 day ago
They're not invited. I'm a member of the Academy, a voter for the awards, I've seen the seating chart and the list of presenters. These two aren't on any lists and won't be there. There are ACTUAL Hollywood stars that will be presenting: previous nominees or winners and current nominees.
Hence, the frantic flurry of PR emanating from CA about the award they won’t be presenting and the ostentatious announcements of their no-doubt pittance donated to Ukraine aid.
So predictable. The Do-Nothings serving up more self-aggrandizing word salad.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10626623/Sophie-Edward-Wessex-undoubtedly-benefit-Megxit.html
Daily Mail tips Sophie Wessex to take over where * hardly began. Both in their 40s but Sophie wins hands down. Something else for * to spit tacks over.
Thank you for the info on the past Oscars. I've read that most, not all, Best Pictures don't stand the test of time. I gather that people in the industry are still ticked by Shakespeare in Love winning, and Goop getting the Oscar.
Perhaps Hazbeen made a gigantic donation to the Motion Picture Rest Home, besides buying a couple of front row, center seats.
About the possibility of blackmail:
Hazbeen was notorious for being parsimonious in his past relationships and friendships, as well as when he was in the Army. Doling out funds, for the constant and continuous PR, the plastic surgeries and nips/tucks for Trotter, her lawsuits,( lawyers aren't cheap,) purchasing a mega-mansion when he had a perfectly good castle back home; and, now buying themselves awards and seats at events. It has to be a case of blackmail, because whatever sex she decides to perform on Hazbeen can't be that great to justify running through his inheritance. Just as the ugly pair attempted to blackmail the BRF with public claims of racism, it could be that Hazbeen is also being blackmailed by Trotter.
First, I’m on this blog almost every day and enjoy all of your posts. I don’t post often, as usually what I would say has already been said by someone else.
Just had my pet peeve tickled again. *’s birthdate, parents, location were listed on her birth certificate and index by the State of California. I have posted the link and info on this blog several times. This is an official record made by the state. You can’t just go erase your date of birth. It is accurate as her birth certificate is a legal document. It is HIGHLY unlikely that she could have changed it.
https://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/rachel_meghan_markle_born_1981_14988531
Second, she graduated from Northwestern, according to the commencement program. She may or may not have attended the ceremony, as no one cares. You get your degree whether you are there or not. If she failed to complete her requirements, she may have still been listed in the program. Most universities wait until the last minute to finalize the printed program. Northwestern U has publicly claimed her as an alumna. Finally, Northwestern U is a big University. If * lied about her college graduation, someone would have told.
I think there are so many issues with *, that suggesting she lies about her birth, when a legal record, searchable on the Internet, shows that she was born when she says she was, makes people believe * is being picked on.
I can hardly stand to listen to *. The epiphany for me was when she went to Wimbledon for a major tennis tournament. She did not tell them she was coming. They cleared an entire front section so * and her 2 friends could see the tournament. Can you imagine how mad the holders of those wonderful seats were? (My children were tennis players and were able to see matches at the big tournament when we visited London. They simply waited by the exits and nice people leaving early gave them their tickets. I say this to point how nice people were; they didn’t have to give their tickets to my children or others.)
Age of majority - I was referring to the date the law was passed, not when it came into effect. In a sense, I was less than one minute out - the time between 23.59 on 31/12/69 and midnight ie 00.00 on 01/01/70...
To think, the day of the wedding, most of us watching wanted this to be real so much that we attributed the sick look of doom on Harry’s face to touching nerves of an excited bridegroom. This curdled horror/comedy was, in hindsight, such a blatantly epic mistake in progress, I marvel that no one put a stop to it. The Queen could have, but Considering the track record of her own children, not to mention the fallout from interfering in her sister’s marriage prospects, she didn’t involve herself in the romantic attachments of a grandson. Having been giving the royal blessing at least on paper, it went ahead despite all the red flags. There had been plenty of time since for regrets. So many regrets. “Marry in haste; repent in leisure” said Wise Ben. Foolish Harry is trapped in a hell of his own making and he’s dragging us along for the ride. And most of all his poor besieged family.
Chromosomal conditions such as Turners's Syndrome (part of an X wholly or partly missing) and Kleinfelter's ditto (XXY) - both have undesirable developmental effects which cause confusion at birth, then there's XXX, not so much a Superwoman as a feminised male, IIRC.
Sex testing of athletes seems to focus now on hormonal status, little attention paid to chromosomes it would appear. Best not go there...
Corpse bride - she came up the aisle like a Nike/ Winged Victory. The whole situation looked awfully like blackmail to me. Many were trying to send telepathic messages to H ` Don't do it!'
My son had several friends in college that were film majors. One of them was still editing his senior film in May so he took an incomplete in the class. He had until August 15 to turn it in. The college listed his name in the program and let him walk in the ceremony. When they hand you the diploma onstage of course it isn't the actual diploma. That gets mailed to you much later on. (I think mine took five months.) I agree with you that if she had not graduated that someone would have found out by now. Same with the birth certificate.
I didn't go to my undergraduate ceremony. Lots of people didn't go. (May in Florida, outside, three plus hours...no thank you.) I actually asked my parents if it was important to them that I go so they could see me graduate and they said it's up to you.
When I got my MBA, my fiance (now husband) pressured me to go. He said I would always regret it if I didn't go. So I went and I was glad I did.
Having not watched the ceremony, the only part of the wedding I noticed was the ill-fitting dress. Lumpy and loose, and parts sticking out. She continues to look bad in everything she wears.
I agree with that if she had not graduated that someone would have found out by now. Same with the birth certificate.
