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
I wish they could be ushered to seats in the back of St. Paul’s along with Andrew.
How do you all think Netflix will dress Mrs. Duckarse for the Jubilee? ...Does Netflix want the Duckarses to blend in, or to stand out?
Ditto with Maneki. Netflix probably wants her to blend in and wear a pretty spring dress like all the other royal women. So she'll wear something that will make her stand out. And, as is her wont, she'll stand out for all the wrong reasons.
"Netflix chiefs are said to be exasperated by the decision of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to give bombshell interviews to rival television networks – despite having a multi-million-dollar deal with the streaming giant.
The Mail on Sunday understands there was 'a real sense of annoyance' when Prince Harry last month revealed details of his meeting with the Queen at Windsor Castle during an interview with NBC."
"One industry expert said: 'Netflix is paying them millions and they're giving all their best interviews to other networks. Do they expect Netflix to be happy about that?'"
The article also mentioned missing out on the Ophrah interview content.
'Harry and Meghan's slate [of projects] could be in jeopardy as they have announced plans to make shows that are educational and inspiring, rather than sexy and sensational,' the industry source said.
'The pressure will be on them to come up with a hit.' The Sussexes' deal with Netflix, through their Archewell Productions company, has been reported to be worth up to £81 million, but many believe that sum is exaggerated.
What a joke....that they can produce Anything? educational and inspiring. Surely that it why they haven't come up with winning ideas....They are as Dumb and Uninspiring as dirt.
@Swampie: "gardening implement" LOL!
Re: the children: I think you are spot on. Those children, if they exist, have no idea who the Sukkits are, and would be mightily frightened to be forced into the presence of two toxic, unmedicated, ODD adults.
When Twerker said that newborn Lilly "just sits in a chair and chills," that was proof there are no children.
It would add smoke the Oprah interview and help fan the book sales.
Stand in kids really could blow the cover (as even good kids have tough days and won't smile for even the promise of candy). (it would be every so amusing to have a kid blow the cover while the real goal was recording to get fuel from the BRF - what would Netflix do or would they even receive a tape? Blowing subterfuge on the kids could be a payback maybe for the Pearl/NBC interview?).
But if the story is true about he will be playing polo, conflicts on polo dates, I just don't see her going herself or with the kids while he stays to play. Mel said it well about being"... honored and excited to attend a family outing with a family you consider racist...".
To be honest I read it a couple of days ago. I have read so many articles I do not remember where I read it; I definitely remember reading it. Because I thought thank goodness no carriage for her to have the opportunity to smirk and preen from in front of the crowds.
I am American but it appears to me that the carriage rides are an honor and big deal.
Pole-ho Phonies
No balcony or carriage ride
For withered and his rawhide bride
Maybe picking up the slack
at St Paul’s, well hid out back
They’re off to Epsom, *Zen and Harpy
Dragging cart with lil and archie
All trotting in the donkey **derby…
*Ken & Barbie
**Derby pronounced Darby
@Rebecca
I found the Telegraph piece
rather sarcastic, albeit slightly sugared.
Saccharin satire?
@Swampie
More than one tool in that box 😉
Netstyx*
The Jubilee concert
haz juggling his balls
Meh centre stage
taking cat calls
Babes appearing
just wearing their smalls
All for show
in case Netflix stalls…
*Styx-underworld river of hatred…
Scamalot
The husband is a dickhead
his wife just a Thot
Between them
they don’t realise
they amount to, not a lot…
Boundaries? What boundaries? (For example, the drain from our sink clogs up very easily but she refused point-blank to stop emptying the teapot down it. From her high-horse, she insisted all I had to do was turn the cold tap on full to wash the leaves away, which I regarded as a waste of water (it's v. expensive in our area) - in addition our mains pressure is low. Telling her why she shouldn't do it was to no avail - short of knocking her out, there was no way of stopping her. All I could do was decide that this was last time she'd ever set foot on our property. It was. I went No Contact after that.
It seems to be an authority problem - they see themselves as only one step down from the Almighty, although I suspect she tries to be boss in that relationship too.
So, I suppose she could not find anyone to take Pearl.
I got a bit mixed up ... it seems Lady Louise will be riding Prince Phillip's carriage. I think I am also confused between the parade and the Epsom Derby, but the dastardly duo and their children are noticeably absent. I do not think they have been excluded, but have excluded themselves with their ridiculous behaviour. And their usual PR chatter (on the balcony, bringing the children, taxpayer-funded royal protection, royal christening ...) seems to be falling flat when confronted with reality.
Someone on LSA suggested that, as with Prince Phillip's memorial service, the duo should be relegated to arriving at the Jubilee Celebrations Service in a bus with European royalty!
Someone wrote to Lady C about Mole calling himself Harry Wales. Lady C said he should be called Harry Sussex.
It was thought he was setting up PR, so people in America see him on par with William when he eventually gets bestowed The Prince of Wales title (when Charles is King). It’s all rather horribly disingenuous.😳
Brilliant as always. I so enjoy your work!
Nope, he is either referred to as Prince Harry or the Duke of Sussex (not allowed to use the HRH). If a surname is required, such as for a marriage certificate or birth certificate, the surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. When the two brothers used Wales as a surname, they were making up a fictional surname ... the arrogance of royalty! Wales, Cambridge, Sussex ... none of these should be used as surnames. He can use 3 names: Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, Henry Mountbatten-Windsor. Anything else is made up and has no validity.
on another note. Happy Mother's day. and for those of us whose mothers have passed away i can honestly say this year is better than the past so i will put it in the plus column. still
Royals and aristos are different from us when it comes to names. They have both inherited family names (ie surnames) but may also use a name based on a title.
As I understand it, it's quite usual, and absolutely OK, for non-Royal Dukes (the ones that get addressed as `Your Grace') to be use the Dukedom title as an informal handle. I think it goes for Royal ones too.
Both Wm & H used `Wales' at school and, believe in the Forces, referring to their father's title as they had none specific to themselves. I reminds me of how vets use there owner's surnames when calling them into the surgery - Wm & Catherine's dog would probably be `Lupo Cambridge' in that context.
I agree though with the suggestion that it's to remind people that he's PC's son and will be PoW's brother when the time comes. Sneaky.
------
True, unless he suspects that he won't be Duke of Sussex much longer?
Especially if he 1) has a stunt planned for the Jubilee, and/or 2) has nastiness planned for his book.
Are these the pictures?
Apologies - I've just posted the same about A and H using the surname Wales before your post was posted.
I don't think the wife ever understood names, titles, and how they should be used, even though the Royal Family website makes it perfectly clear, hence the mess up in giving parents' names for both birth certificates.
The Cambridges use Cambridge as a surname for their children even though it is incorrect.
I know that royals use whatever name they feel like using, even on legal documents like birth certificates, but it is not correct. As I said before, there is a kind of arrogance to doing that.
If he does not want to be called Duke of Sussex or Prince Harry at polo, then he does have a surname he can use. That surname is not Wales, or even Sussex, but Windsor-Mountbatten.
Perhaps he is nostalgic for his earlier life, long before he met TBW, and he used the name Harry Wales! It is certainly a name that is associated with him and his brother before they both got married and when they were in the army, at school, or working as a helicopter rescue pilot for William.
Overall, it is just a polo tournament and I suppose he could call himself Ginger the Clown if he wanted to!
Interesting timing that they would be pushing no titles in public. Perhaps boxing certain others in?
(Corrected comment).🥴
As much as I would love it, I don’t think Mole will be losing his Dukedom anytime soon, if ever. I agree with the suggestion that Mole is using Wales to get one up on William (and be seen as important) before William assumes the Wales title.
@WBBM and Maneki Neko,
Agree, both boys used Wales as their surname and also when playing polo until they were both married. I can’t think of a time Windsor etc was ever used.
They are royals so they are entitled to do what they want, but it is incorrect to say that Wales or Sussex or Cambridge are surnames because they have used them as such.
I haven't seen Lady C's video so I do not know if she explains the difference between a surname, a title and a style. However, if she said he correctly should use Sussex as a surname, she is wrong.
The American media refer to Duchess Meghan. It is incorrect. Calling Diana Princess Diana was also incorrect. What next? Are we going to start calling Phillip King Elizabeth?
I wonder if he'd do it by Deed Poll? That involves solicitors. Women don't have to change their surnames upon marriage, it gets tedious to do so when it's 3rd time round. Id reverted to my maiden name because I never wanted to hear my ex's name again and have stuck to it despite remarrying.
my take
1) she had him papped and wanted the worst pics because london did not go well. and she is getting revenge
2) look H this is how intrusive the paps are and they only sell the bad pics. we can’t take the kids to london even if we can find some because this is what’s going to happen
3) they heard they get more $ for nude photos
4) look h we can’t go to london the paps will be chasing you/us just like they did dead mummy
no matter the reason i suspect she’s just being bitchy by the pics and are using them to control the narrative.
as for harry wales:
1)he’s sticking it to dad.
2)he doesn’t want to be associated with sussex (even distancing himself from her and the brand)
3)still having trouble spelling sussex 😉
4). or to body shame him. whales wales kinda describes it
5) possibly losing title and he’s sticking it to dad again
6). sticking it to william. perhaps the queen is really not doing very well and a lot of behind the scenes work is being done for the transition. william will be prince of wales in the future and maybe sinner than we think/ hope.
No-one is saying, including Lady C that the name of the Dukedom is a surname. She explains it’s the name of the bestowed dukedom of each male royal. So with Harry it’s Sussex so he shouldn’t be using Wales anymore, as with William it would be William Cambridge etc. It’s an informal namesake or nickname, and there’s absolutely nothing official about it, nor is it assumed (it’s official).🥴
He's getting fat packed around his abdominal organs and it seems it's churning out the oestrogens already. Not a healthy look, perhaps he's on his way to a heart attack.
