Tina Brown's new book mentions the idea that the British Royal Family need Harry and Megan to come back and will bring some missing star power to the stage - Jubilee and more in the future. Her words more or less.
I've not read her book yet (just out) but the bits released so far don't seem to mention the fact that the country still has an heir in waiting of similar age (in theory, similar demographics). Prince William. Who is doing some pretty active meet and greets for high viz topics. Whose wife has a chunk of Wow factor (even of a rewear of an outfit) and their kids - (oh my gosh) how cute and ... well behaved.
Tina mentions a "...Harry-shaped hole..." missing within the family. I can believe that. I can believe that they do love him and miss him. Probably much more that we can realize.
But do you think, therefore, her premise that Meghan and Harry are capable of bringing in the star power to a family/royal institution and that it (star power) is currently missing?
Or, do you think she would like to hope that it is still possible to have the happy (reunified) family overcoming the problems which currently keep them separated?
Comments
Nutty and us Mods strive as much as possible to make this a welcome and friendly blog. Please do keep in mind that everyone posts with the risk of potential dissent, criticism, and unpopularity. We depend on Nutties to keep this place respectful and hopefully fun.
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Anonymous posts are not allowed.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject.
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-And, thank you posts are nice.
Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.
Thank you again for all your patience and support.
Moderation is still on.
With the poor relationship track record it seems like an insurmountable mountain to climb to make their way back into the fold. I can't see it. Get some of the younger Royals to fill in the gap left by their exit.
Here’s a self-explanatory comment about the noxious duo I agree with in yesterday’s CDaN*:
DM wrote “The irony of his constant harping about Diana is that I have noticed lately an ever increasing number of articles criticizing her parenting and at least partially blaming her for how he has turned out.”
“Instead of using Diana to bolster their status, they are dragging her down to their level. Looks like Diana is about to get markled, 25 years after her death.”
Hazbeen deserves every bad thing coming his way, and his Ducha$$ is the unwanted gift that keeps on giving, just like a $exually tran$mitted di$ease. Yuchhhh.
I feel badly that their shenanigans have permanently soiled the memory of Diana, who was flawed but I think had good intentions and wow, she was the sparkling Royal who had star power to spare
*Article link https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/04/blind-item-1_25.html#disqus_thread
I have found that the younger generation is way more willing to kick wayward family members to the curb than the older generation. I suppose those of us that are older remember when the PITA relatives were tiny and cute; they just remember them as always being a PITA that they don't want their families to have to deal with.
The royal family needs their tarnished “star power” like it needs a hole in the head.
Harry, who is nothing more than Meghan’s puppet, is therefore as treacherous as his wife. The royal family shouldn’t trust either of them one bit.
Yes, I know the Queen is probably no longer at the top of her game, and Harry and Meghan are using that and their children as weapons, hostages, bargaining chips, and pawns to attempt to manipulate and control the Queen and Charles by pulling on their emotional heartstrings. They likely want full security, a place on the balcony, a royal christening, and likely money and a way to be part-time royals to fuel their brand to make as much money as possible for themselves here in the US.
If the Queen and Charles force the Harkles down the throat of the British public by having them attend and upstage the jubilee celebrations, I think they might as well kiss the monarchy goodbye and toss it into the nearest dumpster.
Allowing a dim-witted twit of a prince and his profoundly narcissistic d-list actress and grifter of a wife to run wild through the monarchy would be the fault of the Queen and Charles.
Sorry old girl, but you are allowing your emotions to rule and ruin not only decades of service, but the monarchy too. If the Harkles attend the jubilee and get everything else they will likely demand, your weak, feckless son is no better if he doesn’t step in and put a stop to all this nonsense.
Mental health professionals recommend the best way to deal with a narcissist is to cut them off and go completely no contact. Yes, it would be emotionally difficult for you to take this step, but it is the best thing to do.
Harry and Meghan are like a cancer. If it means cutting off your right arm to stop it, then that’s what you need to do.
We all understand that Charles and the Queen want to keep the lines of communication open, but they are going to need to be firm with denying the duo access to public family appearances, like the sacred balcony gathering. In fact, the family should limit the Harkles and Andrew to family vacations and holidays at Balmoral and Sandringham. This might allow the Monarchy to recover from the damage the scoundrels have caused.
Just reading how angry Mr. Dollar was, and how Mrs. Dollar exploited that anger was interesting. I believe the two colluded together to give a big "Ef you" to The Queen by faking two pregnancies, because adopted children would never be in the line of succession.
To continue with the "Ef you" they stole George's nickname, and The Queen's nickname. Can't get nastier than that. Two tantrum throwing personality disordered adults.
What really caught my attention about it was the end of the one from Page Six.
https://pagesix.com/2022/04/23/book-reveals-prince-harry-meghan-markles-addiction-to-drama/
The bit about how they thought that the threat of leaving would bring the family to their knees and the family would respond by offering to give the pair what ever they wanted. And so shocked when the family did not capitulate.
So I'm not seeing the logic of the pair still have major star power that the monarchy is lacking. What have they done which is really successful since they left which would make their star shine and overcome the various mistakes?
When they first left, the articles were all about how much money they could command in a deal, become rich but it all seemed to drift away from their grasp. Sure there have done some deals but nothing which appeared to lead to something greater as a followup.
If the deal with Oprah was so great, why isn't it out there still for the watching?
So I'm not seeing how or where this idea that they have the star power and the BRF doesn't.
I think Tina Brown has spent too long in the USA.
The Royal Family does not need 'star power', it has the prestige of the Monarchy, which is unique, and which has the legitimacy of a heritage over 1,000 years old.
The sort of 'star power' Diana the Princess of Wales sought and cultivated was extremely destructive, and tantamount to celebrity. I think the Royal Family has had enough of that sort of cheap glitz.
The last thing the Monarchy needs is Hollywood cheapness and tat, which is exactly what it was being infected with before the Montecito duo left for their spiritual home in LALA land.
The Monarchy is so far above all that Hollywood nonsense, and it knows it.
Just read some of the comments in the DM for starters, and that alone will tell you all you need to know what Maggot and Mole bring…nothing but over ripe tainted presence. If either of them were accepted back with the family (and no, I don’t believe they will be), it will be the final nail in the coffin of the British monarchy. 🥺
Tina’s book arrived in the post to me yesterday, and it’s a very big book. Let’s see what true context the Star Power Comment was phrased and used within its pages. 😐🥴
I seriously doubt if either child was `born of her body' as our law requires if child is to be regarded as legitimate royal offspring and in the line of succession.
I am not convinced that she was ever pregnant.
That is not to say they haven't produced surrogate or adopted/borrowed/hired children.
Whether either child is ever seriously within reach of the throne will probably never become an issue; the time to investigate is when it does and HM is no longer here. It may be an issue which time will resolve.
In any case, does The BRF need 'star power'? They are not celebrities and it would be a mistake to see them as such.
As for the Telegraph article mentioned by @Rebecca in the previous post re Harry's remark, ' the British reluctance to talk about needing counselling', this shows out of touch he is. There is constant talk of 'mental health', to the point where the slightest upset that we encounter in normal life is now a 'mental health issue'. Thousands of adults and also young children are said to need counselling. Is he not aware? That's his specialist subject!
Elizabeth even refused to name her successor, in the sense that she failed to acknowledge her closest relative, James VI of Scotland, as the next monarch, probably because he was a foreigner and not eligible. Of course, she may have had well-founded doubts about him.
See https://archives.history.ac.uk/history-in-focus/Elizabeth/index.html
The monarchy survived both crises, although one might feel we'd have done better without James - he wasn't the only candidate - even with my Jacobite sympathies, I have to say it may have been better had the Stuarts never darkened the doors of Whitehall Palace.
Of course, Diana's claim to be more royal than her husband rests on her closer connection to the House of Stuart so we can only speculate that our current problem is that H is too much like James I & VI in his attitudes, even if not his intellect. James saw himself as just one down from God, he also was known for his catamites.
@abbyh
Their only star power,
asstorisk*
We only watch them for
their next **** up!
@Rebecca
Thank you 🥰
@Maneki
Lie-cess-ter hahaha!
Bicester, Bi-cess-ter 😉
Or Magdalene college,
Maud-lin, perfick for haz!
Speaking of stars,
she’ll never make her
markle on Hollywoods
Walk of Fame.
Her hoof prints would take
up too much space 🥴
Star Ship Eternalies
Such promise from that
Botswana golden shower
Much prediction by haz’s
squatting flower
Transmission failed
both lacking star power
Back to the yacht’s now
pay by the hour…
There's no chance, however, that either of the 2 most senior royals will do that. They are in danger of being sucked into the drama yet again. They seem incapable of the steely determination to go No Contact. Obviously, it'd be very painful but has to be done if they are to save the situation.
I believe William would be capable of it.
Have just come across this paper - The aetiology of non-clinical narcissism: Clarifying the role of adverse childhood experiences and parental overvaluation
Author links open overlay panelKim ThyNguyenLaurenShaw
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109615Get rights and content
From the Abstract:
"This research investigated the unique contribution of adverse childhood experiences (psychoanalytic theory) and parental overvaluation (social learning theory) in the development of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism in adults
`...adverse childhood experiences, but not parental overvaluation, predicted vulnerable narcissism while parental overvaluation, but not adverse childhood experiences, predicted grandiose narcissism'."
Who'da thunk it?
@WildBoar
Catamite, hahaha!
Butt calling scobie doo
a boy is a bit of a stretch 😳
I concur! You can’t go a day now where it seems the world and his wife needs counselling! Mole is parroting an out of date stereotype about us Brits to a world (those who are listening that is 😂🤨) platform.
@Maneki
“the flame of a candle
would be more dazzling”
How true, his wick is worn!
As for his specialist subject,
no need for his spurious spouting.
@Longview
I agree, Tina Brown appears
to have missed the mark.
The Queen is not for sale,
never has been.
She attributes Edward viii's abdication to his "star power". He was so used to being fawned over and adulated that he developed a sense of entitlement.
Yet, (I haven't got to that part yet) thinks the BRF needs star power?
I believe the Queen still
has a few tricks up her sleeve.
These latest digs, by the fulsomes,
toward Angela Kelly will backfire.
God Save the Queen
I read pretty fast but this is going to be a slog. I got up to page 72. Mostly about Camilla so far. I will just post one or two things each day that I read that I hope some of you will find interesting that I didn't know before and leave it at that. The book is 497 pages long not including the acknowledgements, notes and index.
Quote from Queen Mary (Queen Elizabeth's grandmother) to a relative, "You are a member of the British royal family. We are never tired and we all love hospitals." (I laughed out loud at that one.)
