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
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10775803/DAN-WOOTTON-Breaking-bank-Harry-Meghan-biggest-mistake-Netflix-history.html
DAN WOOTTON: Breaking the bank to sign the King and Queen of Woke Harry and Meghan is the biggest mistake in Netflix history – viewers have zero interest in paying to hear the Sussexes preach
I think it’s the howls of rage and fury emanating from a Montecito mansion in the hours after Meghan Markle had the crushing realisation that pretending to be a Hollywood ‘Duchess’ means nothing in the cutthroat world of American TV.
Netflix, which just 14 months ago at the height of the pandemic subscriber boom, employed the Sussexes in an unprecedented exclusive telly deal worth tens of millions, has had a crushing realisation of its own: Viewers of the once-great streaming platform aren’t going to keep paying to be force fed a succession of painfully PC dramas about pregnant men, series campaigning for us to stop eating meat and fish, and documentaries telling white people how we’re racist.
The ‘woke mind virus’ that Elon Musk believes is spreading through Netflix like a plague has seen its subscriber numbers plummet, causing a crash in the streaming giant’s stock price and a major crisis in confidence.
So first to go in the sweeping cuts set to hit the company are the sorts of telly vanity projects that Netflix thought gave them kudos in liberal luvvie circles, but won’t end up resulting in shows that anyone wants to subscribe to watch.
That includes Pearl, the first major series announced from Harry and Meghan’s megabucks deal, with Elton John’s husband David Furnish – a BFF best known for providing the couple with carbon-guzzling private jets at a moment’s notice – drafted in to produce alongside their own production company Archewell.
It was meant to be an animated series starring a campaigning 12-year-old girl, based on the precocious Meghan as a child, who wrote to Procter & Gamble about a sexist ad, weaving in the stories of ‘extraordinary women throughout history’.
/What kind of person gets up in the morning, says "I am soooo brilliant and beautiful, I should have a children's show made about my life!"
From the Telegraph:
Sorry Harry, but Britain has learnt to love Camilla
The Sussexes can’t afford another misstep right now – and targeting his stepmother could be one of the Prince’s biggest errors yet
Celia Walden
wonder whether somewhere in Archewell Castle, Montecito, there is a dartboard. Prince Harry’s Dartboard of Displeasure. The numbers have been replaced by tiny royal cut-outs; the bullseye bears the royal coat of arms and, when the Duke of Sussex feels that his mental health isn’t quite at air-punching emoji levels, he stands in front of it – and takes aim.
If the latest rumours are to be believed, Harry’s next target could be his stepmother, the Duchess of Cornwall. A source in Tina Brown’s new book, The Palace Papers, has already claimed: “Harry can’t stand Camilla – he doesn’t want Camilla to be Queen.” And, according to reports published in this paper on Saturday, our petulant prince is to “say some unkind things about her” in his next round of media revelations, which will culminate in the publication of his autobiography this autumn. Because nothing says “I value my privacy” better than a never-ending line of dirty laundry.
Just last week Harry mocked our backward attitude to psychotherapy on the US podcast, Masters of Scale: “You talk about it here in California, ‘I’ll get my therapist to call your therapist.’ Whereas in the UK it’s like, ‘Therapist? What therapist?’ ” Although if therapy is about miring yourself in the blame game and retribution, I’ll settle for being backward.
Let’s take stock of who has so far been nailed on his Dartboard of Displeasure. Harry’s skewered The Firm in a thousand different ways including, seemingly, his own father and brother. Apparently it wasn’t just “his truth” he felt the need to share with Oprah, but theirs. And as he told the NBC Today show last month, Harry only dropped in on his grandmother en route to the Invictus games to ensure that she was “protected” and had the “right people around her”.
If the inference wasn’t clear enough, Harry then refused to answer host Hoda Kotb when asked: “Do you miss your brother or your dad?” A straightforward “yes” would have sufficed. Doesn’t even have to be true. It’s called diplomacy.
Those racist and inhumane beasts at the Palace have got it in the neck, as well as his bully of a sister-in-law, who goes around making Meghan cry. Which doesn’t leave many left to target. But Penguin are going to need to get their £15 million-worth of flesh, so why not go for Camilla?
I’ll tell you why not, Harry.
But when, back in February, the Queen declared it her “sincerest wish” that the Duchess of Cornwall become Queen Consort when Charles becomes king, that wasn’t just Her Majesty saying “give my daughter-in-law the respect she’s owed and earned” but a reminder that Camilla is the future. That as a country, and as individuals, we all need to adapt and move on.
So, as the Duchess of Cornwall celebrates her 75th birthday in July amid what is sure to be an outpouring of admiration and affection; as she is anointed by Vogue, gracing the cover of a special edition that same month; as the Queen continues to scale back her public engagements, handing over an increasing number of duties to Charles and Camilla, will Harry toe the line?
If he has, as has been reported, indeed set his sights on Camilla in a memoir that might be entitled Finding Grievances: The Making of a Whinge-aholic, there is still time to make that call to your editor – and a few crucial cuts. Because right now, the Sussexes can’t afford another misstep.
After all, two years on from that £100 million “mega-watt” Netflix deal things aren’t looking quite so bright. On Sunday it was revealed that the once-dominant streaming platform has quietly dropped Pearl – an animated series about a 12-year-old girl “who tries to overcome life’s daily challenges” created by Meghan. How many more of Archewell’s projects might follow suit? Given they bypassed both Apple and Disney in favour of Netflix, it’s hard to avoid the irony (and the schadenfreude). As any therapist worth their salt might say: “It’s time to start making better decisions.” Ditching the blame game would be a good place to start.
At the time, I thought the funding of the sixes was because of England's withdrawal from the EU.
Swamp Woman, you've lost me. I assume you're talking about the Sixes' getting free housing from two different Russian oligarchs. How is that related to the UK's withdrawal from the EU IYO?
Meghan's Netflix cancellation shows the woke streaming bubble has burst
Maybe now streaming services will focus on entertainment rather than preaching
MATTHEW LYNN
She would no doubt have learned from her experiences, taken strength from overcoming traditional gender stereotypes, suffered from rejection by traditional hierarchies, and yet somehow managed to finally bring the world together in celebration of sensitivity and inclusiveness by the end of Season One.
A few princess-obsessed under-10s will, just possibly, be distraught that ‘Pearl’, the animated adventure series that was meant to be the first product to emerge from the Duchess of Sussex's mega-deal with Netflix, has been scrapped before it even got into production.
Everyone else will probably be relieved, and get back to watching Sienna Miller furiously glower her way through Westminster in ‘Anatomy of a Scandal’.
But a closer look suggests the tectonic plates might be shifting.
Pearl may have been a hopelessly tragic idea for a series. But Meghan’s cancellation comes right on the back of Spotify’s decision to quietly shuffle Michelle and Barack Obama off its roster of high-profile podcasters.
A coincidence? Not really. In truth, the streaming giants, like much of the rest of the media establishment, are starting to work out that sanctimonious woke programming doesn’t pull in the viewers.
It was easy enough to hide that during a credit bubble, when easy money was flying around everywhere, but now that cash is starting to get tighter it is becoming far, far harder. Market forces are finally starting to re-assert themselves - and preachy, dull-as-ditchwater shows should thankfully be consigned to the past.
The image of the Sussexes as global media and tech moguls is getting increasingly hard to sustain.
The Sussex Royal brand, with plans for baby clothes and wellness courses, was quietly dropped in 2020 after they ceased to be working royals.
Prince Harry is still chief impact officer at the coaching start-up BetterUp, but it seems that his impact may not be all that everyone hoped. There were reports last week of coaches and staff rebelling over cuts to their terms and conditions, which suggests that clients may not be finding its platforms for "care customised to meet each person’s individual needs across the entire well-being spectrum" to deliver support that is "hyper-personalised and fundamentally human" quite as critical to their business as they hoped it might be.
However, it was the couple’s Archewell Productions that promised to be the real money-spinner, producing a range of programming for the streaming services Netflix and Spotify.
The trouble is, not much in the way of content has emerged. An upcoming documentary on the Invictus Games may finally reach the screen. But the children’s shows, of which the ill-fated ‘Pearl’ was meant to be the first, appear to be in question, and it is looking increasingly unlikely that any more will be made.
It is not just Meghan. Last month it emerged that Michelle and Barack Obama were ending their multi-million dollar deal with Spotify.
Barack’s blokey chats with Bruce Springsteen were entertaining enough, but the rest of the planned output was an exercise in self-indulgent sermonising of the sort that sends listeners' search for the shuffle button.
Meanwhile, there is not much sign yet of a second season of Gyneth Paltrow’s ‘Goop Lab’ on Netflix after the first one led to cancelled subscriptions and an online petition to stop it ever returning.
True, in showbusiness, there will always be misses as well as hits, and no one expects every programme commissioned to work out.
Even so, there is a bigger issue here than just one or two flops.
As with his takeover of the equally left-leaning Twitter, Musk is onto something.
There are three big issues here.
First, there has been too much easy money around. Netflix may have 222 million subscribers, although that total is starting to fall, but it is also sitting on $14bn of debt. It has borrowed a ton of money, poured it into expensive programmes, and kept its fingers crossed that somehow a profitable business would emerge.
The first part has been a great success, but the second is proving a lot harder.
Next, its debt-fuelled expansion has meant that it has not had to worry too much about what consumers actually want to watch. It simply made so much content that some of it - Bridgerton, Emily in Paris - was bound to stick. When every show has to justify itself it will be a lot harder.
Finally, the tech industry, with only a few notable exceptions, has been captured by a cadre of millennial employees who have grown up in a culture that has become hyper-politicised, obsessed with wellness and work-life balance, and engaged in a full-on culture war with normal society. Along the way, it has drifted further and further away from where the mass market actually is.
Meghan’s dire-sounding Pearl was a perfect example.
Dull, worthy, preachy, and sermonising (what were the chances that the inspiring female leaders featured would include an animated Mrs Thatcher discussing the importance of controlling inflation, or indeed a CGI Queen Elizabeth I on the making of the modern world in Tudor England? I am just taking a wild guess here, but possibly not very high), it embodied the worst of Woke-flix.
But it goes a lot deeper than that. Very soon the entertainment industry will have to get back to being what it should have always remained: an entertainment industry.
Its values should be neither right or left of centre, and with a few obvious boundaries such as preventing racism or sexism, it shouldn’t promote any political agenda.
Nor should it be committed to any particular worldview other than accuracy and objectivity. And most of all, it should value creativity, laughter, drama and tension, qualities that are far more important than inclusiveness, diversity or wellness.
