The weather is hot. Humid in some places. Summer has arrived but not the dog days yet. The great Jubilee is over with mostly joy, celebration, some unity and very little disruptive other.
But now, not a lot of big events on the horizon. Ascot. Check. Wimbledon - almost 2 weeks. Check. These are big but also normal events scheduled year after year. Routine. Everyone knows the drill. Nothing like the levels of people and planning for the Jubilee.
We are seeing or rather not seeing the Queen attending more and more "events". That's a big change. And, one which appears to portend the future.
In the Kubler Ross stages of death, one of them is bargaining. I want to live to see ... X. Or Y. One last time for ... and then, I feel I can ...
After one of my grandmothers passed, my grandfather made it through his birthday, her birthday and then, a week after the wedding anniversary, he passed on. So I think of bargaining more and more now that the super big event is over.
Also the Queen has taken a lot of heavy emotional hits in the last year or so. Mmm, that's not good in the words of the 'death experts' with their charts.
Physically as well. We read more and more of "mobility" problems. And we don't hear it but this may mean pain.
She has, to her credit, the steely resolve of the promise she made decades ago to help carry her through and forward. A lesser person would have wilted through all the various events she has lived. The good, the bad and the painful.
I worry about her as she slowly, slowly appears to wind down. I wonder how she views the future now?
Or how the monarchy will change once London Bridge has fallen?
Comments
I agree with @Elsbeth1847. And I think MM has no insight into own behavior to recognize how she treats others. She manages to remain consciously unaware of many of the negative effects of her behavior.
But I expect she's super-aware of all the energy and conscious effort she puts into "kindness." Not "real" kindness but "gets clicks" kindness. After all, she took flowers to a memorial site for the dead children (never mind how ridiculous it was to fly over 1000 miles in a private jet to do it vs donating money to a program that would actually help at-risk children), she made banana bread for her Australian hosts (never mind she didn't make it herself, she ordered it made), she baked an olive oil cake and sent it to Chicago from CA (seems silly to me to ship a cake except maybe a fruit cake, much less to send a cake to a kitchen for a food charity) she bought breakfast foods like croissants for her staff (never mind it was 11am and everybody else had been at work by 8am), she bought hand warmers to Palace guards (how silly and somewhat demeaning), she generously provided new (ugly IMO) shoes for the little girls in her wedding & with an embroidered wedding date they were a gift the girls could keep forever (I'm sure the girls were thrilled [not!] and if she hadn't let them keep them what use would they have been to Meghan? Plus new shoes, no socks or tights, it's blister time), she's so kind she always makes her friends talk about themselves first on phone calls (and made sure friends pointed that out in various interviews)...
MM doesn't seem innately or naturally kind and wasn't raised by Doria to be kind ("don't do anything for nothing," maybe Thomas felt the same although I doubt it.) MM has to work to look kind. Her efforts aren't convincing to me and are always a bit "off." In addition to the above examples, we were told Meghan gave Kate a "dream journal" for her birthday. Not everybody is into dream journaling but ok. What made it super-weird to me is that she reportedly gave the journal to Kate the very first time they met, a week or so after Kate's birthday. Maybe it was the sort of occasion that called for a "hostess gift" but my understanding is hostess gifts when visiting a couple aren't just for the wife. But it was reported as a birthday gift in the news (& the "leak" probably came from MM) Giving a birthday present under those circumstances was probably supposed to look so considerate and kind-hearted but it really sounds "stalker-ish" to me.
All in all though, MM must be super-aware of her efforts to look kind. So she talks about the value of kindness. After all, if she works that hard on it, it must be good. And everybody else needs to work hard on it too. I think that's how MM thinks.
My 2¢
Palace report on Meghan’s bullying ‘has been buried’
Roya Nikkah
An investigation into claims that the Duchess of Sussex bullied members of her staff has led to Buckingham Palace “improving the policies and procedures” in its HR department, according to royal sources.
However, the findings from the highly sensitive inquiry, which was paid for privately by the Queen and conducted by an independent law firm, will never be published.
It is understood they will be kept under wraps to protect the privacy of those who took part and to limit tensions between the Sussexes and the palace. Courtiers have insisted the inquiry, which was launched in March last year, should “not be played out in public” to ensure those who took part felt “comfortable”.
Some participants are deeply disappointed the report is being “buried”.
It is understood that the inquiry only recently concluded but those who took part have not been informed of its outcome which has caused upset.
Changes to the royal household’s HR policies as a result of the inquiry were expected to be published in the annual Sovereign Grant report later this month, which details the use of the annual payment by the government to the Queen to fund the royal family’s official duties, and includes royal staffing.
The Sunday Times understands Buckingham Palace no longer plans to make any public statement on the inquiry, or even publicly acknowledge the subsequent changes to its HR policies.
The palace instigated the unprecedented investigation after it emerged that two senior members of staff claimed they had been bullied by Meghan during her time as a working royal. Another former employee said they had been “humiliated” and claimed two members of staff had been bullied. One aide claimed it felt “more like emotional cruelty and manipulation, which I guess could also be called bullying”.
Meghan, 40, denied the allegations which were first reported in The Times in March 2021. Her lawyers described the claims as a “calculated smear campaign” before the Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey the same month and said the media was “being used by Buckingham Palace to peddle a wholly false narrative” about the duchess.
The palace, which initially planned to conduct the inquiry internally, said it would “not tolerate any bullying and harassment” and was “very concerned by the allegations” that Meghan forced out two personal assistants and undermined the confidence of a third.
A palace spokesman said: “Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learnt. The royal household has had a dignity at work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace.”
After the allegations emerged, including claims that young members of staff were “broken” and reduced to tears by Meghan’s behaviour, a royal source said: “The actual worst incidences haven’t come out. There are some harrowing stories to tell.” Another palace source said: “There’s a lot that could come out in the wash that hasn’t been told.”
The original complaint was made in October 2018 by Jason Knauf, then communications secretary for the Sussexes, who later served as chief executive of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Royal Foundation until January this year.
In a formal complaint via email to Simon Case, then Prince William’s private secretary and the senior courtier in the household, now the cabinet secretary, Knauf said: “I am very concerned that the duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year.”
He described her behaviour as “totally unacceptable”, adding that “the duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights [and] I remain concerned that nothing will be done”. He also questioned “if the household policy on bullying and harassment applies to principals”. The email was forwarded to the HR department but the complaint did not progress.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not invited to participate in the inquiry, but Meghan’s solicitor, Jenny Afia, a partner at the law firm Schillings, gave an interview to the BBC last year rebutting the claims. She said: “What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally. The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that. Knowing her as I do I can’t believe she would ever do that.”
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
That is Nachos she is talking to, touching his arm and looking up at him. The hapless prince is the guy behind her. Interesting, because in the photos of her and the hapless prince (taken during a break and not after they had lost the match), he is kind of looking into the distance and she is trying to engage him.
Admittedly, I have not watched video footage. Is there something more than the hapless prince throwing a tantrum because they lost, which is what the articles and social media commentary inply? It is such a stark comparison with how happy and chatty he looked at the previous match, when she was not there.
I wonder if he had not seen the DM articles on his brother by Rebecca English (wearing a tin foil hat here!). Considering the time difference, it is a possibility. Remember, he was not there at the Oprah interview when she made all those digs at Catherine (and told many other lies). Does he still believe his wife or is he starting to question?