Diana's mother Frances Shand-Kydd gave birth to a baby boy who died shortly after his birth. Dian's father Earl Spencer refused to let her see the baby and refused to tell her what had caused his death. "My baby was taken from me and I never saw his face. Not in life. Not in death. No one ever mentioned what had happened." Many years later she saw the death certificate with the entry "gross malformation." (How tragic.)
Kelly’s Heroes
She’s a proud dockers daughter
Stood her ground
risibly fought her
Meg must’ve been pissed
Got nowt what she wished
But the tiara the Queen
thought she oughta…
HM the queen is the head of state. She is THE head of state of multiple countries.
But the idea that royal blood makes you a finer, more valuable, elevated human being is not only so last century, but century before that.
@gfpcpa
I presume a piss take?
The monarchy does not need the gruesome duo. I think they want back in, because eventually their gravy train will run out. But the queen will be gone, and Charles isn’t going to shake things up to much. Now William is a much stronger man than his father so hopefully Charles let’s him deal with Harry when he becomes King.
@Lily Love: Excellent point about Charles having William deal with Harry and his odious wife once Charles is King. William will then become Prince of Wales, which means he will control the funds of the Duchy of Cornwall that Charles uses to provide money to the Cambridges, and until he spat in his father’s one too many times, Duchy money given from Charles to the Sussexes too. But that gravy train stopped.
As POW, William may have other ways to clamp down on Harry and his wife.
If Charles becomes King in the next five years, he’ll be well into his 70s. He will turn 74 in November of this year, and depending his interest in being king beyond visits to bridge openings and organic farms, William will likely perform many functions for Charles. We also have to keep in mind that although Charles seems to be in decent health for his age, there doesn't seem to be much info out there on specifics of his health, so his health could also be a factor in how much he embraces the role of King.
There’s a good chance William, with Kate at his side and George in the wings, will be a very powerful and influential Prince of Wales who may end up quietly performing the duties that normally would be done by Charles if Charles had become King 20 years ago.
Charles has spent nearly his entire adult life as Prince of Wales in a holding pattern. I think William as Prince of Wales will be quite different, and that difference will extend to the way he deals with Harry, and Harry’s wife if the two are still married when William becomes POW. Even though Harry is William’s brother, it’s not the same emotional relationship as Harry being Charles’ son.
William went through the divorce of his parents and the aftermath/effects of Diana’s death at the same time as Harry did, so Harry will likely lose the ability to emotionally manipulate William the way Harry uses the divorce and Diana’s death to manipulate Charles.
I think William is far more likely to not take one bit of fecal excrement from Harry or TBW.
Keep in mind that even if Harry and Meghan ever divorce, their parting will be a spectacular knock-down, drag-out display of animosity. It will make the McCartney-Mills or Brad and Angelina partings look like Wednesday nigh Bible study groups.
And even after a divorce, the acrimony from Meghan will be never ending. Narcissists are full of anger, bitterness, and drama. Given Meghan’s penchant for turning to the courts, she will keep herself in the limelight and feed her victim narrative for the rest of her life by creating endless drama. One of the ways she will do it is by continually hauling Harry into court.
William will always need to be wary of Meghan because she will attack him, Charles and the monarchy, and possibly even the Queen and Philip in death. She will not attack Diana because she will feed off Diana for the rest of her life.
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.
>
I believe that this may have been his high-handed way of being kind. She may have not produced Diana and heir Charles had she seen the child and he had any sort of "gross malformation". The worry about the outcome would have been horrific. I'm going to be charitable and think that he was trying to spare her that.
“The last thing the Monarchy needs is Hollywood cheapness and tat, which is exactly what it was being infected with before the Montecito duo left for their spiritual home in LALA land.”
I would now like to send you my drycleaning bill because I was sipping my morning coffee when I read your thoughts, and I did a delighted loud laugh and a Ricky Ricardo spit-take all over my jaunty cream linen jacket.
I loved “…spiritual home in LALA land” and I enjoyed envisioning you typing your post very very swiftly and with lips firmly pressed together, like you’ve had enough of the toxic twosome, as have we all. Okay, bye, I am off to change out of my now tie-dye jacket.
then I suspect this yahoo story is more about testing the waters for a response but it may not work to their favor.
If the family takes it as true, then it would be harder for the pair to walk back and say they are now coming but (OTOH) having shut the door behind them once, how they have behaved since, one might think that the second shutting of the door was easier because of practice.
Plus it could have the potential to show yahoo as unreliable for royal news which is not a good early move in your new job.
Easier to say that the seating plans for everything is already in place so difficult to adjust.
And it would allow the pair to further cement the idea of we are a team against them all - which could blow up on them (yet again) if they try to do some sort of veiled public attack (yet again).
Just saw a Yahoo headline saying, H won't attend Charles coronation in protest of Camilla being QUEEN consort. Lmao
That would be an indicator that it was a *very* acrimonious meeting between Ginger Nuts and Dad. The Ginger Nuts are still hoping the queen will leave millions for additional plastic surgery, jewelry, and drugs so they are, for now, leaving her alone and pretending to love her ever so much. Once she dies, they'll be trash talking both QE2 and Prince Philip for attention and money. What a pair of losers.
Why would they make such an announcement (I'm not going and you can't make me!) when Charles may not ascend to the throne for several more years? Charles may predecease QE2 and never become king and Camilla may never become Queen Consort. An invitation would not have been extended for such an event.
Either they were given some privy information about QE2's health, or they're throwing a giant temper tantrum expecting Charles to beg them to reconsider. IF (they) had expectations of being invited, there would have been no such announcement. She would be harassing designers to get free coronation clothes.
Because those children would be hauled out at every opportunity to upstage the Royal Family. And that would be extraordinarily easy to accomplish.
Easter? How easy would it have been to get them dressed up with their Easter baskets.
Every milestone would be documented with photos, and spreads in magazines.
But there is nothing but a hand there, a foot here, a back of the head photo, a sideways photo. Never a photo with the family all facing the camera. Never a first day at school, never a first bike ride, nothing.
The Harkles are quite bizarre, aren't they.
@OCGal
Love it, very Jackie Collins!
offspring and his rumoured kids. The Harkle leeches have perhaps been benefitting at the expense of Harry's nephew and niece.
-------
`Gross malformation' - standard practice up to 1960s or later. I recall being told by a medical-student pal some 60 yrs ago that such babes, perhaps born `without brains' (ie microcephalic - lacking a substantial amount of brain tissue), were often smothered with a wet blanket as they were born - nothing detailed said about it, apart from the child being `still-born', and an absolute refusal to show the child to the mother.
This is something that TBW would have risked, had she really been pregnant on the S Pacifc tour - Zika virus can cause this malformation.
I didn't think of that. Yes, maybe the Earl did that to spare his wife the trauma.
Tonight I will try and get through another 75 or 100 pages but "Valley of the Dolls" is on Turner Classic Movies at 9:45 PM and I haven't seen it in about five years now so I must watch it. Trash at its best !!!!
This is something that TBW would have risked, had she really been pregnant on the S Pacifc tour - Zika virus can cause this malformation.
I can't see her risking her future meal ticket unless she knew said 'progeny' was safe in somebody else's womb (if it exists at all). Hmmmm. I could also argue that the secrecy surrounding the children and the various child actors playing Archie is that he *does* have it and has been hidden away. Or maybe he's just a child that looks exactly like Daddy Markle and she doesn't want all the gossip to be about that.
Would the queen have allowed them to go on a tour that would endanger the developing fetus?
----
Yep. They always, always foreshadow. Must be something coming out that they don't like.
Meanwhile, the BRF has many senior royals out being seen today....happy, nicely dressed, respectful. And we just had PW out two evenings ago for a smashing success of a fundraiser.
1)Did you guys see the nice photo of Beatrice and Edo with Swedish royalty today?
Beatrice and Edo both dressed appropriately and both looking humble and respectful. No look of arrogance from either of them.
Princess Beatrice in her role as ambassador of @MadeByDyslexia accompanied by Mr Edo Mozzi are in Sweden where they joined The Queen Silvia of Sweden and Prince Carl and Princess Sofia for the launch of World Dyslexia assembly in Sweden
#princessbeatrice
https://t.co/xAW3IHjiml
2)Since 1963, the @NationalTheatre has shared unforgettable stories with audiences globally, empowering artists and craftspeople, investing in talent and developing new productions.
The Duchess visited the theatre today for the first time since becoming its Royal Patron.
https://t.co/07FZHWTNTJ
3)The Duchess of Cambridge and The Princess Royal are out on their first joint engagement visiting the new headquarters of @RCObsGyn and @MidwivesRCM ❤️👑
https://t.co/02htKnfjy9
4)The Earl and Countess of Wessex during a visit to Fond Doux Cocoa Plantation, where they learnt about the contribution of cocoa to the local economy today in Soufriere, Saint Lucia.
https://t.co/4kIxAsmQk0
5)Each winner receives £50k funding and mentoring from Sir Jony Ive, the former chief design officer at Apple and now chancellor of the RCA, and the corporate members of the prince’s SMI network.
https://t.co/lmFsyy1ztw
She's a shrewd & hugely experienced media person, both in the USA & the UK, but her golden years were over a decade ago. She revived doddering Conde Nast titles Vanity Fair & The New Yorker by keeping a lot of the serious journalism, & adding celebrities & gossip to the mix. Society gossip was her metier when she edited the Tatler in the UK. That said, the USA, at least, is going through a sea change in the kind of media it consumes, as in the Elon Musk purchase of Twitter, the decline of Netflix, etc. plus, a big segment of our population was born after Diana died. They follow completely different celebrities. Not sure how much the BRF is followed these days. The Trotters probably barely register with Gen Z. My millennial children pay no attention to them at all. William & Kate's perceived traditionalism & wholesomeness might have a certain novelty for the younger set, who knows? It's a pretty fickle audience.
I believe Brown's book is being published by the same huge publishing conglomerate that gave the Trotters their big book deals. I don't watch cable or network tv, but Brown seems to have gotten a lot air time on those outlets recently, most likely arranged by Crown/Penguin/Random House, her publishers. They may be trying to create some synergy with Mr.Trotter's book. Will it be a rebuttal of Brown's?
Brown says some pretty critical things about the Trotters. 6 is troubled & has a foul temper, & 6's wife remained 7th on the call list of her cable tv series, & wasn't getting any spots on the big talk shows, she has no brand, cares only for fame & money, etc. Brown paints the wife as an unabashed gold digger, while playing up the Trotter 'star power,' which might mean, 'inspires gossip.'
Brown & Prince Charles probably share some of the Davos/Globalist pals & opinions. I sort of wonder if she'd like to do a book on Prince Charles alone at some point. I haven't read the book, just the reviews, which have been pretty comprehensive.
