Well, the actual Jubilee is still some days off and things seem kind of quiet in some ways.
Yeah sure there are the usual something connected to moms announcements and the Travelist push (although I thought that was sort of dead in the water but ok, whatever). Basically the announcement stuff which doesn't seem to have a whiff of connection to anything prior in some coordinated pattern. Announcements and connections just seem to come and go so quickly here (paraphrasing Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz).
But there are some interesting announcements from the other side of the pond which have come out recently like the only current working family on the balcony or that the staff will create some sort of ring of protection. Or that the Tom Bower book is on the horizon. Does it feel like the wind has shifted?
In the run up for the Jubilee, expect a flurry of articles about what might or might not happen behind the castle walls by assorted Royal Reporters, tie back articles to the Oprah interview, constant reviewing of the assorted perceived slights and/or the bad feelings between this and that person and generally more negative stories rehashed. And rehashed again. And again.
I hope there are at least as many articles with details of the long history of the Queen's reign. That is, after all, the real reason for the event and not the private family squabble.
So, for now, the secret fly over, the games are over, the polo photos seem to have blipped off the spin cycle and the next big event should be the Jubilee. A sense of quiet.
Personally, this kind of stillness makes me think apex predator about to pounce.
Comments
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Anonymous posts are not allowed.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject.
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-And, thank you posts are nice.
Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.
Thank you again for all your patience and support.
Moderation still on.
I'm not sure things are that quiet.
We are being inundated with articles about the 6s. I'm sure I've missed a few but the other day it was * and working mothers, now it's H helping launch an online safety toolkit for children. He will tell us in a webinar how to make the online world safer and kinder for children. Once again, what qualifications and experience does he have? We had * trying to keep the Pearl project alive. Every other day, there is an announcement about some project or other. This is just to stay in the news and be relevant. Let's not forget the speculation about their appearance at the Jubilee.
Can they put a sock in it? I know they're tone deaf but do they not see that no one is remotely interested in them or what they have to say?
They will never ever be silent. They will use any contact with the royal family for their own gain. I don’t care if they are family with family, if they come over and yet again start their antics of mud slinging, then the royal family have invited it by their own admission. 😟
I think Maggot and Mole should be banned from ever being part of any royal event, public or otherwise. I don’t want to see them nor hear them, particularly on this side of the pond. 😒😖
I find it deliciously ironic, and more than a little moronic, that they fled the stuffy and stale confines of a castle and a stodgy old family just to be poodles on a leash owned by Netflix and Spotify. They are going to the Jubilee because they can't afford to let down their new masters. They actually have to work now and deliver products people are willing to buy and we know how badly Prince Handbag suffers from burnout.
PDina in conversation with Thomas. Audio is bad, but she has added captions.
Some interesting things:
* He debunks some of the stuff people believe and then pass on with elaborations. No secret first marriage, hidden children, gluing someone's eyes shut.
* Trevor also said something about being the family she never had in a speech the weekend of their wedding I think. Wow! It was not a new sob story when she told it to the hapless prince!
* She had an Argentinian boyfriend at college and lived with him, but he was a year ahead of her so he left a year before she graduated and I assume that the relationship then ended. She then took over his apartment.
* Thomas will never reveal the really hurtful stuff she put in that letter to him.
Totally agree with your suggestion of a ban on them attending any Royal event!
At this time of year, it is always a race with the weather to get the vegetables processed before they are eaten by wildlife, domestic animals, dug up by armadillos, eaten by bugs, or drowned by thunderstorms. The produce in the grocery stores is from other countries and is priced in dollars per pound, not pounds per dollar. The price is *very* high. This year I want to try to put up every last vegetable not because I'm enjoying sweating in a hot kitchen, but because I'm not sure that we will be able to afford to buy food at the grocery store in a few months.
I look forward to reading here about the Platinum Jubilee celebration and any fireworks caused by Thing 1 and Thing 2. While I may not be able to join in the jocularity for the next couple weeks, I shall certainly read about it.
Magatha, thank you for your mirthful songs and poems. I enjoy singing them to myself (since nobody else appreciates my voice!).
Goodnight or, more accurately, good early morning.
Yes, I feel they should be banned, but I don’t think I phrased what I thought very well as to why. 🥴
If the royal family allow themselves to be seen with the duo, it will or could come across as an unsaid statement or a display of public approval and them giving permission for the duo to carry on with their antics. Being seen in public with them will give the pair content to spill or spin, and worse still creditability and validity; still seen as part of the family.
We know everytime either of them get near to the family and/or country they talk. Have the the royal family not learnt their lesson by now? Have they not had enough yet? Or perhaps allowing the pair to be seen with them is a test to see if they can actually behave even though they’ve never shown us or them otherwise? I still feel overall allowing (even if not invited) the pair to be seen with them, is showing the public extremely poor decision making and thus with that they loose credibility and respect themselves. 😒😟😕
@Miggy Good to see you back, and I hope you’re well, I’ve not seen you for a while. 🥴
www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/lemon_swiss_roll_and_42467
Why do folks on this site ask for emails?
the queen looked great at the horse show especially after missing the parliament opening. after watching charles the walk from the door to the throne chair wasn’t too long. it’s too bad they couldn’t have made it work especially in her jubilee year. next year i get having charles. perhaps she’s only doing events she wants and is tired of parliament 😉
interesting on twitter. someone suggested marcus anderson back in the public pics and her stupid hat suggest she’s back on the market and all offers go through him. ouch. perhaps that is why she showed up at the polo tournament the rich man’s sport
I suppose it is predictable that she would try to get Samantha's lawsuit against her dismissed. Of note:
She calls herself Duchess of Sussex.
She is claiming costs from Samantha for all legal fees incurred so far.
The arrogant bitchiness leaks through in the wording, in my opinion.
Samantha now has the law firm that represents Donald Trump representing her.
I think it is highly likely that the case will go ahead, and, even if the Duchess wins, the reputational damage will be very bad for her.
the queen looked great at the horse show
-----
She certainly didn't look like a woman on the verge of death. Alert, oriented.
A little trouble walking, but didn't look like it was too bad.
Far more authentic facial expressions than what we have seen with the occasion-inappropriate, pasted-on, rictus grins of Mm.
I wonder if the Parliament thing wasn't more at PC's instigation, to get the public more used to seeing him in the lead position.
My impression of PW was unhappiness, maybe because he knew that this wasn't totally on the up and up?
@Sandie: If Trump's lawyers have kept him out of trouble thus far, it is safe to assume Samantha's lawyers are going to prevail against Trotter.
Blogger snarkyatherbest said...interesting on twitter. someone suggested marcus anderson back in the public pics and her stupid hat suggest she’s back on the market and all offers go through him. ouch. perhaps that is why she showed up at the polo tournament the rich man’s sport
Wonder if they're charging by the hour.
/Back to the kitchen.
My speculation: When Charles becomes king, William and Catherine will become Prince Princess of Wales. She is trying to make that name part of their brand before that happens.
The article shows * with her grumpy face... I've only had a quick look but it seems to be a recap of what's been happening to the 6s.
...she says 'Meghan is married to Prince Henry of Wales (also known as Prince Harry)'.
My speculation: When Charles becomes king, William and Catherine will become Prince Princess of Wales. She is trying to make that name part of their brand before that happens.
My guess is they've already been told the Queen will petition Parliament to remove their titles.
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and their children Archie and Lilibet may stay at Frogmore Cottage when they travel to the UK for the Platinum Jubilee. Netflix bosses hope they will film there
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-meghan-markle-under-26964938
Under the present law, there is no way to remove their titles. To do something unprecedented would have negative consequences: it would result in a brutal and damaging 'war' with the duo, forever cut the hapless prince off from his family, cause severe and long-lasting divisions in the family, and put all present and future royals under threat of being removed at the whim of the people. It is just not going to happen.
The titles are meaningless* and the only power and wealth it confers on the couple is what people choose to give them. Ultimately, they are in America and if they do not deliver, their titles will not keep opening doors for them.
* No land, no property, no official position, no meaningful special rights.
What the Queen and Parliament should attend to, in my opinion, is to remove him from the list of those who can be appointed Counsellor of State.
But why deluge in a sewer a la PH?
Why not do it with some style?
Set free the ravens of the Tower of London and hand out the keys of all the palaces to the plebeians, to make museums of them all.
Clean and simple.
Under the present law, there is no way to remove their titles. To do something unprecedented would have negative consequences: it would result in a brutal and damaging 'war' with the duo...
I'm sorry, Sandie, I find it hard to believe that, "Under the present law, there is no way to remove their titles." My understanding from multiple other sources is that the Queen petitions Parliament(s), Parliament(s) votes on it, and the titles are removed. They would have to be removed in all the realms and that would take time, but Parliament(s) ultimately holds the power to revoke a royal title upon the Queen's request.
Maybe some of the board members with more knowledge of Britain's legal and legislative processes can jump in here.