Heck, who knows, it might even start making some money - if not for the handful of royals and fading celebrities on huge deals, then at least for increasingly long-suffering shareholders.
Lady Colin Campbell stated that the Queen's Jubilee celebration was a state affair, not a family affair.
The Dollars left the Royal Family, and therefore have no place on the balcony.
I'm sorry for your loss. Next week will be hard but there will be a lot of other days next year as well which will be tough. Birthdays, hers, yours and other special days (because they will be the first one without her).
Our thoughts will continue to be with you.
Swamp Woman said:
At the time, I thought the funding of the sixes was because of England's withdrawal from the EU.
Swamp Woman, you've lost me. I assume you're talking about the Sixes' getting free housing from two different Russian oligarchs. How is that related to the UK's withdrawal from the EU IYO?
Sorry, Henrietta, I had to remove some things to make the answer fit, I was running in and out, and I meant to apologize in advance because I was in SUCH a hurry that my edit may not have made sense (and I see that it did not).
At the time of Brexit, several of us here as well as Nutty were idly speculating as to who the hidden financiers of the Dastardly Duo were. The only thing imminent was the vote on Brexit. The idle speculation was that if the national identity of the English were erased (and the Queen is a beloved symbol of England) then it would be easier to ease England into remaining a faceless member of the EU. (This was predicated on the disgust of the people of England with the two runners who were insulting the country and with family members that seemingly tolerated it.) As we know, Brexit happened regardless.
(If somebody else was here that indulged in the speculation and conversation, please feel free to jump in to add additional information that I may have missed, or correct what I may have misremembered.)
The only visible support of the two at the time were the Russian oligarchs but why, we asked ourselves and each other. Did they just enjoy poking their finger in the eye of royalty? Did they have financial interests involved in dissolving the monarchy? Were they paid to stir up trouble? We shrugged our collective shoulders and moved on, but remained open to the idea that there was hidden significance to the move and the financing that may become apparent in the future.
Then COVID happened.
Now, here we are in the future.
I do seem to remember that (woke EI) if only because I seem to remember as the real queen would wear lead to whiten her complexion (an upper class thing of the time) and wondering if or how they would portray that part. Thinking about the comment about how she failed to do a lot hard decision(s) late in life so I'm wondering if that had had an impact on her brain/decision making process?
New cut from Tina's book about how you know who failed to understand why they were even on the Australian tour at all but decided that it meant that they needed greater recognition by the BRF of their rising star power.
SIDE POINT: In the FF book, there was a lot of comparisons to how they did better than PC&D or other various non-royals did at drawing in the public to an event. I can remember thinking: yeah, so? so what if they did this or that - why is all this so important for the world to know that they got .X number more people than so-and-so or so many more people in the first 24 hours of having some social media account. Who are you trying to impress? And is there some billboard with these social media stats for the world to look at (and know that at some point, someone else - new and shinny will overtake that record). I think about it now - it sounds dreadfully insecure so must keep pulling up stats to show relevance to people who don't track popularity much because that's not the key factor in the understated way decisions are made within the palace.
Back to the book: I find it most interesting that it sounds like she did not realize that shiny new entry into the BRF plus people loving the image of H did not mean that they were about to eclipse the rest of the family in popularity. So, if there is some truth to that idea, then it might follow that if you believed that you, not your husband/inlaws/their status were the cause of your popularity, then it would influence how you perceived that you could leave them in the dust and continue your upward path without them.
Elle Magazine, no doubt at the behest Sunshine Sachs, has a story just long enough to explain why Harry and his wife were not at tonight’s Met Gala.
It seems the toxic twosome are very selective about which big events they choose to attend and they are concerned about security.
But of course, they would first need to be invited.
Or perhaps the Met Gala is too small of an event for a couple such as the Duke and Duchess of Montecito.
I am just including the top of the article that explains why the Sussexes were’t at the event.
The rest is filler.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/why-meghan-markle-prince-harry-014400005.html
************
Why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Skipped the 2022 Met Gala
By Alyssa Bailey
Mon., May 2, 2022 9:44 PM
Despite moving to California two years ago now, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have been very reserved with what events they attend. They have not gone to an awards show together, not even the Oscars or its glitzy Vanity Fair after party. And this evening, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex weren't among the A-list attendees at tonight's Met Gala. It's unclear whether they were invited, although their attending the event would have required more security than the typical celeb.
Meghan and Harry likely are spending tonight in their Montecito, California home, keeping a low profile with their two children Archie and Lili. The Duke and Duchess were last photographed out on Friday, Harry playing polo with Nacho Figueras at the Santa Barbara Polo and Racquet
Elle Magazine, no doubt with assistance of Sunshine Sachs, has a story just long enough to explain why Harry and his wife were not at tonight’s Met Gala.
It seems the toxic twosome are very selective about which big events they choose to attend and they are concerned about security.
But of course, they would first need to be invited.
Or perhaps they felt the Met Gala isn’t enough of a high- profile event to merit their attendance.
But again, they would first need to have been invited.
I am just including the top of the article that explains why the Sussexes were’t at the event.
The rest is filler.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/why-meghan-markle-prince-harry-014400005.html
************
Why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Skipped the 2022 Met Gala
By Alyssa Bailey
Mon., May 2, 2022 9:44 PM
Despite moving to California two years ago now, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have been very reserved with what events they attend. They have not gone to an awards show together, not even the Oscars or its glitzy Vanity Fair after party. And this evening, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex weren't among the A-list attendees at tonight's Met Gala. It's unclear whether they were invited, although their attending the event would have required more security than the typical celeb.
Meghan and Harry likely are spending tonight in their Montecito, California home, keeping a low profile with their two children Archie and Lili. The Duke and Duchess were last photographed out on Friday, Harry playing polo with Nacho Figueras at the Santa Barbara Polo and Racquet
One thing we know for sure: the Dollars are still paying a PR company to put out misinformation.
No money coming in, it's all dried up. Now they have to live on Twit's inheritance.
Years back, I asked the lady in charge of the cheese counter in our local Tesco why the labels on Scottish cheese showed the saltire, those on Welsh cheese bore the red dragon but the English cheese had the Union flag, which covers all 4 recognised territories, rather than St George's cross.
Her answer was that the EU didn't recognise England.
Of course, Scotland and Wales were discrete Regions in EU-think (hence their being able to achieve some measure of self-government), whereas England had been divided (arbitrarily in some cases) into several regions.
One response to has been the development of County flags, which seemed to have started in the `border' counties with neighbours (including Cornwall) able to fly national flags. An interesting twist on `identity politics'.
As for their popularity as the rock stars of the BRF ... it is a myth. Their attendance at the IG in the Netherlands is a good example. The photographs all focused on them, with most of her looking directly at the camera, and a few of them doing that awful hugging for the cameras thing they do.
The Cambridges have star power. The crowds at their wedding were legendary. People gather in droves to see them and they spend time talking to people and shaking as many hands as they can. There is the odd jarring moment. When Anne and Catherine did the joint engagement, Catherine turned to smile and wave at a few people and it reminded me of an appearance of the dastardly duo, but I suppose it might have looked kind of arrogant if she ignored them. I just found the moment jarring.
The Duke of Kent's biography is getting a lot of attention, and his life is a stark contrast to that of the celebrity couple. Especially in the year of the Platinum Jubilee, people are interested in this personal view from the Queen's cousin.
The Harkles never understood that it is not really about them personally but about how close they are to the monarch or to being the monarch. Remember that woman on the Caribbean tour who remembered the day William was born and then got to shake his hand, knowing that he is a future king, and when he is crowned, she will remember that moment. Outside that, scandals will get attention. And the BRF do not want scandals!
I am referring to Elizabeth II not Elizabeth I where a woman of colour will be portraying the Queen.
Hopefully this link will take you to the LSA page with the information from Twitter about the polo match.
I am not really making sense of this. So these photos were taken during a practice session and not during the match? If public were not allowed in until later, how come there was a photographer there? Polo is stressful for the horses, so it does not make sense to me that they do a practice and then the actual match on the day.
It seems it was a family day, but no children in sight (as I have said before, because he was born in the limelight, he is paranoid about privacy for his kids; she is not going to appear in public with two children that she cannot control and make her look bad). She also does not seem to engage with anyone outside a tight circle, and she seems to get on very well with them and feel very comfortable with them. She must be very insecure. But, I have always believed that underneath the bravado she is socially insecure and inept, which is one of the reasons she clings to him like a limpet. It is a consequence of her pathological narcissism.
Funny though, I thought the term `...of colour' was somewhat, ahem, `exclusive', applicable to those of ultimately sub-Saharan heritage. I didn't think it could be applied to Singaporeans, especially when they seem quite pink in their photos.
Rather like the Axis classifying the Japanese as honorary Aryans.
Oh well, you learn something new every day.
What really struck me about this article:
William experienced 'mental health problems' because of the suffering of others.
Diana seemed to understand that she needed help and time to adjust, and therefore did not automatically blame everyone else for her problems.
Harry seems very confused and completely manipulated by his wife. Like his father, he seems to carry a lot of self pity. Camilla seems to have been a very grounding influence on Charles.
Meghan blames everyone else, talks a lot of word salad, but seems completely oblivious to any fault in herself.
The duo are a toxic mix completely self absorbed and stuck in a world of grandiose delusion. I wonder what kind of partner would have been best for each of them, because it is obviously not each other.
Archie had a microbiology final at Standford and could get an exemption
Lily was sewing Meg's Met Gala Gilded Age costume but alas didnt finish attaching the 10,000 gold beads so yeah the Trotters couldnt go. Do better lily do better
if they are living with the Trotters, she would never want a pap pic with the kids. She cant control the narrative, everyone would focus on them (we do that when we see cambridge family pictures) and narcs cant stand sharing the limelight
Love the security excuse for the Met Gala - well secret service was there because of Hillary Clinton's attendance and most of those A listers had bodyguards (and a few who were dripping in borrowed jewels likely had extra bodyguards from the jewelry houses) so yea it was unsafe.
He played polo in Santa Barbara this weekend. She was there with Markus Anderson, wearing shorts, a striped shirt and a white jacket. That is the appearance everyone is talking about, especially as it coincided with the news that Pearl has been cancelled, and was still in development stage.
@WBBM
The term 'people of colour' is what she used in South Africa, where the term black is used for people who are 100% black, and the term coloured is used mostly for people of mixed race, without the negative connotations and horror exhibited by the Western world. South Africans were bemused, especially as she does not look mixed race and she has had a Western 'white' upbringing and lives a Western 'white' life. Black people and people of mixed race (that we call coloured) in South Africa cannot relate to her (other than perhaps to comment that she needs to use the right products for her hair and there are plenty available if she actually went to a black hairdresser in a black neighbourhood).