In my earlier post, I tossed out the debate about *'s 'true age' and circumstances of her college graduation as examples of two other persistent rumors about her that have dogged her since her engagement, along with the evergreen one that the girl she calls her niece was actually a teenage indiscretion that was hushed up and subsequently raised by Samantha. I am willing to accept her published birthdate of August 4, 1981 as legitimate and take Northwestern's word for it that she accumulated enough credits to graduate with the Class of 2003, even *if* she had actually been barred from the main campus due to terms of a legal agreement and forced to finish her credits remotely or at a satellite campus far away from the victims of a hazing incident she was allegedly behind. I think it was round about the time of this proceeding that Smeg changed her major from Theatre to Communications. Theatre majors are required to participate in university productions as part of their course requirements, and if she were not permitted to actually be on campus, that would have presented difficulties.
My sister is the parent of 5 children via adoption and brand-new birth certificates with their new names were issued for each child. The other ones have been expunged since an individual may possess only one legal birth certificate. Their original birthdays were retained. While I do not rule out it being *possible* to bribe an official to alter birth records, especially if one has really deep pockets as a celebrity, *'s birth date was out there before she would have had the capacity to have it altered. If she had had the opportunity to do it, I think she would have tried . . and made herself younger than Harry. I'm sure that three-year age gap rankles daily, as does having to admit that she's now over 40. But it does beg the question why this rumor won't die despite the wide availability of this public document. Some former classmates of * seem to have have been born in 1978, for example. Given the eerie deafening silence from *anyone* affiliated with her past life, excepting Ninaki Priddy and her family members, I dispute that 'someone would have said something' about Megsie shaving a few years off her age. Why would they when nobody has been forthcoming about so many more substantial items from her past? In La-La Land where such little fibs are so common in show biz, it might have escaped notice altogether.
If the only problems with * were her fudging her age and details of her schooling, what a more peaceful world this might be. I don't think she's *above* doing it--after all, she also lied very publicly about possessing a SAG card when she didn't, meaning that everyone who hired her for acting jobs were in violation of labor laws governing their industry. Did they know/care? That's a legal document too, as far as I know, and lying about being qualified for one when one isn't has to be some kind of offense. The productions she worked on thus unauthorized were opening themselves up for huge penalties by employing her. They must have been fine with looking the other way, since for every job I have ever had, including McDonald's, I was not permitted to actually start working until I showed my I.D. and my social security card. They make photocopies. So why these producer hiring her just took her word for it and never checked is on them. Someone must have known she was lying about that and never said anything then either.
However, if as Brown Eyed says, *someone* would have ratted her out for fudging her birthdate by a few years, how much MORE would someone have been unable to keep the JUICY secret that * 'had boy parts' to themselves? I think the scenario Lady C. attributes to 'her source' in her most recent video is therefore impossible for me to believe. It's two pronged, and both are incompatible with the person we know as the Duchess of Sussex.
1. * had at least one intimate confidant in her teen years, a friend she felt close enough to to tell this person some very unique and upsetting medical information, and
2. That this person, a teenage girl, would have kept a lid on this information and not told a soul for the last 25 years at least.
If this friend was Ninaki, it's possible . . Ninaki has spoken about the circumstances surrounding the *end* of her relationship with *, but she never mentioned this. So she's still being a discreet friend *if* she knows about it, which is part of her own honor code despite being treated poorly by the woman she's no longer friends with . . OR Ninaki was never told any such thing. If not Ninaki, whom? And how does Lady C.'s 'source' wind up with this tittle-tattle? If someone told that person, then it's proof that this secret isn't watertight. We've established that * ingratiated herself with a bunch of fellow Hollywood princess types at her expensive girls' school, running around with a crowd that were all privileged and dressed like little h**kers at school dances. All of them obsessed with the celebrity lifestyle. Can you imagine this coterie of little climbers keeping hot tea like *this* to themselves for even a day, much less 25 years?
So I tend to dismiss the current rumor du jour of * being intersex as provocative but baseless . . .BUT the fact that it's Lady C. doing the dishing gives me pause. It's the kind of thing that is going to be impossible to actually prove without someone close to * with knowledge of her medical history coming forward. Given the very sensitive personal nature of this topic for Lady C., would she of all people participate in gossipy speculation about someone else being intersex, even though we do not like said someone else? If doubting *'s age is picking on her, how much more so would this be?
I confess, I'd like it to be true, just to goose up a so far very disappointing year. If * has some unconventional physical anomaly that might go some distance toward explaining the vast anomalies in her mind, I'm all for hearing about those mitigating circumstances. But if there is absolutely no fire to this smoke, then it's only going to feed her victim narrative some more.
Lady C. is very careful about what she says. So she's got me wondering now whether she knows something for real which has given her the confidence to speak of this now. She cannot be sued for that which is demonstrably true. Let's see how this little nugget gets spun by the other side, shall we?
In response to your comment to me yesterday about reframing the CB Wedding as a unique historical event. It was certainly a once in a lifetime experience…on a par with the Black Death…surviving that will never be forgotten. Not sure Harry is going to make it out alive though.
It was exciting watching the car carrying * and Doria make its way to the church…Tantalizing glimpses of the bride and her mother through the window. Then she emerged from Wallis Simpson’s hearse and everything started to go off the rails. Apparently she slapped away the hand of the gentleman trying to assist her out of the car but I didn’t even notice that at the time. I couldn’t get over how spectacularly bad she looked, and this was after allegedly spending thousands of pounds on hair and make up artists imported for the occasion. The dress didn’t fit either and I was just so much of it, glaring white blinding me in the spring sunshine and the 45 yards of virginal veil for a 36-year old on her third wedding. We haven’t seen much of weepy Daniel Martin lately, but I think it’s all bollocks. I think Mugsy baby “styled” herself after rolling out of bed and rolling a joint. I operate under the assumption that reality is the exact opposite of whatever Smeagol’s PR puts out. Therefore, if she claims to have an entourage of top stylists that she flew over on a private jet, it was her, Doria and Messica in the room and that’s it.