@lizzie demonstrates this in the examples given in her above post. I think it is very weird giving someone you do not know a dream journal. It is the sort of gift you give a close friend who you know wants to start recalling dreams, or it is the kind of gift teenagers 'going through a phase' give each other. Perhaps I am weird, but I would find it awkward being given a dream journal by someone I do not know (or perhaps even someone I know). Is this person instructing me to recall and write down my dreams? Why? Oh well, be polite and warmly smile and say thank you. Maybe I can use it for writing down recipes.
Players have a handicap from 1 to 10. Nacho has a 5 which is one of, if not the best in the world today. One of the young guys on the team has a handicap of 4. Harry's is 1.
Thanks for the article from the Sunday Times.
The investigation was never a witch hunt, and bullying claims could certainly be laid against Andrew, plus how many other members of the RF? Feeling bullied can be seen very subjectively. So, the findings of what was a private investigation will never be made public. We always knew that. What is already in the public domain clearly shows that the dastardly duo treated staff in an appalling way, there were complaints, and any investigation was shut down (nothing was done).
What is probably of concern to the Palace is that although there is a policy in place to protect staff, the bullying allegations were shut down and nothing was done. Their employment practices obviously need attention. The Queen probably wants to know what can be done practically to make those employment practices effective.
The findings of this private investigation with recommendations will no doubt shut the door to any kind of role in the Firm for the duo, and will probably cement the personal distance between them and the family.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10930179/NIGEL-CAWTHORNE-reveals-Virginia-Roberts-introduced-Prince-Andrew.html
Despite ending up with many many millions, these two will not shut up, and their stories (based in truth) become more sensational, and are of no actual public interest.
This is what awaits the hapless prince if he ever tries to leave his wife, apologize to and reconcile with his family ...
Gosh! I wonder for how long 'being a prince' will allow him to play polo? Those two young guys on the team do not seem impressed with the hapless prince and his wife. Is Nachos (a top professional player) thinking of dropping his friend and was that why TBW was having that conversation with him? It is how she treats her husband, and I first assumed she was talking to the hapless one; but no, it is definitely Nachos.
"An investigation into claims that the Duchess of Sussex bullied members of her staff has led to Buckingham Palace “improving the policies and procedures” in its HR department, according to royal sources.
However, the findings from the highly sensitive inquiry, which was paid for privately by the Queen and conducted by an independent law firm, will never be published.
It is understood they will be kept under wraps to protect the privacy of those who took part and to limit tensions between the Sussexes and the palace."
This strongly indicates that bullying was absolutely established (leading to improvement in policy) and that Harry's wife was clearly the cause of it (never to be published, "to limit tensions between the Sussexes and the palace.") These statements say everything, all without saying a word on the surface of it.
Post in thread 'Meghan Markle unpopular opinions thread pt 7' https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-7.4863691/post-82976836
Hopefully you can find the original tweet through the posts in LSA.
The Diana Award sent out a tweet asking for donations and featuring a photo of the hapless one talking to three white (important) schoolgirls, obviously at an official engagement and pre-TBW. They have since deleted the tweet. What is of interest is that the tweet is pure BLM spin. The tweet asks for support (donations) for racialized communities who are more likely to be excluded. It is so bizarre that it is almost a parody.
As much as it pains me, when Mole played regularly in his youth, he got as high as a 3 handicap in Polo (from what I remember), which isn’t in anyway bad for a recreational player. A handicap of 5 is good and you can most certainly make a good living from playing polo. However, a 9 or 10 is considered the best in the world, and there’s only a tiny handful of players (at any one time) who ever attain that gold standard. 🥴To my knowledge the only British player to attain a 9 handicap is Howard Hipwood. 🤗
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a mental disorder characterized by a life-long pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with others' feelings. Narcissistic personality disorder is one of the sub-types of the broader category known as personality disorders.[1][2] It is often comorbid with other mental disorders and associated with significant functional impairment and psychosocial disability.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Society_and_culture
The traits of significant functional impairment and psychosocial disability highlight the seriousness of this condition. I feel it’s important to understand that she is incapable of having any normal relationship and has no ability to be compassionate or caring. She merely pretends (very briefly) to possess these characteristics to feed her pathological need for effusive admiration.
I am really surprised she hasn’t cracked by now, but maybe she did, while still living in London. At the very least, she was able to convince her puppet that she was dangerously distraught. I think we should watch for signs of an impending “break down.” Everything promised to Netflix and Spotify has failed to materialize and their deadlines must be closing in. In addition, their Hollywood friends have all seemed to vanish. To top it all off, the entire Royal Family effectively shunned them at the Jubilee, in front of a global audience. She thought their appearance would reinforce their image as cherished members of the family, but the reality was the opposite.
Her unkempt appearance at the polo match and at the Uvalde debacle are more signs of poorly controlled mental illness. The release of those odd photos of “Lilibet 2.0” seemed bizarre and very desperate. I suppose it’s possible that someone will swoop in to save her from herself, but she is running dangerously low on friends and family. It will be an interesting summer, as we watch everything close in.
Thanks for the post on NPD.
My understanding is that we all have narcissist traits to some degree. Narcissism can be classified as a disorder when the following criteria are met:
* True symptoms of NPD are pervasive,
* Symptoms are apparent in varied social situations,
* Symptoms are rigidly consistent over time.
In addition:
* Severe symptoms of NPD can significantly impair the person's mental capabilities to develop meaningful human relationships, such as friendship, kinship, and marriage.
* Generally, the symptoms of NPD also impair the person's psychological abilities to function socially, either at work or at school, or within important societal settings.
* The DSM-5 indicates that, in order to qualify as symptomatic of NPD, the person's manifested personality traits must substantially differ from social norms.
So, although I think she ticks all the boxes (has all the traits), and seems to be a malignant/toxic narc, she is still high functioning. Wealth, a compliant and supportive husband, long-standing close friends (how many does she actually still have?), the attention she craves, arms-length acceptance by his very famous powerful and wealthy family, rabid support by the SS and some media personalities, organization's still willing to give her a platform ... She is still doing very well.
She does seem to be heading downward to rock bottom where her narcissism will become a full-blown disorder, and unlike some narcs, she has no talent to fall back on as a safety net, but she may never hit rock bottom and be unable to function.
For example, many people have BPD traits and continue to function and get on rather well, but someone with actual BPD cannot keep a job, ends up on the psych ward after attempting suicide over and over again, cannot maintain a long-term relationship ... no matter how intelligent or lovely they actually are (and this is because of damage caused in childhood, which was not their fault).
By capturing a wealthy and famous Prince, she has 'insured' herself against the natural course of her narcissism ... into NPD, where she is no longer functional. She never has to confront and deal with her true nature. But, life takes unexpected turns, so she may yet have to face and deal with what she truly is.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's trip overseas 'worked out' perfectly, a source EXCLUSIVELY tells HollywoodLife.
https://hollywoodlife.com/2022/06/08/meghan-markle-prince-harry-uk-trip-went-beautifully/
The article is bizarre and filled with mistruths at best.
This is what she does that holds her back from that complete breakdown: she makes up a story that suits her, releases it as PR, convinces husband that this is the truth, and continues living in fantasy. Crazy? Not the kind that will get her locked up in a treatment facility.
Amber Heard: Body language analysts have the theory that she believes most of what she is saying. JD walking away when she wants a fight is the worst kind of abuse she can imagine, so to her, she was in a severely abusive relationship.
TBW cannot cope with the truth of consequences so she makes up a story that she can live with and, she thinks, protects her from the public finding out the truth.