----------
Sandie - I agree -`Wales' isn't a surname in the way that most Brits `inherit' a family name. In the old days, it would have been called an `eke' name, which means an `also' name, as in
`John Gilpin was a citizen of credit and renown,
A Trained Band captain eke was he of famous London town' (Wm Cowper - pron. Cooper!) - and `an eke name' became `a nickname'.
Someone challenged me once as to whether I knew what the Hanoverian surname was of George I and his descendants until 1917. I expect many Nutties know this. I had to think very hard but eventually recalled my mother telling me what the Royals were before they became Windsors.
Apparently the Trotters don't practice yoga together 😂
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10794781/Humiliated-Meghan-Markle-REMOVES-references-doomed-Netflix-animation-series.html
Many comments from people who love the photo.
More pics like this and it'll do their circulation far more good than the fawning `Ain't she gorgeous' ones ever did. it might even cure her of trying constantly to get her photo in the papers.
https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a37491075/prince-william-last-name-explained/
Meghan Markle REMOVES all references to her doomed Netflix animation show 'Pearl' from Archewell website after woke production was axed by the streaming giant
The photo only is worth a look 😁
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10794781/Meghan-Markle-REMOVES-references-doomed-Netflix-animation-series.html
That photo of Maggot is priceless! 😂😂That’s the real Maggot, the face too few get to see and in public!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Welf#British_succession
That's her true face along with the facial expression in the car with 6 in his military uniform looking forlorn.
Apologies again, I've just read @Raspberry Ruffle's comment and realise you posted the same link (I didn't check yours). Time to go to bed, I think...
However I noticed that the credit given on the bottom of the photo includes "Getty Images via Archewell). I can NOT believe that Mrs Trotter would have ever approved that image! Could there be a mole hiding in the land of Archewell?!?!
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS? Source = Evening Standard
- https://uk.yahoo.com/news/meghan-harry-netflix-film-crew-122959740.html Evening Standard
Meghan and Harry’s Netflix film crew to be ‘stopped’ from filming Jubilee
Sami Quadri
Sun, 8 May 2022, 1:29 pm
A Netflix crew filming a documentary with Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex will be forbidden from recording events during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, according to reports.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed on Friday that they were “excited and honoured” to attend the celebrations for the monarch’s milestone in June with their eldest child, Archie, and his sister Lilibet.
But a source told The Sun that Palace enforcers have been tasked with ensuring the couple and their film crew are not recording the much-anticipated event.
The insider added: “While the family are delighted Harry and Meghan are coming, there is a real fear of tension, especially over any Netflix crew. There are concerns tensions could explode if the Netflix team comes to the UK and tries to exploit their opportunities.
“The worry is they will push it and try to gain access to areas of Jubilee celebration events where they can film Harry and Meghan and their children.
“Even if they accept that their Netflix crew can’t go into Buckingham Palace to film, they could cause problems – and at the very least cause a major distraction.
“Senior courtiers believe that Netflix will see it as one big opportunity to exploit their mega-millions agreement with the couple.
“So a team of Palace aides will be on standby to keep a very close eye on the crew, and act as minders if needs be.”
The pair struck a deal reportedly worth up to £81m to produce content for the streaming giant in 2020.
One of the planned bits of content for the streaming giant, Pearl has now been axed by the streaming giant which lost 200,000 subscribers last month.
Buckingham Palace has been approached for comment.
Thanks. I'm still very tired after the funeral so it's no wonder. This light reading about the Harkles is just what I need. Good night now!
That story was in the DM also. I question how effective BP staff could or would be in dealing with a Netflix crew. Yes, they could bar them from filming within BP—including the big concert within the grounds—but how can they prevent them from setting up outside St. Paul’s, on the Mall or other public places? It’s hard to believe the SkidMarkles would dare mix with the hoi polloi during their visit, but if they have sufficient security they might choose to do limited walkabouts in controlled environments.
I’ve been reading the comments on a number of British news sites—from the Times and Telegraph to the Mirror and the Express—and public opinion would appear to be overwhelmingly against the visit by the grifters. I understand that they are being invited at the behest of the Queen, but I still think it’s a mistake.
That photo of Maggot/Twat/SkidMarkle really does reflect the person inside. No someone you’d care to know.
Bare-chested Harry
He's getting fat packed around his abdominal organs and it seems it's churning out the oestrogens already. Not a healthy look, perhaps he's on his way to a heart attack.
It is still being argued whether marijuana use causes 'moobs' (man boobs). It reportedly inhibits testosterone for @ 24 hours after imbibing, but that may be outdated.
Though—has BP issued press releases that the traitors are invited, or are we still taking OS’s word for it? Because this kind of fever and speculation all about what she will and will not do is what Trotter gets off on. Even if she knows damn well she’s not going, look, the entire world is talking about her every move. Even grossly unflattering photographs in the daily mail are better than none. This is all fuel for her.
To get pictures in the paper and footage for Netflix is the only reason they would want to be there. Take all that away, and all that’s left a small talk with William and Kate and Princess Anne? Not bloody likely.
Since the Palace has put their foot down, that means the Dollars will be forced to mix with the commoners in order to get some footage. I wonder who Netflix has as a show runner? If it's someone like the fictional Ray Donovan, then the Dollars will be forced to show up in the UK. Otherwise, the Dollars won't show due to some unforeseen event: a polo accident, one of the "children" gets a contagious disease. Trotter will come up with something.
Cannot see the benefit of small talk with the Trotters for any of the Royals.
I agree. I won't believe it until I hear it from the palace.
You know Trotter loves to keep the public guessing "will she or won't she?" A very tiresome game. Along with her "secret,
surprise" appearances.
I cannot imagine the job of trying to contain access by either the Trotters or the Netflix crew. Keeping the reins tight and doors closed will require considerable effort by Palace staff.
"Great photo. Looks like she's sucking on a lemon with a blow fly up her nose."
I didn't know about the hormonal effects of marijuana - it's not part of my world. I was thinking of how internal abdominal (visceral) fat (aka suet?), rather than the subcutaneous stuff, can be hormonally active and have a feminising effect.
Prince Harry faces setback in latest legal battle with Mail on Sunday
Hannah Furness
Sun, 8 May 2022, 3:13 pm
Part 1
The Duke of Sussex has suffered a setback in his latest legal battle to claim a newspaper report about his security caused him "serious harm" that undermined his charity work.
A High Court judge has rejected the Duke's request for a preliminary trial to decide whether the Mail on Sunday story caused serious harm to his reputation, saying: “Ultimately this is an issue of fact.”
The Duke, who is suing the publishers of the Mail on Sunday over a report that he “tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret”, claimed the story harmed his reputation so as to “constitute an attack on his honesty and integrity and undermine his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work in general”.
In particular, he said, it damaged his efforts to combat online misinformation through the Archewell Foundation.
The newspaper report said that “just minutes after the story broke”, the Duke’s “PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute”.
The Duke is claiming “damages including aggravated damages” for libel.
In a new ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin has rejected the Duke's legal team’s request that the issue of “serious harm” be tried as a preliminary issue, saying the Mail on Sunday must first be given the chance to make its case factually.
“I have refused to direct trial of the issue of serious harm,” he said. “I appreciate that the Claimant’s [Harry’s] case is one based (at this stage) solely upon inference, but ultimately this is an issue of fact.
“The Defendant [Associated Newspapers] must have an opportunity to advance any factual case in answer to the Claimant’s inferential case.
“This makes the issue unsuitable for determination as a preliminary issue.”
It could, he added, be fairly tried at a later stage of the case, meaning the Duke's arguments will be heard during a full trial at a future date.
In his earlier documents submitted to the court, the Duke had claimed the Mail on Sunday story, and its online version, have caused and/or are likely to cause serious harm” to his reputation.
“The allegations against the claimant are self-evidently exceptionally serious and damaging: they constitute an attack on his honesty and integrity and undermine his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work in general, and in efforts to tackle online misinformation in particular (through the Archewell Foundation),” his lawyers said.
“They are plainly calculated to incite, as they did incite, public opprobrium.”
In particular, they cited comments on the MailOnline version of the story as having “negative and damaging” reactions.
Part 2
The Mail on Sunday story refers to a separate legal case brought by the Duke against the Home Office. He is seeking a judicial review of the Government’s decisions about police protection for him and his family when they are in the UK.
The newspaper first revealed he was taking legal action in January.
The Duke’s team later sent out a statement confirming that he was seeking a judicial review, believing the UK to be unsafe for his family to return to, and claiming: “The Duke first offered to pay personally for UK police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham.”
In a court hearing in February, lawyers acting for the Government appeared to challenge that statement, saying the offer of payment “was notably not advanced to Ravec [the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures]” when the Duke visited the UK in June 2021 or in any of the immediate correspondence which followed.
The following weekend, the Mail on Sunday published a second story stating that “the revelations are a crushing rebuttal to Harry’s initial public statement that implied he had always been willing to foot the bill”.
In papers filed to the High Court, the Duke’s lawyers claimed the court hearing “was no rebuttal at all to the Claimant’s public statement, let alone a ‘crushing’ one”.
A preliminary issues trial, set to last two-and-a-half hours, is listed to be heard in person in the Media and Communications court between June 7 and July 1.
Each party's costs have been capped at £30,000.
Thank you for the Telegraph article. I missed that one. I love that the Harkles read/are aware of the comments in the DM. That warms my nasty little heart.