For a former actress who was once dressed and styled nicely on television, it was surprising that she didn’t look better on her wedding day considering that 100 million people across the globe were watching…But Harry thought she looked amazing and his happiness was tantamount right? His family were so happy for him that none of them could look at him for the duration. I think everybody had a little something to get through this ceremony, and I include Archbishop Welby. How could anyone claiming to be a man of God conduct this travesty in God’s house whilst completely sober?
Well, the RF has a lot to answer for. Whatever Haz did to warrant this--really I'm thinking only murder would be sufficient motivation--they covered it up. I can't really think of anything sexual alone being enough to do it.
Hahahahaha
Gender Bending is all the fashion. Whether it is Michelle Obama, Meghan Markle or The Duchess of Windsor none of you girls appear to be as you seem; yet it is men who go out of their way and for what purpose I cannot tell who seek to pass themselves as women. Not one that I have met (though I would never say this to their face) is in my experience in the slightest convincing.
"...take Northwestern's word for it that she accumulated enough credits to graduate with the Class of 2003, even *if* she had actually been barred from the main campus due to terms of a legal agreement and forced to finish her credits remotely or at a satellite campus far away from the victims of a hazing incident she was allegedly behind. I think it was round about the time of this proceeding that Smeg changed her major from Theatre to Communications. Theatre majors are required to participate in university productions as part of their course requirements, and if she were not permitted to actually be on campus, that would have presented difficulties."
There is NO evidence M ever changed her major. At Northwestern all Theater majors graduate with a degree in Communication. So do all Dance majors, Radio/television/film majors, and so on. Those programs are housed in the School of Communication.
https://catalogs.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/communication/#requirementstext
Northwestern says M double majored in theatre and international studies. International Studies is an "adjunct" major any student can add to a primary major.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/
Personally I think the hazing story, the claim M super-glued several pledges' eyes shut, is total BS. I don't find it believable that if there had been that sort of serious incident it could have been hushed up. I also don't believe if it had happened, that the sorority wouldn't have been disciplined, that the parents of the girls wouldn't have pressed criminal charges, and finally that M's punishment would have been to attend a "satellite campus" of Northwestern or study "remotely" to finish her degree. (Not sure what sort "remote" study was offered in the early 2000s) And I'm not even sure Northwestern HAS satellite campuses. There's the main campus in Evanston and the Chicago campus with the law school and the medical school. And I think they may now have a branch campus in Qatar. Not sure they had it then. I doubt it.
But even if the hazing story isn't BS, we have no idea what M's concentration in theater was. Within the Theater major students can concentrate in acting, playwriting, and so forth.
https://communication.northwestern.edu/academic-programs/major-in-theatre/
There is no evidence all theater majors must be in university productions to graduate. The catalog mentions "opportunities." Given the number of students enrolled in Theater, it would be pretty hard to ensure they all could be in productions. Making it a graduation requirement seems very unlikely to me. Universities don't want attrition and certainly academic depts don't.
Thank you for explaining hermaphrodites and intersex men. I had no idea of most of those things until the last few years when it has come up in sports.
I don't mean to knock Lady C., but I think there's much too much info out there to counter MM's being intersex. I think she just has difficulty carrying babies to term and that she's probably known this for some time. Hence, the BG article of her and Harry's having already started the IVF prep before they were married.
I can't say I agree with everyone's beliefs about Harry's being blackmailed into the marriage or his looking nauseous on the altar, etc. I think he's a depressive who can't hold back his tears when he gets emotional, and IIRC on the day of his wedding, some of the newscasters acknowledged that he had been crying during it.
She's gas-lighting him for sure and is obviously the controller in the telationship. But I think he married her because he believed he loved her and that she loved him.
Narcissists are known to couple with Borderlines and I think sociopaths frequently do the same thing (e.g., the Columbine shooters). They need to be in control, and the easiest person to control is a depressive.
...yet it is men who go out of their way and for what purpose I cannot tell who seek to pass themselves as women. Not one that I have met (though I would never say this to their face) is in my experience in the slightest convincing.
Oh, Opus, you're confusing me! Do you mean intersex men or just male transvestites?
One of the only ways I could understand GWAH's explanation of intersex was to think of a girl from high school. She was being raised as a girl, but she really didn't seem to identify as one, and her physical appearance and habits were very masculine. We all made sure to help her feel included everywhere, but it really seemed like she knew she was out of place. I always suspected her parents, at the time of her birth, had made a big mistake in deciding -- however they did -- to raise her as a girl, but this intersex thing makes me realize it may have been more complicated than that.
I find the hazing story to be difficult to believe as well.
The logical place to mention something or even allude to it would have been in Sam's book. No mention does not mean that it could not have happened but if there had been talk within the family of difficulties at college - my guess would be that now people would be all over that as "proof" that it happened. But we don't hear anything other than this is supposed to have happened and no one ever seems to know where the story started.
I could, however, believe that it could have been joked about doing this at that hazing.
It will be interesting to hear what her father has to say about anything.
I'm not saying anything about those who feel uncomfortable in the bodies they inhabit without any form of physical evidence, external or internal.
"Madam Trotter didn't glue anyone's eyes shut. No. She used Superglue to attach false eyelashes to at least one female in her sorority. Mr. Markle had to pay attorney fees to get her out of that legal mess."
@Hikari used the word "hazing" and that's the story I've read-- that the hazing involved gluing shut eyelids during sleep. Not a makeup session gone wrong.
Regardless, the idea Thomas paid "attorneys fees" to get M out of the "legal mess" doesn't really make sense either. Are you saying M was charged criminally? And TM paid for a defense attorney who got her off? Or are you saying there was a civil suit brought against her, TM hired an attorney, and the verdict was in M's favor?