I have no problem with a dancer of another race/nationality representing the Queen in a very stylised pageant from her culture. I do have a problem with a black actress representing a historical figure who was white in a historical drama. I don't know if that makes sense.
Thank you. I am very touched by your kind words and thoughts, it means a lot to me.
It was reported yesterday in the DM (and other papers) that Prince Andrew has reportedly always wanted Adelaide Cottage to go to Eugenie, and so he may try and interfere with any plans by the Cambridges to set up housekeeping there. If true I’m sure the needs and desires of the heir to the throne would trump those of the Yorks, but I wonder if the situation may cause friction between the families?
Prince Andrew on collision course with William and Kate over new mansion for Eugenie
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-collision-course-william-26860502
Was interesting seeing the allusive Mr. Marcus at the polo grounds he looked fine; she looked ridiculous, like she rolled out of bed after a night on a bender and grabbed the first thing she could put on to high tail it off to the polo grounds. Maybe the Mrs was a little worried if the hubby was getting too chummy with Nacho Cheese.
Option B, A was not
and
I don't have a problem with you posting those articles as some don't have the access. My feelings are either scroll by or think of saying thank you for posting those. Me? I'm in the Thank you camp.
I love your submissions, and am so grateful you take the time to share interesting article snippets and links with us. My vote is to please continue apace.
Like abbyh just remarked: “Me? I'm in the Thank you camp.”
I second that emotion. I am singing the tune a la Smokey Robinson as I write the lyrics.
Re. Eugenie at Adelaide Cottage…
The Cambridges are settling in Windsor now due to the Queen being based there full-time these days. Had she opted to stay at BP, I doubt this Windsor move would have ever been in the cards. After the queen passes, which regretfully cannot be more than a few years into the future, William will no doubt want to be back in KP where his palatial apartment has been tricked out with reception rooms befitting a Prince of Wales, and Of course he will be closer to The Office of his father. One supposes that once Charles is King he wouldn’t object to William and fam staying at Windsor Castle if the need arises.
Bickering over a cottage does sound like Andrew, but what proof is there that he is kicking up a fuss over this? It is imperative that he does not antagonize Charles or William any further if he is to cling onto what little he has left. Besides, isn’t Euge happily ensconced at the newly renovated Frogmore? Is that place really such a dump, or have we been snowed all this time that she’s there at all? I’m afraid it’s come to the point where I don’t believe anything I read in the popular press any more when it comes to Interfamily drama among the Royals, Maggot and more excepted of course.
It is a rumour that the Cambridges are considering moving into or are moving into Adelaide Cottage. (Remember the false reports stating categorically that the dastardly duo were going to move in there?)
Why would Andrew always have wanted it for Eugenie? Why not Beatrice? If Eugenie ever did want it, could they afford it, and why not ask for it instead of moving into Frogmore Cottage in a secretive deal with the hapless cousin?
The royal family has some odd rules. Charles and William are gifted royal properties and live rent free in Crown Estate properties. The rest, even if they are full-time working royals, have to sign leases and pay to live in Crown Estate properties. I can imagine that Andrew feels bitter about that. I am assuming that the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester do not live rent free in Crown Estate properties. According to this strange system, the hapless prince should not have been able to live rent free in Crown Estate properties.
I love it when you post articles because I can indulge my lazy side and just read instead of following a link!
-----------
Hillary Clinton was there. Are the Harkles saying that the Secret Service isn't good enough for them?
Bickering over a cottage does sound like Andrew, but what proof is there that he is kicking up a fuss over this?
-----
Read elsewhere that someone is putting this out there just onto make Andrew look Bae. Coild be, I guess.
Interesting about the age of the pictures. That's good intel.
There’s nothing odd about renting crown estate properties to surplus royals, it means the tax payer isn’t funding their home. Both Charles and William are future heirs hence why they don’t pay rent. The renting argument came to the fore to the British pubic years ago whereby many royals were either paying no rent or peanuts for huge homes and apartments owned by the crown estates. That came to an abrupt end when it came public knowledge.
Properties aren’t presents (or gifted as some people state) given to royals, they are usually homes lent to the royal(s) in the lifetime of the royal.
There’s always been rivalry between certain royal family members, so I’m not entirely surprised about the story of Andrew and Adelaide Cottage etc. However, the British press loves to whip up storms where they don’t necessarily exist so I don’t entirely buy the full story either. 🥴
@ Rebecca and the Andrew story. I saw the article yesterday in the DM, but I wanted to add that I too have no problems with articles being posted on the blog. So thank you for your efforts and time. 😃
In general, I believe, theatre-goers are likely to be more sophisticated than cinema-goers and they do not accept that what they see represents historical reality but rather live modern people in costume. The way the roles are inhabited is far more important than skin colour. Film is more likely to be seen as legitimate documentary, particularly by those with only a sketchy acquaintance with history.
Please keep posting.I enjoy all the articles you post. I wouldn't have the opportunity otherwise.
Don’t reckon much to the
Adelaide Cottage/Andrew twaddle.
Media maelstrom.
Adelaide Cottage and York Cottage
Sandringham, (estate office/rentals)
were both touted as supposed
wedding gifts to the grunts.
They ended up with Tadpole Towers!
@Rebecca
Keep ‘em coming,
delightful change from
the Dirge Mail 😉
Getflixed
Little Haz Scorner
Sits in a coma
After eating humble pie
We know that he’s dumb
He married some scum
Still wonders
why they’ve been given a bye…
I don't know that I believe the story about Andrew wanting Adelaide Cottage for Eugenie. (Although I do believe Eugenie may be more interested in living in Windsor than Bea and Edo are.)
It was also reported the Cambridges wanted Royal Lodge but Andrew refused to give it up. I don't believe that story for a couple of reasons. And while Will outranks Andrew, PA does have a 75-year lease. That may not matter since the tenants were evicted from Anmer Hall for W&K but I believe PA paid upfront money for the lease. People may not like PA but seeing Will having him evicted so he can have a 3rd large residence might not go over well.
While the Adelaide Cottage story may not be true, I think its quite possible the Cambridges are moving. There have been reports for several years they didn't like living in London and Kate wanted to live closer to her parents. So I don't know that they are (as one press account stated) "racing" to move to be closer to the Queen. If they do move there's no reason they'd have to give up Anmer Hall- they own that outright. But it's certainly possible they don't want to live in KP right now and Anmer is too far for a weekend home since they've supposedly been asked not to helicopter as a family. I think too it's perfectly possible St. Thomas school isn't working out. Not necessarily because of the school (although I don't recall hearing glowing reports either) but the location. While W&K claim to do the school runs themselves most days, it's likely a good 30 minute drive one way during rush hour. Spending two hours a day on school runs may not be fun even for "hands-on" parents. I do think though we are less likely to see as much of the Cambridges if they live in Windsor vs London.
While some have said it would be better if they lived in Frogmore House, I hope they don't do that myself. Spending ANY taxpayer-money renovating a 3rd expensive home in 11 years wouldn't be a good look especially after the Frogmore Cottage debacle and the bad press the Cambridges got over the Amber & KP renovations. And I don't think FH is likely to have any of the features they'd want right now so it would need tons of renovation.
This interview with Tina Brown is all over the tabloids.
IMO there is a fundamental misunderstanding of TBW. She has no interest in other people, especially those who cannot give her wealth and status. To her, being a humanitarian is about speeches at the UN, carefully curated photo ops, awards, and generally lots of opportunity to give her opinions without being questioned or challenged in any way. That is the antithesis of what royalty is about.
However, being royal gave her special treatment that was exactly what she wanted. Top notch security, people opening doors for her and clearing the way, all the staff she wanted to do her bidding, guaranteed crowds at appearances (look how much they live me), guaranteed tickets for wherever/whatever she wanted (and even clearing the stands for her at Wimbledon), guaranteed table at any restaurant (she must have been furious when some restaurants actually said no), use of any private jet she wanted and ...
IMO she actually is that shallow and self-absorbed. What I am not sure about is if she knew that being a working royal was about serving others and following protocal and an agenda set by others. It is about listening rather than talking, and the tremendous power of royalty (especially for fundraising and setting up organisations that help others) is what happens behind closed doors. Was she so stupid that she misunderstood (Angela Levin insists that he told her that he had fully prepared TBW for what it was like to be a working royal and live a life of service), or did she cynically always intend to grab as much wealth as she couyod, become hugely famous and then take it all, along with the royal position that did open doors, and head back to California?
What's been revealed to us from Tina Brown's book is a petulant, jealous and angry prince at the heart of this drama, who found the perfect partner in crime, to strike out at his family in the most lowbrow and dishonest way possible. He's a piece of work, alright. He thought Megsy-baby was gonna make him bigger than his brother, about whom he has a positively Amber Heard-ian level of jealousy of.
They can't believe the firm shut the door on their nasty impudence. I'm sure they can't believe A listers weren't tripping over themselves to get an audience in Monte-cheato and were stunned that George and Amal weren't frequent dinner guests. And I'm sure they are more than a little worried not to get an invite to the Met Gala. That should have been a "shoe in" for them. I mean they let in trash like the Kardashians but nothing for the Suck-its? It's delightfully funny and more than a little Juvenile on my part to watch the scales dropping off their eyes. And justice is being served.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgfoFO41Qnk
The most interesting bit is in the comments. Apparently, she visited an `abuse shelter' in Vancouver and published photos of the women who had taken refuge there - thus compromising their safety.
Typical.
----
You'd think she'd get nailed for that kind of stunt eventually.
It's like their visit to Harlem. Posted pics/video of kids who were predominantly from shelters for homeless or abused women.
Or the daycare where they planted forget-me-nots. And then posted pics/video of daycare kids.
So interesting how they're sooooo focused on their own safety, enough that they can't attend events even though the Secret Service is there, but expose vulnerable kids and women to danger for their own profit. Ultimate in disgusting.
The snip in the DM is more about how you know who didn't make the connection that Diana had done years of show up, smile and represent the family. Years before she divorced and then sort of went in the direction of global humanitarian because there weren't a lot of other directions to go in. Because she had the personality, the looks - those plus the work experience are what propelled her forward in that direction.
So I was thinking about the claims of being able to hit the ground running and thought: Yeah but when you start running, you have to know what direction to go in (or you may/will go in a/the wrong one).
So much was given to her so early on (for many reasons) and the level of squandering of it is still astounding.