I think the RF misses Prince Philip's firm hand. Philip didn't allow his son to be in his own daughter's wedding photos, he must have rolled over in his grave when Andrew walked his mother to her seat at Philip's memorial. I doubt Philip would allow the Trotters on the balcony, they're too unpopular with the British public. His own immediate family's tragic history is an example of what happens when a monarchy loses the affection & trust of its people.
I just thought this was an interesting read regarding Better up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10757961/Prince-Harry-criticises-Britains-approach-mental-health.html
Trouble in paradise: Turmoil at Prince Harry's startup Better Up as staff accuse billionaire boss of 'sneaky pay cuts'
BetterUp staff said to be up in arms over pay and changes to their contracts
Counsellors said to be quitting and have even considered suing the tech firm
Silicon Valley business worth $5bn uses a Tinder-style app for life coaches.
The mental health app employing Prince Harry as its 'chief impact officer' reportedly faces an insurrection from its counsellors over claims they face a sneaky pay cut as some staff admitted they are still in the dark about what the royal's job entails.
BetterUp promises to support 'the whole person' while the firm they work for pays for it using of 2,000 life coaches accessible via a Tinder-style app - but some working there have accused bosses of having 'questionable ethics'.
The Silicon Valley company has refused to say what the Duke of Sussex is paid, but it is likely to highly lucrative.
Coaches are said to be quitting and considering suing, with one declaring: 'For a company [whose] mission is to help empower people throughout the world… They're not walking the walk'.
They are also not clear what Harry does for the company, branding it marketing 'smoke and mirrors.
There is more to read, if you want to click the link.
Thank you for agreeing with me re mental health. I hesitated to write what I did as I was worried about my statement being seen as offensive and/flippant. I certainly do not wish to make light of mental health problems, especially as I suffered from severe depression when I was young, but the term has been abused. Anyway, is H right to highlight the problem? We're well aware of it in the UK, and there are very long waiting lists to get counselling and he is not an authority on the subject (neither he nor * are on any subject).
Fingers crossed for the Sussexes to follow suit.
Hope this link works. It seems there was a gathering of all the grandchildren and great-grandchildren, except the Montecito branch of the family, at Windsor Castle on the Easter weekend.
Most intriguing, especially considering the visit shortly before from the troublemakers.
Note the Cambridge nanny with the video camera!
Tom Bower has finished writing his book on our dear Duchess.
I do hope he has dug out lots of unrevealed information!
Oh, supposedly Tina Brown did contact the Raglands, but they do not want attention so she left them out of her book. I think I am starting to like her!
Silly me. I didn’t think there were any bridges left to burn!
I found this comment snippet about BetterUp from a mental health professional interesting:
They do not guarantee that the individual providing the services are trained….they are “coaches.” Their terms and conditions explicitly state, “WE ARE NOT A HEALTH CARE OR MEDICAL DEVICE PROVIDER, NOR SHOULD THE SERVICES BE CONSIDERED MEDICAL ADVICE OR THERAPY SERVICES. ONLY YOUR PHYSICIAN OR OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDER CAN OFFER MEDICAL ADVICE TO YOU." Yet H goes around spouting off about "mental health as if he is some kind of demi G-d and the fact that he is flogging this to vulnerable veterans with PTSD makes me sick.
Thank you for all the pics from Twitter on the Royals' activities. I really enjoyed seeing them!
No more bridges to burn...Ha Ha Ha...agreed!
Thank you for the link to the interview with Tom Bower. He’s a very interesting man. It’s exciting to know his bio of The Wife is ready for the publisher—Bower says it will be in bookstores “in the very near future” but I imagine the lag time is around 6 months once the final draft of a manuscript is submitted? That would be an eternity to me but it’s still something to look forward to.
Interesting that Bower doesn’t believe H will ever leave her.
Several news outlets on both sides of the pond are reporting Harry will not attend the jubilee celebration weekend in June to protest Camilla being named future Queen Consort.
Silly me. I didn’t think there were any bridges left to burn!
There have been a lot of silly/catastrophic decisions made in history. The charge of the light brigade. The battle of Gettysburg. The Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. Johnny Depp marrying Amber Heard. Twitter banning the Babylon Bee (satire news, for those of you that are not familiar with it), that happened to be one of Elon Musk's favorite humor sites. Any pain that comes to them caused by this petulance was entirely self inflicted. Oh, well.
I expect that they were told that they wouldn't be with the working royals on the balcony and would have to stand on a lesser balcony of shame or in the crowd with Thomas Markle. Again, I doubt that Camilla being named future Queen Consort had anything to do with it. She's just an excuse. Regardless, I would think that should further endear Camilla to the people of the UK for saving them from their toxic presence.
If they thought they were going to be on the balcony with Charles and Camilla, they'd be tossing people over the side in order to be there.
Therapy with a therapist is dangerous in itself, filled with potential landmines for the vulnerable ... selling a coaching system focused on mental health long distance is just not a good idea. One of the things a therapist must do is refer the patient to a psychiatrist or other health care professional if danger is perceived.
This is a new fad to extract money from corporate budgets. Sooner or later someone is going to be sued!
The Theresa Longo Fans account is reporting that the dastardly duo will not be at the Jubilee celebrations. I wonder what they are planning to do to hog the headlines? Nothing seems to be too crazy for them.
Very interesting ... about the newest barrage of PR ... and a new bandwagon: disability.
Excellent article!
My impression is that in this space we share opinions and speculation, with a dash of delicious gossip. Often posts are right on the mark despite the unpredictability of the deranged duo. There perhaps is some predictability in the behaviour produced by a mix of stupidity, grandiosity, delusions and entitlement (with a large helping of rudeness)!
I am in awe of the snark and vocabulary.... ;)
Thanks for the link to the Spectator article. The writer's comment on the Sussex' antics highlighting the dignity, duty & good sense of others in the BRF is spot on. I've begun to wonder if Mrs. Trot's lunacy might be related to her finding out that even in the BRF, she's still only '#7 on the call list.' She seems to have been desperate to be a 'star.'
interesting read about twitter “ads”. clearly money from somewhere. but it feels like spaghetti. throwing stuff out to see what sticks on the wall. thinking they are so clever. it doesn’t stick though does it.
also same page saying June (Jubilee month) will be a big blitz month including the podcast. hitting the ground running are we 😉
finally saw some of the highlights of the Princess Anne And Duchess Catherine joint appearance. looked like fun. they should auction off a joint appearance with Princess Anne with all money going to charity. i would totally save my pennies for that. she seems so fun and full of stories
A lot of people here have had up close and personal experience with the personality disordered and so can give a pretty educated guess as to what they will do next. I'm here for the education and the humor!
HM is known for having said she not only had to be seen but had to be seen to be believed. Interesting and clever use of language.
Buckingham palace balcony appearances have been happening since 1914, it would seem and the event has become loaded with symbolic national meaning:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/buckingham-palaces-balcony-a-focal-point-for-national-celebration/
This article explains it well.
To have allowed TBW and her husband to appear there would have been a disaster in view of the signals it would have sent.
I apologize if this has been posted previously, but this is a link to a Time Magazine interview with Tina Brown.
https://time.com/6170275/tina-brown-royal-family-revelations-interview/
Mrs. Trotter really knows how to coin some gems.
i’m curious about the Harry Fatherly thing. and i know we will all disagree on this (and i do love me a good conspiracy theory) but if archie or lily is not with them,this in your face about being a father and dispelling advice all of the sudden is pretty in your face. doubling down on the lie 😉 daring someone to expose it, using own kids to improve the brand, just a cynical way to look at their parenting.
Maybe she wasn't financially independent, but she did live on her own and had a job (of sorts). She didn't live with her family and/or work in one of her family's companies. I am not defending her by any means but she must have had to have paid bills, kept a roof over her head, made sure her car was running, her laundry was done, she had groceries etc. I have a 27 year old niece who still lives at home and all she pays for is her car insurance. (She has a full time job and makes decent money and has no student loans.)
I agree that if it is indeed true that the Harkles say they will not attend the Jubilee celebrations because the Queen has made it known she wants Camilla to have the title Queen Consort, it is just a flimsy excuse from the Harkles.
If they have a clue of any sort, the Harkles must know there’s a very good chance they will be booed and perhaps have bananas with messages written on them telling them to go away, but they can’t come out and say they know they are deeply disliked by many Brits and do not want to face a public verbal flogging for their behaviors.
I am split regarding the alleged invitation by the Queen and/or Charles asking Harry and his wife to visit and appear at the jubilee celebration holiday.
On one hand, I sort of understand an elderly woman wanting to see her grandson and his grandchildren. I think HMTQ would be fine if she never came within a mile of Meghan ever again. The same goes for Charles, who even though his family tends to live to be very old, is no spring chicken himself and therefore may want to at least create the image of a big happy family for the Queen’s special event.
But on the other hand, if anyone in the royal family or their close advisors has half a brain, they know the presence of the toxic twosome will at least take the spotlight away from the Queen and at worst, may be used as a platform for Harry and his wife to stage an embarrassing attack on the royal family and the monarchy or some other destructive behavior to draw all attention to themselves and ruin the celebrations.
Remember that narcissists HATE to see anyone else get the attention at any special event. They often pull some sort of stunt to make it all about themselves.
We had a profound narcissist in our family who couldn’t resist causing some sort of manufactured uproar at numerous family events including Christmas, Thanksgiving, birthday parties, when someone was seriously ill in the hospital, and yes, even at a funeral.
It was more of an occasion of relief instead of grief when this person finally died, and nobody in the family misses this person, including me.
Meghan and Harry will find a way to hog the spotlight at the Queen’s jubilee celebration if they attend, so it will be better if they stay away. After all, even from California, they will attempt something during the long jubilee weekend to grab some attention for themselves.
Thank you for the Theresa Longo link / twitter.
I have learned something new.
by making the conditions unacceptable to the 6's, the BRF albso ensured that the 6's would not be in attendance.
but the public doesn't see part 2 of the plan. They only see that the 6's refused, so a victory for the BRF
by making the conditions unacceptable to the 6's, the BRF albso ensured that the 6's would not be in attendance.
but the public doesn't see part 2 of the plan. They only see that the 6's refused, so a victory for the BRF
Indeed. The PR release isn't "The Queen and Prince Charles are big racist meanies and didn't invite Meghan because she's BLACK!" or even "We are in big danger because we're so important and nobody is paying for our security!"
Who thought that saying "We're going to throw a fit because Camilla is going to be Queen (hello, married to a future King) so we're going to deny a frail elderly woman a chance to meet her great grandchildren on what may be her last big celebration, neener neener neener!" was a winning PR statement? Let me rephrase that. A normal person would have been appalled.
Re: Meghan's independence at 21, I agree with you.