SUNDAY, MAY 08, 2022
Blind Item #7
One of the younger royals lost $5M because of a scam that a cousin's husband got the royal into. They knew it was a scam, but suckered the royal.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/05/blind-item-7_8.html#disqus_thread
'It is an untold story, I have found out things that are really quite extraordinary about her.
https://twitter.com/brigantia__/status/1523503848677322753
I totally agree with your comment regarding the speculation on the Jubilee invite. It is exactly what Maggot and Mole want, lots of talk, lots of headlines. They set up Scabies to fire off the story, and off goes the press and chatter. People fall for it hook line and sinker. Though, I would add we know a lot of the PR fluff pieces are paid for by the duo, but it’s a double benefit because it’s click-bait for the media too. 🤨
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10796339/Prince-Harry-make-major-announcement-TONIGHT-launches-new-project-Under.html#comments
He also says that "her victims tell all"....!!!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10796565/Meghan-Markle-came-trampled-top.html
Meghan Markle 'came from nothing' and 'trampled on others to get to the top like a politician' her biographer Tom Bower claims as he reveals her 'victims' will 'tell all' in new book
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10796565/Meghan-Markle-came-trampled-top.html#comments
Hoping he really does dish the dirt on Markle.
Should we organize a betting pool as to the attendance of the Skuzzy Stalkers at the Jubilee?
My punt’s on some face-saving last minute excuse as to why they can’t come to Blighty after all. I guess if they wanted to fly commercial and arrive in London as “tourists”, who could stop them? But they won’t want to be on the pavement with the hoi polloi. Pictures like that don’t help the Netflix project unless they can spin it into a tableau of St. Meghan/Diana blessing the peasants by walking among them. We lnow what the mood of the common people on the street is likely to be. Some enraged subject of HM might rip Its wig right off. Not the sort of photos/video they are after. I think instead there will be some “Royal Tour” organized Stateside for Lil’s birthday. Jill Biden is baking a special vegan birthday cake and then Meg will address the Supreme Court on the current Roe fracas. Because as we know she portrayed a paralegal on a cable soap and they is as good as a JD.
Tom B has some “extraordinary” tidbits to tell us about her past. Can’t wait. Kraken is coming…the cunning stunt is running out of time.
I watched the Twitter video clip with Tom Bower. Here’s a transcription of the Twitter clip at the end of this comment.
The parts about her using lawyers who no doubt secured iron-clad nondisclosure agreements to shut people up and trampling on people along the way sound like typical Meghan behavior.
I read somewhere that the nondisclosure agreement for people who work for them at Montecito home is pages and pages long.
My guess is that as part of her divorce from her Trevor, her husband previous to Harry, he signed an NDA. I hope he didn’t and is in the book.
Also keep in mind that people have said about the Archewell website, which solicits story ideas.
However, if a person submits a suggestion for a story that is useful to Archewell, the person doing the submission is waving all rights and claims to everything under the sun including, books, movies, articles, products, etc. and that the submitter’s suggestion become totally the intellectual property of Archewell.
I have always wondered what sort of legal documents she has gotten Harry to sign that he unknowingly is giving up rights or other things that will benefit Meghan and either harm Harry, or cut Harry out of certain benefits, such as giving up all parental rights to those children if they ever divorce, and/or providing her with a huge settlement that will clean him out financially if they ever divorce.
I have a friend whose wife attempted to trick him into signing a document giving up all parental rights to their daughter during a very nasty drawn-out divorce. The document was slipped into a larger group of documents of more mundane things, hoping he wouldn’t read it as he was signing the bunch of documents.
His ex wife was a gold digger on par with Meghan. The divorce was drawn out over a four-year period and became so stressful he had a heart attack that his doctors said was likely due to his acrimonious divorce.
***************
May 9, 2022
GB News interview: Mark Dolan with Tom Bower:
“In fact, I have finished it and it will be out very soon. It is a story, untold story. I have found out things which are really quite extraordinary about her. And I think that the public perception of her will be either confirmed or outraged, or in any case, will be a great surprise.
It has turned out to be after a very, very hard slog, because people were pretty reluctant, and she um, to speak. She and her lawyers had done very well to keep people silent, but I got through enough.
Uh, and it’s a great story. It is an astonishing a story of a woman who came from nothing and is now a world figure, and has trampled on all those others on the way, which is classic.
The sort of people I always choose, whether it’s a politician or a tycoon, the victims are keen to talk, and they have spoken and it’s a really gripping story.”
This is one book I am definitely looking forward to reading.
Wow -
Also - I want in on that pool as to if the 6-family shows for the Jubilee. Oh dear, no cameras? That will not do.
Back to lurking....
Bower. her victims tell all. i want to hear from the johns. we know the victims and a lot of them have talked but not cory or trevor. will they? prob not. hopefully we have more scoop from employees past and near past (like the revolving door at archewell or the people at kp while they were still there). i wanna hear from Suits production staff too. if any markle shows up in this book i will consider it a dud.
`Meghan Markle will approach 'Apple and Amazon' in bid to find new backer for her cartoon series 'Pearl' that was axed by Netflix amid wave of cutbacks
Pearl was scrapped by the streaming giant last week as part of wave of cutbacks
Meghan then wiped all references to the programme from her Archewell website
But it is not seen as a fatal blow and her team are now exploring other avenues '
By TOM PYMAN FOR MAILONLINE.
She really is a very slow learner, isn't she?
IIRC, there are circumstances under which, in English law, NDAs can't be enforced. That is, if they are being used to cover up something heinous and/or criminal.
TBW's sense of security may be ill-founded.
I don't know, of course, how US law sees it.
Regarding their alleged" star power", they had a chance to be part if the working royals. It was apparently too much work and not enough reward.
She seems an ideal candidate for a housewife reality show. I haven't watched any, but I would tune in to check out her antics.
Trevity trev trev looks better shirtless and has better taste in jewelry.
I am suprised at the number of unattractive photos in the press lately. I wonder if it is a new strategy? angry PR staff?
we know the victims and a lot of them have talked but not cory or trevor.
-----
Yes, more's the pity... I'm not sure they'd blab, though, wouldn't they risk their professional reputation? Also I can't imagine they'd want to re-live their time with the harpy.
The sugar flying monkey trolls will be wailing and gnashing. Tom will have taken the wind right out of HazNowt's sails. I am so doing a preorder!
I feel very confident that Tom has not let us down. We have been waiting for his sleuthing work for 4 years.
-------
As in E researched when the coast was clear to visit Q (P. Anne and PW both out of town) and led the duo to believe they would be welcomed back into family with open arms by Q.
So H brings Mm along for their triumphant return.
Only to be met with, meet with your father first for business time, me last for family time. Father says nope to all, and here's some other nopes, enjoy your tea with granny, no hard feelings, it's all business, ta ta then.
From my research, it really is all a load of hypocritical hot air. Partners commit to making information available about carbon footprint (developed by partner Google) for travellers. All the rest is a load of baloney.
Sustainable tourism is not what he is blabbing on about. It is basically about tourism not destroying the very attractions that are the drawcard for tourism (and thus economic development for the human population). So restrict numbers of visitors to wildlife reserves in Africa, because the more visitors you have, the more roads, accommodation and facilities you need (but, without visitors, you do not have an income to preserve that area for wildlife). That is just one simple example.
He is talking about monitoring how much water you use, making sure you do not litter and stuff like that. He really is an idiot, simply trying to get attention, feel import, and make money.
I also hope that there are at least some completely new stories and stories that will expose her lies, yet again. Did anyone from former staff talk (note that any NDA would be with the Palace and not them personally)? Anyone in Canada or from Soho House who knows how they really met? Anyone from the fashion industry who can explain why she wore so many ill-fitting clothes?
Can I be mean and say I was kind of hoping that he would expose that she was merching while a working royal.
At least I don't think Bower will purport to know about private conversations within the family. It seems that he does research, not gather gossip. (Not that gossip is not very entertaining!)
E didn't have cash to give back. So was blackmailed into arranging visit with Queen.
Tit for tat.
Get us back into family and we won't blab about scam.
Tin hat theory here. MM does have a history of blackmailing people.
The Travalyst campaign video is cringeworthy to begin with—“What if our holidays rated us?”—but you’d think they’d maybe do a little research before hiring their costars.
REVEALED: Actor who starred with Harry in eco-travel skit was suspended for saying 'Jews were expendable' and 'Hitler had a right' to 'roast' them in comedy routine
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10797801/Actor-starred-alongside-Prince-Harry-skit-suspended-saying-Hitler-right.html
Dittos Hikari.... Tom Bower will spill all, he will say all. He is too old to (so) have nothing to lose. So three explosions coming. The unwanted 4 (it seems) at the Queen's jubilee. Hapless Book and the Tom Bower book.
The clipping tipping point – when is the right time for men to shave their heads?
With Prince Harry's hair looking increasingly thin, Dylan Jones has some advice about going bald graciously
The featured photo is of H kneeling while petting a black Labrador at his recent polo match. The back of his balding head is clearly visible, with the bright California sunshine exposing those last little ginger hairs desperately hanging on to his scalp. The caption reads: “ Prince Harry is looking very close to the clipping tipping point when you spend more time worrying about the way the back of your head looks than any other part of your body.”
“We will not tolerate the use of NDAs to silence and intimidate victims to prevent them speaking out”, said Business Minister Kelly Tolhurst.
acas.co.uk also states
An NDA should also not be used:
before seeing if another solution can be used instead
when they’re not needed
to stop someone reporting discrimination, harassment or sexual harassment
to cover up inappropriate behaviour or misconduct, particularly not if there’s a risk of it happening again
to avoid addressing disputes or problems in the workplace
to mislead someone
Could these restrictions apply to bullying? Wouldn't it be delicious if *'s former staff that she bullied could spill the beans?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10796977/Prince-Harry-shares-glimpse-bare-Californian-chic-study.html
When I read your post about HazNowt lecturing people not to litter while on holiday my apres-work cocktail almost came out my nose. The entitled lazy sod has never picked up after himself in his life. Didn’t we just read that according to former staff at Monteshitshow, H leaves food cartons and his filthy underpants strewn on the floor for staff to pick up. What a blazingly moronic hypocrite.