...I have been reliably told that they were not invited to the Met Gala. While I do not have direct intel about the White House Correspondents Dinner, there's no way they were invited to that either. She has no clout with either political party and she has repeatedly pissed off Michelle Obama.
Those things aside, practically speaking, I don't believe they were invited because there is no way in Hell that Meghan Markle would turn down either invitation. I know from my source that their social calendar is pretty empty from the perspective of the entertainment industry, moreover the Met Gala is arguably THE social event of every year and people more accomplished than Meghan Markle clamor for invitations. Also, as much as Markle wants to appear to have political clout and to be considered a writer, there's no way she would miss a networking opportunity like the White House Correspondents dinner. I mean, what else does she have to do that is more important and worth more social currency than these events? Surely not parenting. Meghan can leave an infant at home to fly overseas and/or across country to watch a tennis game, mock-tour New York, look like a busted tomato at a Veteran's Event she was not scheduled to attend, and upstage disabled Veterans. None of what she's to date deemed worthy of leaving her kids for has even half of the social clout of the Met Gala or WHC Dinner. Basically, even if I had no intel, I'd wonder why, if they were invited, wouldn't they attend?
Anyway, the word on the street is that she and Harry definitely were not invited to the Met. And as far as the White House dinner, they can't even score an invite to Richard Simmons' Tupperware party at this point, much less anything high profile.
And the fact that every. single. Kartrashian. was invited to the Met Ball (or Gala, I dunno) is the biggest LOL of all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10779889/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Meghans-big-lifestyle-blog-relaunch-hits-Patent-Trademark-Office-snag.html
She not only failed to sign it, but she has been told her description is too broad:
"The more detailed selection of subjects Meghan's planning to cover include food, cooking, recipes, travel, relationships, fashion, style, lifestyle, the arts, culture, design, conscious living, and health and wellness."
Genuine question: what could be the problem? Who would hire such incompetent staff, or did she fill in the application herself? How could anyone forget to sign something? How difficult could it be for someone who boasts about being so smart to throw mud at the wall in a way that is acceptable? Instead of listing all these subjects, simply describe it as a lifestyle blog because that one topic can cover all the rest. How does Meghan maintain a happy and healthy lifestyle? I am sure there are many here who could think of an even better subject choice that would encompass all the rest.
I am not familiar with the application form, but over and over again she seems to not understand what is required. What do all these fabulous staff she hires do? How the heck did this woman actually graduate from university (called college in America)?
/now off to the feed store.
/how much free alcohol would induce me to go? Does that much alcohol exist?
Is TBW's rise part of the Clinton's plan to outsmart team Obama as Biden loses grip?
LOL
I would love to go to a Richard Simmons party. He is so much fun.
Please keep posting the news reports, and thanks in advance.
I have noticed that there have been a few articles regarding the gruesome twosome wanting to return to Royal duties part time.
At the same time Miss "Misery Arse" is being outed in the papers for thinking Royal tours are a waste of time and seeing no point in them etc.
Fun and games
... too broad ... I was looking at filing something at one point and took a couple of classes on this by lawyers specializing in this. You don't go to a general lawyer about this kind of thing. https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/
From what I remember, too broad probably really meant that it was too vague instead of a more specific how to (like clothing versus male/female/gender neutral infant clothing through toddler) or what exactly is the difference between conscious living, health and wellness (is there a medical doctor attached to this part)?
An example used was about shapes: say your illustration was a circle. You need to also include other shapes you might use down the road even if it were not immediate (think square, rectangle, triangle, etc). It also meant that someone could not come along and trademark your idea but using an octagon.
I can really remember thinking: you know, paying one of these guys to shepherd this thing through would be worth every stinking penny. A verbal quote for me would be in the 3 to 5, possible up to 7K$ range. Not using one of these specialists or not following their directions would be penny wise pound foolish.
Is anyone else side eyeing this?
Lead balloons have more 'rise' than the Harkles at this point.
The White House Correspondents' Dinner? How delusional is she?! To my knowledge, that invite goes out to journalists covering the Washington beat, high-profile political pundits, donors, retired/current lawmakers, etc. Which camp does she think she fits into? Did she give $5 to the Democratic Party and think she rates?
Sen. Feinstein of California is 88 and according to concerning reports recently is apparently suffering a very noticeable cognitive decline. She has announced no plans to retire before her term expires in 2024, but word is she must be accompanied by an aide at all times and struggles to remember the names of longstanding colleagues she's known for 30 years. I can see TBW thinking she'd slide into the slot of senior Dem Senator from California. LOL.
Verrrry interesting how the Harkles are continually filing all kinds of patent applications and other legal paperwork that continually gets rejected because they file to sign it, fill it out properly or file it on time. Sometimes all three. This despite shelling out for multiple legal and administrative staff. Are they both so dumb or addled on drugs/drink that they can't even manage a signature or reading instructions? Or, on some level do they know that they are absolute frauds. They make a whole cacophony of noise about all their great ideas but they never finish s---. This continual self-sabotage has got to come from somewhere. They are like two coked-up toddlers who've escaped Romper Room and run amok with no idea how to act like adults.
The forthcoming books as they absolutely implode are going to be entertaining but in that horrific train wreck sort of way.
This comment under the BLG video you provided the link to is interesting:
11 hours ago
Makes me want to cry: Whilst this snake has lived in luxury all her life - provided by father, husbands, and the many other men that had the misfortune to get involved with her - the most needy and vulnerable people of society are just asking for safety & shelter. What kind of evil creature would want to hinder that???
My comment is that she never thinks of anyone but herself and her "PR"!
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/uiinq5/according_to_big_brother/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
So who do you guys think MM's "major celebrity" is? All I can think of is Elon Musk.
-----
Absolutely! Something was wanted to remain hidden.
Who knows what.
Even if H is dallying with Nacho...it still seems weird that they team up with a couple of underage boys. They couldn't find anyone in their 20's or 30's willing to team with them?
Surely there must be some grown men who would appreciate the opportunity to team up with a prince?
I don't know that I would want my 16 year old son placed in that environment.
Saw this elsewhere:
I’d be willing to consider that excuse if she was self-filing the forms. But she isn’t. One Marjorie Witter Norman is listed as the attorney of record (meaning Norman filed the paperwork). According to trademarkia, Norman has filed 912 trademark application so she is pretty experienced at this. This mistake shouldn’t happen because Norman should catch it before it gets submitted.
First of all, there is a major celebrity that Meghan has an obsession with, to the point that she's not taking no for an answer, and it may be getting ready to cause Meghan some problems. The celebrity's name hasn't been verified at this time, but I'm told it is a big name. This person has reportedly told her in no uncertain terms, "No, not interested." This person has not entertained a single, overture because Meghan's reputation has preceded her, but she allegedly does not care and is still focused on pursuing this person. I do NOT know if her interest is romantic, professional, or both. If I had to guess, it would be both, but I don't know. This gossip is growing quickly, so hopefully we all know what is going on soon.
There's also lots of new gossip that she and Harry are having more severe relationship issues than ever before. Of course we've heard this before, and I don't necessarily think a break up will be announced soon; that would be just too much good news, but the word on the street is that one new thing that is driving a bigger wedge between Harry and Meghan, in addition to their recent failures and ever-more-pressing money problems is the lawsuit with Samantha Markle.
Meghan's behavior with Samantha is allegedly really pissing Harry off, and it's making him start to wonder if she really does only care about money, prestige, and appearing to be right. Harry is allegedly starting to understand that not only does Meghan not care about his family or her own family, he may allegedly also be learning that she may not care about him and the kids either. Anyway, the discussions with Sam are going back and forth (through legal counsel) and Harry now allegedly sees some of Meg's lies and supposedly wants her to stop lying, work it out, and settle this, but Meghan's response is to accuse him of not being supportive... allegedly. The rumors are that this and their financial issues, along with his homesickness, and their alleged turbulent fights, has (sic) him more depressed than ever. Due to all of this, their relationship is reportedly taking a real turn that is different from previous low points. That's all I've heard so far. But I'll keep you all posted.
For whatever reason, the only big shot I can think that might be the recipient of MM's obsession is Elon Musk.
Enough that she wouldn't let H go grouse hunting.
It's interesting that she allows polo, especially in light of H's reputation for being rough with the horses.
Let me add my gratitude to the others that you post interesting articles for all to enjoy. How generous of you. I thoroughly enjoy them! Thank you.
I can think of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos as well. Or maybe Kanye West, for a change, someone AA
I actually think the celeb is Bill Gates. She had hired one of his former top employees plus there was tea that she had already made several overtures. He is also big in the foundation/ humanitarian world, plus is also of the same political persuasion. Elon, I think, has too much individuality and charisma on his own...he would always outshine MM.
Regarding * not signing the trademark documents: In my own experience over the past 18 months, my business partner and I have had to deal with two infuriating, profound narcissists (one perhaps at *’s level of crazy) who both did not sign important legal documents prepared for them by highly competent professionals. In both cases, the paperwork was fully completed and the narc simply had to take the document to a notary public, sign in that person’s presence, and then mail the paperwork in the provided envelope to the recipient. It was “too much work / too beneath them to deal with the mundane” to make an appointment with a notary, go to that person’s location, pay the fee and then take the document to the post office. Instead, both shoved the unsigned paperwork into the envelope and mailed it to the recipient weeks late. Of course, the unsigned forms were invalid and nothing was accomplished.
I suspect there is something that compels blatant narcs not to take responsibility for inconvenient but important (legal) matters and to just think they are so “important” that lesser souls will bend (legal) rules to accommodate them and make their lives easier(heavy eye roll) …
how about the Governor of California? Gavin Newsom
I don't know. He is closer to her in age, but NOT IQ. She would certainly be against the free speech that he is championing. He also seems to be very close to his siblings and mother. I can't see her living in a $50,000 Boxabl in Boca Chica, Texas at SpaceX.
I can see her wanting his money and fame. I can't see her dominating him and separating him from his family, and he has six sons. He also doesn't appear to tolerate fools well or in silence.
I think, for maximum attention, she should go after a rich woman. Maybe a Kardashian? Lots of pap coverage. Lots of attention for the woman, too.
Kim K knows how to make money, how to stay in the spotlight, how to keep people talking about her. Kim K has no talent (Trotter has no talent.)
Kim is a regular at the Met Gala, and, curiously, was invited to the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
The other celebrity could be Gwyneth Paltrow, with her lifestyle empire and corresponding blog.
If the tea is accurate, Trotter is in the realm of having a restraining order filed against her.
I've read somewhere that Paltrow has a staff of 60 overseeing and managing the Goop business. Her in-person experiences sell out at $1,000/person for a single day event.