She graduated in June 2003 from Northwestern. Personally I don't believe she paid for most of her education herself. Think she lied about that. When she graduated she was less than 2 months from turning 22. She has admitted Thomas gave her money while she pursued an acting career. We don't know how much he gave her but she couldn't have earned enough with her fake calligraphy (doing it or teaching it) to afford an LA apartment. Thomas also supposedly gave her a car (one with working doors.)
She met Trevor in 2004 and "dated him" for almost 7 years before they married when she was 30. I am sure most of the time they dated she lived in his house. He supposedly got her the Suits role then she dumped him once she started making money in her 30s. She later became involved with Corey in pretty much of a live-in situation.
Independent since age 21 until she met Harry? I don't think so.
Haven't seen that used as the the excuse for the non-attendance at the Jubilee, but I could be wrong.
Prince Harry 'refuses' to attend Prince Charles' coronation if Camilla is Queen consort, reports claim
https://t.co/PZMVCshvPe
Just my opinion, but I think you were on the mark in seeing the legal pitfalls of offering mental health coaching by unqualified people long distance. Despite all the legal disclaimers on their website and no doubt in their contracts, I think BatterUp are playing with fire.
@SwampWoman
Despite all my research on the topic, I still find the stupidity of the narcs quite astonishing. I think it is easier for those who are familiar with the type to predict and get to the truth of what they say and do.
@HappyDays
For now, they are hogging the limelight with the 'will they won't they' story. At the very least, I suspect that they will push the story of the mega stars missing on the balcony, when the reality is they would be pelted with fruit and vegetables if they tried to make an appearance.
Serious question - is compulsive lying a part of the narcissistic pathology? Do you think they lie to each other as well?
I thought it was Prince Charles coronation they were refusing to attend if Camilla was appointed Queen.
Haven't seen that used as the the excuse for the non-attendance at the Jubilee, but I could be wrong.
I thought so, too, but now I'm seeing it in reference the Jubilee as well. *shrug* Maybe Omid is just covering all the bases.
(In multiple parts)
Do you sincerely still believe there are no children? I simply can not accept that Archie and Lily are figments of Twit and Twat’s imagination. If they were, the RF would surely have severed ties with them completely. The damage to the Monarchy would be cataclysmic if they had been essentially helping to perpetuate a con of that magnitude by remaining silent for so long. And why would Eugenie and her husband, who visited them in Santa Barbara, go along with the deception? There is simply no way they would unless they are as mentally ill and delusional as T & T.
I honestly don't know if there might be little people in the world who possess Harry and Meghan's DNA, either in combination or with other contributors. It seems to be well-accepted that at some point after the divorce from Trevor, MM had her eggs harvested at a fertility clinic in Toronto . . and anecdotal evidence has her flying solo back there, allegedly to 'visit friends' just weeks after her marriage. Coincidence? Possibly, but MM prefers to engineer events as we know by now. Witnesses report that she was drinking wine on the airplane so was most likely not herself undergoing treatments to prepare her body for IVF.
That adolescent smirk shared by both halves of the Trotter pair during their wedding ceremony as Archbishop Welby was intoning that marriage was instituted for the procreation of children certainly looked to me like some form of Duper's Delight in progress. Why not just embarrassment, you ask? One might expect that out of a pair of 20-year-olds getting married, which neither of these were. Harry is Meg's third husband, and he certainly cut a wide swath in his bachelor days.
I immediately thought, "They are up to something."
Can you at least come with me as far as "Meg herself was never pregnant?" The bump with Archie put on *quite* a show, from October to May of the next year. You've seen all the photos. It disappeared altogether during her pub crawl in NYC, which was considerate of it. Then the absolute circus for weeks and weeks leading up to the very tardy birth. For a baby who was overdue by 3-4 (or 5 or 6) weeks, Archie's listed birth weight of 7 pounds 3 oz was extremely petite for a male baby with a father as tall as Hazza who was that late.
I am quite convinced that she (and probably Harry also) are sterile, and that they either attempted or were successful at sourcing a surrogate. Most likely in North America, hence the February visit to NYC for the 'baby shower' where pink for a girl was teased pretty hard. When Archie (finally) arrived, both his gender and his name were a surprise, to say the least.
If the surrogacy happened in the UK, then as we know all parental rights reside with the birth mother regardless of who provided the zygotes. I think therefore the Trotters would have tried to get a surrogate who lived in the States because U.S. law favors the genetic donors. It is my contention that *if* there was a baby born via surrogate, something fell through with the birth mother, the courts or both. Given their mutual fondness for illegal substances/mental instability (Thomas Markle, Jr. said on the record that M should NEVER be left alone with children. That hints at something very grave. A narcissist would hurt a child and not bat an eye.)--it's possible they did not pass the evaluation process necessary to assume full custody.
I think they tried to pull a fast one on the RF with the old warming pan baby trick, since even Hawwy must know that children must be 'of the body' of both halves of a Royal couple to be legitimate heirs. Charles and Granny would have drilled this absolutely home to both he and William as teenagers. The only sticking point--and it's a big one, as you point out--is the RF's tacit acceptance of Hawwy's children as heirs to the succession. The Queen herself showed the photo of Herself allegedly meeting Meghan's baby. This is a head scratcher all right. All photos and images we have seen of Archie in the UK are the property of Suxxit Royal, NOT Buckingham Palace, as official portraits with the Queen have been since time immemorial. That meant that M was paid for the images, and also owns the copyright and can do whatever she wants with them. And she did: the christening photo has been proven on a metadata level to have been heavily doctored. Isn’t it funny how Catherine was photographed arriving at Windsor in a blue dress, yet in the “official” christening portrait, she is wearing the identical dress she wore to the Queen’s Christmas luncheon in 2018? Catherine is known for re-wearing outfits, but surely she would not wear a winter dress that she wore at Christmas for a christening in July. Lady Jane Fellowes looks dressed for the Cowes regatta, not a christening in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yellow Panama hats Are too casual for Ascot, never mind a high church ceremony. Camilla looks half cut, her shoe caps are wet, and though her dress may be slightly, very slightly different than the one she wore to Louis’s christening, Charles’ outfit is identical, down to his boutonniere. That christening photo is comprised of cobbled together images of all the principals, apart from H&M. If there was an official reason for the Cambridges to be at Windsor that day, considering that the Queen was not in residence, They did not pose For that photograph on that day. *If* there was a christening that day in July, and that's a stretch for me to go there, then I say there were no Royals (dubious duo excepted) present and/or they refused to pose for a portrait. If there was a scam in progress of which they were/are aware, the questions remain: What do they know and when do they know it?
If * and Hawwy had wanted to make adoption/fertility issues their platform and truly modernise the monarchy by becoming adoptive/surrogate parents, what an opportunity that would have been to reach out to all the millions of people all over the world who have the same situations. They floated the idea of adoption in their engagement interview, which was interesting--an indication perhaps that they knew that natural conception was not going to happen. Then that shared smirk at the wedding. Then the clandestine Toronto trip. Then just 5 months after the wedding--Surprise! She's pregnant! They'd had the 12-week scan, they said. Which would mean that after a late May wedding, she'd have had to conceive around 8 weeks after her marriage. Well, perhaps SOMEone did conceive, somewhere, with genetic material provided by one or both, but I will never believe it was her herself. Even 20-year-old Diana took longer.
Hunh. Hadn't seen that, but I don't go out of my way looking for their BS either. Didn't he want a waffle maker for his first Christmas or birthday? Since the alleged child is nearly 3, the most in-depth conversations that they would be having probably involves whether toddler or doggie went poopy on the floor.
The sticking point for surrogacy/adoption of course is that such children could not be 'official' heirs. Hence all the subterfuge, instead of being honest. If a surrogacy was obtained, I believe it was without Royal permission, or possibly knowledge, though it's very hard to imagine that the Duchess of Sussex's Royal protection detail wouldn't know anything about a trip abroad to a fertility clinic. M lobbed the bomb of 'her pregnancy' just prior to the Australia tour, leaving the Family in a huge quandary. Did they know at that point that the pregnancy wasn't genuine? Perhaps not, which is why they adopted a 'wait-and-see' attitude. Behind closed doors, maybe they did know a lot more than they shared. But here they were, dealing with two people of extreme mental volatility, and with the most fundamentally private experience of any woman upon which they couldn't intrude with heavy handedness. And, while pregnancy irregularities and dodgy provenance of offspring are certainly not unknown to any Royal family, this was the first time in history that it was occurring in the Instagram tabloid age--AND with a Princess of color. And--with a person who exhibits all the markers of very profound personality disorders to boot. They had to cope with Diana's problems back in the day, but the RF has never dealt with somebody as conniving and obdurate as Markle, not even Wallis Simpson. She'd gotten them well over a barrel, but I think the pregnancy announcement upstaging Eugenie's wedding was the beginning of the end for them, 5 months after the Wedding Spectacle. The RF began to circle the wagons, and when the Suxxits got back from Australia, they found they'd been evicted from Kensington Palace & relegated to the staff quarters at Windsor. If the Queen thought this smackdown would make the belligerent couple straighten up and behave, she was sadly mistaken because it's just been an ongoing escalation since then.
Speaking of the Duchess's breathtaking array of international travel while pregnant:
Swampwoman said:
I can't see her risking her future meal ticket unless she knew said 'progeny' was safe in somebody else's womb (if it exists at all). Hmmmm. I could also argue that the secrecy surrounding the children and the various child actors playing Archie is that he *does* have it and has been hidden away. Or maybe he's just a child that looks exactly like Daddy Markle and she doesn't want all the gossip to be about that.
Would the queen have allowed them to go on a tour that would endanger the developing fetus?
That was my thought, too. The Duchess begged off a number of activities on the Australia tour citing 'morning sickness'. One was a jouncy Jeep ride deep into the bush to a native village where the people had been anticipating her visit. What's come out since is that Jessica Mulroney and she were skivving off to have spa days and etc. At this time, she was not outlandish with the bump; it looked plausible for very early pregnancy and I was not sure she was pretending. I became convinced she was faking it in early December with the debut of Square Bump in Sausage Summer Dress.
The Suxxit behavior in Australia whilst representing the Queen was *so* egregious, she sent Andrew to apologize to the Governor-General and his wife. Imagine how bad it was if *Andrew* was sent to make amends. No doubt Madam would chalk up the throwing boiling tea at a staff member down to 'pregnancy hormones'. Or, more like that poor assistant had the misfortune to walk in upon her when she was strapping Bump on. (to quote Neil Sean, "As ever, we must say allegedly."--though I am a firm proponent of the Moonbump Mountbatten-Windsor theory, none of us know truly went went down except M, H and possibly members of the Royal family and staff).