I personally think there's already a political war going on between the Sussexes and the BRF and that it's damaging public support for them.
@Swampie
Bravo👌enjoy the fruits of your
labour, save me a couple of
pickled eggs 😋
@Miggy
Welcome back, missed you😘
Boy that sounds like sour grapes to me.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10817323/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-never-wanted-Buckingham-Palace-balcony-Platinum-Jubilee.html
OTOH, one does have to wonder how Samantha would even be aware of the new attorneys, enough to know who they are and what they do. Or afford them.
Perhaps they approached her?
Kinda like those free speech attorneys who approached Jon Gosselin when his wife was trying shut his free speech rights down?
I do kinda wonder if some free speech advocate types have been keeping an eye on the Mm situation and put Samantha in touch with these new attorneys.
One also has to wonder about Samantha's ability to follow the attorney's instructions. She seems unable, at times, to keep her mouth shut, kinda loose cannon sort of person.
You gotta wonder what happened with the original attorney that would constitute fundamental differences.
Megalodone*
She was just a z list actor
With claws like a velociraptor
She schemed and screamed
Got it all it seemed
Then fell flat on her arse
as we all clapped her…
*Megalodon-“big tooth” shark
Sleep Stalking
Meh stood on the balcony
Lording it over her sovereignty
Suddenly she’s given a shove
Wake up meh
said haz to his love…
Anamely
Removing their ducal handle
Would give her
more room to wrangle
Like Mary of Teck
Could be Meghan of Deck
Or princess henry
better known as princess Dreck…
@alianor d’aquitaine
The ravens are already free,
as are most museums in the UK.
How would the plebs pay for
these relinquished acquisitions?
As I understand it:
English law on where one may take photos/paint pictures is quite clear although not many people get the hang of it. If you are on public property, you can take photos of anything you can see, unless it's covered by Defence legislation. So people who complain about tourists taking pictures of their chocolate-box thatched cottages from the public road can't do anything about it - apart from moving house.
The tricky bit is defining what is a public place. Obviously inside a building is on private property, even if the public has access. In the open, there's still no guarantee that you can take pictures - usually if it's only for private purposes nobody minds. If you are planning to make money from it however, you could be in difficulty.
The question has arisen in relation to photos taken on National Trust land but it could also affect photography in spaces owned by developers eg Paternoster Square outside St.Paul's Cathedral.
I bet that Windsor Great Park is one of those `private' places as far as Netflix is concerned, unless they stick to the public road.
Tough luck, Netflix!
(PS I had to go into this in connection with my own photography & painting)
Hi, lovely ladies. 😊
I'm not really back, (or even able to catch up yet 😡 )... as too much going in RL at the moment.
I also have family and friends in Ukraine, so keeping up with their news has been my priority.
Sending best wishes to all the Nutties on here... and hope to return when things settle down.
¡Hasta luego! x
I'm not sure that's sour grapes. I think they're dying to be on that balcony - * could bask in the adulation of the crowds (barring the odd boos) - and it would help with their Netflix fix, but they probably knew/were told no and tried to preempt the situation by stating they would not appear. As if they're fooling anyone!
They're 'very keen' to be part of the Jubilee celebrations and they want to attend the National Service of Thanksgiving at St Paul's Cathedral but don't want to appear on the balcony? Yeah, pull the other one!
'The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which authorised enemies of the United Kingdom during the First World War to be deprived of their British peerages and royal titles.'
In other words, they have to side with an enemy in time of war. This is the precise wording of the law:
'His Majesty may appoint a committee of His Privy Council, of which two members at least shall be members of the Judicial Committee, to enquire into and report the names of any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.'
Parliament would have to create and pass a new law to be able to remove titles from the duo (House of Commons and House of Lords), because the Act of 1917 refers specifically to the First World War. They would then have to propose and debate, and get the motion passed (both houses). Neither the royal family nor the government would want to do something so unprecedented.
The Queen can confer titles and peerage but she cannot remove titles or peerage. That can only be done by statute, passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and receiving royal assent, which means the agreement of the Queen.
Maybe I am wrong and the British government and Royal family will engage in a destructive war (as Russia is doing in the Ukraine!).
-----------------------
The titles the duo have are actually a bit of a joke. They confer no power or wealth, and the duo have no special knowledge of the royals who do have power, other than nasty gossip and lies. In a way, the power that royals do have is in how they behave and live their lives: fund raising and establishing enduring and powerful organizations (such as the Commonwealth, the Duke of Edinburgh's awards and the Prince's Trust and now the Royal Foundation). The duo do not even have the soft power of royals (handing out meaningful honours, uniting people, preserving a sense of history and identity).
Yep, in some ways Samantha reminds me of her sister, just a less toxic version. It is not a sure win for Samantha, but, in what would be a very messy court case, our dear Duchess would do great damage to herself. I don't think an American court would let her get away with perjury as a British court did, and a jury is going to be alienated by the arrogant use of royal titles. Being a duchess does not give you the right to defame your sister in such a spiteful way.
Good to see you @Miggy.
Where’s Puds?
@Maneki
They want that balcony photo,
they need that balcony photo,
otherwise…
Do keep lurking and saying hello. I hope your family and friends can stay safe,
@Sandie
I agree, removing a title
is not that simple in the UK.
Hopefully the American courts
won’t let her get away
with perjury, once more.
A lawyer (who, with her husband, posts videos scathingly critical of TBW), explains why Samantha does not have a case.
The ravens's wings are clipt so they can't fly freely.
And a visit to Hampton Court palace for a family of four costs too much if they have but limited means.
But otherwise i hope you have a sunny and very happy sunday!
@Maneki
They’re dying to be on
the balcony!
Nothing less,
nothing more!
There won't be any money shots with Lillibucks and grannie. If that were possible, Meghan would have met the Queen with Harry. But she sat out and had tea while her husband met her. That says it all right there.
The Deluded Duo thought they would be Diana 2.0 but they are sideshow irritants whose stars are fading fast. They poisoned their brand and there's not slinking back home from that.
The Queen already has at least once when she asked Parliament to remove the titles (the "style" of HRH) from the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York. IIRC, it took some doing because she made a new argument that took a while for both houses to review and approve. (It was something like the HRHs were an integral part of the marriages which had been dissolved.)
I personally don't see Parliament denying a sovereign's request for a removal of titles.
-----
There it is. The pattern completed. Every event goes like this with their PR:
Event is announced
MH say they are going
social media is annoyed
MH then say maybe they’ll go
MH then backtrack and say they have better things to do
everyone rolls their eyes
Event get closer so now MH say they are definitely going and they’ll even bring the kids!
People at event correct the misinformed puff pieces about the event
MH are suddenly not going and never wanted to go, so there!
Event happens and no one cares that they didn’t attend
https://old.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/upycbl/prince_harry_and_meghan_markle_told_queen_they/
He is finally dressing better, except for the washed out blah beige suit. Dies he gave a stylist now? A metrosexual male friend?
Perhaps the queen skipped parliament due to covid concerns. Being in a closed room with many well traveled people may be too risky. Outside with her beloved horses is healthier.
Do you think the duo will bring Archie and Lillibet to the jubilee? Dare they risk exposing them to photographers and dna gatherers? I would be interested in dna results. Note, Rihanna is photographed with her pregnant belly in a bikini. No moon bumps for her. In almost related news, I read Brittany said she miscarried. I normally resent media focus on women’s baby bellies, but MM moonbump antics, doll walks and photoshopped announcements inspire close scrutiny.
I started seeds for indoor cooking herbs, Swampwoman. I want to grow a few potted veggies too. I looked online for planting calendars and expect a steep learning curve. I agree that costs are crazy this year!
Please complete your profile so we can post your comments.
Thank you.
However, I do think that on divorce, a woman automatically loses the style if she has it by virtue of marriage.
Note that the HRH has not been removed from Andrew by the Queen either. She has simply asked him to refrain from using it, as with the Sussexes, and made that public, as with the Sussexes, but there was no formal process, no issuing of Letters Patent. They all still have the styling HRH but the public has been informed on their behalf, by the Queen, that they will no longer use it.
All the Cambridge children are HRH. That is not a right by law but was conferred on them by Letters Patent issued by the Queen. She did not do so for the Sussex children, and perhaps there is a lot of bitter resentment about that.
The Wessex children have the HRH style but do not use it. Anne's children were not entitled to the style and were not given it and seem to be perfectly happy about that. Andrew's daughters were given the style.
From my understanding, the Sussex children do not automatically get the HRH styling when Charles (their grandfather) becomes king. He would have to issue Letters Patent to grant it to them.
All very complicated, but the Queen has chosen not to issue Letters Patent to remove the right to the HRH style, yet has made it public that they may not use it. (Two royal dukes told not to use the HRH is rather pathetic.) A master strategist or avoiding conflict?