They make up stories to hide from a truth that they cannot face. They create a narrative that allows them to remain safe in their dysfunction.
Do you think anyone will rescue the hapless Prince and give him some chance at a happy life? Is there any kind of intervention that can be done for her?
Maybe ‘this’ is the long-awaited Kraken—only it’s happening by degrees instead of in one fell swoop.
It does not surprise me that the bullying inquiry will never be made public knowledge. They have released enough to demonstrate that they know there was truth to the allegations, they know who was responsible, they know who her victims were, and they have tried to address their policies so that it does not happen so easily again within the royal household. That is all we will ever get, since the principals involved, both victims and perpetrator are no longer part of the Royal service.
But the fact that a person with dangerous mental imbalances can continue to wage a media war against the British monarchy and perpetuate unsubstantiated, let’s just call them lies in print, which undermine the reputation of the British royal house while gaining the liar supporters, financial deals and media attention is just woeful beyond belief. In particular the what I believe to be ongoing fiction that this couple has produced two biological heirs of their body who are in a line of succession and Images purporting to be of them are regularly seen in the media. Someone upthread asked me whether the appearance of Archie and Lili in the line of succession is not in fact ironclad proof of their existence. Sadly, I have to say for me it is not. It’s true that these two individuals known as the Sussex children do appear in name on the official listing of the line of succession for the British crown. But both of births were shall we say highly irregular, in a manner such as has not ever been seen in the British royal house. We’ve had instances of illegitimate heirs being inserted over the centuries, I’m sure. But no expectant belly Has ever gyrated so wildly as M’s did with Archie… Whose birth remains problematic Due to the lack of a proper witness statement to the birth containing signatures of doctors who attended, or the release of a proper birth certificate. These are always provided to the public. I’m not talking about photo ops outside the hospital now— I’m talking about official medical and legal witness to a royal birth. We’ve not had it. Then a couple runs away to California and after months of Covid induced isolation—Surprise! *’s managed to conceive—twice—then produce a miracle baby Who, a year in advance has the identical birthday of the Queen’s jubilee— Who has not been met by any of her relatives on either side.
We’ve not had a single mention of Doria meeting the baby, have we? Remember M’s black mother, who hasn’t been seen since the couple left Tyler Perry’s house? She’s been variously invoked as “Christmas card photographer” and “nanny”… But she’s gone seriously off grid.
If the RF is going to work that strenuously to keep the results of a staffing matter under wraps, how much more motivated will they be to never share the truth about their part in perpetuating the fiction of Harry’s children if that’s what they have done to appease two mentally ill individuals determined to Weaponize race and class differences against them? One of their own has colluded with his psychotic wife to bring them down, but even now they can’t be as ruthless as they need to be. Will a sea change come With the passing of the Queen? I can’t help wishing that William was on deck now instead of his father. William very badly wants to tell some truths and be more transparent than his elders. I think Charles would like to, but he has to protect the legacy of his mother, and himself too, as the progenitor of this disaster. The world would truly have been better off had neither of the Harkles been born. I’m not a diagnostician, but it seems pretty obvious that the two are insane. If they are not contained by whatever means necessary, they are just going to continue to wreak havoc. The palace is still scrambling because they are not used to dealing with situations outside of the normal moral and etiquette lines. Who knows what the future will bring?
————————————
Apologies if this has been posted. The daily Mail is launching an article series on William ahead of his 40th birthday and this is the first in the series. Regretfully there’s no discussing William of these days without a heaping steaming dollop of the exploits of the crappy pear from California, but the focus is mostly on W and Catherine.
I have really mixed feelings about this bullying report.
Was it released now as pushback against the BRF was mean to me at the Jubilee?
Or did the Harkles push it out there to upstage Williams birthday?
Did the press have this article ready to go and was just sitting on it until after the Jubilee ended?
My guess is that if they weren't in the Line of Succession, the Palace would have to explain why, which would attract a great deal more flak from the Sussex camp.
The RF are probably keeping their fingers crossed that it will never become an issue as there are still 5 people between H and the Throne. God willing, it'll become a a non-issue. If it does become relevant, I'm sure that it will be dealt with ruthlessly.
The Line of Succession is not quite endless but for all practical purposes it is. Most of us `natives' are probably descended from Edward III, whether we can prove it or not! It's a mathematical probability, just as all northern Europeans probably have Charlemagne in their ancestry. Boy, did those monarchs spread it aorund
Why was Archie not seen in any photos of Lilibet's birthday party!
Do they exist IRL?
Loved the picture of William and his smiling children released for Father's Day. They look like happy, well-adjusted children.
However what is the BRF going to look like down the road if these children don't show up for school consistently (and yes Archie has been allefedly seen in public). How will the BRF save face if they are shown to perpetrate a fraud on the good public?? Please someone help me with some good reasons.
I remember not that long agao it was published that the BRF would confront the 6's ies going forward. Well that happened in a rather tepid manner regarding "Recollections may vary" remark. But where is the pushback on so many other things. Don't get me wrong, as I am wholeheartedly on the side of the BRF and would love nothing better than the family to just b;ast them off the pages of the media and better yet in court (although the latter I doubt is realistic).
But what good does it do to continue their narrative if the children are frauds so-to-speak??.
I'm listening to Dr David Starkey's book Crown and Country: A History of England through the Monarchy and have just reached the part on Mary I/ Bloody Mary. She had a false pregnancy and it seems to have been her undoing.
It seems strange that we have the same preoccupations as 600 years ago.
I do believe that Archie exists, I don't think that a UK registrar would fake a birth certificate. You can view it here www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9216429/How-DID-trivial-change-Archies-birth-certificate-cause-toxic-row.html
Maybe * gave Kate a dream journal because this is something that's she's interested in and therefore she assumes that becauseshe is interested, then Kate, or anyone, is interested. She is not the type to spend time looking for a present to suit the recipient's needs/interests/personality. She can't think that far. She likes a dream journal, therefore the recipient has like it. Anything else is unthinkable (where she's concerned).
Within a family/work, there are messages sent. Some are spoken/written. Others are implied.
Perhaps the message about the deep 6ing the results is that we are stating the results will not be made public. Implied: Oh, you do realize that this could accidentally slip out, don't you?
I can't remember if I knew and just forgot or never knew that TQ had paid for this.
That's a good guess about why she bought the dream journal for Kate. Of course, what made it extra weird to me is that she gave it to her the first time they met. Allegedly for a belated birthday present. To me that's kind of creepy. A hostess gift like some special Canadian or American goodie that "foodie" Meghan liked? Makes sense. Or her favorite Tig wine? Predictable but still ok. Or if she wanted something just for Kate, even a pretty blank book for ANY kind of journaling, dream or not, or list keeping or doodling...But a dream journal seems somehow too personal an item to buy for someone you've never met. And giving any kind of birthday present under those circumstances seems weird too. It's not as though she was invited to a birthday party. Supposedly it was a full week after her birthday. But M was so "kind" she wanted to acknowledge the past event. Gag.
How Prince William wishes Andrew would just 'vanish' from the monarchy https://mol.im/a/10932515 via https://dailym.ai/android
That podcast sounds interesting and I will have to check it out. I have not done a deep dive on Tudor history, But it’s my understanding that Mary suffered from a very large mass, a malignant gynecological tumor that imitated symptoms of pregnancy before ultimately killing her. So yes, the “false pregnancy” WAS Her undoing, But I don’t think in the manner in which you seem to be implying— that she purposely misled her people about being pregnant. I think a very ill woman was hoping very much that she was pregnant instead of what she feared it was, and what it turned out to be. If her hormones went crazy and she was producing milk and other signs that go along with pregnancy, given the very rudimentary science at the time, I can’t put this mistaken diagnosis in the same camp as what * has done.