In neither of the above cases does it make sense Northwestern would tell M she had to go to an unknown "satellite" campus to finish her degree. As I said before, I don't think those exist for Northwestern. But even if they do, why would Northwestern be involved in a civil suit? Especially if M won. (The claim here seems to be Thomas paid an attorney, not settlement money.) And if M was charged criminally with some sort of assault, if charges were dropped or if M was found not guilty, why would Northwestern do anything? But if the existence of a charge was enough for the university to act, the charge must have been some sort of assault. Why would the university not expell or at least suspend her? It seems extremely unlikely the university would just say "just go somewhere else for awhile and then we'll graduate you and you'll graduate on time." She couldn't have finished her coursework at some non-Northwestern school & transferred it back because accrediting agencies require students to be "in residence" at the graduating school the last year. And while for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix led the way, in 2002-2003 it was still hard to find a full complement of online courses offered in most majors at "real" universities. It's very unlikely she could have done her senior coursework at Northwestern entirely online.
I just don't see Northwestern bending over backward for M. Or for any student charged with committing a personal assault. Either punishment would be severe or if found not guilty in court, appropriately non-existent.
M has done plenty of questionable things for which proof exists-- if not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least some proof. The "proof" cited for the super glue story seems to be 1. She changed her major to Communication (nope, she didn't) and 2. She didn't graduate because this situation meant she was barred from campus (But her name was in the commencement program so she'd have to have been officially on-track to graduate in spring 2003 AND the university published a story [link in my post above] in 2017 saying she did graduate in 2003) and 3. She didn't attend the graduation ceremony (we don't know if she did or didn't but plenty of students don't) and 4. Students in her sorority didn't seem excited about the engagement so she must have been persona non grata at the sorority. (Maybe but just maybe they didn't see marrying Harry as a big achievement and/or her name was mud with the sorority for other reasons and/or the unbreakable bonds of loyalty of the sisterhood aren't all they are cracked up to be.)
As @abbyh said absence of evidence doesn't prove it didn't happen but the lack of any proof and lack of any hints (so far) from the Markle camp is pretty striking. That along with false claims about university requirements and degree names at Northwestern made to support the story leave me convinced it didn't happen.
Hollow-wood
Oscar de Renter
ain’t gonna happen
Despite all the hype
from whinge and his slattern
Those in the know
know she’s no good
She’ll be left treading boards
on Balsa-wood
Henrietta/Snarky
I loved ‘Belfast’
Very much ‘of the time’
Great Van Morrison soundtrack.
Not so sure about ‘Death on the Nile’
French & Saunders playing a
gay couple, tongue in cheek 😉
Trotter and Hazbeen are sources of entertainment. It's a continual, slow-motion train wreck, that's been going on for five years, from which people can't take their eyes away.
IDK whether she did that or not, I would think that at the very least the local chapter of the sorority would be "in trouble."
Not sure about Northwestern, but in the early 2000s; before and later, some universities offered correspondence courses--print-based courses that are completed independently by students for full credit. As technology has advanced and become more ubiquitous,these print-based courses have been replaced by online courses.
I just did a search to refresh myself as to the correct name of *'s college sorority, and this came up. Cheatsheet is obviously in the Sussex pocket based on the uber-gushy tone:
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/what-sorority-was-meghan-markle-in-during-college.html/
Markle pledged to Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in college. The sorority is known for being one that frowns on hazing and typically attracts girls who were rather popular in high school.
A recent report went into detail about Markle’s time in college, and specifically, with the sorority that she spent a great deal of time with. The report landed interviews with several of Markle’s sorority sisters, all of whom claimed that they remembered Markle as a “lovely person” and “truly wonderful.”
One of Markle’s sorority sisters stated that she was “this ethereal, sophisticated, beautiful creature who lived with us and was always willing to lend you a top.”
Is everyone's gorge OK? Done hunching over the wastebasket? Okay, let's continue.
If the alleged eyelash-gluing incident took place and the records sealed, then it's not very surprising that that are no MSM reports of it. All I could turn up was Quora entries. It would be a quite simple matter to quash all records of this occurrence if it never become a matter for the civil courts but was instead entirely adjudicated within the University. It would then stay a completely 'in-house' matter and not a criminal matter per se.
Apparently using Super Glue instead of eyelash glue isn't unheard of but it is of course incredibly risky, since eyelash glue is designed for the eye and isn't going to be caustic enough to cause potential eye injury. But hey, when I was in school it was the done thing to torch the end of a wooden kohl eyeliner pencil with a lighter and then apply the molten eye product/burning stick to one's lash line. Not that I ever did this personally but I watched it happen almost daily in the bathroom . . Despite cigarette lighters being contraband. Girls do lots of dumb things for beauty.
In retrospect, IF this incident did occur ('as ever, we must say allegedly' to quote Neil Sean, whose witty snippets posted from London daily about the Sussex shenanigans I can highly recommend) it might have been unintentional. Maybe the tubes were mixed up. Maybe it was considered safe as it had been done before with no ill effects. If an internal investigation could assign no malicious intent, then perhaps that's why there were no legal consequences or expulsion and she was permitted to stay at the University and graduate. Some of her trips abroad might have accounted for some of *'s absences from campus during this period. We really don't know where she was, and it's doubtful we'll ever know.
Unless she'd already alienated so many people who would be sharing the stage with her, she dodged it altogether rather than face the music. Kind of how she handles things now. She doesn't even need a Super Glue incident to turn people off majorly. We will never know the why? but what we do see from that time is that for the first couple of years, * seemed to be an active presence on campus. There are pictures of her with her sorority and various activities. The second half of her college career . . ? Apart from the mention in the commencement program, she's a ghost. That makes me wonder why.