I think the Prince title is a birthright. The Dukedom is conferred by the Queen through Letters Patent. Removal of these titles and royal peerages cannot be done by the monarch issuing Letters Patent. Parliament must create a law to do so (on what grounds?), then get the law passed by both houses and assented to by the monarch; then Parliament can use that law to debate and vote on removing the titles (both houses), and finally the Queen, in consultation with the Privy Council, must assent to the law. I bet Boris would plead with the Queen 'please don't' if the Queen should ever want to have this done!
From the archives:
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm
Note that the above document seems to disagree with my views. If my understanding is correct, the very long and convoluted text states 'What the Queen giveth, the Queen can take away', and she does not even have to issue Letters Patent to do so, and that basically the duo have no legal right to any titles, styles or peerages, so it would be a waste of money and foolish enterprise to sue the Queen.
I think Parliament can go through the convoluted system I have described to remove the titles if they want to act when the Queen does not.
I still think the Queen and government would be reluctant to act and create a precedence that may cause trouble further down the line, and just cause more drama and damage in the present.
Charles may choose not to confer HRH Prince/Princess on the Sussex children, and at the same time remove the HRH (since they have not used it for years and have no use for it in their life in America). The Sussex Dukedom will live on, as infamous as made so by the previous Duke way back in history. Maybe someone in the Montecito family will redeem the name one day in the future.
Ironically, to me, the real farcical tragedies (titles, styles, peerages, honours, balcony appearances, Counsellor of State) are ignored by the many 'royal experts' because they probably do not understand any of it. One person who could write the accurate book about all that drama never will - Princess Michael of Kent. Lady C should befriend her!
saw that scoobie do is saying the sussexes told the queen they didnt want to be on the balcony. yeah sure. spin it whatever way you can to save face most people are on to them. their pr is getting boring
so when does harry’s book come out versus bowers. sounds like bowers is ready to go in june if i’m. it mistaken. nothing harry says after that book comes out will make any sense. bowers will likely be excerpted like tina brown’s. but will harry’s. what if none of the uk papers bite and it’s only in news week or people.
trooping the colours
service of the thanksgiving
top gun premiere with the cambridges and tom cruise
she’s gonna run out of short shorts 😉
"Neither the royal family nor the government would want to do something so unprecedented."
The Queen already has at least once when she asked Parliament to remove the titles (the "style" of HRH) from the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York...
I really could have sworn I'd read this, but, one, I can't find it, and two, it may have been something going on in the House of Lords itself.
My guess is the Queen has adequate grounds on treason to seek to remove the Sussexes' titles (i.e., trying to fiddle with the line of succession). But because that would be too embarrassing for the BRF and potentially compromise sources of info, she'll probably seek it on MM's openly lobbying the U.S. Congress on pending legislation. Not sure what that would be legally called, but there can't be two entities representing the Queen in the U.S.
Multiple DM readers, as I'm sure some Nutties know, have said in the comment boards that when they wrote to their MPs re revoking the Sussexes' titles, their MPs directed them to BP saying that the Queen had to initiate the legislation and that their hands were tied until she did so.
I personally think Parliament would support the Queen's doing so.
Neither Maggot or Mole officially represent The Queen, nor The United Kingdom. As far as I’m aware it’s up to America’s politicians etc to initiate the law to stop a titled person trying to become a Senate etc. 🥴
William and Harry had no titles until they were married, and got their Dukedoms.
Neither did Charles, Andrew or Edward. HM made Charles PoW when he turned 18 (I think), and that was his first title. His grandfather signed Letters of Patent so that he'd have the HRH style, just as Her Majesty did for the Cambridge tots. Other wise, they'd have had to wait til the Queen took the throne to have it. (Theoretically, Archie and Lilibucks would get HRHs when Charles ascends, but Charles may want to keep it sloely with the Cambridge kids, in his slimmed down model)
I thought Diana and Sarah automatically lost their HRH stylings automatically? What right had they to them after they were divorced? I know there was some feeling that Diana in particular ought not to have to curtsy to her sons, but I highly doubt either of them would have insisted on that, nor do I imagine Bea or Eug doing that to Sarah. Do we really think Diana or Sarah curtsied to their ex-husbands, either? I can't imagine them doing so, even before the divorces, honestly, but I'm not British, and maybe it doesn't seem as odd to Brits. I know Philip walked slightly behind HM, as he should have, but did he bow to her each morning? Maybe he did; he was a man with a deep sense of tradition, God rest his soul.
While I'd love to see the Sucks-its lose their titles AND their HRH, I don't see it happening, either, if nothing else because then Andrew would have to lose his, and I do not see HM treating her favorite child thusly.
I know that the prospect of booing, hissing and rotten eggs being tossed is the main impetus behind Andrew and the grifters being excluded, but I can also see HM feeling like if she has to keep Andrew away from these events, she darn sure isn't letting the Harkles have any part in them.
@Magatha, I can never thank you enough for your incomparable offerings!
I thought he got away with the wisecrack about HM choosing this evening's show over Parliament; performers are usually well-advised not to bring the Royals into the proceedings. I think Ringo Starr was just OK with his asking for applause and telling those in the `posh seats' to just `rattle their jewellery'. HM's gesture seemed between `Whatever...' and `My Pleasure...') Nothing glacial.
It was so good to see HM looking well and happy - certainly not at Death's Door.
BTW. The King's Troop RHA came to our County Show some years ago and we saw the drive at very close quarters - absolutely thrilling. If ever you get the chance to see them, take it.
Re: The Sussexes' Not Representing the Queen
That's the point I was trying to make. We know that, but not everyone will as long as MM has a title and actively uses it to lobby members of Congress and/or, possibly, international organizations like the U.N.
———————————————————————————
I’d appreciate it if everyone could take a look at this and tell me how you think this was achieved. Are these actors? Actors wearing masks? Robots? We have speculated many times that Whinge and Cringe Have employed doubles to stand in for them during various pap shots And other photographic projects. I think they’re both very distinctive looking in odd ways Very specific to them which are not common features in other people that would be easy to duplicate. Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make this, and they are definitely being mocked hard-core… But I don’t know where is emanating from or how it was done. I would be interested to hear everybody’s thoughts.
That's some sort of skin-suit face thing. I've seen it on "Meghan" before, not sure by the same woman or just the same mask but it is a creepy mask.
But yes I've seen them/this face mask before - it looks a bit suffocate-y.
I had thought the great-grandchildren were to have been in a carriage of their own at some point but they were nowhere to be seen. Does anyone know why they didn’t participate?
We are enjoying a full lunar eclipse right now. I live close to the real Harkles and I bet they are right now, sneaking around the grounds of their estate since the moon is fully obscured, things are black as pitch, and nobody can see them.
I wish we would never again have to see them in the light of day, or dark of night.
Sorry to hark back to all of this ... my deep dive of research resulted in the conclusion that in terms of removal of titles and styles, it is actually all in the Queen's hands. As for removing the HRH ... there is no rule or law that says that she has to issue Letters Patent and by saying they will not use it, she has effectively removed it.
My opinion is that if Americans, and others, want to be taken in and believe that the duo represent the monarchy and thus give them special favours/treatment because of it, then the consequences are due to their own stupidity. The Queen has issued a statement, at the time of Megxit, that makes it perfectly clear that they do not represent her, and she went as far as to remove the HRH and shut down the use of the world royal (so they lost their SussexRoyal IG account and had to shut down their foundation ... that was a huge blow to them).
@Ian'sGirl
It seems that it is only since Diana that the HRH is automatically removed after divorce. But, before that, divorce was relatively rare in the royal family so I doubt that they had a rule. As for 'Prince', it is referred to both as a style and a title, but the following seems to explain it well:
"As in France, the style of "prince" is not a title that is granted to an individual like a peerage, but rather a style or appellation customarily used to indicate the relationship to the sovereign, and membership in the royal house."
"The fraught days when the Queen went head to head with her people (and her own son): ANDREW MORTON on the week after Diana's death - from Her Majesty's fear car had been sabotaged to rows with Charles and her bewilderment at public's grief" ...
Morton claims to have knowledge of exactly what Charles and the Queen said and did in private moments after Diana's death, and to know exactly what they were all thinking and what they all felt. I question this. However, it does seem that he has spoken to courtiers who were around at the time. This does not bode well for the duo as the supposed protection of NDAs seems to be a bit of a myth.
I'm often astonished at just how unaware of her many people are. They just get on with their own lives and fail to see what the fuss is about - just as they would find it impossible to believe how otherwise `normal' people of their acquaintance are capable of behaving - we all met 'em, when we try to tell them what's happened to us. They take the line that we are over-reacting and obsessed.
Shockingly, these sceptics include not only people who let current affairs pass them by but those who take an active interest in the world, especially those with an inbuilt distrust of the newspapers (apart from the Indie and Grauniad, that is).
https://youtu.be/-JQOM1foboc
@Sandie, It's my impression that the head of the royal family has great discretion over how titles are granted or taken away, after all, it's their own family. Perhaps there's an understanding that Parliament could object if the monarch did anything that it felt was unwise. The BRF seems to have been pretty circumspect in handling titles, although I have wondered if making sure that Charlotte was in the main line of succession was not only a nod to the importance of females, but also was a way of moving Ginge down the line. If the rumors about him are in any way true, it's probably been obvious for a long time that he would not make an appropriate head of state.