The only ever legal document I have seen for Archie was the copy of the registrar’s certificate that a report of a birth was made to that office, not the actual birth certificate signed by a delivering physician. Does the link you provide show something different? I will have to look at it later when I have access to something other than my phone. But whatever paperwork exists on Archie, it looks strenuously different from every other royal birth certificate provided going back a few generations. All the other ones have been handwritten; not so master Archie’s. I have to ask why not? It also bothers me exceedingly that in defiance of tradition going back to Victoria-ish, No signatures of medical witnesses to Archie’s birth of the body have ever been made public. All the other royal parents have complied with this tradition to demonstrate their good faith to the public… Not the Sussexes. Again I must ask why not? This has nothing to do with personal privacy and not wanting to show their child off for cameras;, These are constitutional requirements to ensure the legitimacy of the line of succession and are carried out as a matter of public trust. The Sussexes did none of the normal protocols Expected from all of the Royals, including the Queen— And yet there is no penalty? Their children are full heirs, With no questions asked?
For the record, if the Sussex children are via surrogate, that does not matter To me in terms of their worth as little human beings who deserve to be loved. If Harry and his wife had decided to be honest about how they became parents, they could’ve done much good for the cause. If those children are via surrogate and still in the line of succession, then that is a grave miscarriage of the constitutional requirement of the monarchy. It seems that for many people, they are relying on the Queen’s unimpeachable character to cover over all of the questionable conduct of her grandson and his wife in regards to these kids. For a lady who could not even allow her beloved sister to marry a divorced man due to the Rules… This would be an even graver matter. So on the one hand we have the unblemished and about reputation of her Majesty, Telling us to take it at face value that her troublesome grandson, with his documented fertility issues, and his even more troublesome wife with her checkered past, had absolutely no problems conceiving two children that display no apparent features of Meg’s Ragland side of her family within 3 years of their marriage, And even though Lili was is born in America with no Royal witnesses and Another non-standard birth certificate, she is also a legitimate heir to the British crown, though she has not and will never be seen by her British relatives? Unless you also believe the press of a Royal birthday party Attended by her majesty. I’m afraid in this light I am forced to regard the births and existence of Archie and his sister as yet another unproven story of *’s.
It is actually the second article on William. The first was posted a couple of days ago and a few of us posted links and commented on it as it was about his personal life and had quite a lot about his Montecito relatives.
Of interest to me is that the second article reveals that William sees a lot of the Queen, as does his family, and he speaks to her about three times a week.
@Stephanie_123
She put out some pathetic PR that she had contacted a representative of her father (he does not have one) but was constrained because she did not want any contact with her siblings and did not know how to contact him while avoiding said siblings. Thomas still has the same phone number and it is just his speech that has been affected ... he can still read and send messages. So no, she never made any attempt to contact him.
I do believe that many people with Borderline Personality Disorders are able to function in life, as long as they have a submissive partner who is willing to agree with them and cover for them, to keep the peace. I once worked with a doctor who was married to a woman with really serious NPD. She was very charming, well-bred and gorgeous. He left her after she flung herself down their staircase screaming, “children, come quick, your father is beating me.” After weeks of calling him to scream and rant, she came to his office swinging a baseball bat at the windows and screaming at the employees. He actually reconciled with her, but they later divorced and she married a man from a very wealthy Southern family.
@Hikari - Hopefully the Kraken will arrive soon to spare the poor Queen and Charles additional worries. I feel sorry for them, having to try to stay one step ahead of the madness. I agree with you that it is doubtful that #7 or #8 are real. There was far too much secrecy surrounding both births. I continue to wonder if the first fake pregnancy was the real reason behind their sudden move to America. I feel the Royal Family would include the “offspring” on the list of succession, with the hope they will never need to explain it.
The decision about the bullying inquiry was very likely either a peace offering or a bargaining chip. I think we all know that the claims by the staff were valid, but it was probably the right decision to dial back the heat on this one. The Palace has an extraordinary team working on all of their dealings with this pair. The Jubilee played out beautifully. It has been an interesting study in how to outfox a crazy stalker/gold digger.
Louis, unlike his older siblings, also has a printed rather than handwritten bc, but the Cambridges let the press be shown and allowed them to photograph the signed copy that had been filed as the original and authentic bc.
Hope my explanation makes sense!
Typical narc behaviour is to insist that they know better, and they willfully do things their way, even if it makes no sense and leads to speculation and all sorts of trouble. I suspect that the Registrar went to their home and got the information from him. She subsequently had the bc changed, in a way that did not make sense, because that was her way of exerting control.
I can imagine her with the clerk who came to the hospital to register Lili's birth:
Question: Father's first name and surname.
Answer: He is His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex (in a 'don't you know who I am' tone).
Perhaps she had forgotten his four names and his actual surname. That is a possibility!
As for surrogacy: technically he could have given wife as the birth mother when a surrogate had actually given birth in that private suite. That would have been fraud and the hospital and a number of staff would have had to assist in that fraud, with no one ever revealing (and indeed, actively concealing) the truth. Not impossible, but unlikely.
Note that Harry no longer used Prince of Wales as his surname, after his marriage nor on his children's birth records.
...
Meghan Markle Didn't Use Her Royal Title on Lilibet Diana's Birth Certificate — But Prince Harry Did.
"Prince Harry's first name is listed as "The Duke of Sussex," with "His Royal Highness" as his last name. Meanwhile, Meghan did not use her royal titles, listing her full name Rachel Meghan Markle as the document required their legal names and her maiden name.
Archie's birth certificate was made public 11 days after his birth in May 2019. On their son's birth certificate, Harry's name was listed as "His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex" while Meghan was "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex."
Their occupations on Archie's certificate were listed as "Prince" and "Princess of the United Kingdom," although Meghan does not have a princess title. On the Californian birth certificate, parents' occupations are not included"
On the certificate of Archie, born in England, he assumes the surname Duke of Sussex.
https://people.com/royals/lilibet-diana-birth-certificate-shows-meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-titles/
...as far as Hollywood is concerned, what happened with Harry and Meghan at the Jubilee was very BAD for them, and it made everyone who is or who may have been considering being in a contract with them to start looking in their contracts for for exit clauses.
Again, what Meghan and Harry did vis' a vis Netflix and Spotify is sell to them this story about their popularity as Royals as leverage to ink these Big Money contracts. And as usual, it is H&M's own fault that they can't because before doing the Oprah interview, they weren't the level of social pariah as they are now.
Given Harry and Meghan's behavior there and their less than welcome reception, Netflix et al. are just building evidence at this point. Because Meghan is involved, they have been lied to throughout and if I had to guess, they'll getting their ducks in a row to present to Meghan and Harry that NF is ending the contract due to the Sussexes having violated the same. The Sucksesses will protest because they desperately need the money and the partnership, but I imagine they will be shown all their major gaffes as evidence of many lines of contract breach and the contracts will terminate because of this.
This ties back to what BarkJack posted, when H&M got back from the UK they started cancelling their meetings (with Netflix, Spotify, etc.) so they could engage in "self care." They were ditching those kinds of meetings, probably because they are both scared.