Well, at least H appears to be doing his vet to conserve water, since he wears the same clothes all the time and almost never looks like he has bathed himself.
Mega mess brazenly marched throughout her brief time as a Royal, and did it very badly. No surprises there. It’s tacky and grasping but if she was also pocketing the cash for wardrobe from Charles and submitting inflated and fraudulent clothing bills to Clarence House, there is going to be a paper trail proving that she defrauded the RF and the taxpayers by extension. But the merching graft is small potatoes compared to what was spent on her wedding and Frogmore. Compared to what else she’s done, the clothing scam is mild. It’s the kind of thing she might justify by saying how shocked she was that their allowance was so small and she was just trying to have some pin money. Most of us have done this on a tiny scale—worn a dress once and returned it, or exchanged a gift for cash. But Smegs’ “pins” always run to hundreds of thousands of dollars. But even when she doesn’t “need“ to do some thing shady, she will just for her secretive and superior pleasure at getting away with some thing she is not supposed to be doing.
If the merching or The equally unroyal practice of excepting gifts and hoarding swag bags we’re all she were guilty of, I think she still have her place in the royal family. The Kraken isn’t the merching or Frogmore….it’s far more grave than money.
Will Tom be able to enlighten us about how M, chronically unemployed until she scored suits at nearly 30 years of age financed her expensive tastes and her foreign travel? She had a relationship with Trevor for years before they married, but one Junior movie exec salary doesn’t begin to support M in the manner she aspired to. What better way to shop for an upgrade than rubbing elbows (and other parts) with the yachting set? Is there an Epstein connection? What and how much did the RF scrub her past? Can he find out what happened at Northwestern and during her stints abroad when she was plying her patented brand of diplomacy? Most of all, what if anything was he able to find out about trips to fertility clinics and such? Was Samantha Markle one of his sources? She said point blank at the time of the engagement that her sister had worked as an escort. But not even that is the worst thing she’s done. If all of Rachel’s activities were to be brought to light even th beleaguered Andrew might come out better.
I still think there might be a way to rescue H from himself if it can be proven that an intellectually compromised and emotionally unstable man was coerced to the altar through blackmail or fraud. Particularly if the children can also be proven to be fraudulent. Harry’s limited intelligence and fragile mental health constitute reduced ability to consent to the legal contracts he is making, including this marriage. He’s awful, but is he fully cognizant of what he is doing if he’s got the mental and emotional age of a 14 year old?
One awaits Tom’s book with bated breath.
Thanks
Anyone ever seen The Dating Handbook? Starring Trotter. 2016.
So flat Zero personality.
-Go to your profile page where you can then click the "B" icon; once clicked, you should arrive at the Blogger Info Page.
-Next click the dropdown menu to the left of the "B" icon and click on "Settings" and then click "User Profile."
-Scroll down to "Display Name" and type your name.
-Hit "Save Profile" at the bottom.
-Finally, you can add an image/avatar on this page if you wish; make sure to save any changes if you choose to.
Please fix this, it should clear up and then they can be shared. Thank you.
-----
Have just watched the State Opening of Parliament - very interesting theatre , especially of course with Black Rod, bearing the Queen's command, hammering on the door of the Commons to be let in. The Monarch does not have automatic right of entry (hence the sense of outrage when Charles I burst in). It represents the independence of the Commons from the Monarchcy, an important aspect of our Constitution.
Wm & Camilla were both on the dais with PoW; PoW took the Consort's Throne, the Sovereign's throne being left empty. A very clear statement of Wm's future role.
There were some splendid shots of the Imperial State Crown. We saw it being taken to Parliament in it's own vehicle, the royal car with the extra height so the rear passenger ie the Monarch, can easily be seen. Boy! Did its diamonds flash! - Eat your heart out, Magpie Markle!!
the 6,000-plus negative comments "undermines his fitness to be involved in both charitable and philanthropic work."
The judge has limited damages to 30 000 or less.
Very impressive coverage of State Opening of Parliament from DM.
Note that William is escorted into Parliament by his friend who is the husband of the woman he was accused of having an affair with by a person tweeting from Soho House in Amsterdam at a weekend gathering attended by the duo. (She was supposedly in the early stages of pregnancy, but far enough along to know, and was quaffing the red wine.)
* Supposedly in the year or so that they were secretly dating they saw each other every fortnight. That's a lot of trans-Atlantic flights.
* She flew (sometimes on private jets) to New York for a baby shower and then again to watch a tennis match (leaving a newborn at home).
* There are many other times when they flew around in private jets for a holiday, an appearance for PR ...
* They supposedly have 16 full or half bathrooms in their home, a huge swimming pool, and a very large property with lots of lawn (all water guzzlers in an area that does not have a notably high rainfall).
* There is no evidence of the use of solar power on their property at all.
The Sun is reporting the Harkles will be staying with Eugenie and Jack at Frogmore Cottage when the visit to hijack the Quern’s Jubilee celebrations. Maybe Andrew will pop in and he and Meghan can share memories of yachting.
LOL But if it's in The Sun, then it's definitely coming from Montecito...and it definitely WON'T be happening IRL.
I'd say it illustrates just how unfit he is.
Keeping them off the balcony ensures that no one else has to share the spotlight with them, including the monarch. So in a sense, the royal institution is getting the most use out of the Sussexes, benefitting from two members of the family who they’ve claimed aren’t an asset.
As for Harry and Meghan and their feelings about the balcony – the Sussexes are celebrities and as we have seen over the last few years, they understand how to use their status, they’re getting more experienced at maximising their celebrity opportunities. The balcony stage may have been denied them but the fact that they’ll be in London, as a four-piece, during those Jubilee days in and of itself is more than enough opportunity for them to flex, if they choose to. If they were invited onto the balcony, there would have been criticism about them pulling focus from the Queen on the balcony. Now that they’re not on the balcony, they’re subjected to all kinds of “ha ha ha” about not being there. And that’s the balance they’ll have to navigate next month when they arrive. How far out will they put themselves? How accessible will they be? Will they remain as lowkey as possible? Or will we see them creating their own sideshow?
https://www.laineygossip.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-confirmed-in-london-for-queen-elizabeths-platinum-jubilee-with-children-not-on-balcony/70927
please don't click on the link but I'm putting it here for fair use reasons.
When I read your post about HazNowt lecturing people not to litter while on holiday my apres-work cocktail almost came out my nose. The entitled lazy sod has never picked up after himself in his life. Didn’t we just read that according to former staff at Monteshitshow, H leaves food cartons and his filthy underpants strewn on the floor for staff to pick up. What a blazingly moronic hypocrite. Well, at least H appears to be doing his vet to conserve water, since he wears the same clothes all the time and almost never looks like he has bathed himself. Mega mess brazenly marched throughout her brief time as a Royal, and did it very badly. No surprises there. It’s tacky and grasping but if she was also pocketing the cash for wardrobe from Charles and submitting inflated and fraudulent clothing bills to Clarence House, there is going to be a paper trail proving that she defrauded the RF and the taxpayers by extension. But the merching graft is small potatoes compared to what was spent on her wedding and Frogmore. Compared to what else she’s done, the clothing scam is mild. It’s the kind of thing she might justify by saying how shocked she was that their allowance was so small and she was just trying to have some pin money. Most of us have done this on a tiny scale—worn a dress once and returned it, or exchanged a gift for cash. But Smegs’ “pins” always run to hundreds of thousands of dollars. But even when she doesn’t “need“ to do some thing shady, she will just for her secretive and superior pleasure at getting away with some thing she is not supposed to be doing. If the merching or The equally unroyal practice of excepting gifts and hoarding swag bags we’re all she were guilty of, I think she still have her place in the royal family. The Kraken isn’t the merching or Frogmore….it’s far more grave than money. Will Tom be able to enlighten us about how M, chronically unemployed until she scored suits at nearly 30 years of age financed her expensive tastes and her foreign travel? She had a relationship with Trevor for years before they married, but one Junior movie exec salary doesn’t begin to support M in the manner she aspired to. What better way to shop for an upgrade than rubbing elbows (and other parts) with the yachting set? Is there an Epstein connection? What and how much did the RF scrub her past? Can he find out what happened at Northwestern and during her stints abroad when she was plying her patented brand of diplomacy? Most of all, what if anything was he able to find out about trips to fertility clinics and such? Was Samantha Markle one of his sources? She said point blank at the time of the engagement that her sister had worked as an escort. But not even that is the worst thing she’s done. If all of Rachel’s activities were to be brought to light even th beleaguered Andrew might come out better.
I still think there might be a way to rescue H from himself if it can be proven that an intellectually compromised and emotionally unstable man was coerced to the altar through blackmail or fraud. Particularly if the children can also be proven to be fraudulent. Harry’s limited intelligence and fragile mental health constitute reduced ability to consent to the legal contracts he is making, including this marriage. He’s awful, but is he fully cognizant of what he is doing if he’s got the mental and emotional age of a 14 year old? One awaits Tom’s book with bated breath.
President Joe Biden's sister has invited Meghan Markle to join the Democratic Party because she will 'of course' make a good candidate for the US Presidency.
Valerie Biden Owens, 76, said that the Duchess of Sussex would be 'welcome to come in and join the Democratic Party', adding that it was key to have more women in politics.
For 10 years, the Biden family have had a close relationship with Prince Harry and reports have claimed that Markle has been networking among senior Democrats with a view of building a campaign and starting a career in politics.