There's enough of the Goop success, combined with the negative public perception of her that would appeal to Twat, and of which she could relate (the negative perception.) Except that Ms. Paltrow came from Hollywood royalty, and actually has had a successful film career.
Wasn't there a mention in Nutty's blog some time back that Twat had a consultation with one of Paltrow's advisors?
Kim K./Gwyneth, either one for the celebrity that Twat is haunting and stalking.
Or if she obtained a new attorney already.
She has 'hired' staff that used to work with the Gates Foundation, Hillary Clinton and the Obamas, but I think that is an indication that she sees herself as a political and philanthropic power house (LOL!).
My guess would be that in her pre-teens and teens she dreamed of being a Hollywood superstar, so I would consider a major Hollywood celebrity, a man who would guarantee the invite to the Oscars, the magazine spreads celebrating her as a style icon, the major prestigious merching offers, the appearances on talk shows, the roles in major movies ... But perhaps her brain is too addled at this stage to think strategically and I doubt her self-awareness is such that she knows what she really wants.
The supposed man (all unverified gossip) would not have to be single. She would expect any man to dump a partner for her, just as she dumps men when she perceives a better option.
The Body Language Guy has a new video and featured are clips of his and her interaction with children. She is so awkward. What the heck is she doing with her hands? Is the daughter old enough to run from Mommy as the son seems to, or is it still crawling at this stage?
https://youtu.be/OSN4uxGK_F8
Aphrodite does not often read on the duo, and I find his approach to tarot a bit chaotic. But he intuitively is pretty darn accurate in how he reads situations and in his predictions.
Could be an unintended consequence of her paying for pap shots of her in her merched finery/latest plastic surgery. (Closeups of the bleeding flanks, I mean.)
Glad she is still working virtually as much as possible. This at least means she isn't bedridden.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10785243/The-Queen-announces-NOT-attend-summer-Garden-Parties.html
Each player needs 4-6 horses. $100k each. Plus stabling, grooms, etc.
That's a lotta dough.
Doubtful the two 16 year olds are paying for themselves. Can H afford to pay for himself and two others? Plus donate winnings to charity?
Also...how does he reconcile playing an expensive elite sport with making the world a more equal place?
I remember when the gossip started coming out about MM's calls to him, trying to get on the short list for Feinstein's replacement, and sources said she was told to help with his recall fight, which she didn't do. But who knows? Maybe she lied to him about what the mean and racist BRF would do to her if she got involved with it. Maybe she claimed that losing her duchess title would make her less useful to him and to the state. The rumors stopped after he won the recall vote, however.
I think secondhandcoke is going to find out who it is. I personally suspect she already has a name or two, but her source is telling her to hold it until they know for sure. Curiously enough, the women at LSA don't believe her.
Is it too weird that Nacho and H are on a polo team with two 16 year old boys?
Is anyone else side eyeing this?
I gather the papp shots we saw were from a 'practice', not an actual match. Ie., the entire thing was likely staged, not just photographed clandestinely (by Backgrid, the agency the Duds have sued how many times? Their lawsuits for 'breach of privacy are as fake and facetious a the rest of them.) Was there absolutely a real match that can be proven? Maybe all that Twit could manage to round up was his good pal Nacho and a couple of teenage stableboys as the only persons willing to be photographed 'playing polo' with Twit?
I suppose Twat was there because she was pretending that she was Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman". "Mind the steaming divot, Maggot!"
If the Duds staged this photo op to seem more sporty and relatable in America, they badly miscalculated (again). Apart from curling, it's hard to imagine a single other sport that is less representative of the all-American experience than is polo. Sure, Americans play polo . . if they are millionaires who belong to the country club set. Hazmat and his trollop are not interested in rubbing elbows with regular Americans . . but it's the regular Americans who do not have polo club memberships who stand on line in the supermarket and buy People magazine and subscribe to Netflix. Their messaging is all over the place. One day Haz is on top of a bus with James Corden. Then he's juggling his balls in the yard. At a rodeo! Next he's at the Super Bowl! . . At least he looks more at home on top of a polo pony but that's because I reckon he would prefer to *be* at home in England, regardless of what his wife tells him to say.
There would be other opportunities to ride in California that are not polo. I guess Haz wouldn't condescend to go trail-riding. Far less chance of being papped.
As for Haz's amigo Nacho, I've got other thoughts about that . . .
I suspect there is something that compels blatant narcs not to take responsibility for inconvenient but important (legal) matters and to just think they are so “important” that lesser souls will bend (legal) rules to accommodate them and make their lives easier(heavy eye roll) …
I am sure there is certainly this element. A disdain for bureaucracy and any sort of rule-following as it applies to them would make a Narc like Meghan careless about boring plebe details like paperwork.
But--rich people in general think they are too good for boring plebe details and that's why they hire entourages . .to tend to all the boring crap of ordinary mortals' lives for them. So--if the Narc has in actuality had the the necessary documents meticulously prepared by a top lawyer but is compelled to appear personally in front of a notary or other figure of officialdom, like a judge . . wouldn't it be the PA's job to arrange the car to take the VVIP straight to the courthouse or wherever and whisk them away again? People with the staff that the Duds claim to have do not have to remember to do anything--everything is remembered for them. Especially on matters so crucial to her 'brand' as the patents for her stupendous ideas to revolutionize streaming services and the like . . why would one balk at being chauffeured in luxury to go take care of a couple of minutes of paperwork on the way the her day spa or wherever, if the consequences, which are known, for not doing so are dire to her plans?
I submit therefore that:
1. Rachel knows she's a fraud without any substance to back up her grandiose ideas on the patents. What seems like a great scam when blotto on rose at 3am at home is different in the cold light of day when legal documents are expected. She *knows* that she lies, but she can't help herself. This repeated failure to make her ideas 'real' display that she knows she's farting in the wind and is only interested in short-term social media buzz. To actually have to produce ideas . . well, that's WORK, and Rache's allergic. Hence, "Pearl", her one lame podcast in 18 months and etc.
2. Which might be even more controversial but . . I am coming round to the idea that their *is* no entourage. I don't know whose name this is standing in as her lawyer of record, but apart from her . . .what absolute *proofs* have we besides Rach's word for it that she's got all these people working for her? Assistants, lawyers, stylists, hairdressers, nannies, gardeners, maids, drivers . .?
What if there's nobody but Herself and Hazza holed up in some guesthouse of Ellen's or Oprah's? I remain convinced that Mudslide Manor is a short-term rental used for photo shoots, if that's what we've been seeing. Hourly rates apply, which is why the clothes/bump sizes change and the foliage and set dressings remain the same: Multiple photo/videos being done on the same day. They don't own that mansion, and they *obviously* do not have professional techhies and photographers advising them or running these . . Harry looks like he broadcasts from a broom cupboard on a folding table half the time.
The Duds are strictly DIY and we see the results. The people they claim to hire never stick around more than a few months, tops. Who in their right minds would work for the Duds at this point? The lifestyle they are projecting is what they want us to think they have--manifest that success, baby! We can't let the world and especially the RF know that we are squatting in somebody's poolhouse . .sans les bebes. I just do not believe that their ruse can bear the weight of scrutiny that would come with a household entourage of dozens. But if they had even a fraction of that many staff, one would think their lives would be better organized.
Of the names brought up here, I think Meghan might be taking another run at Gwyneth Paltrow as the top candidate and Kim K. as the second candidate.
As I recall, shortly after Meghan landed in California in 2020, Meghan attempted to get a meeting with Gwyneth, but only got as far as an assistant. My guess is Paltrow already had Meghan sussed as someone to stay away from. Also, why would Gwyneth want to impart all the knowledge she’s gained from starting and running Goop and building it to the apparently successful lifestyle enterprise it has become to someone like Meghan, who wants to pick her brain for free snd then become a competitor with her in that market segment? Paltrow isn’t stupid.
It was either Crazy Days and Nights or Blind Gossip where I read about Meghan attempting to get a meeting with Paltrow.
I think Kim K. and her staff are also smart enough to avoid Meghan, who has little to offer in terms of benefits for Kim K. She is already uber successful. There are more negatives to being associated with Meghan than positives. Like Gwyneth Paltrow, Kim K. has no reason to disclose the details of how she developed her empire to someone who wants to compete with her.
In addition, Meghan’s behavior of backstabbing Harry’s family as well as leaving a decades-long trail of discarded people in her wake that she has used and disposed of is not particularly enticing to most people who circulate in the social groups where Kim K. and Paltrow operate or any other person with half a brain.
A business relationship or fraudship with Meghan could easily turn sour due to Meghan’s treachery and likely result in negatives for each of these two women, so they have no reason to give her one minute of their time.
Thank you to @Henrietta and @Rebecca for taking the time to copy and paste the text from all of the sources.
@Maneki I am so sorry for the recent loss of your mother. I lost both parents last year, 4 months apart. The best advice I can offer is to be kind to yourself and go with the flow of the grief process. Our brains only allow us to accept these losses over time, because it’s too much to manage all at once.
"an offspring of the royal pedophile had naked photos texted to her of her husband in bed with another woman"
true, or did someone send this blind to the site to rile up Eugenie because the didnt get someone what they/she wanted. Rumors that trotter sends in blinds sometimes
What about AJ? who is and has basically everything she wanted to be with HW, humanitarian AND UN roles.
Or what if it were not Bill Gates or Jeff B but, instead, one of the ex wives? Money and perhaps as a how about us women show the guys how humanitarian is done?
Your comment prompted a moment of realisation for me. I too have come across people who hate doing the 'mundane', 'low-grade' stuff like signing applications, checking boxes on applications in places and situations where they think either simply their presence, their spending their precious time or that people around them will take care of all the 'silly' work.
I am seeing some close people in new light.
As for the wife, this isn't the first time her manifestations haven't taken care of the nitty gritties. Wasn't their application for foundation trademarks or some such also not signed. Didn't she make light of documents she didn't sign/submit for her union card.
The pattern with the wife keeps repeating - you do all the hardwork, you pay for it all, stay charmed by me, bow to my greatness, never ever question me, cross examine my motives or my narrative. Say no to me at your peril.
“A little info on Nacho..
Saw this on lipstick alley. And here I was feeling sorry for him... .
I don't know much about Nacho, whether he is a good or bad person, but he is not a good judge of character. He's besties with Ellen DeGeneres, and defended her when the bullying allegations came out, calling her a "wonderful human being". There are pics of the two of them on his Instagram page.
He also testified for his millionaire friend John Goodman (not the actor), who was convicted of manslaughter when, while driving drunk, he hit another car and pushed it into a canal (the 23-year-old driver drowned). Goodman then fled the scene. He subsequently adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend as a way to protect his fortune and avoid paying compenation to the family of the victim.