The Australia tour was to be Harry's solo venture as it was planned months in advance of his marriage. His new wife was hastily shoe-horned into the arrangements and courtiers scrambled to find ways to occupy her. One such event was the market visit in Fiji, but Rachel needed to dodge some people from her past that she saw there so she bailed, once again citing illness due to the heat and her pregnancy. Moonbump was already proving very adept at getting her out of stuff she did not want to do. She looked as svelte as could be in the white dress photo taken with their unfortunate hosts, but decidedly puffier on other occasions, perhaps when the clothing she was determined to merch was a size or two too large.
Suppose you are a nearly-37 year old woman in the early stages of your first pregnancy (at least the first pregnancy of which we are aware) . . possibly having taken extraordinary medical measures to have conceived so swiftly after your marriage at an advanced age. Such thrilling news would come at the downside of having to miss your first glamorous international tour as a Royal, but surely the health of your baby is tantamount? Having announced your happy state at a family wedding there is no way you can claim that the person responsible for sending you on this work trip abroad to a Zika and malaria infested region (after a flight of some 24+ hours from London) was unaware of your condition and thus jeopardized your health and that of your baby's. I submit that if she were truly expecting Harry's firstborn child, she would have told the Queen of this after the first doctor's appointment, not after the 12-week scan, and then left for another continent the very next day. Such a trip would have been against *all* medical advice as too risky, if there were actually a baby on board.
Rachel's jolly to NYC was off her own bat, but what do we make of the Queen sending her, in late February, late in her 8th month of pregnancy to North Africa, another long flight to a region with some disease concerns? It wasn't even a real royal delegation . . there was no true diplomatic purpose for the Sussexes to be sent on behalf of the Queen at that precise time, with the birth so imminent, based on calendar math and the size of her in her $100,000 designer caftan. What a surprise then that Archie didn't appear for another 21/2 months. It was also quite surprising that nobody in the MSM raised any concerns about the medical advisability of such a trip so late in a pregnancy that was already high-risk due to the mother's age, when she could have gone into premature labor at any time. So, so weird.
All the pieces fall into place if we accept the surrogacy theory, including the cavalier attitude with which she flounced all over the globe, bounced up and down like a jack-in-the-box in 4-inch stilettos while 9 months pregnant; the jelly belly, the wildly inflating, deflating, inflating again sizes . .and most of all, the elephantine nature of this gestation, where she looked 8 months gone in February but wouldn't deliver until May. While the world engaged in Womb Watch, I think the Sussexes were watching another womb or two.
Latest Palace Confidential
He has been offered special security? By whom? And who is paying? And on what grounds?
Fifi said:
Here's why I don't believe there's a real life Archie and Lilly.
Because those children would be hauled out at every opportunity to upstage the Royal Family. And that would be extraordinarily easy to accomplish.
Easter? How easy would it have been to get them dressed up with their Easter baskets.
Every milestone would be documented with photos, and spreads in magazines.
But there is nothing but a hand there, a foot here, a back of the head photo, a sideways photo. Never a photo with the family all facing the camera. Never a first day at school, never a first bike ride, nothing.
You ask do I 'still' believe there are no children? Every passing day marks some milestone of childhood for both of the Sussex children, with scant or no proof of them doing these things, so the more time goes by, the *more* odd the Sussex child situation appears to be, not less. Harry told us that Lili is taking steps now . . incidentally at the very same time that Eugenie shared numerous photos of her little man (who is 14 months to Lili's 10 months) doing the same. But . . where is the picture of this wondrous, advanced developmental feat from her? Do you wonder this?
One need not be a child development specialist to notice that all the iterations of "Archie" are distinctly different from each other. Do you think that Duck Rabbit Arch and the little boy we saw in the Christmas photo last are the same child? What about the skinny little boy with *black* hair running between Harry's legs at the beach shared at the time of the Oprah interview, when gravid Megsie was in the chicken coop (vehemently advised againt . .toxmosis, hello . .)
Of Lili, we've only got the one picture so far, in nearly a year of life. As Fifi pointed out, for someone who lives for a camera and can spot one at 50 paces like a heat seeking missile, Meg's behavior when it comes to releasing images of the children is strenuously out of character. Now that they are out of the fold of being Royals, there is absolutely nothing to prevent her from having her kids appear in images released for the public. Harry doesn't have the nous to stop her, and they've got to be desperate for money. Releasing timely family images the way Catherine does would generate public interest and goodwill. Master Archie has a birthday coming up next week so let's see what, if anything comes out of Monteshitshow to mark the occasion.
Serious question - is compulsive lying a part of the narcissistic pathology? Do you think they lie to each other as well?
@Sandie: YES, narcissists are compulsive liars. Lying, half-truths, lies of omission and other acts of being untruthful, conveniently forgetting important facts and truthful information, and playing fast and loose with the facts by manipulating the facts to fit whatever narrative they happen to be pushing at the moment are as natural to narcissists as breathing.
For example, look at Meghan’s recent court case against the Mail on Sunday when she was caught lying by omission by “forgetting” extensive verbal discussions, notes and emails with other people including palace staffer Jason Knauf about heavy cooperation with the Finding Freedom book project. She claimed she and Harry did not provide any input into the book until Mr. Knauf provided oodles of documentation that proved the Sussexes helped with the content if that book.
Of course, her excuse was she “forgot” all about their cooperation with the authors and she likely escaped perjury charges because of a daft judge and that she was a royal.
Unless you can verify via doing your own research into the accuracy and truthfulness of anything that pops out of a narcissist’s mouth, don’t believe them.
Another example is the way a likely innocent wondering about who Archie would look like when Meghan was allegedly pregnant with him was blown up and turned into branding the royal family as a pack of racists. When anyone is expecting a baby, especially a first baby close friends and family often wonder and discuss who the child will take after in terms of looks, special skills, personality and other characteristics. Narcissists like Meghan are experts at twisting, massaging, and moulding the smallest crumb of information or an event into something totally opposite of what truly happened.
To apply a slightly modified version of an old adage: Never trust a narcissist any farther than you can throw them.
Totally agree with everything you said about narcissists being pathological liars. Lived experience validates that you can never believe what they say!
Another win for the BRF although the public don't think so.
On a more personal note - I once had to share a flat with an AA woman who felt that white guilt would get her anything she wanted. She decided that she was going to use the very large living room with the beautiful view as her bedroom. She was quite surprised when I refused to acquiesce. Not being American, and not coming from a country which had a colonial history, I had no reason to feel any white guilt. She was flummoxed.
Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive posts about the issue of the Harkle “children”. I appreciate the effort you have made in explaining your point of view. I agree 100% that M’s pregnancy with Archie was faked, and I do hope that Tom Bower will have gotten to the bottom of the scandal, though somehow I doubt even he would go there. But who knows?? In that recent interview with Nigel Farage, Bower confirmed that he had been sued many times for libel but had won each and every lawsuit ever brought against him.
About “Lilibet”—at the very least, Meghan did a much more convincing job of appearing to be pregnant the second time around. She had clearly gained quite a bit of weight, for one thing. If she was faking again, because she would have given birth in California it would have been much easier to cover her tracks.
Is it be possible that the Megxit deal stipulated that Harry and Meghan’s offspring could not be used as a means of generating revenue? No payment for photo rights? No merchandising them? And because H and M couldn’t profit off the images of their children, they have chosen to keep them under wraps unless and until the terms of the original agreement are changed? Maybe that is one of the reasons “Lili” has yet to meet her grandfather and namesake great grandmother? To force a renegotiation?
Whatever the case, I certainly agree that the Royal Family have been “dealing with two people of extreme mental volatility,” which
makes for a nightmarish family dynamic. I hope that one day we will all have definitive answers regarding the existence of Archie and Lili. Until then, all any of us can do is speculate.
Of course according to our free and honest press, Harry and Meghan were snubbing the event."
I came across this, supposedly tweeted by Gavin Burrows, who is somehow connected to the Hapless Prince's legal fight against whoever for hacking voicemail messages about two decades ago, mostly of Chelsea and Catherine.
Is there something in the water these people drink that causes delusions?
Anyway, it might give a glimpse into the story that will be promoted about their non appearance at the Jubilee celebrations. The terrorist threat against them is so huge that anyone anywhere near them is in danger!
But if they decide to claim they didn't attend Jubilee events because they are a threat to anyone near them due to terrorism, I'm not sure that helps whatever marketability they have.
Maybe I am being petty making comparisons ...
Princess Eugenie is doing a weekly podcast. Here are some facts:
* It is centered on an issue that most people are ignorant about. Slavery? Modern day?
* She spent years doing research, including private visits and conversations.
* She started a charity with a friend.
* She did not look for the biggest payout when choosing the platform. It seems the podcasts are going to be widely available on various platforms.
* All of this was done and being done with a friend, as equal partners in all ways.
* They have an impressive list of people lined up for each episode.
* It is a weekly podcast, and it is up and running.
The dastardly duo could not organize a you-know-what in abrewery, even though they keep hiring more staff. They took money for making podcasts without even knowing what the podcasts were going to be about!
-----
I wonder how they explain being near the disabled athletes.
Doesn’t seem quite right to put them in danger when they already are injured and unable to completely defend themselves.
LOL!
On a more serious note, I think some people are just toxic together, yet are drawn to each other. Apart and in the right circumstances, at least one of theml could live some sort of decent life. Together, they are going to be the worst version of themselves.
I do hope his family are no longer deluded and get it ... they are a toxic duo and it is not possible to help them or even save one. They are going to go down together, like Hitler and Eva and many many examples.
Maybe I am being extreme?
I always thought he could he saved because his background included the support and direction that he needed to be a decent person; she did not have the same in her background.
Good point!
One would think that wounded vets, who fought against the Taliban etc. would be more of a target!
It seems that they aspired to be royals in exile, and to have a US based kingdom, with Twat as the Exiled Kween.
“She’s telling Harry they’ve played a blinder and their comeback is just getting started. But, she also knows it’s critical they maintain their standards and don’t allow anyone to try to steamroller them. She wants them to be able to live their lives the way they want to – and the royal family will have to fit in with that. In her mind, they’ve entered a whole new stratosphere of status and importance. She doesn’t care about the criticism and feels they’ve got what they want – back in with the Queen on their own terms.”