Owens commented: 'It's wonderful to have women in politics. The more women we have the better our democratic system will work. We welcome her to come in and join the Democratic Party.'
When asked if she thought the Duchess would make a good potential candidate for President one day, Owens told Good Morning Britain: 'Yes, perhaps. Of course she will.'
The Queen deserves better for her Jubilee than obsessing over family drama
Omid Scobie·Royal Executive Editor
Tue, 10 May 2022, 1:30 pm·5-min read
`To those who have been around this beat long enough, the news shouldn’t have been a huge surprise. Similar to Prince Charles’ 2012 decision to limit family members on the balcony for the finale of her Diamond Jubilee celebrations (in order to show the world his slimmed-down vision for the Firm), this year’s approach to the guestlist revises the rule to now include every family member currently carrying out royal duties. More importantly, it also solves the dilemma of keeping a certain disgraced royal at bay. Impatiently waiting for a comeback moment, sources say Prince Andrew was eager to stand by his mother during such a poignant and sympathetic scene. Instead, the appropriate image being presented on June 2 is a lineup of part-time and full-time working family members who are all responsible for continuing the Queen’s legacy beyond her reign. Makes sense to me.'
(Continued)
Stick a fork in Meghan and Harry – these royal Kardashians are done
By Piers Morgan
Every time I think Prince Harry couldn’t possibly make himself look more cringeworthy, up he pops to prove me spectacularly, eye-rollingly wrong.
The renegade royal’s latest howler is a laugh-out-loud tourism commercial he’s made for New Zealand television to promote his sustainable eco-travel nonprofit organization, Travalyst.
Sadly, the laughter was once again at him, not with him.
Wearing a “Girl Dad” T-shirt, Harry is seen jogging through the woods before he’s stopped by eco-tourist “rating agents” and berated about a lollipop wrapper he supposedly dropped there during a 2018 royal tour trip with wife Meghan, but praised for turning off running tap water while he brushes his teeth.
That revelation prompted a bewildered Harry to exclaim: “How do you know that? That’s really weird.”
Because, of course, he’s such a private guy and that’s secret personal information that could only be known if he’d turned into a Kardashian with 24/7 cameras recording his every ablution and tooth-cleansing.
Oh, wait, he has!
Harry and Meghan have become the royal Kardashians, only a slightly trashier version if that was even possible: a pair of shameless chancers whose only thought each day is how to fleece and exploit their royal titles ever more cynically, while simultaneously trashing the royal family and monarchy to which they owe their status — and playing the downtrodden, oppressed victims from their $11 million California mansion.
The hypocrisy in everything they do is breathtaking, and never better illustrated than with Harry’s latest preaching about “sustainable eco-travel.”
He loves self-righteously barking at us all about the urgent need to save the planet by reducing our carbon footprint, as he uses private jets like we use taxis.
Just as he and Meghan pleaded for us to think about poverty on Twitter on the very same day she was throwing a $500,000 baby shower in New York (and hopping back to London on George Clooney’s plane).
But it’s their constant bleating about privacy that most sticks in the craw given their decision to accept a reported $115 million payment from Netflix to trail around after them with cameras, capturing their most “private” moments for the delectation of the public.
`
`Of course, the confirmed list of royals (18 including the Cambridge and Wessex children - not working just yet, but will all one day be primed for it) didn’t take long to become a perceived snub to two of the 30-odd family members who won’t be appearing: the Sussexes.
` Given the ongoing negative narratives about them in the British press - often spurred on by gossipy palace aides still incandescent about the couple’s decision to leave or speak out - stories about Harry, Meghan and their kids being “DRAMATICALLY CUT” would have probably felt believable to any tabloid reader. As is often the case, the reality is much less severe when you hear that Prince Harry had already spoken with his grandmother about the possibility of not attending Trooping the Colour long before last week's announcements. I’m told by a source that the Duke of Sussex had actually expressed some time ago that he and Meghan were very keen to be a part of the Jubilee engagements, including the National Service of Thanksgiving at St Paul’s Cathedral, but less so for the formal balcony moment, which was felt on both sides to be more appropriate for their lives prior to stepping back.
`Drama is, of course, what often makes the story of the royal family so compelling to millions around the world. But, regardless of the insatiable appetite, there are times it needs to just be accepted when major spectacle or scandal isn't there.
`Still, the fact hasn’t stopped some national newspapers - those same outlets ironically wringing their hands over fears of attention being “stolen” from the Queen by the Sussexes. Pot-stirring polls already include asking members of the public if they planned to boo Harry and Meghan, and you won’t be hard pushed to find fantastical commentary speculating that evil Netflix cameras might swoop in and gatecrash events (for what show I’m not exactly sure, given that the only Archewell production currently in development is a documentary about the Invictus Games). You will struggle, however, to find much said about Andrew though, but I suppose his recent multi-million settlement with a woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her at 17 years old is nothing compared to the audacity of two people who moved abroad.
`There is still great uncertainty over just how much we will see of the 96-year-old monarch during the extended Jubilee weekend, especially after her absence at Tuesday’s opening of Parliament due to ongoing “episodic mobility problems”. Palace officials tell me that the Queen still plans to take part in the celebrations, however, no appearances will be confirmed until nearer the time or the day of. But what is clear is that these four days might just be one of the last chances the nation and the world will have to see the Queen in public like this. A potential final opportunity to celebrate the achievements of a woman who, despite being thrown into an almost-impossible role at the age of 25, has navigated her seven-decade reign with commitment, dignity and grace. A woman who, unlike a number of other family members or some working for the institution, has diligently upheld the values and principles that the royal establishment is supposed to represent.
`Members of the royal family are certainly no strangers to drama created by themselves. But, right now, the biggest threat to the jubilee isn’t coming from within the Windsors or House Montecito, it’s the sections of media hellbent on joyriding the focus towards soap opera-style drama and embellished tales. Whether you are a royalist or not, Her Majesty deserves better than this.'
You couldn't make it up.
At first, it made perfect sense when the world’s wokest virtue-signaling couple joined the world’s wokest virtue-signaling streaming giant after a ferocious bidding war for their “empowering, inspiring” services.
Harry and Meghan seemed to have found their perfect partners, a company that around the same time proudly green-lit a whole comedy series about a pregnant man (it had to be a man, because otherwise Netflix would have felt compelled to call a pregnant woman a “birthing, chest-feeding partner”) and would revel in their very special brand of woke regal lecturing.
Only, like the nauseatingly fake societal scourge of wokeness itself, it turned out there was nothing remotely empowering or inspiring about it.
The first offering from their company Archewell Productions was an animated series, “Pearl,” about a young girl “heroine” who embarks “on a journey of self-discovery as she tries to overcome life’s daily challenges” and apparently based on Meghan’s own uplifting journey (no laughing at the back, please).
The Duchess of Sussex was ecstatic when she announced the project, gushing about her excitement to be working on such a thrilling series with “the powerhouse platform of Netflix.”
But that excitement turned to horror last week when Netflix suddenly pulled the plug on it after reporting a dramatic and stock-wrecking fall in subscribers.
It’s hard to believe people would want to quit a platform that was just about to offer them such empowering, inspiring and uplifting content, isn’t it?
Well, no. Not really.
The only real surprise is that Netflix ever thought we’d want to watch this kind of vomit-inducing guff from such preposterous, sanctimonious and two-faced imbeciles.
After all, Meghan and Harry’s first, and — to date — only podcast for their other big paymasters, Spotify, at the end of 2020, was so simperingly bad, they haven’t done another one since.
Though we’re promised a new series this summer, titled “Archetypes,” in which Meghan will “speak to experts and historians about the origin of stereotypes that hold women back.”
Sorry, WHAT?
A woman who literally sank her grasping, ruthless claws into a British prince to enrich herself beyond her wildest dreams is going to be lecturing us on how awful it is that women get held back in life?
It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
As was her much-hyped children’s book, “The Bench,” about a father’s relationship with a son, which was a massive flop and got brutally savaged by critics.
Claire Allfree, writing for the UK’s Daily Telegraph, called it “semi-literate” and concluded: “One wonders how any publisher could have thought fit to publish this grammar-defying set of badly rhyming cod homilies, let alone think any child anywhere would want to read it. But that’s planet Sussex for you, where even the business of raising a family is all about the brand.”
Start your day with all you need to know
Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.
Enter your email address
By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Exactly.
Like the Kardashians, there’s nothing these two won’t flog, however personal, no depth of self-privacy invasion they won’t stoop to for financial gain.
But the world is fast waking up to the cold, hard reality that they have nothing to say that’s remotely interesting unless they’re attacking their families. And even that nasty shtick is wearing thin.
In a final, perhaps terminal blow to the Sussex brand, the Queen just announced she is banning them both, along with disgraced Prince Andrew, from the Buckingham Palace balcony during the Trooping of the Colour ceremony at her upcoming Platinum Jubilee celebrations.
When even Her Majesty apparently feels her reputation would be tarnished just by being seen with them in public, it’s over.
On balance, she’d probably rather have the Kardashians up there waving with her.
At least they understand the meaning of family loyalty.
Harry and the trouble with ‘feminist’ dads
The slogan on the prince’s T-shirt is a familiar sight in the US, where some argue it’s an example of men making a cause about themselves
By
Ed Cumming
Two things stood out from Prince Harry’s launch of his sustainable travel company, Travalyst, this week. First, his acting on the promotional video, which proved that moving to Hollywood does not automatically bestow Hollywood talent. Don’t give up the day job, Harry. Not again.
Then there was his T-shirt. The artist formerly known as HRH accessorised his standard-issue California athleisure look of Nikes, jogging bottoms and white earphones with a grey T-shirt emblazoned with the words ‘GIRL DAD’.