So I don't read much into the fact that Nacho is friends with Bozo. He seems incapable of judging a person's true character.”
And in reply to a question about Nacho’s millionaire friend trying to adopt his own girlfriend to protect his wealth from the lawsuit a poster said
“Goodman has two children from his previous marriage that will split a trust fund worth at least $300mil. When the victim's family went to sue Goodman for compensation, the judge ruled that the children's trust fund was off limits. So if Goodman was able to adopt his girlfriend, then the trust fund would now be split three ways and she would have access to a hundred million dollars.
I think the judge threw the adoption out though.”
Here is the Reddit “Saint Meghan Markle” thread link from which I cut and pasted the above: http://alturl.com/o4wzj
"an offspring of the royal pedophile had naked photos texted to her of her husband in bed with another woman"
true, or did someone send this blind to the site to rile up Eugenie because the didnt get someone what they/she wanted. Rumors that trotter sends in blinds sometimes
Andrew is a toolbag but I confess to feeling at least a smidgen of sympathy for him that he keeps resolutely being labeled a pedophile. His chief accuser, and the only one who has been identified was 17 years old, nearly 18 at the time of their alleged encounter. A pedophile is someone who is sexually aroused by prepubescent children, which technically is under the age of 11.
This blind could just as easily be about Beatrice & Edo, though of the two York sisters, Euge is the more likely target since she's seemingly got a relationship, however dodgy and dubious with the Suxxits. * seems to leave Bea alone, even after Bea pointedly released the news of her pregnancy on the Suxxits' anniversary . . not that a third anniversary is anything special whatsoever nor need trump the joyful news of a first baby. But seeing as Bea could have released the news on any other day that week just as easily, there did seem to be an intentional message being sent.
Of the two York princesses, I always felt more warmly toward Eugenie for a long time . .when the girls were younger I always felt she was in Bea's shadow. Bea's profile was higher at that time and Euge was a bit podgy and mousy compared to her sister who had more the body type for fashion. Eugenie has blossomed since then, though of the two girls she is the spitting image of her father. I was so impressed by her charity work and her respectful attitude toward the Queen, and she had, in recent years appeared to eclipse Bea as the York sister with the higher profile and the more stable love life. But with E.'s exact relationship to the Sussexes so murky, the tables are starting to turn in Bea's favor. If E. is not acting on direction from the RF in keeping the channel open with Harry and his slag, then she is consciously working against William and her uncle. Her name is always mentioned in conjunction with the Suxxits and all the tabloid appearances in their company of late are head-scratching to say the least. To have any contact with a person who so blatantly disrespected her on her wedding day does not make sense to me. Beatrice maintains a dignified distance and silence on the whole fracas, and there are recurring rumors that Eugenie's apparent cordiality toward the Suxxits has caused a rift between the sisters.
Is cultivating the Suxxits, if that's what she's doing, Eugenie's act of open rebellion against the Waleses? Jesus the BLG detected an unmistakable froideur bordering on rudeness by E. toward the Cambridges at a church service encounter, with barely-there greeting or deference, when Bea and Edo were much warmer and more deferential, according to him. Does E. suffer from the same '#2 Spare' jealousy that consumes Haz? One would suppose that Beatrice, being a slot closer to the throne and that much closer to William in age might have more grievances about being stripped of her Royal protection detail and status. The bridges were burnt between Charles and Andrew 50 years ago, and that relationship will never be repaired, but when William accedes, he's going to have to watch his flanks on two sides.
I don't want to think the worst of Eugenie. But following the 'no smoke without fire' theory, * seems to have targeted her and her husband in a way that she hasn't Bea and Edo. Eugenie has got some vulnerabilities . . the second daughter of the second son, married to a guy who is by all accounts really nice, but who is basically a glorified barman. His gig with Casamigos is a really good one for someone like him, but he's probably been promoted as high as he's ever going to go. Anyone that has to work for a living in Eugenie's circles is not wealthy enough, no matter how well-paid the job.
Beatrice on the other hand, is now an Italian contessa and chatelaine of her own castle. She'd be way more useful to * were she to throw in with them but Bea isn't having it.
I do wonder if we shall ever know the truth of what goes on behind the scenes.
I agree, especially with your point that 6+* likely do not have the $$$ and entourage, etc. to finalize the legal paperwork for them.
They used a well-known attorney because that is visible and confers prestige but had the attorney snail mail the docs to them — to save money on an in-office visit to finalize the paper. Lol
@Elsbeth: Melinda Gates, now that's an idea. Hopefully she isn't fool enough to give Trotter a second of her time.
MacKenzie is living the low-key lifestyle, and married a high-school math teacher. She doesn't have ideas of personal grandiosity.
Narcissists can be very charming, and great company until one is alone with them.
I spent two weeks with a narcissist, on a group trip. She was warm, funny, and charming. I agreed to travel with her the following year.
The first week started out okay, and but started to slowly fall apart. . By the second week, alone with her, the rest of the group having dispersed, was a week from hell. Constant criticisms, constantly wanting to get control, making poor decisions, being utterly nasty to me, then running up to strangers to flirt and chat.
* may still be in the charming, witty, and funny mode with Eugenie; and Eugenie may have been told stories of how mean K & W were to her, cutting her out, jealousy, etc.
Look how long * was pleasant and charming to Trevor; she held on for years to her fake personna.
Gotta wonder where H is getting the money to play polo.
Each player needs 4-6 horses. $100k each. Plus stabling, grooms, etc.
That's a lotta dough.
Nacho is a long time Harry friend and suck-up. Nacho is paying for all this. Nacho seems to be a loyal, sentimental kind of guy, so is not going to dump H just because...... Plus Nacho still sees an upside from his publicity with H + M.
Remember that Hapless is fresh off a wave of acclaim from Invictus Games (not really) so it's on to polo acclaim and fame, now that it is polo season in California.
Word has it that the powers that be at KP are concerned that Haz and TW will stage some type of serious crisis during the Jubilee to distract from the celebrations and cause PC to fly to the US. Scenarios include polo accident or child kidnapping. Dont be surprised….
Nacho is a long time Harry friend and suck-up. Nacho is paying for all this. Nacho seems to be a loyal, sentimental kind of guy, so is not going to dump H just because...... Plus Nacho still sees an upside from his publicity with H + M.
@xxxxx and Mel:
Nacho may be unwittingly providing an opening to the outside world for Harry. In a way, relationships with narcissists are a lot like joining a cult. Cults love bomb vulnerable targets and then quickly isolate them from family, friends, and as many aspects of their former life as possible. Cults also isolate and bind their victim to the cult by using an “us against them mentality” to the outside world to increase the victim’s psychological dependence. For narcissists, it often also includes physical isolation by moving far away.
Nacho appears to be Harry’s only link to his former life, which probably is viewed as a threat to her total control of Harry by Meghan.
It would probably be difficult for Meghan to tell Harry he is not allowed to play polo and it is doubtful she has one iota of interest in polo, but she has to go to the matches to keep a close eye on Harry. She has to keep him as short of a leash as possible and keep Nacho and playing polo from putting any thoughts in Harry’s head that might threaten her ability to control and manipulate Harry.
It's good that KP may have recognised the threat and it is devoutly to be wished that they have some thoughts as to how to respond.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/prince-william-kate-middleton-having-091200940.html :
`Prince William and Kate Middleton are reportedly having house drama with another royal'
Who's stirring the pot?
To start the ball rolling, I'll predict that Snitch will stage a `suicide attempt'.
The Cosmo article refers to a Daily Mail report - I have no idea if Scabies contributed to either the Mail or Cosmo. He may well be responsible for getting the article onto Yahoo though . I mentioned it because it underlines what was said above. We have to decide for ourselves.
I use Yahoo simply because that's what I was taught on, in a basic IT course over 10 years ago and life's complicated enough without having to change.
Yahoo is just more laughable now because Scabies works for them and yes, I would guess he’s the reason why Yahoo is carrying the Cosmo article etc. 😃 Any nastiness Scabies can drag up or invent and repeat, he will. 😟
At this point, As coldhearted as it sounds, I think H would do his entire family, his nation, and his current nation of residence a huge favor if he would just off himself and get it over with. It would be supporting him to wait until after his Grandmother's big events.
The duo are starting to look petty and verging on deranged for not sharing at least a birthday portrait. I wonder what Clarence House posted.
She would not actually attempt suicide but there would be another ghastly interview claiming that she was suicidal!
A site with hundreds of predictions includes a claim that Archie will be kidnapped. Round about the Jubilee celebrations would be a good time for them to stage such a stunt.
Otherwise, there will be a sighting of them with the children. That would be her normal behaviour if he is out of town.*
At the very least, she will do a trip to the local shopping centre (who the heck in Montecito would want to have lunch or dinner with them) and call the paparazzi.
* Someone on social media reported that she was walking on a path near their mansion and came across him pushing the daughter in a stroller. No Archie. The wife could go with him, drag Archie along, and call the paparazzi?
and on other sites
I don't know if banned is the correct word or if not invited to join the rest of the family would be a more accurate wording coming from HM.
The obvious solution ... only working Royals (with spouses) on the balcony with the Queen, and the children of the Cambridges and Wessexes to be included. That deals with the problems of Harry and Andrew, and reduces crowding so the appearance will be easier for the Queen.
Do you think it is possible the duo are staying away because they have not been offered any public appearances with the Queen (no balcony, no official portraits, plus no riding in carriages, and, to the horror of the wife, no speeches)?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10789775/Queen-BANS-Harry-Meghan-Andrew-Buckingham-Palace-balcony-Platinum-Jubilee.html
Daily Mail Article used the words "snubbed" and "banned".
The monarch's decisive action to only include royals carrying out official public duties such as Harry's father and brother was taken 'after careful consideration', Buckingham Palace said this afternoon, although she has made some exceptions.
The symbolic ban will be widely viewed as a rejection of Harry and Meghan, who quit the monarchy for a new life in the US two years ago, and to Andrew, who was cast out of the institution over his civil sexual assault case that saw him hand £12million to one of Jeffrey Epstein's sex slaves.
The Trooping the Colour on June 2 will kick start the four days of Jubilee festivities, with 18 members of the royal family set to gather on the famous frontage, with the Queen 'looking forward' the weekend of celebrations. But the Sussexes and the Duke of York will not be on the balcony with her for the sovereign's official birthday parade.
The Queen put her foot down after months of dithering by the California couple over whether they would attend the four days of celebrations marking the monarch's extraordinary 70 years on the throne. Earlier this week it also emerged that her grandson had signed up to play in a number of California polo events over the same period, in a decision experts suggested meant he would stay away.