Why would the same sorority sisters singing her praises to magazines in the run up to the wedding completely shut down reporters who wanted to know if the local chapter was going to throw watch party festivities to see one of their own become Princess Henry of Wales? Universities are usually happy to tout their VIP graduates since being affiliated with famous people is good for donations and enrollment. Apart from acknowledging that she was a member of the Class of 2003, Northwestern doesn't seem to have any other comment about *. Harvard University alumna Masako Owada is now Empress of Japan. I suppose that gets mentioned at all the alumni teas. If the sorority was sanctioned due to something involving * and prohibited from speaking about it or her, ever, on threat of losing their charter, that would explain the silence.
Whether or not anything like this actually happened, it's irrefutable that the paragon of virtue, beauty, style and compassion that * markets herself as is contrary in every aspect to the actual truth of her character. If this is not the case, why will nobody from her past speak about her, with warmth and authenticity, under their own names? All these sugary quotes are always attributed to vague 'friends of Meghan'. Who are these people? Are they are substantially flesh and blood as 'Archie' and 'Lilibet'?
Authenticity speaks for itself. Period. The reason we can't pin down much that's verifiably true about * is because she's so fake and has had her whole life whitewashed. Lots of things to hide.
How's that for irony?
There have been a few moments where the discussion has lead to what the Sussex might or might not be doing in the political spectrum of involvement but it wanders away pretty quickly to a different topic.
So, politics is not the focus nor will it be. Sorry. This is not the right blog for discussing politics.
Good luck finding what you want.
This is from a woman on Quora who says she was a sorority sister with Meghan at Northwestern. The woman who wrote this is not complimentary at all in the first part, but then she makes excuses for Meghan during the last part by saying she could be nice. Well yes, Meghan CAN be nice, but it’s usually because she thinks you can be useful to her, which is what this woman said in the first part.
She also used the phrase “very cruel” to describe Meghan, which to me is far beyond being described bitchy, a snob, off-putting, or impolite.
To me, describing someone as very cruel is a quite a step up from being described as “mean,” which most people would shudder at if they knew someone had used that as an adjective to describe them.
Cruel is much worse than mean, but this woman apparently felt ok using it to describe Meghan. She also said Meghan bullied two girls in the Northwestern Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority chapter so fiercely that the one of the girls nearly quit the sorority.
This is abhorrent behavior that is a possible indication of a personality disorder or other psychological issue in Meghan sometime between age 18 to 22. Without treatment, personality disorders don’t go away. They usually get worse.
Since then, she seems like she hasn’t gotten better, only worse. Now that she’s a duchess in the BRF, I shake my head at how mean and nasty she must be, especially in private to Harry, and one day, to Archie and any other children who have the misfortune of her as their mother.
From Quora:
Question:
Is Meghan Markle a nice person?
Anonymous
Answered March 27, 2020
I was friends with Meghan Markle in college (Woo go Northwestern!) so I can answer this one.
My personal opinion is that she could be very nice but also very cruel. It all depends on who you were. To her “crowd” or friends like me, she was very nice and friendly.
But to people she disliked or did not care for, or people who displeased her in some way, she could turn like a switch and become very mean.
At one point, her bullying of two friends of mine ( I will call them “Sam” and “Katie” ) became so bad, that both friends would refuse to come to events if they knew Rachel was there. One of them considered quitting the sorority because of it.
However, even though Rachel could have a few bad moments, I do not think she is a horrible person. She could also be very nice and friendly, which is how she was most of the time. What people need to realize is that most people are not 100% kind, compassionate people. Most people are not nice to every single person they meet, and I do not believe it is fair to put her on a pedestal and expect her to act perfectly 100% of the time.
Was what Rachel did to my friends wrong? Yes. But most people I knew in college could be quite mean, and could bully others at times, and I am willing to bet the person reading this has been mean to people as well.
So who are you to judge?
So while I do not think Rachel is the next Mother Theresa, I do not think she is a horrible human being either. What I think she is, is normal. And I think she should be treated like a normal human being.
P.S I would like to say I was never a “best” friend of Rachels, though I was involved in the sorority she was in and knew her well enough for us to call each other friends. Also, Im going Anonymous so I dont get death threats or nasty comments from anyone. Sorry, but I will not be answering any questions/comments. And no, Rachel and I are no longer in contact with each other, we went our separate ways after graduation.
But @Hikari mentioned in her recent post M would not have wanted to give up a chance to walk on stage. So missing graduation could be significant. Maybe. But Northwestern graduated over 5400 students the year M graduated. No way each *undergraduate* walked across the stage and had her name called. Commencement would have lasted until the next day! So if M didn't go she wasn't giving that up. (Although I think she did go.)
At large universities the recipients of the BA degree stand up together at their seats, no name calling, and their degrees are conferred, then the BS degree recipients do the same, and so on. It's pretty impersonal & students don't always go. Only doctoral recipients get to walk the stage. Sometimes masters recipients do but not if it's a big doctoral-granting institution.
Here are pictures of M at her Northwestern graduation. Supposedly. I think they are but I can't be sure, of course. Both are claimed to be university graduation pics.
The first one shows M in a cap and gown with Lindsay R. As you can see M is wearing a white dress under her robe. The second one with Doria could be high school (her high school does the white dresses and roses baccalaureate service and a black-robed one on another day-- photos of M in a white cap & gown are from middle school.) But M seems to be wearing the same dress and the same earrings in both pics. (And no, Northwestern robes for undergrads were not purple in 2003.) M met Lindsay at Northwestern so LR wouldn't have been in a high school photo. And the trees in the background look like Illinois trees not SoCal trees to me.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/meghan-markles-college-bff-defends-her-amid-bullying-allegations/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5677609/Meghan-Markle-proves-pretty-harsh-food-critic-childrens-culinary-show.html
I realize this does not disprove the glue story. But so many of the elements people are using to support the glue story don't appear to be true.
I believe * ultimately benefits from all of the untrue info out there. It keeps her in the spotlight. It can also be used for a pity party as she can complain about the “mean misinformation” out there.
Thanks for your comments, also, Hikari and lizzie. Apology if I’m forgetting anyone.
Cheers.