Basically, the Harkles continue to prove to every other major brand that consorts with them that H&M turn everything to shit. Buyer beware!
Thank you.
TBW got stuck emotionally at 13, a good match for Twit, who is also 13 emotionally.
-------
They really think that Netflix isn't going to catch up with them if they want to?
Knock knock knock…
This reminds me of an experience my sister had last Christmas, with her father's family. It was a last-minute invitation, but she had expected to see her father, siblings and cousins some time during the season, so she had her gifts ready. So did they . . . or so it seemed. Her brother's girlfriend gave her an elegant journal, as a gift from the both of them -- a strange choice, my sister, thought, though she appreciated being remembered. Then one hour later, while making chit-chat with her brother, he said, "I'm sorry that we forgot your gift at home. But we'll give it to you on New Year!" My sister had to laugh. So the journal was an afterthought "emergency" gift -- and had probably just been regifted! Happily, she took it well and still had a nice celebration with her family.
Anyway, I wouldn't put it past * to have given Catherine a throwaway gift like that. The odder a choice, the better.
"They really think that Netflix isn't going to catch up with them if they want to?
Knock knock knock…"
Yes, all it's called is an 'Agent for Process' who these two litigious miscreants should know. Once one of them knocks and you answer, you're sued. Lol
I'm not sure whether they meant to be taken seriously or if they meant it as an act of contempt. If the former, then they don't seem very professional. If the latter, then they're nightmares to work with. But Netflix and Spotify should have known that from the get-go.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-meghan-markle-can-shake-off-the-bullying-allegations
I think there are ethical reasons in terms of former staff having the right to privacy that prevent the Palace from releasing the report or even commenting on it. However, as an organization funded by the taxpayer, I think they could or should make any changes to employment practices public.
I do disagree with the journalist of the Spectator: what evidence (not rumour) that we do have makes it clear that how the duo treated staff was unacceptable. We just aren't going to get the salacious details unless former staff ignore their NDAs, risking being sued by the Montecito duo, and tell all. What would you do? I suspect former staff dislike sensationalism but they would speak up if the duo say anything that smears them in any way. I think the chances of that happening are quite high!
And, of course, we can all speculate, using our knowledge of the duo to inform us! Megsie, this is not buried ... it is not going away!
"The few staff that did re-interact with Harry and Meghan said it was like meeting a totally different person.
"Meghan was rather subdued and shy. She didn't really interact with people and seemingly didn't want to get on the wrong side of them."
I took the above from an Express article as I did not watch the Neil Sean video (the remarks were made by him).
What do you make of it?
At the St Paul's service she appeared to not speak much (just a smile and a greeting when shaking hands), and he seemed very chatty.
She needed to distract people from Uvalde; she did it with the Jubilee.
She needed to distract people from the booing at the Jubilee; she did it with a photo of a baby she claims is Lili.
She needed to distract people from wondering where Archie is and why there was no Father's Day tribute to Harry; she did it by dropping the word "self-care."
And it is a very diverting word. Yes, this has all the "wisdom" of paying off one credit card with another: Eventually you're going to have to confront that debt. But in the meantime, she's certainly leading people on a merry chase. The last time it felt that she was on the offensive was *-xit.
What a couple of weenies.
How about man up and honor your commitments?
Maybe they were stricken with remorse over having treated their dads so badly when it was Father's Day weekend and had to take time off for retail therapy.
I'm surprised that the Dollars are thinking a couple of steps ahead in this. You're right that there's no way they could celebrate Harry on Father's Day without someone pointing out their treatment of Prince Charles and Thomas Markle.
Meanwhile, the Cambridges shared a great photo of Prince William and his three children. And Clarence House had a post honoring Prince Philip, Bruce Shand, and Prince Charles himself. Isn't it nice to live in the light of the truth, with family members who love you?
I once read that one of the distinguishing features between a sociopath and a psychopath is that A true psychopath does not feel nervous or afraid when under pressure or in situations where other people would tend to panic or feel overwhelmed. They have an unshakable belief in their ability to get out of any situation, and they are complete lack of conscience insulate them from feeling remorse, embarrassment or nerves… In short, any form of self doubt which renders normal people prone to anxiety or fear. The same article also said that the primary difference between sociopath and psychopath is that sociopaths are made and psychopaths are born that way. A psychopath, based on this, would not experience flop sweat even during a global press conference while issuing an FU to the queen of Great Britain, Norwood he/she appear visibly rattled when ignored by members of their spouses family or even booed by a crowd. They simply do not experience the fight or flight response that causes people with normal psychological systems to feel this kind of pressure. I think Madam is under pressure all the time, Though she has a higher tolerance for it then does Harry.
If it’s not clear to Netflix and Spotify by this point that they are never going to get anything usable out of this lazy, childish, disorganized pair of grifters, I don’t know what to say. H&M inked all of these deals and they were just counting the money. They didn’t have any game plan for actually producing content. Both of them have it a world of such magical thinking, that they thought programs were just going to fall out of the trees in their garden? They both think they deserve to be superstars, but based on what? Even with both of them working together, they’ve got zero talent, zero charisma, no deep thoughts, no passions other than promoting themselves—nothing. I’ve never endured an episode of the Kardashians, but at the very least you could say they know how to do their make up. We can’t even say that for Mugsy— She’s got to import someone at great expense just so he can make her look like a 55-year old corpse?
producing nothing. Thing is, if only they’ve been willing to accept That’s William and Catherine were always going to eclipse them, they could’ve had an easy life of luxury and no worries about bills in exchange for dressing up occasionally and smiling for the public. They wouldn’t have had to have talent or hustle; all they would’ve had to have done is be agreeable and try to be photogenic, and their lives would’ve been organized and comfortable. They are two petulant children with zero life management skills, and the only ways They’ve got of supporting themselves with their own merits Definitely aren’t going to cover the lifestyle to which they aspire. Harry’s a Mediocre polo player, and Mugsy is a yachted long past her sell-by date. No matter how many pairs of denim micro Shorts she wears to the polo ground, she’s never going to be 27 again. Mole’s threatened memoir is well behind schedule, even with someone else writing it. Do we think the ghostwriter has quit? Harkles have gone to a supernova level of toxicity after events of the last several weeks. Anybody who remains affiliated with them in any form deserves whatever is coming.
EXCLUSIVE: Queen to host as Kate Middleton and Prince William hold joint birthday party 'in style'
The Duke of Cambridge has been given the go ahead to throw the party at the Queen’s Windsor Castle home or Sandringham Estate later this summer
Getting back to my point about the children, if I ever find out the royal family participated in fraudulently placing children in the LOS who shouldn’t be there, I would say demolish the monarchy, take their lands away except they can each have one house and remove each duchy from them. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels that way.
There is too much for the royal family to lose by lying about the line of succession.
Both Prince Charles and Prince Philip were world ranked when they played.
Neither H or PW were/are.
Prince Charles - 4 (ranked in the top 10 in the world when he played, considered too kind to his horses)
Prince Philip - 5 (brought polo onto the world stage as a viable sport)
4 is extremely good for an amateur.
5 is gifted for an amateur. In the top 5%.
PW - 1 (at a disadvantage because he is left-handed)
PH - 1 (considered to play recklessly)
A 1 rating is considered good for a leisure player.
Half of all leisure players never get past 0.