The hysterical reaction was extraordinary though. Did it reflect a generation that had never been called upon to be stoical? All that chucking of flowers at the gun carriage was ridiculous to me - had they no idea of what might happen if they spooked the horses? Sadly, that illustrates the width of the gulf between me and the young.
interesting. the queen sent prince william to UAE to express condolences. are we seeing a de facto regency going on. is charles in charge? hmmmm
-----
Funny, I've *never* thought of H in those terms. Always thought he was a punk.
I wish that MM would drop it with the blurry pictures for Pete's sake. Just take clear ones and be done with it. We all know she's hired them done.
Interesting how all the Harkles have to offer are some blurry pictures of only Mm in short shorts (reminiscent of her yacht girl pictures), whereas Prince William is photo'd in clear focused pictures, looking regal and dignified on a diplomatic mission for the Queen in the UAE.
And then we have the lovely photos of the Queen looking obviously overjoyed to be out and about, obviously in full control of her faculties. Enough to be able to able to summon a grandson for a dressing down. Haha.
As for H being completely ill-suited for the Throne, I daresay that's something that can be parked until such time as it happens, if it happens.
another day another set of pap shots. different short different short shorts. butt pics again. is this to show that the paps are relentless, and post unflattering shots. or maybe she thinks they are flattering. is this her way of setting up the narrative “we can’t go to the jubilee”. it’s unsafe. the paps will hound us just like mama diana. and of course we get these hat after the Queen made her appearance at the horse show and looked great considering. or is this the “we needs the $400 in cash and i’ve got a drawerful off shorts “. makes me wonder if it’s advertising because she is showing a lot of skin.
My, isn't she just? There's our 'American Duchess' wearing, sorry, gotta call those white microshorts that barely cover Cringe's moneymaker as her w**r* Shorts. Verrrrry regal, yah. Her "style" is so odd. We can assume that it's hot there in Santa Barbara. Too warm at any rate for a long-sleeved dress shirt, a dressy item that pairs very oddly with shorts that wouldn't be out of place on Hollywood Boulevard. She's gotta show off those 'mile-long gams', y'all.
I breathlessly await River's notes on this latest sartorial disaster.
Catherine has occasionally been seen in shorts in public, though not of this micro variety. Generally when she's been engaging in actual sport though, like the Cowes regatta. And C.'s stems are in fact a mile long and are nice to look at. Trotter looks less chunky than she did in the Christmas photoshop outing. She's now somewhere between the 'skinny' coke-chic of her pre-wedding period and the maximum density we've seen more recently. They are just ostentatiously sexual attire for a 40-year old married 'mother of two' who claims to be royalty.
So, advertising, yeah. Hard to believe that anybody would be tempted by that any more, but punters should remember: If you have to ask 'How much?', you can't afford it.
In this photo I was more interested in Haz, who's trailing behind his wife clutching his head with both hands like he's got the mother of all migraines. Yes, he certainly does, and it's trotting in front of him in micro-shorts.
Of course, these photos hit the Internet at the exact time that HM was attending the pre-Jubilee event. The Trotters are completely and utterly pathetic.
--------------------------------------------
My latest YouTuber discovery is Kenny Weiss, a life coach/survivor of two narcissistic parents who's devoted his channel to recognizing and navigating narcissists in your life.
This one is the '13 Signs of a Narcissist' and Trotter is spot-on as far as I can see. This vid is nearly 30 minutes in length but well worth a listen if you can break it up in chunks, even. He has a bunch of others I plan to work my way through.
He asserts early on that narcissists are not born but rather made as a result of childhood trauma and toxic parenting. I once read the defining difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is that psychopaths are born that way and sociopaths are made through trauma. By and large for the great majority of these aberrant personalities, we can point to definite lacks in the 'nurture' environment--usually systematic abuse, very often sexual, as well as other forms of deprivation of basic needs and parental love and care.
My question is: Is it possible for someone to be raised in a loving and nurturing normal family and still come out severely off-kilter? As for Trotter, we know that the marriage between Tom and Doria broke down early and they were divorced by the time Mugsy was two years old. From the ages of 2 to about 10 or 11, she lived with her mother in a rental apartment in a less salubrious part of Los Angeles though it was ghetto-adjacent vs. actually in the ghetto. Given Doria's extremely spotty employment history and questionable education we can assume that Tom was basically supporting them both during this time. Doria was a 24-year-old assistant of some kind on a movie set when she met Tom and swiftly busted up his first marriage. The high-falutin' aspirations to being a social worker didn't really seem to materialize until her by-then adult daughter was making money on television and paid for her classes. So, the mystery remains--what was Doria doing for M's most formative years between 2-10 years old? Given her widely-acknowledged botanical hobby and footloose lifestyle . .what kind of supervision, if any was little M receiving during this time? I have always suspected sexual abuse, really, given her hypersexualized behavior. I'm not pointing any fingers at any certain individuals but we just don't know anything about her life before she came to live with her father.
Doria was absent from her daughter's life for a number of years apparently but there are contradictory stories--was Tom forced to take M because of her mother's flaky abandonment or, as I have also read, M agitated to live with her father? If the latter, why was she agitating to live with Tom? Was she trying to escape a really bad situation at Doria's or did both of them figure that they could get more money out of Tom if he assumed the role of custodial parent?
M was a cute baby, and her father doted on her. Something happened in the intervening 8 or so years to turn M from an adorable smiley baby into a prepubescent absolute monster. Or . . was she always going to be like this, no matter what?
Nobody at all in the Markle family comes out of this with a glowing character testimonial but M is a creature unlike any of them, even if they have dabbled in criminality of various kinds. This is a soap opera without end.
Perhaps the problem is that I'm not a man, & the sight of those scrawny legs doesn't inflame me with desire. (She's been accused of looking for another rich husband at the polo matches.) She obviously knows something I don't. Did she dress this way for comfort? The other women don't seem to be wearing such warm weather garb. Her appearance is inexplicable to me.
I don't think the Letters Patent that made Charlotte and Louis HRHs nor the change in male primogeniture re: Charlotte affected Harry's position in the LoS. The change was made before George was born when supposedly it wasn't known if the child would be a boy or girl. Without that change, the LoS would be George, Louis, Charlotte, Harry...Whether Charlotte is in front of or behind Louis, Harry would still have been 6th, I'm pretty sure. When Charles becomes king, Harry will move up to 5th if W&K haven't had another kid. If W&K have another child (unlikely IMO) H would move down. When the Cambridge kids have kids he moves down. If Will becomes king before any of his 3 kids have kids, Harry becomes 4th in the LoS..
...and tell me how you think this was achieved. Are these actors? Actors wearing masks?
Actors wearing masks. This Hollywood gimmick has been around for a while; it's just not used very often. You can see it in old episodes of Mission Impossible.
Thanks for the clarification about the non-appearance of the great-grandchildren at the horse show.
Male primogeniture didn't mean removing all females from the line of succession until there were no men left. It just meant within a set of offspring from X, the females were last. If it had meant discard all females, Elizabeth II wouldn't be queen. (And probably other queen regnants wouldn't have been either.) In QEII's case the line would have passed sideways from Elizabeth's father, George VI, to his younger brother, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (I think he would have been next anyway.)
@NeutralObserver wrote "...I have wondered if making sure that Charlotte was in the main line of succession was not only a nod to the importance of females, but also was a way of moving Ginge down the line.." '
As I recall, there had been criticism of male primogeniture on equality grounds and the stated official view was that the change was to bring the Succession into the 21st century. What really pushes H down the stepladder to the throne is the overall number of Cambridge progeny, of either sex.
@Alianor
One wing clipped, they can still
fly. One found in Greenwich,
another in the east end.
They are territorial birds.
I’ve just booked a
Kensington Palace tour, 20 quid,
includes Diana’s sunken garden.
Family of four ticket 60 quid,
hardly going to break the bank?
Royalty and the line of succession should not be confused with the aristocracy.
In the aristocracy, females cannot inherit a title and do not inherit the estate unless there are no male heirs at all (even if they do end up inheriting the estate, they don't inherit the title, but there may be one or two exceptions in history), no matter how distant. There have been numerous attempts to change this and make females equal to males but, if I am correct, the House of Lords keeps blocking the change.
The monarchy does not follow the same rules, and the Queen has liberalized them in making females and males fully equal. The line of succession is ordered according to birth (and, after the Cambridges got married, the Queen changed the rules so that it is strictly according to birth and later-born males do not precede a female, as happened with Anne), but within that system, the children and further descendants of the first-born precede the second-born and his/her descendants. Hence, Margaret was second in line of succession but by the time Elizabeth became Queen, she was third. By the time she died, she was way down the line of succession (about 10th or 11th) because Elizabeth had two more children and they each had two children (I don't think the Wessex children had been born, but they would have pushed her even further down the line).