But there are exceptions, with Prince Anne's husband Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, who is not a working royal, and various grandchildren and great-grandchildren including William and Kate's children George, Charlotte and Louis.
The Palace spokesman added: 'In addition the Cambridge and Wessex children are also expected to appear as is Sir Tim Laurence, who the Queen is happy to attend as a frequent attendee and support for the Princess Royal on official engagements.'"
We are still on moderation (sorry because stuff like that happens).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10789775/Queen-BANS-Harry-Meghan-Andrew-Buckingham-Palace-balcony-Platinum-Jubilee.html
As long as Twit has his personal distractions, which don't include *, it doesn't appear he'll do anything to off himself. There's just too much self-indulgence for Twit that he wouldn't want to pass up.
Nacho is worth about $30 million, and Twit's inheritance was said to be about $30 million, so they are equal in their ability to acquire polo ponies, etc.
It would be great if the royal family heeded the advice (from a foreign senior royal) passed to Lady C in banning the ghastly duo till Mole’s book is released. I personally would prefer a lifetime ban! 🤨
@abbyh, Life has a way of kicking us sometimes. 🥺
From
From the No-Balcony-For-You department at Buckingham Palace: Take THAT, all three of you!
This is a huge slapdown of Andrew, Harry, and Harry’s wife by no less than HMTQ herself. Go Queenie!!
It certainly does nothing to help rehabilitate the tarnished Sussex brand
Headline:
Andrew, Harry and Meghan won’t appear on Jubilee balcony
By DANICA KIRKA 22 minutes ago
LONDON (AP) — Buckingham Palace on Friday answered one of the biggest remaining questions about Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations: saying that Prince Andrew, Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, won’t be on the palace balcony when the monarch greets the public on June 2.
The balcony appearance is a centerpiece moment of many royal celebrations, with the royal family smiling and waving to fans at home and millions watching on television around the world. But the build-up to the ceremonies marking Elizabeth’s 70 years on the throne have been dogged by questions about whether Andrew, Harry and Meghan would be in such a public spotlight amid a sex scandal and family tensions.
The queen has now settled the matter, decreeing that only working members of the royal family will join her on the balcony to watch a Royal Air Force fly-past after the traditional military review known as Trooping the Color.
https://apnews.com/article/queen-elizabeth-ii-entertainment-meghan-markle-prince-harry-royalty-5e9627e60f6a9a61563be9ee7ba47cfa
It appears they might attend family events. What’s the betting they daren’t turn up, after all the service of Thanksgiving is still public and they could be booed! 😂
Our local media had the balcony banning as a headline. The comments were along the lines of "How is this possibly any of our business?"
Meghan to be “rushed to hospital with chest pains” or a similar stunt using one of their alleged children.
Meghan will NOT be satisfied to be in London without garnering some sort of fabricated attention to put the spotlight in herself and diminish the Queen’s milestone celebrations. It is a control move as well as a method to lash out at everything British.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/ufj4pb/literal_monarchs_vs_zlist_cable_tv_actressshow/
Full of self-importance!
It is an absolutely disgusting use of those children as weapons to diminish the Jubilee.
Sorry to hear about your water heater. That has happened to me and it's a mess!
This week my soffit covering came unattached and sagged in high winds causing my pain-in-the A**-neighbor to call the city and complain. Now repaired.
And to make matters worse, my furnace failed, too. (It is unseasonably cold and still chilly in the Upper Midwest) So I am in a similar spot as you are.
Take care.
@MaxFosterCNN
JUST IN: The are coming. A spokesperson for the Sussexes: “Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are excited and honoured to attend The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations this June with their children.”
4:19 PM · May 6, 2022 from Slough, South East
------------
Interesting.
Water heater or.... I have water on floor appearing and so far is this from the roof or from the 40 year old heater? I don't know, so far.
As always, God save the Queen and fend off the Monticito parasites. England is so green. I lived there 5 months. It is so green, same as Ireland, due to constant mists and small rains. So where do H+M move to? The opposite kind of climate. Dry there w 5" rain per year.
Harry, the self-proclaimed Queen's favorite and 'protector' Won't be! Are you okay?
Personally, I predict that the Montishito zero's will manufacture a crisis or desperate excuse, why at the last minute they don't show up.
Other than the Service of Thanksgiving on Friday at St Paul's, I do not see an opportunity for them to make any official public appearance. (But Epsom Derby is a possibility.) So, how are they going to be celebrating? And there is zero chance of them being seen with the Queen, in my opinion. They are shameless though so, we will see ...
Eugenie and Jack will be the friends in the family they can cling to, and Edward is always friendly, but I don't see anyone else wanting to appear officially with them anywhere. As for the children, at least Charles will get to see his grandchildren I assume.
I only had a cursory look but the first page of results yielded NO message of love and celebration from the alleged young man's alleged parents.
Interesting.
Which is why it was so *delicious* to see well-wishes for (in my opinion for entertainment purposes only) the Harkles' Figment Firstborn plastered everywhere from the Royal Family.
But, says the Daily Beast plaintively-- ***Why is is** that the only picture available that can be scrounged up to accompany the birthday wishes is nearly as old as "Archie"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.thedailybeast.com/queen-wishes-archie-happy-third-birthday-but-the-only-photo-that-can-be-found-is-also-from-three-years-ago
@ CatSlave
The big Kraken was released today. Add the press gleefully still running how the mrs career failed. She had no chance really as she needs everything now & unable to play long game. Well played Your Majesty, well played.
It was indeed well-played . . but my definition of Big Kraken differs. Yes, seeing them banned from the balcony is very satisfying. My version of Big Kraken is the Royal Family coming clean about the provenance and/or actual existence (or not) of the two alleged Sussex children.
The fact that Smeagol won't release an updated photo of 'her son' on 'his birthday'--just the thing to perhaps soften Granny's heart into letting them on the balcony--well, it's deafening. It positively SCREAMS in my ear that there aren't any children--at least, not that they have access to. The baby actors have all dried up. If ever there was a time to leverage those 'cute kids' for some goodwill, the time is past now.
She will not because she cannot. No kids, no kids, no kids. The RF fawning now over all those doctored three year old images of Archie and heartily, ostentatiously wishing him a Happy Birthday when his own 'parents' do nothing . . this after the Queen has just declared they will be nowhere near her in public photos of the coming events . . .THIS is well-played, Your Maj. She is heaping all the coals of their own lies on their heads.
We are nearly at the concluding act, folks. "Lili's birthday" is June 4th . . the exact same time as the Jubilee kicks off. Let's see if Mommy does something more for 'Lili' than she's done for her brother.
and why are they coming anyways. did she secure children? will it be to upstage the queen by showing the kids? which archie will show? south african archie? duck duck archie? beachie vibe archie? are they coming just yo kids off the rest of the family? will they charge the queen and charles to have their pic with the kid?
did we see an archie bday pic?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/kate-middleton-being-criticized-speaking-165144461.html
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/people-surprised-salary-work-duchess-of-cambridge-assistant-114048702.html
They might make an appearance at the concert as well. I am sure there are some celebrity musicians like Ed Sheeran that will be pally with them.
She is planning her outfits and buying more itty bitty jewellery with a message as we speak ...
Has the UK government caved and agreed to provide them with royal security at the taxpayers' expense? Shameful!
“Will she make a fuss about her allotted set in the Abbey & then shove her way forward?”
I had the same exact thought. One would hope they would be relegated to a row of seats behind all the other royals but I fear they will likely occupy the same position as at the Westminster event right after their announced split from the family.
I question the decision to allow them to attend any of the Jubilee events. I’m sure they will milk it for all that they can.
Attendance at a church service may well serve Her Majesty's interests.
Their names will not formally be listed in the Order of Service. They will not process into the Cathederal with HM, Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine. Their arrival may well be after other royals such as the Gloucesters and the Kents. They will not be welcomed at the formal receiving line of senior clergy, as the other important royals are. They will be seated towards the back with other minor royals and civilians.
If Her Majesty were to shun them altogether, that would add fuel to the argument that the Monarchy is frightened of the toxic duo's 'star power', and frightened they will 'outshine' her.
By including them, The Queen is being true to her statement that they are loved family members and welcome at family events. But in front of the worlds cameras, she is clearly showing that as former royals they are simply not relevant, they are minor relatives of no monarchical importance. The core message: theyare no longer part of the royal inner circle.
Imagine the photographic comparisons that will be made the day after by all the newspapers. One year front and centre, processing with the royals, the other year, at the back and hidden away like senile old aunt maude and uncle barry the drunk.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
I think it would be wonderful if the British Media were to give Her Majesty a gift to mark her 70th Jubilee.
A complete blackout of reporting on the disloyal Montecito duo, who still continue even today to try to upstage her, for 70 days.
Seventy days of no reporting about the toxic duo, no mention of their names in any publications of British newspapers/online.
Seventy days of peace for Her Majesty, when she can wake up without having to read about the latest efforts by the duo to undo her life's work and legacy.
Now, there's an idea...
Yes, it must be that conjuncture. Just found a leak under a sink. They say things come in threes so it looks like I'm up to two. Dreading what else to discover as today was quite expensive already. Hoping it was the leaks in the garden hoses from the winter freezes.
And some more tea from secondhandcoke:
1. MM pitched Pearl to Disney and got shot down. (Coke acknowledges she doesn't know exactly when this happened.)
2. Enough Netflix subscribers cited M&H as the reason for terminating their subscriptions that the number was statistically significant. Ouch!
the comments over at dlisted are interesting.
I especially like the meme of Batman and Robin climbing a wall. LOL
`O Gracious Queen, we thee implore
to go away and sin no more.
And, if the effort be too great.
to go away at any rate.'
Mention of Tim L put me in mind of when Anne and he were courting. I was living in Winchester then. Apparently, Tim's neighbours put up a solid front in their defence of the couple against the photographers - gave them very short shrift, such that A & T could be left in peace. Also, they were able to have a quiet drink at their favourite pub, just sitting in a corner. Other `regulars' would just come in and say `Good evening', in passing on their way to the bar.
How different, how very different, from the home life of our less-then-dear duckarse.
Timing of Sussexes’ Jubilee announcement was pure theatrics
All eyes will be on Harry and Meghan as they make their first UK public appearance in two years at the Queen's Platinum Jubilee
The Sussexes are coming to town. With their two children in tow, they will return to their royal roots to light up the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee with a touch of LA celebrity sparkle.
For Meghan, it will be her first public appearance in Britain since the Sussexes sped away from official duties in January 2020, leaving scorched earth behind them.