--------------
The whole article is quite an eye-opener ...
https://heatworld.com/celebrity/news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-arrogant/
Didn’t expect any! I have more thoughts about recent announcements and how the latest meeting with granny and dad might have gone to prompt them. Vindictive petty shit as usual from the toxic pair. I think that has no balls Was probably told that he and the wife would be invited in a private family capacity should they choose to attend, with no public balcony appearances. They have been relegated to the no longer royal hall of shame with the former duke of York. Everything else is spin. Until Harry, I think the situation of a counselor of state walking away from his royal responsibilities or residence in the UK as dictated has been unprecedented. Edward resigned as king, to immediately have second thoughts perhaps, but the Sussex departure has been a lot less equivocal. Hairy really didn’t want to leave all of the prestigious parts of being a high born prince—Just all the work and the boring parts. How does he really think he can represent the queen and stand in for her potentially on very short notice from California? With no guarantee that any such assignment wouldn’t be “boring”? With the Queen so frail and nearing the end of her life, it must be said— had he stayed in position, he might have been called upon incoming months or years to fulfill his role as a COS. But he quit. It really hasn’t happened before apart from Edward that someone in the line of succession would completely walk away from his place. So they are right to replace him if that is the decision the queen has come to. There must be a procedure in place two skip over a counselor and appoint the next in line if said counselor becomes unable for whatever reason to fulfill the responsibilities attendant on his or her place. If they were incapacitated by illness, or mental disease and defect, Or a failure to meet the residency requirement. If granny had put it to H that the only way he could retain his position as COS is to return to England and come back in harness as a full-time working royal--With all commercial deals trading on his royal affiliation to be canceled forthwith Or if she had to regretfully replace him… I think we are seeing the results. H Might secretly want to come back, but the wife won’t, and he is in hock To untold numbers of unsavory people, including dodgy Russian types, who are expecting returns on the investment they’ve made in the couple. Furthermore, all Harry’s bridges are burnt. This is just a theoretical scenario because I don’t think any of the family or certainly the public mood would tolerate their return. So H is well and truly screwed. It will take an act of Parliament To remove him or the troublesome Andrew from their places in the line of succession. But I think that is coming for both of them after the end of the queens reign. Not until then, officially, but meantime I think she and Charles both made it known to H that there was no circumstances under which he and his wife would be welcomed back to England as Official public members of the royal family.
H’s life is essentially over Just as Edwards was when he threw away his crown, and all that remains is an untold number of years In bitter exile, with no purpose and becoming more irrelevant and reviled with every passing day. It’s quite an achievement in ignominy
In less than 4 years. They have only themselves to blame. Right after “Archies” fourth birthday, they will celebrate their fourth anniversary of matrimonial bliss. Can’t wait to see what if any PR they churn out For both events. Has there been some PR stunt to mar the Cambridge anniversary Of which I am unaware?
https://twitter.com/The_QVDS/status/1520155308458496001?t=I7bHNyI2Lpn9OL22_7jmlg&s=19
Part of the article I referenced above is the claim that not only will the duo be back on the balcony, but they will be standing next to the Queen. They are triumphantly claiming that they have got everything they wanted on their terms.
Is this like the claims to be invited to the Obama party, the Beckham wedding, the Oscars (as presenters)?
@Sandie: Don't forget that Oprah did not invite the Dollars to the private Adele concert in California, while other Brits were in attendance.
Pretty bad when you're not invited to your own dad's events?
If H had behaved he might even have been asked to represent his dad?
But we all know that he would have just taken it over and acted like it was *his* event.
Our Prince’s Trust Global Gala event in New York had star power, thanks to co-hosts, Chairman of our Global Ambassador Group @LionelRichie and Global Ambassador @Edward_Enninful.
The event celebrated the incredible international reach of our programmes with young people.
https://t.co/Zrzrao0SNa
https://twitter.com/PrincesTrust/status/1520043106564984836?t=wAONoyd_r0nJKOSQ22x0hw&s=19
No wonder she is so giddy. Those few days at IG were an overload of attention for her (from the cameras, because there were no crowds) and it has gone to her head, and his.
I have been looking at photos and clips for the Cambridge wedding. That was a huge event. Hapless was standing right next to his brother when he got married. He was a close witness to 'the real thing' - the crowds, the family, the friends, the love, the epic classy royal tradition of it all. How could he be so thick that he got taken in by a grasping classless wannabee famous at all costs?
I smell Rachel manifesting again.
If they truly “got everything they wanted”, and are going to be given prime positions next to the queen usually occupied by her Heir and his consort & the Cambridges… why do witness reports have H shouting at his father during their 15 minute meeting which H was purposely late for? If everything‘s hunky-dory and Maggot and Mole are on restored terms with everyone…That meeting that barely was sure sounded tense. Mole might think he could steamroll over an elderly lady from his deluded position as “the favorite”—ha—But if it were a business meeting to which the wife was not invited and had to chill her heels in reception, that sure doesn’t sound like easy familial terms either. I’m sure there must’ve been some witnesses in the room with Mole & HM, Just to be sure that recollections would not vary as to what was discussed.
And, this is a sore point for Mole, but he has been stripped of the right to wear military dress. It is inconceivable that on her Platinum Jubilee she’d have anyone in civvies in prime position. Peter Phillips and Jack B. and Mike Tindall have all been invited to the balcony…But the man in civilian dress stand in the back. Has Mole forgotten all about his demotion? Their last balcony appearance in 2019 was pretty disastrous and they were still in the Firm at that point. Mole was still in uniform and Maggot had allegedly just had a baby. Things have not improved in the interim. A wicked part of me has an image of Mole being tossed over the side by William and the new Captain General Royal Marines, Princess Anne. Followed by Madam and her weave. Alas they won’t be going that easily.
I certainly hope that her majesty will be up to standing on the balcony this year, but that is not a guarantee.
So what explains H's glum and depressed body language the next 2 days?
And what explains Mm's gutter sniping in her introduction speech?
Having been publicly denied an audience or lodging with Willem and his Queen, HazNowt Took a page out of his wife’s book: when you are not invited, Just push your way in and force them to give you what you want anyway. Well bred people will capitulate rather than make a scene. What the video does not show is that Hawwy was wandering around the stadium for some time, basically stalking the King so he could ambush WA when he arrived. Knowing then that the Dutch monarch would invite him to sit together— got to get that Netflix footage by any subterfuge. Watch how Willem completely owns this encounter with his dominant body language and makes whipped Hawwy look like a subservient puppy dog.
Hawwy’s Royal training didn’t totally desert him…He bowed his head to Willem as the senior ranking Royal. WA For his part flexxed his hand After Hawwy’s no doubt dead fish touch like he wanted to wipe it off. Twit normally only looks so beta around Twat.
Jonathan Dimbleby: ‘I suspect Harry is led by the nose by Meghan. He’s not the brightest’
The broadcaster, a friend of Charles, is scathing about the duke’s behaviour — and he’s no fan of Boris Johnson either
Jonathan Dimbleby has known the Prince of Wales since he coaxed a confession of adultery out of him three decades ago. Today he is an ardent supporter and staunch defender and has particularly robust views on the Duke of Sussex, whose rift with his father shows no sign of healing. After the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a flying visit to see the Queen, Harry said that he was “making sure she’s protected and has got the right people around her.” Dimbleby is scathing of this in a way no palace courtier could dare to be in public. “So you’ve swanned in to check that the people who are very close to her are the right people?” he says, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “Thank you very much. I mean, your wisdom, Harry, is well worth it, I have no doubt. And now you’re zooming out again.”
Dimbleby says that the claims in the Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey, that a member of the royal family had “concerns” about how dark their baby’s skin might be, were unfair. The Sussexes made it clear through Winfrey that neither the Queen nor Prince Philip made the comment. “Who the hell was it supposed to be? That is the wickedness of it: it allows you to speculate. You rule out the Queen, you rule out the Duke of Edinburgh. So who would it be?” Dimbleby says. “And why do you make such a smear? I thought that interview was, to put it kindly, the most ghastly error of judgment on their part.”
He is not privy to the details of the rift between Harry and his father, but Charles “would have been extremely frustrated and saddened and possibly angry at the thought that either he or Meghan would believe that he in any way had a racist attitude.
“I know the man. I have known him for 30 years. You go into the streets of any inner city in this country with the Prince of Wales, the first people to greet him really warmly are young black people, because they have experienced the consequences of the work that has been done through the Prince’s Trust. So it is an unspeakable libel, actually.”
The former Any Questions presenter met Harry when he made his 1994 film about the Prince of Wales that included the famous interview. “I suspect that Harry is led by the nose by Meghan Markle. He’s entering a sort of vortex in which they will become less and less significant as a couple. As she gets older, as he gets older, they will matter less because the celebrity on which they trade will become less valuable. And it’s a very great shame because when I met him, he was absolutely charming; a lovely, lovely young guy. Not the brightest in the world but filled with generosity of spirit.”
Will they be on the balcony for Jubilee celebrations? Nope, but they will put out a lot of PR that will be a load of baloney (e g. they turned down the offer to be front and centre because they did not want to take attention away from the Queen). It will get them attention but will end up making them look deranged and deluded.
Will the daughter get a royal christening? They are probably making plans for a secret christening (they will want the time to clash with and overshadow Jubilee celebrations) but just trying to make it happen will be a nightmare for everyone. The Queen will not be present, but Charles and Camilla may agree to be there. No Cambridges. Venue offered will be St James Palace chapel, for a private ceremony like that for Beatrice. They will want a Windsor Estate venue and will fill the headlines with leaks, none of which will be true.
Will Counsellor of State position be taken away from the Hapless prince? Yes, because he is not domiciled in the UK. Beatrice will take his place. (This is what I think should happen but I may be wrong and it won't happen.)
Will the archetype podcasts happen? Yes, but there will only be a few. They will get attention because they will be so bad and will be a platform for wild and completely untrue victimhood accusations.
Will Pearl be finished and released? High probability of being cancelled. If released, it will get attention because of how bad it is. She will spend the rest of their money buying views and awards.
What about the Met Gala? It's the first Monday in May. Has Mrs. Trotter been issued an invite from Anna Wintour? After all, Mrs. Trotter has written a dribble for British Vogue, that should be some clout right there.
@Fifi LaRue:
I just saw an article about the Met Gala being back this Monday after to a two-year suspension due to the pandemic.
The Sussexes, or to be more accurate, Meghan, obviously did not consider the possible negative effects of their interview with Oprah.
After that interview, nobody with half a brain in the elite class is going to associate themselves with Harry and his wife. They’re going to think, “If they will attack and attempt to smear Harry’s family, who just happen to be the British Royal Family, why would I want to get friendly with them and have them possibly attempt to smear me?
Ms. Wintour is a Brit herself who is a DBE. If she’s going to choose between aligning herself with the real royal family in the UK or the Sussexes in Montecito, the Sussexes will lose every time.
People at all levels of the social ladder talk, so it’s likely Harry and his hungry wife come up in conversations between these highly-connected people.
For example, Ms. Wintour, who also holds US citizenship, was a fundraiser for the Obama presidential campaign, and in 2012 her name had been rumored as a possible choice by Obama to be ambassador to the UK.
If Harry and his wife apparently didn’t merit an invite to Barack’s birthday party, it’s highly doubtful they’ll pop up at Monday’s Met Gala.