As for Harry, none of the descendants of Andrew, Edward or Anne can push him further down the line (and, in fact, his descendants push everyone else further down the line), but all the descendants of William do.
My understanding is that severe trauma or abuse are not required to make a narcissist. She was doted on and spoiled by Thomas, and he never seemed to reprimand her or discipline her in any way. Doria seems to have also treated her like a princess but may have been an absent mother even when she was present because of the dope. (Marijuana is not like hard drugs so it's bad reputation is the result of ignorance and government propaganda, but prolific dope users tend to be super chilled. I have never encountered a habitual dope user who has been fully present, aware, attentive and responsible in parenting, and I think that is a problem.)
There are numerous studies that conclude that narcissism is caused by a combination of factors, e.g.
'Upbringing and childhood environment may be key factors in what causes NPD, but genetics could play a role, too...'
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/what-causes-narcissistic-personality-disorder
I think the polo short shots
reek of desperation.
Anything to keep her
in the news.
Tom Cruise, surely miffed her
Not there, must have pissed her…
@Ian’sGirl
Thank you 🥰
Maybe she has surrendered to the life of a wife and mother, running a household, and has given up on her grandiose ambitions? That being said, I think she just can't control the impulses of toxic malignant narcissism. I expect a lot more media hype and speculation in the run-up to the reported UK visit and some major attention-seeking shenanigans during the visit.
--------------
So, Amber Heard committed perjury in a UK court, and got away with it. TBW did the same. Tom Cruise used the Queen's Jubilee celebrations to promote his latest movie (notable for its expensive and unprecedented stunts and not much else). That is three big wins for celebrity culture, which is a stark contrast to the Queen and her values and life. Like a Shakespearean tragedy!
@Sandie
She will never be happy!
The plus side from Cruise,
meh wasn’t there,
how she wishes she was!
My idea of freeing the wingclipped ravens in the Tower had symbolical and historical meaning.
I am very happy that you have money enough to enjoy your holidays as you wish.
PS.
For those nutties who may be interested in ornithological questions: Wikipedia has very good article about the ravens and their history in the Tower of London.
PS 2
Sorry about grammatical errors, english being my third language ��.
Radiant as ever
Our Queen
Paddington Station
God Save the Queen
Re primogeniture that you are correct on. I know there’s aristocrats that want the law changed so it applies to their issues too. The change ensures equality; the first born inherits title and assets regardless of gender.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/queen-elizabeth-line-opening-crossrail-london-105232661.html
That's just over half an hour ago.
The photos of HM are first rate. She's as bright as a button, face full of life, wearing daffodil yellow, hat with mauve flowers. Singing colour. She's clearly enjoying herself.
Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!
@Sandie
Shakespears Goneril?
The Queen looks radiant.
God Save the Queen
Ordure du jour
As madam was climbing
encroaching Pall Mall
Word was given
don’t touch her, old pal
But haz, not known
for wisdom, nor wit
Still brought her home
hence all of this sh*t…
All the discussion of succession has brought to mind the fact that the British monarchy has survived for over thousand years because at various times it has 'moved sideways,' when for example, a presumptive heir was the wrong religion for the time. I'm sure someone like WBBM could give us numerous examples. Edward VIII's abdication was hurried along by non-royal leaders in the political & religious sphere. Different circumstances require different measures, that's how a monarchy can co-exist with democracy.
I see the current situation in the BRF as more of a farce than a tragedy. Yes, we don't like seeing a tiny 96-year old woman being bullied in any way, but I doubt the queen feels intimidated, irritated & frustrated, maybe, but not intimidated. She seems pretty tough. Not so sure about poor Charles, but we haven't seen him in the top job. Perhaps the Windsors wouldn't mind stepping back into royal obscurity? They'd most likely retain quite a bit of wealth, & their lives would be much easier in some ways. Not for me to say.
Tom Cruise at the Windsor horse show was a bit odd, but it was just for a few seconds, & Cruise seems to be a genuine Anglophile who admires the queen. It was the smarmy ITV interviewers who brought up the movie stuff. Perhaps the producers of the movie provided some incentive to ITV. In any case, the movie seems to fill certain unspoken Anglo-American geopolitical goals at this moment. Who knows what went on behind the scenes? I was reminded of hilarious episodes of Twenty-Twelve, W1A, & The Thick of It, in which bureaucrats were scrambling for the right celebrity to front whatever they were promoting at the moment.
Below is the ITV interview of Tom Cruise. The interviewers bring up the movie. Ever the show biz professional, Cruise isn't going to avoid speaking about his latest project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb80tAEmmpw
Yes, it must be galling for daughters, who have just lost their titled father, to see title and estates go to some very distant cousin, on the other side of the world who probably didn't known he was the heir, and probably had never met the English side of the family. He may not even have to nous to run the estate properly.
Inheritance by the male line was relevant only when one fought to defend one's land on the battlefield, not in the courtroom.
Yes, it must be galling for daughters, who have just lost their titled father, to see title and estates go to some very distant cousin, on the other side of the world who probably didn't known he was the heir, and probably had never met the English side of the family. He may not even have to nous to run the estate properly.
Without the ancient and sexist practices of primogeniture and entailment, Miss Jane Austen would have been hard-pressed for a plot. Likewise Mr. Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey. Lady Mary Crawley may be an absolute b*tch on wheels but one feels that she may have been a happier and less b*tchy person, particularly to younger sister Edith if she had grown up secure that she'd inherit the Downton estate in her own right. For such practices to be carried forth into the 21st century . . pfft, terrible.
I'm the eldest of four daughters. My parents tried for a boy four times with no luck. Had my father been an English man of property, we'd have been screwed. I guess it's a blessing of a kind that we were born into the American middle class and that by the skin of our teeth. I think that some American old-money families with estates have similar traditions of entailment upon male heirs only, but let's hope that's changing. Given that Britain's longest-reigning monarchs have all been women, they have certainly supported the argument that a woman can do as well, or better than a man in the job of being heir to responsibilities.
Prince Arthur to brother Henry VIII (who married Arthur’s wife, Catherine of Aragon)
Edward VII to sister Queen Mary to sister Queen Elizabeth I
Prince Henry to brother King Charles I
King Charles II to brother King James II
James's daughter Mary II to sister Queen Anne
George IV to Brother King Wm IV to niece Queen Victoria
Prince `Eddie’ (eldest son of Edw. VII) to King George V (who married `Eddie’s fiancee – Mary of Tek)
Edward VIII to brother Bertie (ie King George VI)
Also , going further back, King Richard I was succeeded by brother King John -I haven’t time for other medieval ones but there are also examples in the Anglo-Saxon kings before 1066...
eg Ethelred the `Ill-advised' succeeded his murdered half-brother, Edward the Martyr - whether this was for political reasons or a result of his stepmother's machinations isn't clear. Right now, I'm supposed to be writing an essay about Edward's relics, how they were moved from Wareham to Shaftesbury, then on to Bradford on Avon to protect them from Danish invaders in 1001AD. They are now claimed to be in an Orthodox shrine in Brookwood Cemetery - I haven't a clue how they got there!
Now it's back to the essay...
PH's ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy has revealed that is married. She looks very happy.
I will never forget how sad Chelsy looked at Harry's wedding. Complex feelings at which we can only guess. But now she makes the second of Haz's long-time girlfriends to have tied the knot with someone else. I can't help thinking that both of them must be relieved they dodged that bullet. The Haz that's hanging out all over the public stage is most likely the same rude, moody, violent immature tosser they dated, and only H's close circle of family and friends have known all this time what he is REALLY like.
Congratulations to Chelsy, and to Cressida too for her other 'Harry'. May they both be as radiantly happy in their unions as their ex is miserable in his.
She should be happy to have dodged the Harry trainwreck! I can only imagine how horrible it would have been if she isn't a huge enjoyer of fit pitching.
Love Ordure du jour🤣. You're so witty!
Are you visiting the UK? I remember you said you stay in a hotel off Edgware Road. I might bump into you if you do some shopping in Oxford Street (warning: it's not the same).
You mention visiting KP and the sunken garden. I want there a couple of months ago, let me know what you think.
Can someone explain to me what this all means ...
What exactly was the role that Help for Heroes played in the Invictus Games?
Who is the MOD?
Who is the Royal British Legion?
The statement from Help for Heroes makes it quite clear that they did not choose this; this change was forced on them.
I hoping that someone here has more knowledge and understanding than I have. It feels like a major development to me but I do not know why, and I may be wrong.