Los Padres team
Nacho - 6 (age 45)
Harry - 1 (age 37)
Keko - 3 (age 16)
Juan - 2 (age 16)
I agree wholeheartedly that the Royal Family stands to lose everything—even their existence—by a blatant fraud over illegitimate or non-existent children being inserted into the LoS. This would be as big a scandal as the Duke of Windsor colluding with Hitler to bomb London to smithereens and retake the throne he has abdicated as the puppet ruler of the Third Reich. Deserting his throne was the best thing he could’ve done for his people—but after a couple of years in exile he began to have regrets and vengeful fantasies about reclaiming his place. The carefree life of vapid celebrity had not worked out according to plan and David got more and more bitter and hate-filled and determined that his wife be properly acknowledged as his Queen.
So far, so Harry.
There are too many anomalies surrounding the birth of Archie and that whole pregnancy for me to accept at face value what we are being told. At the very least, I think Archie was born of a surrogate. When I consider the elephantine pregnancy and the extremely weird behavior of bump, Visibly inflating and deflating and falling to her knees, sometimes in the course of one engagement… Or the fact that she looked nine months gone in morocco in February but wouldn’t deliver until May; Claiming to have had the 12 weeks scan at Eugene‘s wedding in October, meaning that she was in her fourth month, and should have delivered in early March at the latest going by that math. By any gestational mass, Archie was at least six weeks late. At least. Then, being a male baby from a tall father that overdue… he comes out at a very petite 7 lbs. 3 oz. that’s a healthy size for a full-term baby, but I am firmly convinced if that was his actual birthweight, he was born at least a month earlier than was stated and most probably from another birth mother. If Markle is the mother, Who paded herself out and put on a circus show for six months, all she has succeeded in doing is casting doubt for all time over the legitimacy of her son. Why would Harry, who’s had to contend with such rumors himself all his life, have stood for this? Never mind that her super high heels, tight clothes and ability to bounce up and down and assist it like a rubber ball in the ninth month of her pregnancy defies all laws of gravity and the maternal gestational body. We’ve had female physician swearing that such gymnastics as she displayed are impossible due to the changed center of gravity, And no amount of yoga practice is going to change that.
It defies belief that a junior member of the family could defy her majesty and refuse royal doctors, refuse to list a birth plan, Or present the normal attending signatures on the sign board outside of Buckingham Palace. That signboard is placed by the order of her majesty not the Duchess of Sussex, and the aerosols Duchess could not dictate what was on that board. And yet that seems to be what happened. Veteran royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell Was apparently struck mute during his segment because the venerable man refused to repeat what were only unconfirmed rumors and not fact on air. The royal family was notably detached and distant from the entire debacle. Archie was quietly listed on the LOS along with his sister whom no one in Britain has ever seen. The royal family has not released any definitive statement to clear up the confusion and assure people that air Harry’s children are completely legitimate and have a right to be listed where they are.
Let’s hope Tom Bower can enlighten us. Though I believe that all the myriad discrepancies about Harry’s kids are covered under a super injunction so probably not. It took some 50 years for papers incriminating the Duke of Windsor to come to light, so I don’t suppose any of us now reading this blog will still be alive if there are Inconvenient truths to be revealed about the Sussex children. If those little souls are real, I pray for them. If they’re real, the royal family has a moral obligation to intervene because their parents of record are spectacularly unfit.
First of all, the contracts for the Netflix and Spotify deals were in talks before Megxit, so at that time, not as many knew what a clusterfuck these two were. Things really went down from the Oprah interview. That was when they started to find that most companies no longer wanted to associate with them because they are toxic to brands. That's also when the bulk of the UK, followed by the US, turned against them.
I'm on the fence about how far Netflix takes this. If H&M go silently and not try to kick up a shotstorm (sic), I think NF will write off the money. That said if Meghan let this go quietly, she'd be the first narc to ever do so... it will depend on how much exposure Netflix wants put onto this misstep, because my understanding is that Harry and Meghan don't have the money to repay.
She's struggling to fight the suit against Samantha.... but that could be because Samantha isn't actually suing for money. She is suing to get Meghan to lie in deposition and on (sic) court. Not for money.
What has happened with Samantha’s lawsuit that leaves her struggling? Sorry, I’ve been on holiday and I am behind on news.
They do enjoy the rumors [e.g., all the speculation around the kids]. My information is that they do shit like this because they think it's funny to watch rumors come out.
That said, I feel confident in my source's report that the children went to the UK. Every day, stuff leaks from their household staff -- their gardener, and other employees -- watching the bullshit hit the fan at Netflix, Spotify...yes there are NDAs galore, but an NDA isn't the most legally binding contract out there, first of all. There are several ways to get out of an NDA and many judges are hesitant to enforce them because of the threat to free speech. A person can get an injunction against defamatory speech or against speech that would compromise safety, but an NDA is on its face the attempt of one citizen to keep another quiet, and that's not always such an open and shut agreement in court. There are many good defenses to breaking an NDA. People have openly broken them to talk to Tom Bower. But also, to even bring a lawsuit, Harry and Meghan would have to know who is breaking the NDA, and they haven't been able to catch anyone at that to this point, because everyone who leaks says the same thing, but I know for a fact a lot of the tea I get comes out against them daily from the people who have to work for them and with them. They also have such a revolving door of disgruntled employees that they can't begin to pinpoint who's dishing out their tea. Also, not everyone at Netflix, not every day-contractor at their house, not every decorator or plumber gets put on an NDA, it's just not always convenient or possible. So stuff leaks out of their house all the time.
Emphasis mine.
I have just checked the DM article about the alleged birthday parties. The top rated comments are those complaining about DM calling Catherine Kate Middleton and getting the year wrong of her 40th.
What has happened Samantha’s lawsuit that leaves her struggling?
I'm not sure. More than one legal expert has said that Sam's case isn't very strong, so I can only imagine it's financial. From what I gather, everyone is expecting Sam to lose on the merits of the case, and SecondhandCoke seems to imply Sam really just wants to get MM into court.
This person (in above post) says it best!
About?
The duchess of Montecito phoned a relative of the teacher who was killed in the Uvalde massacre and whose husband died days afterwards. Usual PR:
"Meghan Markle's kind phone call to family of teacher killed in Texas shooting
The nephew of Irma Garcia, a teacher who was killed alongside 19 children and a fellow educator during a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas last month, said that "sweet and lovely" Meghan Markle has shared her condolences with the family"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/meghan-markles-kind-phone-call-27278583
Is she stalking the Cambridges? While filling the bottom of the bucket tabloids with stories about bonding with Catherine over their children. As if the mean spiteful way she attacked Catherine in the Oprah interview can just be swept under the carpet!
And have you seen the photo of himself and friend Nachos that the latter posted? Himself looking very happy and leaning into his mate with arm draped over his leg and hand cupping his knee. Haven't seen him look happy like that with the wife for a while!
Just like Knauff's "leaking" to the court was a move completely authorized by the family to send her the message that if she keeps running her stupid mouth, then all the dirt they have on her will be released, so is this current stance that they are keeping the details of the HR bullying inquest secret, but that they are also changing processes. The "changing processes" is enough to tacitly say that yes, they found bullying. The Royal Family has a thousand times the dirt on her as she could ever have dirt on them. They never trusted her. They weren't revealing secrets to her or taking her into their confidence. She has nothing on them, but they are letting her know both with this AND with the Knauff report that they have a ton of shit on her going back to well before her little Suits job. If she goes running off at the mouth to the media, it's all going to come out. A lot of it is coming out anyway in Bower's book.
there's a CDAN post about the twat and the bullying she did on the set of Suits.