Girl… dad? As in, the father of a daughter? Surely it cannot be so soon since the birth of young Lilibet, who is not even a year old, that Harry needs to remind us that he has a daughter. No, like Netflix and Oprah Winfrey, GirlDad is another American institution with which Harry has become involved since he and Meghan emigrated in March 2020.
“It’s cringe de la cringe,” says Tina Brown, the former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor who has just published The Palace Papers, a recent history of the Royal Family. “Harry’s gone full Goop in Montecito,” she adds, in reference to Gwyneth Paltrow’s eccentric wellness brand.
The phrase Girl Dad came about after the death of American basketball player Kobe Bryant in January 2020. The LA Lakers superstar died in a plane crash, alongside eight others, among them 13-year-old Gianna, one of his four daughters. In interviews before his death, Bryant was letting the world know that, as far as he was concerned, daughters were up there with sons. In a 2018 TV interview, he said that fans would come up to him and say, of Gianna: “‘You gotta have a boy. You and V (Bryant’s wife Vanessa) gotta have a boy, have somebody carry on the tradition, the legacy.’” Bryant wasn’t having it, and neither was his daughter. “She’s like, ‘Oy, I got this. No boy for that, I got this.’”
In the days after the accident, other men began posting pictures of themselves with their daughters on social media, using the hashtag #girldad. It briefly went viral. Musicians including Timbaland and Bow Wow posted pictures of themselves with their daughters. The implication was that these daughters might have loving, devoted fathers, but that the fathers gained something unique from raising girls, too.
LA-based etiquette consultant and Harry-watcher Lisa Gache doesn’t know what all the fuss is about. “We don’t even blink an eye here,” she says. “Girl Dad is common here. You even see it on licence plates.” Having said that, in her view, brandishing the slogan T-shirt will have been carefully thought out by Harry. “The hashtag is politically correct – it’s a message to the world that he’s a conscientious person.”
Bodé Aboderin, author of Fatherhood by Papa B: A Game-changing Guide for Parents, Father Figures and Fathers-to-be, disagrees. “I think it’s sweet that a man in Harry’s position would wear a T-shirt like that,” says the motivational speaker and stay-at-home dad. “I don’t think he was trying to make a statement, just celebrate the fact that he has a child who is a girl. Support for women shouldn’t just be on the street. We need to do that at home as well, where you can show girls that strong male presence. Let’s normalise girldad.”
The slogan was “supposed to be about women’s empowerment”, the US novelist Kerry Clare has said. Instead, it perpetuated “those same gender stereotypes” by suggesting that “there is anything different or remarkable about loving and parenting a girl than loving and parenting a boy.”
Dr Rebecca Hains, a professor of communication at Salem State University, and the author of books including The Princess Problem and Growing up with Girl Power, underlines the problem. “Conceptually, #girldad is a nice idea,” she says. “But I think the concern some people have raised is that simply expressing pride in being the father of a girl is more of a first step than anything else. You might be proud that you have a daughter, but what are you doing to ensure she’s treated equitably, that her legal rights are protected, that she will grow up in a world with a smaller gender wage gap, that she has bodily autonomy?”
What’s more, she adds, there is a risk that this becomes another example of men making a cause about themselves. “There’s an alternative perspective,” Hains says, “which is that nobody goes around describing themselves as a ‘Boy Mum’. We raise boys in a society that values masculinity and suggests femininity is somehow toxic to men. For some men, I think it does take becoming the father of a girl to become sensitive to these issues. My hope is that the hashtag is the starting point for a journey. Prince Harry is raising his children in the US, and we are grappling right now with Roe v Wade. It’s hard to speculate about someone’s intent with a T-shirt. You hope they care about this issue and will use their power to advocate. It could also just be a T-shirt.”
Turning up means more than wearing a T-shirt. It’s ironic that Bryant, for all his #girldad stylings, was also notoriously accused of sexual assault, in a case that settled out of court. All the hashtags in the world are toothless in the face of a Supreme Court seemingly determined to turn the clock back on women’s rights.
Nor is there any doubt that the pandemic provided moments of reflection for fathers. According to statistics from the ONS, the first lockdown led to a 58 per cent increase in childcare by men. The Fatherhood Institute has reported that since the pandemic, four out of five dads would like to work more flexibly, the better to be able to contribute to childcare. #Girldad might be having a moment, but so is plain old #dad.
Still, it is not clear whose benefit Prince Harry’s T-shirt is for. Is he telling other men it is fine to have daughters, or simply reminding himself? There are institutions that spring to mind more quickly than the British monarchy when it comes to equal rights for daughters. But its recent history makes a persuasive case for feminism. While the men have embroiled themselves in various shades of scandal, Royal women have, by and large, carried out their jobs with dignity and competence. George VI was never photographed wearing a Girl Dad T-shirt. His daughter, the Queen, as the celebrations over the next few weeks will remind us, turned out just fine. Harry’s latest sop to Californian fashion is another indicator that when it comes to the Royal family – as increasingly with the general population – it is the boys we need to worry about.
• The Sussexes don't want to go to the Jubilee; Netflix is making them. They know they're going to be booed, and it'll be reported internationally.
• She says Netflix is doing everything it can think of to get a return on their contract with the Sussexes, but they're simultaneously collecting the evidence they'll need for a civil suit against them. Apparently when the contract was signed, Netflix thought that they would get access to the BRF. But, obviously, they didn't.
• She seems adamant that the Sussexes won't get any access to any family members at all during the Jubilee, in private or in public. Yes, MM was hoping to get a "Lilibet meets Lilibet" shot, but there's no chance in hell of their getting it.
• Apparently, during their recent visit, their phones were confiscated when they arrived and weren't returned to them until they were outside the building.
• She doesn't think a Jubilee documentary will be a success because she doesn't think MM and PH can pull it off (i.e., talk about things other than themselves for any length of time).
• Oprah hasn't taken their calls in more than a year.
The things she's shared really open up the possibility, IMO, of Netflix incorporating some of the Sussexes' ignominy into their filming. Can you imagine a documentary in which PH really starts telling the truth about being alienated from his family? How ironic that that would probably sell!
God Save the Queen
The opening of State Parliament
Was not the same
missed our regnant
Charles and William
are up for it
Ready to steady the mother ship
The Queen still reigns
have no fear
Not as mobile
but present, and here
@DesignDoc @Fifi 🥰
@Maneki
Hope everything went well
under the circumstances.
How are you?
Look after yourself X 😘
Milksop
So his moobies
Were caused by doobies
Part of his transgression
He can feed the poor
Whilst out on tour
Lactating between his next session…
@WildBoar
Exactly, the media are playing
this up, bad form!
Would’ve hoped for a bit of respect.
So UK news Coleen Rooney,
part of Wagatha Christie
(how dare they)
court case Is being filmed
for Netflix?
Need to up your game megs,
footballer higher than a knave!
Girl dad tshirt. is he now a billboard for woke things or can any ole company buy ad space on his tshirt. and . what about your son?
i am still in the camp they won’t attend jubilee. and definitely do kids. hmmm although if archie and lilibuck$ came with out them (archie can fly them in his private jet) that would be a sight to see.
charles and the opening of parliament. camilla did beautifully. charles was fine. as an american he was over decked in my opinion in his military outfit maybe it’s because we are used to seeing the queen not decked out in military garb. it looked especially out of place as william was wearing a suit. so uk nutties can explain it all to me better. kinda looking forward to queen camilla.
@Magatha
Thank you so much, it's so kind of you to ask. I'm genuinely. really touched. I'm ok, thanks, although the day itself was rather emotional. I've been very tired (travelling) but am fine. Seeing *'s grumpy face in the DM the other day and H's 'study' and stuff like that is a good distraction 😁. Keep up the good work 😉
Hope you are taking good care of yourself. Sending positive thoughts your way.
Your clever brilliance is on display once more. Moobies and Doobies LOL
@Snarky
There could be no other explanation for that nonsense of Valerie Biden Owen's "endorsement!"
I don't think her ladyship (sarc) would be too pleased to hear that the name Archie is getting a bit too prevalent.
you made me laugh so hard as usual. In fine form, I see.
The Lord Chamberlain is supposed to read The Queen's speech if she is not present, as has always happened in the past. The Queen used her power to override that rule, with the agreement and support of the government, and have her heir take on the task. She also appointed two Counsellors of State for the occasion even though she only needed one (and did not need to appoint one at all if the Lord Chamberlain read her speech for her).
So, I can see her using her power to act in unprecedented ways. The one event the dastardly duo are likely to attend is the Thanksgiving Service. But will they? The Queen will decide the order of precedence for the day. Minor/non-working royals, working royals (in order of place in line of succession with the first being last), and then the Queen? Even if the order of arriving and leaving is strictly according to line of succession, the Cambridge children outrank the hapless prince. I think the Queen will do the former, leaving the duo to arrive with the rest of royals (the York's, Anne's children and grandchildren, Princess Margaret's children, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, plus dozens more). Are they going to demand to take precedence over that crowd?
Whatever happens, it is going to be messy!
Thank you for your good wishes, it means a lot to me.
🥰
My mistake.
I was checking on some posts in the spam and discovered I had accidentally posted a couple of ones which should have gone through but I marked incorrectly.
My apology to the group.
The rejected Pearl: Didn't Netflix hire teams to actually work on the project? Is that just a huge expense that they write off? She says much about pitching it to Apple and Disney, but are the people who have been working on it going to continue or will she hire new people and, much like the podcast series that never happens, change direction (according to her favourite thought of the week). My gut feel is that neither Apple nor Disney will want it and, unless Elton John and his husband finance it, she cannot afford to make the series as an independent.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/18501878/prince-harry-meghan-markle-frogmore-cottage-platinum-jubilee/
Why, and who is paying for this?