I’ve been reading and enjoying Tina Brown’s book, though I dislike her treatment of the Wales’s courtship as a “campaign” by Carole and Kate to snare the heir—as if William were somehow railroaded into choosing her. But I like her take on Chelsy:
“Like Harry, Chelsy [‘the wild-child daughter of Charles Davy, one of Zimbabwe’s largest private landowners’] had an edge. There was allure in the precarious backdrop of her Zimbabwean childhood under the reign of the alligator-faced despot Robert Mugabe . . . Chelsy grew up running barefoot and hunting snakes on the vast Davy farm. In an interview in The Times in 2016, she said that at her preschool “there were monkeys everywhere, stealing your crayons.”
What a difference from the woman he ended up marrying.
MoD = Ministry of Defence, successor to the War Office of the 1939-45 business.
Royal British Legion - long-established organisation (founded 1921, post World War 1) for ex-service personnel/charity - see https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/ .
Also responsible for Poppy Day appeal & Remembrance Day events.
Help for Heroes- charity of recent foundation, in response specifically to the kind of injuries sustained by personnel caught in IED attacks in Afghanistan -eg multiple amputations. (IED = improvised explosive devices). I gather it supported only those injured this century although this has now been changed.
According to the link you posted:
`Help for Heroes is incredibly proud to have trained, supported and delivered Team UK for the past five Invictus Games'- which, being interpreted, means `paid for' - it would all have to have been done in cooperation with MoD and I'd speculate that the RBL would have tougher financial controls than Help for Heroes.
H for H didn't help those with life-changing injuries sustained prior to 2001 (who would perhaps like to see an Invictus Masters' Games?). This has been changed now.
I wonder if the change will also help to resist money raised for the wounded being misappropriated?
This rumor has been circulating around from various different sources. It's made the rounds among the A-list too. My dude in Hollywood says it is absolutely true, pool-pushing and all. He also said that she screamed at the staff. She didn't yell, she SCREAMED, and they aren't the only ines she's done that to. It's no wonder she leaves a wake of pool souls suffering with PTSD.
It sure sounds like the dam is getting ready to break from these two and it won't be pretty for them when all their lies and deceptions get exposed by multiple sources. Look for their gossip flack in Canada to be silent as the grave and ghost them like their last name as Paltrow.
God Save the Queen!
Perdition to faithless princes!!!
The anniversary - a date we'd rather forget... Who would have thought they'd still be together 4 (very long) years later. I wonder if she's planned something special and will share with the whole world. This reminds me that Archie's birthday came and went and we didn't have any pix, did we? (sorry, my mum passed away just before so things are a blur).
Once upon a time, circa 2011 when she attended Williams wedding as his plus one, I would’ve said Chelsy was an excellent match for Harry. However, knowing what we now know about his spectacular lack of character, rage, laziness, cruelty to animals, jealousy, thickness of wit, legendary cheapness, et al…I wouldn’t have inflicted H on anyone other than Trotter. For him and Chels to have succeeded, he’d have had to have been the guy we all thought he was. If that had been true,? I think the Queen would have given her blessing to the couple to live halftime in Chelsy’s country and H would have gotten what he wished for—Ironic innit.
Chelsy is a qualified lawyer who now runs her own jewelry design business. So she has several attributes Harry does not: intelligence, drive, creativity. He might have had a brilliant life with her, but he would’ve had to have been a different person. The hairy we know now is completely worthless and has married an equally worthless waste of space. All their former partner’s house well shot of the toxic duo of wasters.
The hairy we know now is completely worthless and has married an equally worthless waste of space. All their former partner’s house well shot of the toxic duo of wasters.
____________________________________________
I hear you. But it seems as though whatever positive attributes Harry may have would have been amplified and accentuated with a partner like Chelsy Davy. She would have perhaps made him a better person. It is interesting to read Tina Brown’s review of Harry’s youth. She clearly believes he was a charismatic, lovable guy. And she promotes the idea that he served very honorably and courageously in the military. Brown is said to have impeccable sources—The Palace Papers certainly reads like a very carefully researched and written chronicle of the post-Diana years. I understand that she may not be correct in her assessment of H, though.
The section of TPP dealing with the media phone hacking/tapping, trash can scavenging, stalking etc. of members of the Royal Family and their friends and associates is an eye opener. I didn’t realize just how extensive and long term the criminal behavior of the tabloids was—even the Middleton family had their land line tapped and hundreds of their voice messages hacked. And the Red Tops even had PI’s bribe airline employees so they could get a seat next to Chelsy on flights to and from Africa and the UK. Good Lord.
It is a tweet response to how to dispel today's rumour about W&K separating (nonsense)
Valentine Low
@valentinelow
Replying to
@RoyalReporter
@SarahData_
and 2 others
Come on
@RoyalReporter
! When are you going to break the code of silence? Are you going ignore this, just like you ignored Meghan's fake baby?
https://pagesix.com/2022/05/18/prince-harry-meghan-markle-at-home-docuseries-coming-to-netflix/
sorry if already posted, I'm a bit too many comments behind.
Meghan McCain makes a very good point here:
"... Politics is a rough, dirty, compassionless, relentless profession and he seems to have a lot of personal problems and demons."
She is talking about Madison Cawthorn but it is a cautionary tale for anyone even thinking of running for school board let alone something bigger.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10830201/MEGHAN-MCCAIN-Cawthorns-humiliating-loss-warning-fellow-dog-pony-politicians.html
IDK but maybe the local people can sense she might have some difficulties adjusting to an office. The machine doesn't seem to mind using people they can count on but they have to allow themselves to be used by the machine.
Thanks for the info. The Royal British Legion sounds like it has far more influence and is capable of raising more funds than Help For Heroes, so this should be good for the Invictus Games. As you say, they are well established and trustworthy.
---------------------------
A reality show of the Sussexes? Oh dear! I wonder if it is not all rumour like the persistent one that Netflix is demanding insider royal footage from them. My understanding was that they pitched with proposals for three shows: Invictus, Pearl, and one showcasing them as major philanthropists and
a global power couple. They are only going to get the Invictus one, but I doubt Netflix sunk too much money on dead end projects.
When I think of it, the reality show does sound believable. He seems to fancy himself as a major entertainer and serious Mr Important, judging by the videos he makes. She is more than capable of entering into the delusion that a reality show is a good idea, and just look at her track record of shows she has been on and parts she has played ... no taste and no class but completely unaware. I think we have the making of the most cringe worthy and unintended hilarious reality show. Maybe someone at Netflix has seen the potential!
actually they could get a lot of footage and get sasha baron cohen to edit it like his borat series. he could make such fun of them.
per Daily Mail.
Reality Bites
The Real Lowlifes of Montecito
Shaming themselves
on a reality show
All their guff
swirling the drain
As flash harry exposes himself
yet again…
Land of Soap and Harry
Their lives are a scripted
soap opera
As the Bile Burns
her latest show stopper
Busy working on her catch-cries
The Old and the Fanciful
The Tongue and the Feckless
These are the
Days of our Lies…
@Maneki
Yes, finally going ‘ome in a
few months time, been nearly
3 years!!
Yes, hotel is close to Tony Blairs gaff!
And the Duke of Kendal pub 😳
You remembered!
Doing V & A museum,
Soho Maison Bertaux 🍰
Charing Cross bookshops
then “The Drifter’s Girl”
at the Garrick. 🎭
Next day KP and shopping on
Oxford street before meeting
my Army pals for a ‘sparkling’
afternoon tea, followed by a
wild weekend!!
I might bump into you in Selfridges😉
@Snarky @Humor Me
“Meet the Feckers”
with cameos from the
“Little Feckers”
No, it is not a reality show, it is a docu-series! About what? It will show them dropping food off at a food bank, volunteering (you know the parachute in type of stuff they do). And my guess is that it will include lots of grandiose pontificating and bad acting from the couple. Sure to be a hit ... not!
Would Netflix really ask for a show like this? No, my guess is that it is their idea.
By the way, the itty bitty donations and parachuting in donations they do and campaign flops are not philanthropy. Shameless self-promotion, yes. Philanthropy, no. Typical of grandiose narcissism.
The only advantage they have is the royal connection. They will harp on about that, but how the heck are they going to get new content? They still each have a patronage or two in the UK, so are they going to parachute in for a visit with camera crew in tow?
Rogue Interiors
“Keeping Up with the Mortgage’s”
Only way to hush Netflix
Downward spiral
what a fall
Sold their souls
they deserve eff all…
@richardaeden
·
2h
Happy fourth wedding anniversary to #PrinceHarry and #Meghan. I guess they celebrated it three days ago, though
@Sandie
Hahaha Love it,
and Richard Eden.
Canned Camera
Only four years
since this sh*te began
Can hardly believe that
haz was once man
He’s opened the doors
it’s all in the can…
Who is the idiot who wrote this article?
The duo have not been near Buckingham Palace since they were booted out as working royals. Did they film in Buckingham Palace while they were still working royals, and are going to use that footage to make themselves look like 'still royals'? Who did the filming for them? Surely they need permission from the Queen to use footage from inside Buckingham Palace?