For Archie, it will be the first time he has seen the British half of his family since he was a small baby, with little sister Lilibet meeting her great-granny the Queen and grandpa Prince Charles for the first time.
Once, it would have been unthinkable that Prince Harry would miss such a milestone moment for the Queen. But those simpler days are long gone, and for months the Platinum Jubilee speculation has been spinning out of control.
His most recent pronouncement was that he merely “wanted” to come, with security issues to be ironed out before he dared bring his young family to Britain. Then he was booked into a Santa Barbara polo match - the perfect get-out clause, in the eyes of his fans.
On Friday afternoon, through his PR team, he finally confirmed he would be flying with his wife and children back into the Royal family fold.
Just as night follows day, that announcement was pure theatrics.
Fans and critics alike had only just started digesting the news the Sussexes would not be on the Trooping the Colour balcony. Was it a snub? A masterstroke from the still-authoritative Queen?
Moments later, in the words of their tormentor-in-chief Piers Morgan: “Oh God, they’re coming anyway… wait for the Sussex circus to steal all the focus from the Queen.”
Fairer heads would say they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t: how rude to decline an invitation from the Queen, and how shameless to accept it after everything they have said about the Royal Family.
Cynics will fear their trip will prove yet more fodder for the Sussex publicity machine - new photographs with Granny ahead of Prince Harry’s autobiography in the autumn, and footage for any Netflix documentaries one day coming down the track.
Admirable though their professional talents are, their global brand is inseparable from their Royal status and a trip back to Blighty will burnish those credentials no end.
The novelty of the renegade royals matched with their magnetic capacity for drama will make following every move of their return irresistible.
But the British public has one red line of their own: do not overshadow the Queen in the celebration of her record-breaking reign. The people will forgive much, but not the Queen’s own weekend being ruined.
In the event, the Sussexes will no doubt be on their very best behaviour. No one can question Prince Harry’s love for his grandmother, masked though it is by confessional potshots at the rest of his family, and no one should doubt Meghan’s ability to keep the smiling show on the road when it counts.
With face time, charming American children, and cups of tea, there may even be a thawing of relations.
How wonderful if the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, likely the last major public event of its kind she will ever take part in, could be the start of a new, happier, peaceful royal era. In no small way, the future of the monarchy depends on it.
Even if they did turn up, the only other public event is the service of the thanksgiving. The last visit to the abbey was before they left for Canada, remember the fuss the duo made because due to protocol they were told they’d have to walk behind the Cambridge’s? Can we seriously believe Maggot and Mole turning up at the abbey (particularly after The Queen made a public statement stating they were banned from the balcony) and being told they have to virtually go in unseen and undetected? I honestly cannot see many (if any) royal family members wanting to be seen or be anywhere near them. 🤨
@Rebecca
Thanks for the article from The Telegraph. I am astonished that the publication, along with The Times, do not understand what I have said above, and still insist that the duo are rock stars that are so important for the monarchy. I assume these publications are anti-monarchy? Maybe they would want to replace the monarchy with a head of state that is chosen on the basis of popularity?
I do not think Netflix has told them to make nice with the Queen. My assumption would be that when Spotify and Netflix signed those lucrative deals they assumed that the duo would be able to hire the best talent and produce great product. The real rock stars of the royal family are the Cambridges and Charles, and the Queen and Prince Phillip before them. When you look at what they have achieved, they would have been able to give Netflix and Spotify the product they wanted. Fame and popularity is not equal to talent and ability, and the duo have the additional handicaps of arrogance and hubris and stupidity and self delusion and entitlement ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10791279/Prince-Harrys-charity-African-orphans-took-nearly-19-000-furlough-cash.html
Makes you think...
Trooping the Colour
Platinum Jubilee Beacons
Friday 3rd June
Service of Thanksgiving
Saturday 4th June
The Derby at Epsom Downs
Platinum Party at the Palace
Sunday 5th June
The Big Jubilee Lunch
The Platinum Jubilee Pageant
-------------------------------------
That is the schedule of events. The duo will not attend anything in an official capacity. They do not represent the Queen.
They will be invited to the Service of Thanksgiving, but will be on par with their cousins in terms of status. They will make the most of the opportunity and try and 'steal the show'.
They might attend the Derby but they would have to confront senior working royals who have a long history of being associated with this event.
They will want to steal the show at the Platinum Party at The Palace, and the celebrity musicians will gladly let them. Are any other royals likely to be at this event, or will they watch from a balcony somewhere?
They will probably sit with junior royals to watch the pageant and try to steal attention.
I don't think we will see the children, but I would guess that he wants his children to have a personal connection to his family. (I think he always imagined his children having a close relationship with cousins as he did. Only royals can truly understand other royals, and he has been outside that bubble for quite a while now.) She has failed in everything, with the latest being Pearl, so I reckon he has the upper hand right now. She is still scheming, and will always try to be the centre of attention for the cameras and the headlines, but I reckon he has the power in that relationship right now.
Will Mr. Duckarse be ordered to NOT twerk?
Someone at Netflix put the hammer down hard on the Duckarses.
Just noting: the Duckarses did not make NBCs Most Influential of 2022.
There’s no more evidence in any Palace official capacity the duo have been invited to anything to do with the Queen’s Jubilee. 🥴
I suppose Netflix will try to put her in the colours of the USA and UK, red, white and blue but knowing how contrary she is, she will try to escape the colour dress code of the BRF on that day and show up in neon pink.
Interesting post from you, and a very pertinent point. The information that they will be at the Jubilee celebrations with their children comes from them. The only communication from the Palace is the information about who will be on the balcony for TTC.
Mrs Duckarse won't want to blend in and if she stands out, it will be for all the wrong reasons, i.e. due to horrendous choices: wrong shape, wrong colour, wrong length, wrong fit.
@Girl with a Hat
You know madam won't want to conform. Does she even know the meaning of dress code? She can be quite contrary.
If she DOES appear, she would probably be greeted with the same affection by the royal family and employees that daughter, then in high school, greeted one of son's girlfriends. They knocked at the door, she opened it, announced "(Son's name) and his GARDENING IMPLEMENT are here!" and slammed the door. Y'all can just guess which gardening implement she was referring to. I was appalled, husband was amused, and the rest of the family was puzzled. The Sucksesses might be grudgingly accepted if they have charming children, but what are the odds?
The older child is of the age that if he were asked to stand by daddy (or mommy) for the picture, he would likely blurt out "Daddy (or mommy) isn't here!" if he is a rented child actor. A rented child of that age frightened by loud noises or crowds may scream "I don't WANT you, I want my REAL daddy (or mommy)".
Let's hold our horses and remember past history with these two personality-disordered individuals. What has ALWAYS happened with this pair immediately upon the heels of some pronouncement from the Queen which does not go their way? Do we recall how they baited the Queen extremely rudely with PR statements about how Her Majesty doesn't own the word "Royal"? Or, when the Queen made it known that their brand of celebrity-chasing did not constitute 'a life of service' . . How did the Skuzzits respond? "We do SO live a life of service! We bought Subway lunches for at least 10 people! And don't forget the few handfuls of knit hats we donated that time! Why, we've been known to spend *20 whole minutes* getting our photos taken with "unfortunates" . . .We are global humanitarians!!!!"
It goes like this:
HM: "You shall not. . . ."
Skuzzits: "Oh, guess what? Yes, we are!
Queen: "I'm afraid not."
Skuzz: "Are so!!"
HM: "No"
Skuzz: "Yeah, huh!"
*******
Seriously, these two are unmedicated toddlers with oppositional defiant disorder. They do not recognize the word "No" directed at them. Doesn't mean that they are gonna manifest a "Yes", though. Look at who is assuring us that the Skuzzits will be joyfully present at the Jubilee **with their children**: that pathetic plastic excuse for a human being, OhMy Scabies . . .who is so deep in the Skuzzits' pocket he sleeps in Hazza's bum. Which, if gossip is true, that's exactly how both of them like it.
I do not base 'my truth' on what the Skuzzits pay Scabies to put out for them. They all lie. What has the Queen herself said to confirm that this invite was either extended or accepted? Apparently not a thing.
Raspberry Ruffle reminds us that: There’s no more evidence in any Palace official capacity the duo have been invited to anything to do with the Queen’s Jubilee.
If it does not emanate from the Palace, we can safely assume that it remains unconfirmed and therefore is not ironclad. Look at the timing of this announcement from Monteshitshow . . .mere minutes, was it, after the Queen's statement that they odious pair would NOT be on the balcony with the working members of the RF and others, like Anne's husband, who have been loyal and indispensable to the sovereign.
HM may be still sentimentally attached to Haz on some grandmotherly level, but surely not that much, so as to make his inclusion in her Jubilee the hill she is prepared to die on in regards to the rest of her family. What would happen if William announced that if Granny insists on including Harry and the Baggage that he and his family will have to sit out the whole thing? Why should a disgraced, traitorous #6 and his evil slut wield more influence over this aged Queen than her son's successor? It's nonsensical. Why would appeasing Harry and his SoCal trash more important than keeping William and his family happy? The Cambridges are the ones who, next to the Queen, people care about seeing.
I'm prepared to retract my words but at this point . . nearly a month away, which is an eternity in Monteshitshow time, I call it b*ll*cks. This is "Meghan and Harry had tea with Granny/Granny baked her a special birthday cake & offered her a wing at Balmoral' territory.
Why was Archie too young to travel to Scotland on the train but Lili can take an airplane across a continent and an ocean . . let's see, a 10, 11 hour flight, surely, at only one year of age?
Without those photo ops, the Skuzzits are not interested in family bonding in obscurity.
You know what? I'd *LOVE* to see your kids, Megatroid! Love it! I dare you to bring both children to England. I can't wait to see what inventive ways you find to produce two age-appropriate wunderkinder. In a month's time, I imagine that Lili might be ready to ride a bike down the Long Walk and Archie must have his learners' permit by now, eh? He and Daddy can go for a spin in that convertible that you rode in to your wedding reception.
IF the Skuzzy Skulkers have really and truly invited to this Jubilee, they'd better make the most of it. It will be the last invitation they ever receive from Blighty. I think Charles and William will nix having them anywhere near the Queen's funeral or the Coronation ceremony.
Let's just wait and see, shall we? Soo many things may transpire in four weeks. Why, * might discover that she's heavily pregnant again! Haz could have a polo injury. Archie's admission to Stanford might be moved up and he's got to start Immediately. Could be anything. And if they do have the gall to show their slimy faces, that will be even more entertaining. What a load of hooey those two are. (Hooey = manure)
Worth a read if you haven't seen it.