Just add the Met Gala to the stack of non invites to the Oscars, the Beckham wedding, and other assorted events.
clearly not invited to anything. so pretty clever about security concerns. gives them an excuse to stay away from everything 😉 even when they aren’t invited
From : https://uk.yahoo.com/style/piers-morgan-blasts-duchess-sussex-060000566.html
Sat, 30 April 2022, 7:00 am
Piers Morgan has criticised the Duchess of Sussex again:
Piers Morgan thinks “almost everything” the Duchess of Sussex says is “bulls***.”
The 57-year-old presenter left his job on ‘Good Morning Britain’ last year after refusing to apologise for accusing Meghan of lying during her tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, and he still stands by his comments about the former ‘Suits’ star.
He said: “The mystery about ITV was I was hired specifically to have strongly-held opinions.
“That’s why the way I had to leave in the end was so absurd. I gave an honest opinion.
“It’s an opinion I still have. I still don’t believe a word Meghan Markle says.
"I think almost everything that comes out of her mouth is complete bulls***.”
`The first of the seven deadly sins, being the inordinate love of one's own excellence.'
Need we say more?
What do you all think the grifters will do to try and sabotage it?
Headline:
Now Camilla's really in Vogue! Coveted spot on Page One of the fashion bible is a mark of the public's growing respect for the Duchess as she turns 75 this summer
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10771189/amp/Camilla-Duchess-Cornwall-star-cover-Vogue.html
The DM had an article on Dimbleby and Harry. All the comments were scathing, as usual.
@Sandie
Re H's Counsellor of State position, I thought we'd ascertained that H was domiciled in the UK. He is a US resident indeed, but domicile and residence are two different things. Rather than 'domicile' (in the legal sense), I think the fact that he lives 6000 miles away is more of an obstacle that precludes him from fulfilling the role,i.e. carrying out some of the monarch's official duties.
My deepest and most sincere condolences on your loss.
She also said Mr. Markle should be received by someone in the BRF, but that will contribute to further incendiary efforts by the ugly twosome.
So very sorry to hear of your sad family news. My sincere condolences to you and your family.
Thank you so much. It was my mum. I've been in a bit of a daze.
Oh Maneki, I’m so sorry,
cannot imagine what you’re
feeling.
Love to you, and your familyX
I think many of us did think Harry was legally domiciled in the UK because residence and domicile aren't necessarily the same. So I expect Harry meets the legal requirements to be a CoS.
You are correct residing 5000 miles away means he cannot realistically take on duties for the Queen. But how many duties could he have taken on when he was in the army? Or how many could Will take on when he was in the RAF flying search and rescue? Or even when he worked for the air ambulance company (the original 1/2 & 1/2 job-- at least it was described as halftime royal at one point.)
Philip was left as a CoS after retirement from royal life (although if he'd been removed its not as though there would be anyone else to put in his "spouse of the monarch" slot.)
Because there are multiple CoS, it hasn't mattered if one was not available. But Andrew isn't available now either so something is likely going to have to happen. But both Andrew and Harry seem to meet the basic requirements in the law ....
My sincere condolences on the loss of your mother. I wish you and your family peace and love in this difficult time.
Sincere condolences.
Thanks for the clarification of the difference between domicile and residence.
@luizzie
Thanks for the further explanation.
Sorry to go on about this, but it seems that the Queen has not actually delegated any of the duties to any of the COS in practice. You don't have to be COS to hand out medals and honours (which Charles, William and Anne do on her behalf). If she cannot perform her duties as head of state, she has two COS that can step in and thus meet legal requirements.
Harry's position as COS becomes relevant when Charles becomes king, but Camilla then becomes COS and can act with William, so Harry still not required!
It is all very Game of Thrones, but perhaps very important to the king and queen of Montecito.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State
I am indulging in superficial speculation about what the Queen will wear (I am hoping for a magnificent platinum dress)! And whoever is on the balcony with her, I want them to stand back and let her take centre stage on her own, even if only for a moment.
When Charles is king, appointing Camilla as a CoS will be required by law. It's stupid IMO not to go ahead and appoint Bea then even if Andrew and Harry aren't dumped now. (There will be room because the law requires the 1st 4 in line that are at least 21 [except the direct heir can be 18] and the Monarch's spouse.) Unless the law is changed to get rid of CoS or the Monarchy disappears, Bea WILL be a CoS. George is going on 9. That means he's a bit over 9 years from being CoS if Will is King and over 12 years from it while Charles is King. Charlotte is 7 tomorrow so she's 14 years away no matter who is king. And Louis is 18 years away. It's pretty clear Bea must named eventually so why dance around that?
I love your ideas of Her Majesty wearing a stunning platinum dress/ensemble and taking center stage alone on the balcony if only for a few moments. She deserves to shine and revel in the spotlight on that historic day.
Sending you my best.
I have no idea what your beliefs are but in my tradition we say `May she rest in peace and rise in glory' so I hope that may be of comfort to you.
https://deadline.com/2022/05/meghan-markle-animated-series-pearl-canceled-netflix-cutbacks-prince-harrs-archewell-productions-1235013893/
We all saw this coming!
I too am very sorry to hear of your loss. There are many people here who are thinking of you and sending prayers and positive thoughts.
I am still plowing through Tina Brown's book. I skipped over the middle third of the book which highlights Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge so I could get to the final third of the book which deals with Meghan and Harry.
I think TBW gets a VERY soft treatment from Tina Brown.
She seems to try and explain her inexcusable behavior to cultural differences, impatience, always wanting to know "Why" something has to be done a certain way. "What is the purpose" of this or that engagement, expecting praise and pats on the back constantly (what we in the U.S. refer to as "participation trophies" that you get just for showing up) and the general feeling that staff/personal assistants are there to do whatever you want, whenever you want and you can treat them however you want just like you can in the U.S. (please refer to "The Devil Wears Prada", the film or the book, as you prefer, for a more in-depth illustration of these tactics) and the role of princess is like something out of Disney.
She handled her section with kid gloves, I felt. Possibly because of legal issues and/or the fact that the duo are so lawsuit crazy.
I did find one tidbit humorous. TBW was number 6 on the call sheet of "Suits" for her run on the show. (Meaning she was billed 6th in the cast). Prince Harry was 6th in line for the British throne when they married. So draw your own conclusions.
PEARL is DUMPED
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10772951/Meghan-Markles-animated-Netflix-series-gets-dumped-cutbacks.html
Happy Sunday 'yall!!!
https://deadline.com/2022/05/meghan-markle-animated-series-pearl-canceled-netflix-cutbacks-prince-harrs-archewell-productions-1235013893/
They didn't have anything else to release.
Sincere condolences to you and your family for the loss of your mother.
Having lost close members of family over the past couple of years, we celebrate their birthdays with something they really enjoyed. Silly things.. good scotch whiskey, Real Ale, chocolate cakes etc.
Thinking of you xx
I do hope, though, that it doesn't come out in the book that it's customary in the US to treat staff "however you want." This is evidently the case for you know who, but most of the rest of us were raised with manners and consideration for others, and this is NOT the custom. She is appalling. And long before her, her dumb little husband was appalling as well, whether driving his tricycle into a footman's shins or his spurs into a polo pony's flank.
@Girl with a Hat, Raspberry Ruffle, Magatha, Lizzie, SwampWoman, DesignDoctor, Sandie, Snarkyatherbest, OCGal, Wild Boar, gfbcpa,Catlady 1649,D1
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your comments. It's really heart warming to see you took the trouble to write. I didn't mean to monopolise the blog but I feel that I am with friends here.
Next week will be hard but I'll keep reading if I can and maybe posting, the pathetic duo's shenanigans are a welcome distraction.
Thank you all again 🤗
Blogger Mel said...
Think the Harkles sat on this news so they could release it to upstage Charlotte's birthday?
They didn't have anything else to release.
It does seem weird that the news leaked on a Sunday. I'm just wondering if Deadline would be her go-to publication for a leak.
Headline and first part of the article. If you want to read the entire article, copy and paste the URL.
“Meghan Markle-Created Animated Series ‘Pearl’ Gets An Undesirable Royal Flush In Netflix Cutbacks; Streamer Nixes Meghan & Prince Harry’s Archewell Productions Project”
“EXCLUSIVE: Even Netflix’s in-house members of the Royal Family are not immune to a wave of cutbacks going on as the streamer recalibrates after a precipitous stock drop incurred after a drop in subscribers. Netflix has quietly dropped Pearl, the working title of an animated series that was created by Meghan Markle through Archewell Productions, the shingle the Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry set up at Netflix in fall of 2020 to create scripted series, docuseries, documentaries, features and children’s programming. Pearl was to be Archewell’s first animated series.”
https://deadline.com/2022/05/meghan-markle-animated-series-pearl-canceled-netflix-cutbacks-prince-harrs-archewell-productions-1235013893/amp/
https://the-cat-with-the-emerald-tiara-1.tumblr.com/post/683078082630959104/oh-look-pics-have-now-surfaced-of-mm-with-h-at
They seem comfortable, among friends.
Back to lurkdom, but gosh, I am absolutely gutted for you.
Here is some advice for the duchess of Montecito: If you had your kids at the polo with you, you would have eclipsed Charlotte's birthday. But I think you have two problems you cannot overcome: he is paranoid about the children being photographed other than for the annual Christmas card (and since you have failed at everything, you need him to pay for your lifestyle), and there is no way you could manage two kids in public that you do not bond normally with.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51PGteE0ccL._SX484_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
File under -- You snooze, you lose. If M had gotten up off her posterior and hustled a bit to start producing Pearl months ago, this would not have gotten canceled.
H and M thought they would take Netflix for a ride. Instead they are cancelled and lose out on any Pearl money. Though their Invictus Games, self aggrandizing promo, will most likely see the light of day. Without getting many views or compliments. After Invictus Games does poorly, Netflix will cancel the Duo 100%. Spotify just cut big noise Obama loose from his contract. H and M should take note.
Has anyone seen any photos of Bea's baby (Sienna?) christening?
H is looking quite bald and Trotter's hair is just. so. fake.
Pearl getting canned.
File under -- You snooze, you lose. If M had gotten up off her posterior and hustled a bit to start producing Pearl months ago, this would not have gotten canceled.
@xxxxx: This is typical behavior for a narcissist. It is sometimes called future faking. Many narcissists will promise you sugar-coated and unicorns when discussing their grandiose plans, but the don’t ever follow through, even with important things such as marriages or business deals. This is often known as future faking.
Narcissists often are very successful people because they are the type of narcissist who is also very driven to be successful. Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple was this type of narc.
But Meghan thought that simply by becoming a duchess she could accomplish all sorts of things just by virtue of being married to a royal. Yes, it got her in the door to Netflix and secured a deal with them, but she didn’t jump on it right away and frittered away a lot of valuable time. This is future faking and another behavior known as magical thinking.