They took a Netflix crew with them to film the recent meeting with the Queen at Windsor Castle? That is what the article claims. I don't believe it.
They had a year from the time the Oprah turd dropped to capitalize on their fame and have delivered nothing good in that time. And a year in celebrity-dome is a decade in real time and what we learned this past year is that the Suck-its have no charisma and no real talent. And that is why, among other reasons like being inherently lazy and short sided in their approach, they will never ever be Diana 2.0. So, this reality tv show, ummm I mean "docu-series" will be just another log swirling down the drain along with Netflix's hope of recovering their losses.
We can but hope.
Glad you can make it to Blighty eventually! Hope you'll keep up the good work while you're over. I might bump into you in good old John Lewis😉.
**********
Toronto1, Toronto, Canada, 6 minutes ago
So they left the Royal family for privacy, and because Harry thought his life was like The Truman Show and cameras give him anxiety, and now they're doing a reality show with cameras in their home and following them around, WHAT!
**********
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10832227/amp/Harry-Meghan-welcome-Netflix-cameras-mansion-film-Kardashians-style-docu-series.html
Where do they get the money and why are they hire new staff every 3 months? Is there really enough work for these new staff? I'd really like to know what they do all day.
You have really outdone yourself with "The Tongue and The Feckless."
Would have spat up in my coffee had I been drinking ;)
New Palace Confidential.
HILARY ROSE
At home with Harry and Meghan — coming to Netflix soon?
As part of their deal with the streaming giant, cameras have been following the Duke and Duchess around. Hilary Rose imagines how the shoot is going
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are reported to be filming a fly-on-the-wall docuseries about their new life in California. As part of a rumoured $100 million deal with Netflix, cameras have followed them as they made a speech in New York and visited the Hague for the Invictus Games. Netflix is also expected to film them later this month when they visit London for the Platinum Jubliee celebrations. Meanwhile, back in California, Hilary Rose imagines how the shoot is going.
Scene one: the Sussex kitchen in Montecito. A lighting production meeting.
Meghan stands at a vast white-marble island unit, dressed in shades of ethically sourced organic linen flown in express overnight from Italy.
“Hazza, hon, can you stand over there? No, a bit further. Further, just next to the door will be perfect, the light over there is amazing! Maybe just outside it? Can you shut it behind you? Great! Love you!”
“Action!” the director shouts. Meghan turns to camera and smoulders, but in a natural, duchess-next-door kind of way that she’s been practising in the mirror.
“So,” she begins.
“Amazing start, Meghan!” the director says. “The Kardashians always start their conversations with ‘so’ and look how rich and famous they are.”
“It’s actually Duchess Meghan,” Meghan says. “I don’t care about titles, of course, unless they’re my own. So. Shall we?”
The director glances towards Harry, who is meditating in the yard with a chicken on his head.
“He’s fine out there,” Meghan says. “Trust me. So. What we really like to do here in Montecito is keep it real for our children, who are of course both great grandchildren of Her Majesty, who is very dear to us, so it is unfortunate that we have to keep slagging off the entire royal family to keep ourselves in the public eye, but, well, what are you going to do?”
“Stop?” the runner murmurs.
Meghan continues: “Our goal was always to make a modern royal family, as we said on the cover of our book. Because we are pathologically truthful we’ve now decided to do the opposite and make an alternative royal family, with none of the boring bits, and me at the front, in the middle, every time.”
“Isn’t that where the Queen stands?” the director says.
“I’m hotter,” Meghan says. “So today we’re also going to talk about my organisation, Archewell.”
“Isn’t it Harry’s too?”
“Whatever. Archewell is about shared purpose and global action. We are an impact-driven global non-profit that puts compassion into action. . .”
“Nobody cares,” the director says. “Could you get to the Cambridges?”
“As I told the Queen, who I deeply respect and honour, we can all live a life of service,” Meghan continues. “Our own preference is for the sort of service that leads to personal enrichment and a mansion in California. Also, did I mention the oat-milk latte company we invested in?”
“Nobody cares,” the director says. “Remind me when you’re flying to London for the jubilee?”
“Soon,” Meghan says.
“Our people are working on it,” Meghan says. “Failing that, you can totally have us with Beatrice and Eugenie and their kids at Frogmore Cottage.”
“Who?” the director says. “A cottage? Let me think about that. Yup, nobody cares. We paid you $100 million. What else you got? I”m thinking carriage rides, balconies, those cute toy soldiers in red coats and big hats . . .”
“Our people are working on it,” Meghan says. “We’re NFI to Trooping the Colour, but we can always hire a carriage and just tag along behind. I mean, what are they going to do?”
“Shoot you?” the runner murmurs.
“But we’re definitely invited to something at St Paul’s.”
“Is that a branch of Soho House?” the director says. “Sounds good. What’s the lighting like?”
“It’s a cathedral,” Meghan says. [Director wilts.] “It’s a service of something, doesn’t matter, I forget what.”
“To give thanks for the Queen’s 70-year reign of devoted public service?” the runner murmurs.
“. . . and we’re going to take Archie and Lilibet. They’re probably not invited, but what are they going to do?”
“Rugby-tackle you to the ground on the steps of St Paul’s?” the runner murmurs. “Just a thought. Might give Prince Andrew something to do.”
“So. Archie will walk up the steps holding Harry’s hand and looking 100 per cent the all-American prince that is his birthright, but which those vicious nasty people at the Palace cruelly denied him. And I’ll be holding Lilibet on my hip, in an adorable manner that will accentuate my natural curves and general hotness while also not creasing my dress.”
“Perfect,” the director says. “And the Cambridges?”
“Archewell,” Meghan says, firmly. “During Covid we said everyone should have access to a vaccine, and now we’ve said that what’s happening in Ukraine is really bad. Compassion in action, right?”
“Right,” the director says. “Remind me. This trip back to London for the jubilee jamboree. You and Harry said you wanted a life of privacy, right?
“Whatever,” Meghan says, waving a hand. “I may have misremembered. It happens. Turns out privacy doesn’t work if you’re trying to monetise the man you married.”
“Quite so,” the director says, brightening. “Speaking of which: the Cambridges? Playdates at the Palace?”
“Harry’s still out there,” the runner says, to no one in particular.
“Should we get him in? See what he thinks?’
Meghan shrugs. “It’ll soon be time for his nap.”
“He seems to be juggling commemorative china from your wedding,” the runner murmurs. “There’s a huge box with ‘UNWANTED STOCK’ stamped on it. I wonder if the Cambridges shipped them over?”
“Did somebody mention the Cambridges?” the director says. “Where? Are they next to the Queen?”
“Right behind me, front and centre,” Meghan says. “You just wait.”
I'm thinking that Netflix is desperate by any means to wring some of its $100M investment in these two wasted bozos. It's clear by now, or should be that the Skuzzits do not have the access to the Royal Family that was promised and in fact, the only 'home' they have access to is going to be their own. Or rather, the home we have been incessantly told is theirs. Netflix may be providing the rental expenses for Castle Montesh*tshow in order to film there the mocked-up semblance of a successful Duke n'Duchess chez maison.
I think their ownership of that property is as solid, real and on the up-and-up are are their two purported children, but Netflix is well-used to shooting on film sets, so nothing new here. Netflix will take anything it can get at this point, even if it's only of the chickens taking a dump.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/keeping-sussexes-harry-meghan-invite-092013574.html
From today's Crazy Days and Nights:
Blind Item #8
Just the fact the producers thought they could get her, says a ton. The producers of this dancing reality show offered a spot to the alliterate one. It was not an immediate no.
Prince Harry, 37, and Meghan Markle, 40, hired new Lead Global Communication, Ashley Momtaheni who worked at Universal as well as United Talent Agency.
Where do they get the money and why are they hire new staff every 3 months? Is there really enough work for these new staff? I'd really like to know what they do all day.
The announcement is intentionally misleading. Ashley Momtaheni will be doing PR for the Dastardly Duo, while she works for other clients too. Her income will not come just from M&H. That's how I see it.
Sorry to say, but The Duchess of Cambridge does not look well. And this beyond looking thinner than usual or having lost some weight. Just my thoughts. Lots of photos of Wills and Katherine at the New Tom Cruise movie Top Gun: Maverick. I hope Val Kilmer does well in it.
___________________
Val Kilmer reveals he begged to reprise his iconic Iceman role in Top Gun: Maverick... as blockbuster sees star's lost voice regenerated with AI technology after tracheotomy in 2014 following throat cancer diagnosis
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10824033/Val-Kilmer-reveals-begged-Gun-Maverick-bosses-return-AI-voice-technology.html
I haven't seen the photos you refer to of C. looking unwell and more than usually thin. Maybe she's expecting again? That'd be some happy news for the beleaguered RF.