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/queen-elizabeth-abdicate-her-platinum-235634128.html
As a commenter said in the DM, 'It's hard not to feel a little schadenfreude'. I love this other comment: 'Apparently the story is based on Meghan's struggle to climb the social ladder. Bet they leave out the sex scenes'. Yes, I'm sure her version will be bowdlerised.
Yes, but as I pointed out above, Netflix hired people to work on developing Pearl, even though they supposedly have their own production company. Are these people going to follow the project? Why would Amazon or Disney take it on? Unless Elton John offers to finance the development of the series and Amazon or Disney offer a deal much like the Netflix deal (first refusal).
I had dealings with Disney way in the past. They control their image and their product. They were bamboozled over the Elephant project, but it was their project and all she had to do was read the script they gave her. Is that likely to happen again? I just don't see Disney letting her develop a series for them, and would be shocked if Elton John managed to buy a deal with them for her.
"Pearl" is dead, never to be resurrected.
The Harkles won't be in London for the Jubilee because they know that wherever they go they will be booed, jeered, and will have to watch out for rotten fruit flying their way.
The only way the Harkles will be in London is if Netflix is holding a multi-million dollar lawsuit over their heads for failure to fulfill contractual duties/obligations/promises.
Do those who write such articles deliberately ignore the difference between signing an employment contract from which one can give notice to leave, and making a vow before God? If there's anyone who will keep her vows, come what may, it's HM.
Or are they just stirring it, in the hope that the people will reject Charles sooner rather than later?
That article is doing those confined to wheelchairs a great disservice - they have fought hard and long to show they are as capable in employment as those who can still skip around like 2-yr olds- it doesn't mean their intellect has failed as well.
True, David Furnish baled out long ago, I must say I was surprised to see he was going to contact Apple and Amazon but this was 'according to the Sun'.
I pray that the duo won't be in London, although all the news sites say they will attend. Unless this is is, as usual, a rumour started by the harridan.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/27/labor-woes-hit-prince-harrys-san-francisco-based-mental-health-startup/
It is a very long article with a healthy dollop of humour.
Does anyone think that she is demented enough to be considering running for president? I just do not see this happening.
She would need the support of a political party. There are a number of ambitious politicians in the Democratic Party who had to give way for Biden. They are not going to be pushed aside again for TBW.
She has to raise money ... lots of money. The failure of Archewell shows that she does not have the power to raise a huge amount of money. This becomes even more of a problem if she chooses to run as an independent.
She is not sincere, and I just do not see her winning over the working class with her smug arrogant word salad.
I do so dislike the term 'royal expert'. Everyone is a royal expert! However, Hardman's occupation is researching and writing about the royal family so he is well-informed and experienced.
He compares the duo with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and their fading significance. However, fabulous jewels and an active social life did keep attention on them.
To me, another royal couple is perhaps a better comparison in some ways: Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. He gave up his place in the line of succession to marry her (but was reinstated when the rules about marrying a Catholic were changed). The very glamorous couple featured in endless magazines and were considered to be almost scandalous. They were never working royals (although he has sometimes represented the Queen) but she had to give up her career as an interior designer and started a career writing books. Now, they hardly get any attention at all.
For how long can the duo get attention by being stupid and behaving badly? The glamour has gone, the looks are fading, the wealth is being depleted, the business ventures are failing.
I think there was a brief window for getting big endorsement contracts with big brands, but they over estimated their talents and kept making bad decisions and behaving badly.
This guy (profanity alert) has two videos (some overlap) but brings out some of the difficulties in what is coming out of Hollywood today.
women
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnuqp4_K7ik
scripts in general
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ92cggLMx8&t=600s
So I think that the alleged reason given in the rumor might be part of the how do we get out from underneath this part of the contract but he makes a lot of witty points about how women and conflicts are resolved today on screen which play into just how bad what was handed to Netflix really could have been.
Looks like Omid Scobie is in some trouble...
https://www.thesteepletimes.com/movers-shakers/mother-of-god-scobie/amp/
@Elsbeth Thanks for the heads up about The Critical Drinker! I went down a bit of a rabbit hole watching a bunch of his videos. He is just SO on point about today's movies...
And WRT the topic at hand, I'm utterly delighted to read that Scoobie may finally be getting precisely the treatment he has earned.
I wasn't actually thinking of a First World/Third World comparison.
Netflix has an international audience. The time of American dominance is over because the whole world has opened up to us.
But Pearl may well have encountered inspirational woman from all ages and all parts of the world. I doubt it though!
I can imagine Disney taking such a concept and making a fabulous adventure animated movie, but I do not think they could do that with Pearl ... not with her being involved ... and I doubt that anything worth buying was developed for the project. To be kind, she just does not have the experience or knowledge to develop such a project, and in a way I admire her delusional belief in herself that she went for it anyway!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10809251/Meghan-Markle-praises-working-moms-shoulder-pandemic.html
OT: that guy funny, isn't he? very accurate
Every week there is another grandiose announcement, informing us of her latest project, that never amounts to more than a grandiose announcement! The problem is she has no credibility, because she's a hypocrite that latches onto to any 'fashionable' topic, without the credibility to give it credence, therefore doing more harm than good. Also, her behaviour flies in the face of her claims that she and Harry moved to the US for privacy - it's clear it was about power and control. She's inauthentic and patronising.
thanks for the link. It's nice to know that Yankee Wally is fighting back
I can confirm (and I think I mentioned it also a day or two ago but can't remember), that more than one person at Netflix has allegedly leaked that at the Queen's Summons, not only was Harry (Meghan was denied audience with Charles and the Queen), told his family would not be invited on the balcony as it was reserved for working Royals, he and his family would not appear in any official capacity, and that only he and his children would be given access to the Queen, provided that there were no cameras or recording devices around. Harry was told at the summons that the Queen would be at all times surrounded by trusted people to insure (sic) "her image is not exploited."
That is WHY Harry said that in the Kotb interview about "Having to make sure the Queen was surrounded by the right people." It was in a response to that declaration as if to tell those on charge, specifically Charles and William, letting them know he thinks they are the danger.
I heard a splash of tea from Hollywood that sounded like Meghan has said that the only thing that would get her to the Jubilee is for the Lilibet2 picture she thinks the world is waiting for. She and Haz have already been told they aren't getting it.
They know they will be booed and shunned by crowds.
Netflix is (according to that tea splash) on the verge of legal action avoidable by attending the Jubilee and facilitating good content.
What on Earth will Harry and Meghan do? They are allegedly SCRAMBLING for some excuse to stay home. I wonder if someone will get sick, injured, or seriously ill, like Meghan's dad did when she didn't want him coming... okay I got a little tin hat at the end, though there are ways to induce a heart attack, even via biochemical means, dropped in someone's unexpecting coffee cup, but that's just me talking out of my ass.
Seriously though, they are between a rock and a hard place. They HAVE to go, but they CAN'T go. Either way, Netflix will not get shit.
They were also allegedly told their access to the rest of the working family was not promised due to the busy-ness of the event, but if they did receive audience with any working Royal, that audience would be brief and free of recording equipment and cameras.
This all says to me that Netflix's advance to the Sussexes must have been sizeable or Netflix would have already sued them by now and taken their house. Netflix's current strategy only makes sense if the advance was more than the Sussexes' house is worth.
I'm told that it is almost certain that Harry and Meghan promised Netflix inside access to the Royal Family and that that is written into the contract. I don't know if there's a case for misappropriation of funds, but if they promised the Royal Family in the contract, Netflix probably has a case for deceptive and unfair business practices against Archewell.
If this is true and the Sussexes get sued for anything like fraud, I really think it will be over for them in the U.S.
I wonder why Yankee Wally has hired a law firm in the Persian Gulf to represent her??
I don't doubt he's mean enough to do it, but I would think having grown up right in the literal thick of the BRF that he'd know it wouldn't be allowed. That sounds like the sort of wishful thinking/DElusions of grandeur/underhanded sneaking around type of thing that his wife would come up with.
It just staggers me that they would sign a huge contract agreeing to something so highly unlikely.
If Netflix gave two people with no experience tons of money on the promise of delivering whatever, then they deserve the loss when the duo failed to deliver. (My guess is that The Heart of Invictus will not be a big hit and is simply a vehicle for them to self promote. That is a pity because I can envisage a documentary that would be award-winning and really make the games popular.)
I find the gossip about them promising 'behind-the-scenes' royal content unbelievable ... people making up stuff. But there are some reliable royal reporters in the UK reporting that they will be carefully watched to make sure they do not film anything, so, insane as it is, it is probably true. When you think about it, the situation is absurd.
Latest Palace Confidential speculates that they will attend three events: Thanksgiving Service (awkward and they will attract all the attention when it is supposed to be about the Queen); some big celebrity music concert thing; some parade. I hope they pull out and decide not to attend. Rather make a nice video praising and honouring the Queen (no word salad or pompous arrogance), and include the children giving a smile and a wave.
https://youtu.be/a58c363HUP8
Some interesting news from the Theresa Longo Fans account (they have been threatened through a letter sent to them by mail and an email that originates from Archewell.com):
https://theresalongofanpagerome.blogspot.com/2022/05/developments-in-may.html
Rachel with the Hotmail?
They pictured it being like when Harry and Meghan brought their own press pack in to take the snaps of Archie including the ones with the Queen (presumably). There's also the element of capturing them at events and being allowed in restricted spaces. This is why they pushed so hard for that Christening even up to recently. Harry and Meghan signed that contract fully believing and promising Netflix that access.
So their daughter's christening was all about getting Netflix footage? What a turn-off.
Rachel with the Hotmail?