Prince Harry suffers 'embarrassment and distress' after 'feeding frenzy of hostility'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1584650/Prince-Harry-news-Prince-Harry-legal-battle-The-Mail-on-Sunday-court-case
In terms of how we treat others, we should always treat people as we would wish to be treated and not how we think they deserve to be treated. Even if someone says or does something that is hurtful or offensive to us at the time, doesn't mean we know what's going on with that person. They might be having a really bad day. They might be going through hard times. Forgive them for hurting your feelings, take time to consider the feelings of others and sow love with your words and your actions. That's what it is to be royal inside.
Posting this latest from Newsweek without comment right now because I am too angry. Read it, then I would be interested to know if you think the once venerable Newsweek, which my father subscribed to for 50 years, is in the pocket of Sunshine Sachs. It has become a rag.
This kind of sh*t is never going to stop for William as long as the ginger toad and his poisonous bint draw breath.
Here I am, not commenting.
Read the article. I agree with everything you said and your sentiments.
Certainly not worthy of the Newsweek I remember growing up; I agree it has become a rag and in SS's pocket.
The US mainstream media, of which I would have considered Newsweek to be a part of, is not reporting the news without bias. Rather, it is promoting stories which play into and support its own unstated agenda rather than upholding classic, journalistic standards such as reporting the unbiased truth without the interjection of the author's opinion.
The orange man’s wife doing regular solo podcasts is vomit inducing. ( the former orange royal, not the former potus) Unless they divorce and she goes scorched earth and does a podcast on how to land Hollywood roles, Hollywood husbands and a prince on your back or whatever position . Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton can be expert guests. Maybe Brittney Spears can tap her chest and discuss mental health. The spares first ex wife could kiss and tell all! That would be entertaining and educational !
As for the Nobel prize, I don’t think the give one for yachting, yet. Unscrupulous, lonely Nobel voters may “ take meetings” with the Sussex duchess. The Nobel committee hasn’t had a public metoo moment, have they?
The irony of a gunpowder merchant endowing a peace prize is better PR than anything from the orange man team.
The first amendment….. bonkers
Rodeo riding….. bonkers
The drive thru at McDonalds…. Super Bonkers, the poor attendant has to climb out the window and walk around the English car
Riding in a VW van…. Bonkers
Juggling his calendar…. Bonkers, have to rip out the pages to make balls first
I understand your anger at the Newsweek article. Kate and William's visit to Jamaica has not been appreciated by the locals who want to
remove the Queen as head of state and are predictably demanding reparations for slavery. The poisoned witch obviously hasn't helped with her baseless accusations of racism, in fact she has set back race relations several decades.
........
The Star has this headline 'Prince Philip told aide ‘we were wrong’ about Meghan after being left ‘hurt’ - expert'
According to royal author Christopher Andersen, the late Duke of Edinburgh was left “furious” after hearing of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s exit plans over social media
Prince Philip was reportedly "spitting blood" after finding out that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle wanted to leave the Royal Family and told an aide "we were wrong about her all along, a royal author as claimed.
According to Christopher Andersen, author of Brothers and Wives: Inside the Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry and Meghan, the late Duke of Edinburgh went straight to the Queen to express his "anger".
He was said to have been furious over the fact that the couple made the announcement without informing senior royals first.
In the book, the aide revealed Philip had no knowledge of social media app Instagram but was “furious, deeply hurt, spitting blood” when he learned of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s joint announcement.
=====
Nothing new as far as I remember but it's good to read about it again. It would have been good too to hear the Queen's private reaction 😁
Of course H&M shouldn't have gone on Oprah and lied. And I'm sure those sick puppies are delighted to think that interview still has an effect. But Newsweek has been a rag for a long time on par with rags like People Magazine. Something to thumb through at the doctor's office. (Pre-COVID---Now that magazines have disappeared from waiting rooms, mags that are rags may disappear by too.) And if it hadn't been Newsweek, I'm confident Samuels would have found another outlet to "interview" him. A visit from members of the RF, no matter who it was, was going to be used by those with agendas. I'm sure that was known by the Foreign Office when this trip was planned. It's not as though visits from the RF family haven't sparked protests other places. (For example, there were protests when W&K went to Canada--both times. And Charles and Diana were mooned by protestors during a Australian tours in the early 1980s!) The fact that agendas exist is not the fault of H&M. Calls for reparations and independence didn't arise because of the Oprah interview done a year ago.
Back in the old days, Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Reports seemed to be respectable. They did have slight political slants with most people saying Newsweek was the most left-leaning and US News the most right-leaning and Time the more centrist. But unlike today, those leanings seemed to be secondary to reporting of the news.
Imagine my surprise, I didn't even know that it was still being published. When I want real, in depth analysis of current events and world news, I do *not* go to the MSM.
I don't blame you for being upset @Hikari. But the guy interviewed, Bert Samuels, is either a moron or is looking for fuel for his particular fire or more likely both.
What is enraging to me is that so many media outlets are giving us nonsensical happy talk while actively obfuscating problems.
Blogger OKay said...
@Fifi I've read that the protests in Jamaica are very minor, with thousands showing up to cheer for W&C.
Who is doing the gaslighting?
The consensus seems to be that protests are about 50-100 people. Some videos show fewer than 20.
The videos of W/C outings look to have a whole lot of happy people in the crowds.
So aggravating to see media jump on and amplify the small minority of people who are complaining.
Then we have Omid saying that some diversity on the Cambridge team would be helpful. Uh...has he seen the team at Archewhite???