There have also been reports here on this site about Meghan being very difficult to work with regarding the Pearl project. She didn’t take the advice of the experienced professionals that were working on the scripts, artwork, and other elements of producing a series like Pearl (which is grandiosity and a need for control) and it was said she was so overbearing and made changes to storylines and scripts that many of the staff quit rather then be associated with a show that is a pile of garbage due to Meghan’s need for control.
Narcissists are often drawn to charity and humanitarian causes which they set themselves up as the person in charge of the charitable project or organization. But then they do little of the work involved only to show up again when everything is finished to take the credit. This is basically what is being done with Archewell. They have employees to do the actual work and Meghan shows up with Handbag Harry take the credit.
Yes, you snooze, you loose certainly came into play with this, and it is likely why her podcast has taken so long to get off the ground. If Spotify sacks her, she has nobody to blame but herself.
Be extra good to yourself.
I too am very sorry for your loss. Very sad.
This is why Spotify and the Obamas parted ways. They were not producing enough content. The same can (will) happen to Megs and Hapless and their so called Archewell. Except that Spotify will outright cancel them. Mid-contract. >>>>>>
Why Spotify dropped its deal with Barack and Michelle Obama
The Obamas are searching for a new home for their podcasts after Spotify reportedly declined to offer the former first couple a new contract because they didn’t make enough personal appearances on the streaming service.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/21/why-spotify-dropped-its-deal-with-barack-and-michelle-obama/
The duo were never offered Adelaide Cottage. It was just part of the speculation swirling around them.
The cancelling of the Obamas by Spotify (in the most polite way possible) for not producing the promised content is a forewarning that she is going to be cancelled by them as well.
Their royal credentials will no longer carry them and he is going to have to make murkier and riskier deals to satisfy her demand for more designer clothes, more jewellery, more staff, plus their property, security, PR, etc. must be costing them a fortune.
It is a very sad story of two very stupid people with hugely inflated egos, and a climate of celebrity worship that is changing. His family must be very worried, if they have a full and realistic understanding of the situation.
Maggot and Mole lived at Frogmore Cottage. I’ve never heard of Adelaide Cottage until today. It’s been recently refurbished and long used as a guest house. I can’t find anywhere it was given the nasty duo in any capacity. 🥴It appears to be solely on offer to the Cambridge’s.
The Sussexes were in Frogmore Cottage; Adelaide Cottage is a different dwelling.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_Cottage - it's a pretty Gothicke Revival `cottage ornee' (1st `e' should have acute accent - I used to be able to do it with old version of Word then C&P it in. Alas, no more!)
It's described as `chastely elegant' - how appropriate for the future lady of the house
BTW, HM is not to be confused with H&M! It's a standard British Forces abbreviation for Her Majesty.
However in my research I could only find articles where it said "a source", nothing confirmed by the palace.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think we could safely say that this was probably just Mm manifesting again.
Below is a quote that is typical of the many articles printed about the topic.
According to a source, the Queen has offered the Grade II listed property to the newlyweds as a gift. The source claimed that the couple had been for a viewing, liked it and will move in soon. Last night Kensington Palace declined to comment.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5978267/Is-Grade-II-listed-romantic-cottage-Windsor-Queens-gift-Harry-Meghan.html
Speculation is fun! But, the dastardly duo might have wanted Adelaide Cottage (actually a large manor house, which comes with a large piece of land and a lake and is surrounded/shielded by nature trees), Frogmore House, even Windsor Castle (which they graciously would have shared with the Queen). She must have been livid when they were gifted Frogmore Cottage!
With their failed ventures, the Dollars will be forced to live solely on Mr. Dollar's multi-million inheritance. Down sizing from a house with 16 bathrooms to a house with eight bathrooms might be a move in the right direction.
I’ve never read anything about Adelaide Cottage with relation to the duo on this side of the pond. It sounds like completely made-up PR stuff to me. 😕
With that ghastly pair, if they get a PR fluff piece printed in the media, they hope it comes true.🙄
Wondering how long before Spotify cancels her podcast as well.
I think it was the Clintons daughter who wrote a book similar to what TW was trying to pass off as her own.
Not sure now as it was a while ago that I read about it, will have to check it out.
Rumor has it that David Furnish is not best (sic) pleased about having his initial involvement in this project dredged up again, now that it has been cancelled. He hasn't been involved in a long, long time. Using his name like this is a PR move to try to legitimize something that was an illegitimate project and to mitigate just how much of a cluster-fuck it was. People quit their jobs to get away from Meghan's abuse. People are in therapy because of it.
The cancelling of Pearl is, in my opinion, really bad for them. Note that after all this time and all the hype and all the supposed brilliant people that were hired, the project was still in development stage - not even pre-production, even though Netflix stepped in and basically took over the project and hired people. Netflix is basically saying that it is not worth saving. I wonder how she is going to spin this cancellation, because she will because she clings to delusions.
The cancelling of the Obamas by Spotify (in the most polite way possible) for not producing the promised content is a forewarning that she is going to be cancelled by them as well.
Their royal credentials will no longer carry them and he is going to have to make murkier and riskier deals to satisfy her demand for more designer clothes, more jewellery, more staff, plus their property, security, PR, etc. must be costing them a fortune.
I agree with everything that you said; had the Obamas been bringing in more money with their (limited) podcasts than was being paid out to them by Spotify, they would still be there. "It ain't personal, it's business." They (Obamas) seemed to be a money-losing proposition. Businesses aren't (supposed to be) in business to lose money. If they do, they won't be in business and their shareholders should hold the decision makers responsible for their losses. Netflix is bleeding money and can't afford vanity projects like the Harkles (or even the Obamas) at this point either. Most of their (woke) content has bombed. Plus, of course, the Netflix deal was widely regarded as a payoff for Obama's Net Neutrality legislation.
I agree that the sixes are going to find themselves unencumbered by those bothersome contractual obligations very quickly. I would guess that Netflix and Spotify have found them to be a money-losing proposition, have not made back anything near their advances on the content provided, and are going to cut their losses.
We've discussed before on this blog about how the big publishers (and maybe various media) would seem to be a convenient way to reward (*cough* pay off *cough*) certain politicians that write favorable legislation/have influenced favorable legislation/have approved favorable legislation for corporate or foreign national interests.
I'm wondering whether a couple of dissident royals would be approved for funding by special interests/countries bent on stirring up discontent? It would be in the best interests of some malign entities to have divided populations fighting amongst themselves while they are quietly (or not so quietly) committing foul deeds. They could be simultaneously fanning the flames of outrage for both sides. We've all read about the sixes' questionable Russian oligarch enablers that have provided housing and guards. (No oligarchs have been obliging enough to provide shelter for the rest of us, so why would it be extended to somebody that is not going to be within spitting distance of the throne and has *no* influence and his failed actress wife? They have reasons.)
I have seen it written here that, should the Queen have a certain Harry-shaped family member on the balcony during the Jubilee, the monarchy is DONE. That seems a bit extreme to me, so I have to wonder about the people who are behind writing and promulgating this idea? At the time, I thought the funding of the sixes was because of England's withdrawal from the EU. Now I'm convinced that the invasion of Ukraine and other former Soviet countries was being planned even then. It just needed the European countries to eviscerate themselves via energy dependence upon the very country that is murdering and ravaging the Ukraine. I do believe that they are going to try to force the rest of the dissident countries back into the fold. Who would have thought that shades of Holdomor would rise again in 2022?
Interestingly, it was widely reported on July 22-23, 2018 that the Queen had gifted Adelaide Cottage to the Harkles as a late wedding present.
However in my research I could only find articles where it said "a source", nothing confirmed by the palace.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think we could safely say that this was probably just Mm manifesting again.
So, I'm confused. Are we meant to think that the Queen offered the Harkles their pick of the Windsor cottages that were available? If Adelaide Cottage was gifted to them 2 months after their marriage . . why did they never move in despite 'liking it' and the huge hullaballoo made over Frogmore Cottage--the also Grade II listed property that was in sadly dilapidated condition, necessitating many months of restoration work? And all that flap over the monies spent for allegedly phantom refurbishings including a copper bathtub (allegedly), floating yoga floor (allegedly) and orangerie (also allegedly) . . all never used?
I guess we are supposed to accept without question that Eugenie and Jack are living there now with their baby, but I've never been satisfied that the Harkles ever actually moved in or lived there. Why would HM/Charles approve all of this uproar if Adelaide Cottage was movie-in ready? Did HM revoke the initial gift of the probably significantly nicer AC and stick them at Frogmore because they were both so difficult and ungrateful?
If press releases aren't confirmed by the Palace, I tend to believe it's M lying again. Maybe she liked the look of Adelaide Cottage but was told she couldn't have that one. Then the articles started appearing about how the cottage was a late wedding present. I'm sure if such a wedding present was intended, HM would have announced it at the time of their wedding and they would have moved out of Kensington right after the top secret honeymoon they didn't really take. To the best of my recollection, the announcement from the Palace that the Harkles would move to Frogmore Cottage did not start circulating until Nov/Dec 2018. I did rather think that the extensive work required on that building was going to require more time to complete than 4 or 5 months, most of those in the winter, in order to allow a 'nesting expectant Duchess to move in to await the birth of her baby.
As if. I do not believe they ever lived there at all or even condescended to spend even a night. Can't imagine what Eugenie and Jack allegedly packed up and had shipped to America if the Harkles were never there.
What I typed:
Rob Keeley
My schaden has never been freude.
Should have read:
My schaden has never been so freude.
@Wild Boar
@Raspberry Ruffle
@Sandie
I did know that H and M were renting Frogmore Cottage. When I googled Adelaide Cottage multiple articles appeared from 2018 stating that AC had been gifted to them by the Queen. As you say, likely disinformation planted by the Sussex PR team.
It’s a shame the Cambridges can’t live in Frogmore House, which has such beautiful grounds. It was reportedly ruled out because the cost of making it habitable for a young family would have been prohibitive.
22 minutes ago
I saw Prince Harry on the Santa Monica beach Bike path He was just taking a walk with his kid in a stroller so I didn't bother him other than a wave hello.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/netflix-dumps-meghan-markles-animated-series-citing-strategic-decisions
I have been watching the two-part interview PDina did with Thomas. (I think I remember someone here did recommend and post the link.)
What struck me in Part 1 is that Doria seems to have been instrumental in the ghosting of the Markles and the complete breakdown of the relationship between Thomas and his daughter. He still has only good to say about Doria, but it is clear that Doria played a huge part.
Thomas did want pap shots with his daughter, as Doria had on numerous occasions. The apple does not fall far from the tree, but I don't think anyone in that family can claim higher ground or has the right to ghost anyone.
I actually like PDina and have been aware of her for a while, but have not been following her as a subscriber.
Some questions I have: why did she not simply contact her siblings and ask them to please not to speak to the media and offer them professional advice on how to deal with the attention? Would that not be the most normal thing to do?