I really don't think MM would ever be that stupid. She has to know doing something like that -- threatening a newspaper -- would be a federal crime, and she'd never get away with it. (Her against the FBI? She'd lose.) And the spoofing technology TLF describes is hardly easily available. Any decent-sized American company, like Sunshine Sachs, would never in a million years get involved in something like that because of the possible criminal charges. How unfortunate the letter wasn't received by a U.S. entity. The USPS Inspection Service guys are actually really good.
I hope TLF get some answers. But Italian police aren't really known for their skill set. 😕
@Ian: Trotter would not care what she said, it was a hustle and mission accomplished.
Being married into the RF, she probably thinks she is untouchable, but that thought process is majorly delusional.
Trotter was future faking with Netflix, and consequences be damned.
Now the Dollars are between a rock and a hard place. Boo hoo for them. Hope they get sued to the tune of $16 million, and their house is taken as part of the settlement.
Thank you for this excellent news. It's time he got his come-uppance.
I have the greatest respect for Wally - she works so hard for the truth.
Friday Singalong 🎤
Apologies: Smokie
Living Next Door to Alice
Who the Feck is…
Harry crowed
he’d scored a bird
He asked, can you polish a turd
like Malice
We all rushed to look inside
Daily Mail, to clock his bride
None of us could believe
our eyes
When madam strutted out
and started her lies
Oh I don’t know what she’s scheming
I know she’s lo so ho
No doubt some vile reason
All of it for show
But for nearly four years
we’ve been listening to bullshit
from Callous
Nearly four years
and given half a chance
We’d tell her where to go
no pomp and circumstance
We’ll soon get used to not seeing
Slack Alice
That’s Malice
Who the feck is…
Meggie does Palace 😉
@GWAH @DesignDoc
I tries me best 😜
@Maneki X
@Sandie
With these two the unbelievable
has a knack of turning out to be true.
No smoke without fire,
no megs without mire!!
TLF is a Twitter account run by two Italian guys. They also have a Facebook account. (So, no newspaper.) Their Twitter account was shut down by the Sussex squad but has subsequently been re-opened. I wonder why the Sussex camp is so triggered by TLF and indeed the duo themselves if that email did genuinely originate from Archewell.com.
The latest bandwagons of the duo seems to indicate that they are doubling down on their delusions. I must do some research. The organisation he is supporting is small and obscure (and in the UK) but seems to have come up with a tool children can use to make them safer online. She seems to simply be making a speech yet again. Where is the research (Experiences in other countries, socio-economic consequences, proposed models)? Where is the evidence (Test cases in a number of different environments)? Where is the projection of costs and proposals for funding? And why does she think this is only an issue for mothers? Yes, most child care for pre-schoolers is provided by mothers, but not all.
Disbarred
The racketeer
and her limp ex spare
Are in a bit of a fix
They’ve promised the Queen
to the Netflix team
Forgetting they’re not
allowed there…
The Queen looks beautiful,
on form, sparkle in her eyes.
God Save the Queen
Melting Moments
Spatchcock and Infidel
Looking for their next hard sell
Choosing working mothers plight
Opens doors for salad shite
Isn’t going to work out well
Tossing snowballs into hell…
...with Meghan, she does nothing while insisting she have control over everything. In addition to the lack of Royal access, this has also been a major problem for Netflix. When Netflix took over production and tried to produce Pearl instead of Archewell (read Meghan and Harry), Meghan still would not release the production out of her claw. With EVERY aspect she went to talented writers and animators and production designers, and acted like she was an expert on all their jobs, meanly criticizing their work, demanding changes that were illogical, throwing tantrums that [sic] "Pearl" her alter ego could not be drawn like a Disney character because of the risk of copyright violations and accusations of plagiarism. We all know that copyright and plagiarism are Meg's calling cards. But as she was doing all this, she was also contributing nothing of value. I can confidently say that Pearl was dropped as a direct result of Meghan's behavior.
No surprises here, and this is the kind of thing that can be demonstrated in court.
We've been discussing the lunacy of attempting to claim exclusive use of `arche -' but the misunderstanding of what can and cannot be trademarked is widespread.
`Vogue'is a hamlet within the parish of St Day, near Redruth - the name isn't even English - it's Cornish for `blowing house', a kind of building within the Cornish mining industry and originates way back in medieval times, if not earlier.
Several decades back, hotelier Rocco Forte (of Trust House Forte) attempted to stop a cousin of the same surname calling his tearooms in Winchester the `Forte Tearoom'. The case was slung out , the judge ruling that nobody can be prevented from using their own name.
So I don't give `Arche-' much of a chance.
How Meghan Markle was once tipped to play Rebekah Vardy in Hollywood film about husband Jamie's rise from non-league footballer to top scorer for Leicester City during their 2016 Premiership-winning season
• Rebekah was quizzed by Piers Morgan about who could represent her on film
• When Piers mentioned Meghan to Rebekah, she replied: 'That would be great'
I haven't followed this unedifying saga but * would have been perfect for the role, just as vile and stopped at nothing to climb the social ladder. Wish such a film had been made.
That account from secondhand coke sounds so believable. It is the sort of behaviour she has displayed over and over again.
Child Online Safety Toolkit:
First, there are a number of child online safety toolkits available.
In trying to interpret their word salad, what I conclude is that they have not designed a tool/app, but have compiled a list of resources already available with some kind of guidelines. This seems to be it:
https://issuu.com/5rightsfoundation/docs/childonlinesafetytoolkit
Here is the key text that seems to explain what it is and isn't:
“roadmap for policymakers and practitioners building a digital world that supports children and enables them to flourish, online and beyond.”
The event will highlight “’off the shelf’ policies that governments and organizations around the world can adopt to make child online safety a reality,” organizers said.
-----------------------------------------
Reports of the Queen's impending demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Here she is at the annual Windsor Horse Show, all smiles at her favorite event of the year.
One of her Highland ponies placed first in her class, and Lady Louise did the Firm proud as she led the parade driving PP's carriage.
I do not think this lady is at death's door. What I do surmise is, after 68 years of incredibly industrious reign, enforced lockdown gave her a taste of leisure for the first time since she acceded the throne in 1953, She has discovered that she liked it. At 96 years of age, having been widowed, gotten Covid and experienced the inevitable twinges of her great age, perhaps she has decided to take it easy from now on and in the time remaining to her only do those public events which she particularly enjoys in order to conserve her strength.
And why shouldn't she? Maybe, just maybe, she decided to give Charles the experience of opening Parliament so that she could see for herself how her firstborn would look doing Kingly stuff, and I have to say, he did a brilliant job. She last missed doing this when she was expecting Edward 59 years ago . . . it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that she just felt 'I've done 68 of these things; We shall let the Kid have a turn.' A sovereign never usually gets the opportunity to see his or her successor in action, but maybe the Queen has decided to give herself this gift, and Charles, too, the gift of hearing "Well done" by the mother he will replace. . . .Soon, but not yet. An awareness of the impending future was upon both Charles and William as they were sat next to her empty crown, to account for their somber looks. Or perhaps they had just endured another unpleasant exchange with the Montesh*tshow just prior.
At least, this is how I like to look at it. Her Majesty certainly does not look like someone who is eying the Grim Reaper approaching into view when she's around her horses. I suppose the long walk to the House of Lords factored into her decision, but this old gal is still kickin'.
I suppose the difference between the Horse Show & the Opening of Parliament is that she could discretely exit the former if it got too much for her, not possible in the latter. My `funny turns' limit me to events I can slide out of inconspicuously - sitting by the door in church, for example, rather than singing in the Choir.
God Save the Queen - and Perdition to faithless princes!
Moderation is still on.
Thanks as always.
I see people sign stuff in front of me all the time without reading it. I sometimes wonder about putting in something that I am to be given their first born child to see if anyone catches it.
Swampwoman, I remember the speculation about the 666 backers.
Wouldn't it be a laugh if #6 flew a rainbow flag and ran off with Nacho or some other bloke. A royal gay wedding would be one way to get press.
When I read about H walking a baby in the stroller, my first thought was that M was finally letting him play with the doll. Maybe he can put the doll in a baby seat on the bicycle next. Let's hope he doesn't smoke too much legal weed and try to juggle dolls or try on the baby bumps.
I can't believe the pair conceived 3 embryos the old fashioned way and produced two offspring " of the body". Any appearance "en famille" in England or on reality TV would be revealing. Perhaps they will claim they are hiding the children for their own protection.
The latest MET gala was the tackiest one yet. Vogue featuring reality trash and social media " influencers " is a worse business decision than Netflix and Spotify hiring the former royals. Wealthy society patrons and corporations who donate to museums do not want to rub shoulders with J trash and rappers. They don't want to sport the same logos as rappers either. I love the Metropolitan Museum. I hope this gala was the last low class bash held. How humiliating for the aspiring former royal fashion icon to not be invited to an event which let any trash in!
I laughed out loud when I read gossip that mm was asked to do dancing with the stars. She may dream of recreating Diana's dance with Travolta. THAT was star power. MM would have to show up on time, work hard, follow direction, listen to criticism, be nice to others. The ensuing fireworks might break the internet if the show is streaming. She could showcase her regal grace, mile long legs and fancy foot work ( preferably not in sandals). The hubby could join the following season to learn to twerk properly.
Speaking of sandals, what kind of idiot wears sandals around horses? They missed a chance to give artificial his first pony on Hus birthday. Much more fun than chickens. Did they forget his birthday? Perhaps they fired the staff member responsible for remembering the " official story".
The Cambridges appear to be a close, loving family. The children look adorable. No amount of photo shopping and ridiculous stories ( crocodile waffles anyone?) can match that.
The queen has looked happy in recent photos. Hope her celebration is spectacular - and Sussex free.