@Hikari, thanks for sharing Newsweek article. I actually don't think it's a big deal in terms of the damage it's doing to the monarchy, who I feel have already survived the Oprah interview. I say that because even (admittedly bit players like) Rebel Willis are joking to all the celebs in the room what everyone "on the street" already knows: that Oprah interview was a load of royal bull. Except for a few token outlets like Fox or the Daily Wire, the whole media in the US are all parroting the same social agenda, one that tells us real men are toxic and men who pose as women can clobber them in sports and kids who don't know who they are from one week to the next can take hormone blockers without parental knowledge or consent, and is it my imagination or is Hollyweird trying to normalize pedophilia and prostitution? I mean it's just coo-coo what the left stands for these days and pretty much everyone knows it but THEM. So, in a funny way, the Harry Meg and their epic tantrum against their families, is actually making The Firm look more and more like The Resistance (to all this woke garbage). That's my take anyway.
What other nations think of a constitutional monarchy really doesn’t matter, particularly if they don’t have one themselves. They can print fake news and false allegations it matters not one jot. What I find particularly nauseating is the absolute hypocrisy of the American media and its reporting of the Cambridge’s visit to the Caribbean etc. Perhaps it should concentrate on its own countries issues before pointing fingers elsewhere and stirring that almighty pot. 😟🤨
The vile Sussex Squad, with encouragement (perhaps pecuniary) from halfwit #6 and diabolical spouse #666, probably is trying to take down Lady C, but I seriously doubt will succeed. Lady C has plenty of cash to defend herself in the courts, and plenty of experience in winning court cases.
Poor Yankee Wally and Sue Smith have neither excess wealth, nor successful courtroom experience in their favor (as far as I know). They are low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking of screw-loose Sussex Squad, #6 and #666, and all the other under-the-radar nasties who are delusional enough to support #6 and #666.
A pox on the awful coalition. My support goes to Yankee Wally, Sue Smith, and whoever else is now in the crosshairs without means to defend themselves.
Catherine is just so lovely. She is all natural. No plastic surgery, no fillers, etc. Unlike Trotter who, unfortunately, was born homely, and has been spending $$$$$ since a teen to upgrade her looks. Plastic surgery can't take away the ugly inside.
All magazines are having a hard time because people can get their news on the internet, or television or wherever. Newsweek is probably bleeding $$$, subscriptions, and readership. If they are represented by Sunshine Sucks then that explains everything. No integrity there.
This is what the ex-royal woman wanted. The one and only thing she wanted. Probably chewing her other arm off right now.
She's probably not too happy with what the Gingerman thought was a cool orange comedy routine. That was so entirely regal. Haha. People listen when he speaks, y'all.
I think both Cambridges look tense, especially Catherine. So sad, after the excited warm reception by the public. Sounds like the elected official who invited them was somewhat rude this afternoon? They don't deserve that.
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.
>
The problem with narcissists is that at their core, they are destroyers. Look at the trail of various types of destruction Meghan has left behind her. And while she might be gleefully rubbing her hands together at the prospect of protesters throughout the Cambridge tour, she is risking the wrath of HMTQ, Charles, and William.
Perhaps Harry’s wife has never heard the old saying, “Don’t sh*t where you eat.” But then narcissists are famous for shooting themselves in the foot. They often end up as their own worst enemy.
****************
Headline in the Daily Mail:
DAN WOOTTON: Shame on Meghan Markle as her propagandists use the fantasy that the Royal Family is racist to derail Wills and Kate's Jamaican tour and destroy the Commonwealth
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10644647/amp/DAN-WOOTTON-Shame-Meghan-Markles-propogarandarists-trying-derail-Wills-Kates-tour.html
I think both Cambridges look tense, especially Catherine.
___________________________
I agree. It is ironic that Jamaican leaders are determined to sever the country’s ties to the UK because of slavery. There was a comment related to a London Times article, pointing out that it was the Spanish who first brought slaves to Jamaica and that under British rule, there were black slaveowners along with white ones. And China, which is already funneling huge amounts of cash to Jamaica, will fill the void left by the UK. Have Jamaican’s ever heard of the Uighurs?? Probably not. The CCP will not be a benevolent presence, but Jamaican’s likely won’t figure that out until it’s too late.
DAN WOOTTON: Shame on Meghan Markle as her propagandists use the fantasy that the Royal Family is racist to derail Wills and Kate’s Jamaican tour and destroy the Commonwealth
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10644647/DAN-WOOTTON-Shame-Meghan-Markles-propogarandarists-trying-derail-Wills-Kates-tour.html
The comments are scathing as you'd expect.
I know you can't wait to read about it so here is a link to the article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10647983/Meghans-18-million-Spotify-deal-FINALLY-gets-ground.html
PW this whole trip seems to have a lot of photos where he's looking on with a frown, wrinkled forehead. I can't tell if that just the photographer's choosing the worst pictures of just a single moment, or if he seems to be troubled.
Wondering what the ex-royals have in mind to drop for tomorrow to cause chaos.
I'm really at the point of wanting H to just blow away someplace. Like Mars.
If he really detests 'the firm' so darn much, leave with some dignity. As in, STFU forever. Stop leaching from the BRF.
-------
That would be really sad for PE. He doesn't deserve that disrespect.
If true, and I was him, I'd be done being a working royal. Finito.
Disgusting for PH. I hate the way the ex-royals are getting by with so much.
I hope Harry Markle is wrong on that one.
Sure, PC may be a soft touch as many fathers can be with their children. Not sure I believe that after the Oprah claims AND the Oprah timing. Remember PC's face at Philip's funeral? And he quickly fled to Wales.
Regardless, Harry already has a dukedom. It's not as though giving him this one would give him money. And it's not as though there aren't any other unused dukedoms if the goal was just to change Harry's title IF he divorced M. Just out of curiosity, exactly what would happen to M's courtesy title IF after the divorce his title changed? I mean I get she'd be Duchess of Sussex, not THE Duchess of Sussex after a divorce. And I get that if his Duke title was stripped now she'd be Princess Harry. But what if they divorced and then he had title changes?
I do think it would be unfair to Edward. And if that happened I do wonder if either Wessex would continue to do royal service in quite the same way. I know I wouldn't.