Probably not. It has to be even more stressful and busier than usual with the approaching Jubilee and the Cambridges' accelerated role within the Firm due to the Queen's fragile health and the thin ranks owing to the two tossers who are unavailable as working royals anymore. (Three if we count Harry's wife). William is obviously dealing with a lot of stressors recently. Behind the scenes at the Palace, it must be near Defcon 5 levels with the various tensions. William no doubt sees his future approaching a lot more rapidly than he had been counting on . . and Catherine would be the closest to him to share in the stress.
“At home with Harry and Meghan — coming to Netflix soon?
As part of their deal with the streaming giant, cameras have been following the Duke and Duchess around. Hilary Rose imagines how the shoot is going”
I suspect that article to be eerily prescient, although I bet Hilary Rose’s script is far more entertaining than any of the unremitting ordure #6 and #666 will spew forth.
Hilary Rose made me laugh. 6 and 666 literally sicken me.
Sorry to say, but The Duchess of Cambridge does not look well.
-----
I don't think Kate has lost weight but perhaps the lighting is a bit harsh and personally, I think that centre parting and straight hair (like *'s!) is too severe. Her eye makeup looks a bit harsh too but all that's only my opinion.
https://youtu.be/2p3mFl-4pyw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20RTVER1fM
Okay, gather 'round, friends. So believe it or not, we all already knew that the Suckseses were filming a form of reality documentary. That's why cameras were following them in New York. That part isn't new. What's new is that the documentary/docuseries was originally envisioned as being Harry and Meghan giving a guide through their special access lives providing inside looks at the RF and the Royal residences. Then they did the Oprah interview, which shut the gates of Buckingham Palace right in their faces. Next H&M thought they'd win back some footing with the name Lilibet and that they'd get access to the family via her Christening, but the RF stood firm that the Christening would not happen in the UK, especially not with Netflix tailing them around everywhere.
NOW, Netflix has been made officially aware that they aren't even going to get the Jubilee footage and access that they wanted because the Royal Family has shut that down as well. The rumors around Hollywood are what we've already predicted: ALLEGEDLY the Sussexes aren't going to the Jubilee. I'd expect that announcement one way or another within two weeks, but what I'm hearing is that they are definitely not going. We'll just have to see.
Anyway, even if they do go, Netflix isn't getting any more unique footage than any other network, and precedence will be given to the Royal Rota, and the Royal Family has made maneuvering around very difficult for Netflix. So now Netflix is looking at Harry and Smeghan, who allegedly contractually promised them inside access to the Royal Family and who have failed to do so, and they're talking lawsuits at worst, and requiring H&M to return the fronted money at best.
To avoid this, Netflix has allegedly said to the Sussexes, "If you can't give us access to the RF, either pay up or open your doors and give us access to YOUR family," and that is how this came about. It's a last ditch effort on both sides to get something useful out of this contract, and neither side is happy about it. Netflix is doing it to show they explored all possible means of fulfilling this contract in the case that they do end up initiating legal proceedings, and Harry and Meghan are also doing so in case Netflix ends up going back after the money and/or taking them to court.
We'll just have to see how this plays out, but if this docuseries makes it to air, my ass certainly won't be watching it.
Now I'm going back to the Depp trial to ser how many times Depp's attorney can get the hashtag "Amber Turd" permanently onto court record.
Este, LOL! Now I am all sorrowful that I didn't watch the trial play out, but I think most Hollywood types are all eat up with crazy anyway. Maybe their crazy drinking/drug abuse/sex abuse stems from what they had to do to get famous, but IDK.
Please complete your profile so we can post your comments.
Thank you.
Fits like a glove. She did good.
It's interesting that Catherine can wear dresses that fit her beautifully, and are also perfect for the event at hand and Mm doesn't seem to be able to find anything that remotely fits OR is anywhere near appropriate for the occasion, let alone meets both parameters.
I just don't understand how MM can look in the mirror at those monstrosities she wears and think nailed it.
I did think that Catherine looked more slender than usual. Her face looked healthy and glowing though, so hopefully she's OK. It's gotta be a stressful time. What with the Harkles using her daughter for PR and all.
We all know that Mm would have been sexualizing that whole thing. While looking around for a camera to eye-f**k. And wearing her dirty stilettos two sizes too big.
And a dress that is too tight and too big at the same time. Could you imagine her with Tom Cruise in that dented tit red dress? Thinking she was all that?
Hilary Rose made me laugh. 6 and 666 literally sicken me.
I got a good laugh from it too. But as absurd as the scenario sounds, it is entirely believable. 6 and 666 really are off the rails, beyond the pale, a few cards short of a full deck—choose your idiom and it will likely fit.
I don't know if it's an unhealthy weight loss & certainly her arms look toned and *not emaciated* to me. My guess is that she's just reached the age for her body type that losing weight may not be a good idea. Wallis was wrong--It is possible to be too thin.
That all looked fine. Maybe a little on the slender side...certainly not showing middle age spread, the way someone else is.
Her arms and legs looked good. No sagging or wrinkled skin from no flesh underneath.
Collarbones looked good. Hands looked appropriately fleshy.
Having unfortunately had experience with someone close to me having had severe anorexia, there's a particular look about that, that C doesn't have, imo.
I have another relative with exactly C's build. Naturally very slender. She gets razzed all the time about 'eat more'. But it makes no difference what she eats, nor how much she exercises. She just always looks slender.
And as I know at least one other poster has said, how utterly naive and reckless Needy and Greedy were to sign a multimillion-dollar deal promising things they had to know could only be provided with the Queen's blessing? And then, to top it off, pocketing the advance money!
IMO this is really the recklessness of a sociopath. Needy probably just believed whatever Greedy told him as he's probably done all his life. But Greedy had to have known what that advance money was for. My guess is that she just didn't think either company would dare to take them to court. There must now have been some really explicit discussions of potential legal actions between the parties.
If this "Hail Mary" pass of a reality show doesn't come off, it really sounds like Netflix is going to sue them, and Prince Charles would be an idiot to financially rescue them at that point. Better for the Sussexes to declare bankruptcy.
But where would that leave Greedy's divorce strategy?
Dented fit red dress!!! Hilarious and accurate!!!!
Dented *TIT*
So, it is not Netflix demanding delivery of something but the duo desperately trying to hold onto the contract and having nothing else to offer. They actually think their appearances (where are the crowds?!), speeches, home videos they make and ridiculous comedic acting are really really good stuff. Any royal stuff they have will be their version of royalty, which they think is fabulous (remember the photos of them on a couch in BP just before they left? who knows what other footage they have, and they may have footage of strolling in Windsor Great Park).
My prediction: whatever they produce will be awful and Netflix will say no thanks.
By Rory Tingle, Home Affairs Correspondent and Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter For Mailonline In London
11:57 BST 20 May 2022 , updated 12:30 BST 20 May 2022
* Sussexes made offer after they had to turn down Mayor's invitation to be the star guests at his glitzy LA party
*However, Mr Khan turned the offer down due to 'logistical difficulties' - apparently including a busy schedule
* Likely the Mayor - a friend of Prince William - would want to avoid being drawn into Royal Family's 'civil war'
* Meghan and Harry sent three aides to party, held on Tuesday last week, including Archewell boss James Holt
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10836937/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-secretly-invited-Sadiq-Khan-11m-Montecito-mansion.html
Wow!
Will anyone watch a Harry and Meghan Netflix docuseries?
20 May 2022, 12:13pm
Picture the convivial scene. You have been invited into the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s palatial £11 million mansion in Montecito, California as an honoured guest.
Once you have removed your shoes, been frisked for weapons or recording devices and been offered a kombucha smoothie, you are ushered into the inner sanctum of the world’s most talked-about satellite branch of the royal family. What would you expect to find? A dartboard with Prince Charles’s face on it? Endless piles of obscure genealogical books that explain why Prince Harry is, in fact, the rightful heir to the throne? Or endless expensive, studiedly tasteful rooms that lack any heart and soul whatsoever?
...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/will-anyone-watch-harry-and-meghan-s-netflix-docuseries-
No new information ... just kicking them!
The most quizzical feature of that gown is the white band around her shoulders. It is so narrow that it resembles a bandage binding her shoulders. If it were wider or more draped like a cowlneck, it would be better. Coupled with the severely parted straight hair, it’s a bit Morticia Addams-ey. River, the Internet’s most elegant drag queen raved about the look, but to me it was too severe. William was rocking a dark navy crushed velvet jacket, so something in a dark blue with a bit more float would’ve looked nicer on Catherine. She was still glamorous, but it was not her most successful luck. Recently she has been wearing a lot of this hairstyle, which I first noticed getting a lot of airtime during the Caribbean tour. I chalked it up to the weather and her wanting a simpler hairstyle due to the heat and humidity. Catherine’s figure and facial features are very angular, so she looks best with some softer styles; otherwise she can look brittle. Nobody rocks an updo like Catherine with her fabulous hats, but this style doesn’t suit her. She experimented with bangs briefly, and I kind of miss them. But those earrings were da bomb.