One of the commenters said that the twat's husband will go to Ukraine tomorrow, on William's birthday. You heard it here first.
I think it's a matter of don't ask, don't tell. I doubt they were remotely suspicious of anything at first, and then even if they have since come tot he same conclusions as we have, what do you think they would actually do? Never explain, never complain.
When the rumours were flying around about James Hewitt being Harry's real father, no one insisted on a DNA test. Even if the BRF believed it was true ( and I have never believed Diana would be that stupid) nothing would have been done. They would have accepted Harry as Charles' son and he was 3rd in the LoC.
Heck, wasn't Andrew thought by some to have been fathered by Porchie? Do we think there'd have been some investigation, or would things have just been allowed to let lie? I think it would have just been accepted, and at the time Andrew was 2nd in line.
It was not uncommon for the aristocrats, back in the days we tend to think of as so prim and proper, for My Lady to bear children that had nothing to do with My Lord. She was certainly expected to produce a few of children by My Lord at first, but most marriages were arranged, love affairs were common, and reliable birth control was quite a ways off. My Lord undoubtedly sired a few children outside the marital bed, as well.
I think it's a pity that he Harkles weren't open and above board about using a surrogate, if they did, because like many of you, I think it would have been a good cause for them to champion. But either her narc tendencies couldn't accept that she was unable to get pregnant, or else she may have known about the whole "of the body" requirement. She would also have wanted all the pregnancy attention, and that would have been reason enough for her to stock up on moonbumps.
All that to say that I can see where it was easier to just let things ride once it became obvious, especially once they got her full measure. They would not want the children to be shamed over not being in the LoC, first and foremost, but can you imagine the hell the first black princess would have raised over this?! Not worth the scandal for what amounts to second-tier royals. Guessing we can gauge when it was discovered by the timing of when W&K were told to quit flying together as a family!
Does anyone else ever wonder if she was able to fool Harry? I can see her using sex for control, and refusing to let him even see her unclothed for months on end...
And that you/they are correct that they/the squad would be demanding it be released if it were favorable.
So I think that sounds reasonable all the way around.
It could explain some of the subduedness of her.
They both spent a lot of time fiddling with what is alleged to be the recording devices. Odd considering the personal claims of needing privacy, the family's history of loss of privacy on the phone (hacking) plus the inability to use the recordings legally. Maybe it was all, as SHC says, the enjoyment of yanking chains.
The birthday party was already in the works so why not go forward with that before heading back? It allowed the sowing of discontent however minor.
And it sounds like they didn't have a lot of reasons to stay on ... so head home now.
Maybe they got more bad news about money from Prince Charles at that meeting? Their lifestyle is very expensive with the house, the people who keep it up, the costs of running a place that size, the clothing, the ponies and allegedly the kids.
I remember someone saying that the staff in the Governor General's mansion in Australia remarked that they shared separate bedrooms. Also, someone heard the Twat's husband ask the Twat "Are you even pregnant?"
Is the collusion continuing only because the BRF covered up for her for too long -- and now it's too late? Is there any way to play this that the BRF will be able to live down?
And now there's this; seems that Harry had a Ukrainian paramedic filming the war for a netflix documentary. Netflix provided the camera. She was captured by the Russians but was released in a prisoner exchange.
Per the Mirror;
"23 hours ago — A heroic Ukrainian paramedic who was captured while filming for a Prince Harry-produced film for Netflix has been freed." Google Prince Harry paramedic.
Unfortunately this article seems to be on Apple news:
https://apple.news/I5QyM9khhTPiQxwLl_Xxd2w
I will try to track it down, but it seems to be a PR image-building piece, published as his brother is celebrated at the age of 40. For now, I can't even copy and paste the blurb, but it is about Harry ... the hero, the do-gooder, the fabulous in every way!
They just never stop do they?
---------------------------------
We all know that there was bullying and that their behaviour was unacceptable. The monarchy abides by employment practices by not publishing or leaking an independent investigation on an HR matter. It is tricky. Working royals do not go through any 'fit for job' hiring process and are not held accountable under any employment contract. They are assigned experienced professional staff and are mentored, plus the monarchy has many resources they can call on (archivists, many royals and staff with experience and wisdom, and even those in government). There is no process to 'manage' them when they do wrong, other than a reprimand from the Queen, stripping of roles, and the soft power of getting invitations or not, where they are seated, who they appear with ... Ultimately, they get booted from the Firm.
What obligation does the Queen have to make public the findings and recommendations of the report, at the very least? Will she even release a statement to try to put the matter to rest? The matter is of public interest because:
* The monarchy represents the country and the people and the Queen is head of state. There is thus valid public interest in the matter.
* Those who work for the monarchy are paid from the Sovereign Grant, which is income generated from Crown Estates. (Taxpayers do not fund the monarchy directly; the costs simply get 'paid back' from all the income from Crown Estates that the monarchy gives to the government.) Many would thus regard the royal family and their staff as public servants who are ultimately accountable to the people.
For the monarchy, they need to attract the best staff to do jobs that are not well paid (compared with what the people would earn in the private sector), require special skills, and are demanding in terms of hours and travel. The monarchy does not want a reputation for abusing staff and covering up for bad/unacceptable behaviour from royals.
Lastly, we want all the details of all their bad behaviour ... just to confirm that all our speculation was spot on!
Hear! Hear!! Grand Prince William, the future of the Monarchy!!!
I got ugly chills thinking what would have happened to the BRF and the Monarchy in general if his dissolute brother 'H' would have been born first. Just disturbing what the 6th would have done to the institution or rather "undone" the grand family and royal leadership if he ever got on the throne. I almost think God had a hand in ensuring the Queen's good stewardship has been aided by heavenly help and continues to this day in that William waa firstborn.
https://mobile.twitter.com/scobie/status/1539230195760173056
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-william-40th-birthday-wasted-pot-shots-prince-harry-omid-scobie-122329513.html
So, Scobie, whining and telling lies on Oprah is a better alternative? Harry is still high up in the line of succession and a COS, so it is of public interest to hear the future king's view of the matter. What the duo did was appalling and unforgivable; William is a future king. He has addressed the issue in the most forthright and kind way he can, without divulging petty details, because he has an obligation to the British people.
A couple of glaring errors (she got rid of one dog, not both; the info we have does not seem to match that she was living with Cory up until she managed to make public her relationship with Harry ... in fact, I think throughout her relationship with Cory she did have her own place, as can be verified by her IG posts, but the Cory and Harry relationships definitely overlapped, and Harry knows it).
Post in thread 'Meghan Markle unpopular opinions thread pt 7' https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-7.4863691/post-83045733
Would be great if someone could access that Reddit post and post it here ... maybe made up story but fun to read anyway!
I catered with @Ian’s Girl that the pregnancy story was controlled by the 6s, not the Firm. She went straight to the media or used photographs to perpetuate the myth, including the multiple coat-flicking shots, the droopy prosthetic belly and the constant belly rubbing. After all of this display of bizarre behavior, the Firm lost control and likely engaged some Mental Health professionals to help strategize.
Somewhere in this timeline, Twat became frantic. She asked HR if she could “go somewhere” for mental health care and began to talk of suicide. This is likely due to the change in the way the Firm began handling her. They likely began to call her bluff, instead of walking on eggshells. It appears they have a plan in place, developed with a MH team, and they are working that plan, with maximum benefit. We will have to see how the children issue plays out. If they had any children, I believe she would be using them to gain public support.