I think Charles might be possessive towards his younger brothers, but that doesn't explain the weirdness involved here.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what would happen to M's courtesy title IF after the divorce his title changed? I mean I get she'd be Duchess of Sussex, not THE Duchess of Sussex after a divorce. And I get that if his Duke title was stripped now she'd be Princess Harry. But what if they divorced and then he had title changes?
@Lizzie: Both Diana and Sarah Ferguson got to keep their titles, but as you mentioned, the titles were slightly modified. No HRH for either of them and Diana’s title was Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah is Sarah, Duchess of York.
BUT, I like you, I am wondering if Meghan would get to keep ANY of the courtesy titles she received upon her marriage to Harry.
Here’s why:
Unlike Meghan, Diana and Sarah were/are citizens of the United Kingdom. Meghan is not a citizen. This might be very important if she and Harry ever part ways.
Anybody with half a brain knows by now that Meghan never intended to spend any more time than necessary in Britain. Even media reports have said that Meghan began her campaign to leave the country with Harry in tow very early in the marriage and perhaps the seeds were planted even before the wedding.
She just needed to hang around in the UK long enough for a child to be born and then it was off to Hollywood with Harry and her little insurance policy/weapon/hostage/ bargaining chip named Archie following behind her.
Meghan’s big problem could be that she never even bothered to begin the process to gain British citizenship.
From what I understand, becoming a naturalized British citizen takes about five years. Meghan clearly never had any intention of staying in the UK to spend her life as a working royal, so there was no need for her to pretend there was any bit interest on her part to obtain British citizenship.
But as you may already know, narcissists are often their worst enemy. In her haste to to complete what history will remember as the biggest snatch and grab theft of a royal title by a non-citizen, her failure to become a citizen might give the reigning monarch and the British government reasonable grounds to take all her courtesy titles if she and Harry ever divorce.
It would seems to me that it makes no sense for the ex-wife of a royal who is an American citizen to be allowed to keep and benefit from the titles she only had due to marriage to member of the Royal Family.
Of course, this is only a guess as to what might happen. I do not know British law and I do not know if there is any precedence of the UK allowing a foreign national who is the ex-spouse of a royal to keep and use and benefit from a royal title after a divorce from the royal.
In the past, their heads were chopped off! LOL.
The title of Duke of Edinburgh is rightfully Charles’. Once Charles is King, Edward will have the title, it’s never been indicated any other way, I’m pretty sure it’s stated officially somewhere. The DoE title was promised to Edward by his own parents, that is The Queen who is still living etc. 🥴
It'd be a crying shame though if it fouled a good name.
How about Duke of Mordor? Any real place would feel insulted, though any of the already tainted names would do, `Windsor'? Frogmore? Anywhere ghastly but fictional? Coketown? Duke of Sleaze?
I also don't think the Queen could prevent that if that's what Charles wants to do. She'll be dead. She can't give it to Edward now and she can't obligate Charles to give it to him later no matter what she says or does now. I do understand that if she said something publicly about her wish it go to Edward, it would be awkward for Charles to do something else. But he still could. It's his to do with as he wishes. And I'm not at all sure we are going to hear a litany of "after I'm gone, do this" statements from the Queen. The one about Camilla may be it.
It would be seen both privately and publicly as extremely disrespectful to his parents wishes etc if Charles gave the DoE to Mole, and I also don’t think Charles would ever do that.🤔 As others have stated, Mole already has a dukedom he doesn’t need two. 🤨
@OKay,
I totally agree with your comment. 😃
JACK Whitehall says he is “banned” from seeing his old pal Prince Harry after making an X-rated joke about him.
The comedian, 33, claims a tongue-in-cheek joke at the Royal Variety Show in 2015 where he called Harry ”Ginger Nuts” is the reason he's been blacklisted.
I just meant there's nothing official the Queen could do to stop PC from holding back the title IF that's what he wants to do. I don't think that's PC's plan but no one could stop him if it is.
I don't think Harry Markle is right about this. And I definitely don't agree with her that the Queen making an announcement of her wishes about the DoE title is much more important than making an announcement about Camilla. They are entirely different things. The Camilla announcement was for members of the public who are still Diana worshippers. Camilla is going to be queen consort regardless. And maybe it was to get ahead of Harry's book. An announcement about the DoE title by the Queen would be an effort to tie Charles's hands. It would also suggest she does not trust his judgment and conveying that to the public would weaken the monarchy.
- A `ginger nut' is a kind of ginger biscuit that sticks around the teeth and can hasten decay (make a delicious pudding/dessert/sweet course: dip a couple of them quickly into sherry, sandwich together with with whipped cream, add more biscuits treated the same way to make a cylinder, then smother this `roll' with more cream. Perhaps add scrapings of dark chocolate or similar for visual effect. Chill the lot in the fridge, to firm up.
Serve in slice several biscuits thick. Yummy!
-`Nut' can mean `head', to `nut' someone means to head-butt them. So could refer to his hair.
-`Nuts' can mean mentally unfit, mad, bonkers
-Paired male external sexual features, also with hirsute covering, ginger in this case.
Sone peopleonce objected to the name of the biscuit, were told not to be so b-daft- grow a pair!
I wonder how the gag went down at the Royal Variety Performance? It's a perfect name for him now.
It seemed like he was going out of his way to sound insulting, when he could have chosen to phrase more graciously. He was a little cold to the Cambridges, imo. I was kind of thinking why did you invite them if you're going to be rude to them?
Interesting because it really turned me off on Jamaica, whereas Belize and the Bahamas...oh my. Wish I could go there!
-----
Ah, yep. I had this typed out but not posted yet. It turns out that the PM, Andrew Holness, is a cousin to Toya Holness, the Global Press Secretery at.....Archewell.
Guess that explains some of the weirdness in the reception of the Jamaican tour.