Nothing but nothing changes them getting booed at the Platinum. They peed in their cornflakes on Oprah and trashed their brand. The Platinum just showed us that the UK, their only real base of interest, has already moved on from them. You know it's true when they slink out of town before the Platinum ended hoping they could BE the news, only to get overtaken by a 4 year old on Twitter, their lifeblood, even with all those bots they paid for, tisk tisk. Their moment passed and they are now passe.
The long slow slide to pop irrelevancy is delicious.
In all fairness to the BRF, with regards to surrogacies or even made up children, I can absolutely see how they found themselves in this mess.
I think it's a matter of don't ask, don't tell. I doubt they were remotely suspicious of anything at first, and then even if they have since come tot he same conclusions as we have, what do you think they would actually do? Never explain, never complain.
I agree that it's entirely plausible that the RF didn't realize there was anything amiss about Twat's 'pregnancy' in the early stages. Even a Royal mum is entitled to some privacy regarding her medical decisions. The Duchess couldn't be forced to use the Royal doctors, or strip for the Queen as proof of her delicate condition. However . . . I have a hard time accepting that the RF continued to see nothing remotely abnormal about how things were progressing with the Duchess's pregnancy as the weeks wore on. Surely, * would have had to inform the Palace that she *was* receiving obstetrical care from *someone*, and provide that person's credentials. Refusing to name any doctor or show regular visits for prenatal care on her diary would have raised red flags for sure. In addition, BP has got entire teams of staff who work 'round the clock monitoring press reports about all the Royal family members. The bizarre photos and video footage of her on various engagements with Bump would have been seen and noted. I'm sure there were grapevine reports from the various charities involved about her bizarre appearance/behavior while on engagements. As time wore on and on with no medical updates about an incipient heir to the succession, Harry's firstborn--the Palace had to know that something was rotten in Denmark. I also find it frankly impossible to believe that *, with her sloppiness as to detail, would have been able to pull off this con without it coming to the knowledge of the security services and her own RPO detail, who work for the Queen and must have to report upon the agenda and movements of their protectees for security reasons.
There seems to have been a concerted effort at containment of some kind by the RF while the Sussexes were on the Australia tour. They got back to discover that they had been evicted from KP and exiled to Windsor . .the beginning of the freeze out. I do think that the circumstances surrounding the conception of Archie were the reason the couple was 'fired' from Royal service and forced out of the UK, regardless of how they preferred to spin it as their own choice. Their own choice was to retain multiple residences in two different countries and come and go as they pleased.
So, they knew. I think they were daring her to continue with the charade without cracking, but they underestimated *'s level of delusional abilities and chutzpah. I do think the RF has some questions to answer about its handling of the 'birth announcement'--officially. I do not believe Harry's little press conference with one handpicked reporter and cameraman skulking 'round the Queen's stables at Windsor was in any way authorized. What a bizarre place to announce the birth of his child. Why not on the doorstep of Frogmore Cottage, his ostensible home? Or, if this birth was wholeheartedly welcomed by his family--in front of Windsor Castle? Instead, he was sneaking around the horse yard, as skittish as a cat on hot bricks. That interview is a landmine of tics and twitches because I don't believe there's an ounce of truth in it. H may be a little s***, but he is not and never will be as practiced a liar as his wife. Where these two are concerned, I do not think any horrible behavior is out of bounds for them.
Agreed. But if either of the Harkles thought it'd be a piece of cake to swap in a warming pan baby as their own with no questions asked, they had another think coming. It's my hope that their plan was derailed when the RF got wind of it and put all their resources to bear in ensuring that the transfer of any such infant to their custody did not occur. Not only for the constitutional integrity of the succession in actuality if not in name, but because the family has to be well aware that these two are dangerously unequipped to be even basically adequate parents to a vulnerable newborn.
It would be right in the wheelhouse of a malignant Narc to, having been thwarted once, double down on her dastardly plans and repeat her actions, taunting the RF from 5000 miles away with a second ostentatious 'pregnancy' beyond their oversight (throwing in a concocted story of a 'miscarriage' to further tug at the heartstrings. Another thing to blame the heartless, racist Royal family for--cutting them off and causing her toxic stress.) Again, I hope the RF's influence is so strong and pervasive that the Harkles have been blacklisted at every fertility clinic and adoption agency on two continents and therefore could not source a designer baby anywhere. I guess sourcing a black market baby is not entirely out of the question. I think if there is an Archie, God willing he is with a loving family and that is not his name. As to the existence of 'Lili', I remain agnostic. Even her name feels like Narc revenge upon Harry's grandmother--of the most petty and vindictive kind. Double-pronged, since Beatrice, a true blood princess married to a handsome and insanely rich man wanted to use 'Lily' for a daughter of her own. Is there in fact a real baby with this name? Perhaps in time, as *'s ostensible children ostensibly grow up, we will get some clarity on this. Surely the State of California will eventually want to know where and if these children are receiving any sort of education and perhaps begin to wonder 'officially' why they are never, ever seen outside like normal kids. Is this a Flowers in the Attic situation or what? Particularly if a few phone calls from London get made requesting a welfare check on the the future King of Great Britain's grandchildren. Thomas Markle may be an ineffectual, disposable nobody in the eyes of his daughter, but her alleged children's other granddad has some clout. She should be afraid.
All that to say that I can see where it was easier to just let things ride once it became obvious, especially once they got her full measure. They would not want the children to be shamed over not being in the LoC, first and foremost, but can you imagine the hell the first black princess would have raised over this?! Not worth the scandal for what amounts to second-tier royals. Guessing we can gauge when it was discovered by the timing of when W&K were told to quit flying together as a family!
Easier, yes. The best course of action in the long-term? I guess history will tell. The RF's problems stem largely from their unwillingness to confront the inevitable charges of 'racism!' earlier on--like, when * was only Harry's lay du jour. HMTQ made * a Duchess and gave an insidious Narc the power and money and status she'd been thirsting after her entire life. It would have been much easier to discredit her when she was just Haz's girlfriend--the latest in a long line. After they admitted her to the Firm and made her their equal by marriage they kind of sealed their own doom. One American's opinion. If collusion from within the ranks to prop up *'s fairytale of two heirs ever comes to light, the RF will have serious explaining to do. That explaining will probably fall to William, but maybe he can make it sound more sympathetic. After all, he was only a junior VP at the time certain decisions were made which he most probably did not full-heartedly agree with. Remember the statement about surrogacy emanated from his office before it was abruptly disappeared.
Does anyone else ever wonder if she was able to fool Harry? I can see her using sex for control, and refusing to let him even see her unclothed for months on end...
Based on numerous photos of Twit with men, and his happy countenance, and always looking miserable with Twat, I've come to the conclusion that theirs is a Lavender Marriage. I doubt he saw her naked while she was "pregnant" the first time. "Is it mine?"
Based on the shared smirk of Duper's Delight at their wedding, I believe Haz was read into the surrogacy con prior to the marriage. A fertility clinic in Toronto may have even held a deposit of his DNA left there during one of his transatlantic visits. However, I think that * initiated the con far sooner than he'd been promised. At the engagement interview, he said they planned to 'wait a couple of years' before having kids--a weird statement considering the advanced age of both principals, but with H at #5 (then) it wasn't such a high priority for him to procreate immediately. I think that was what had been agreed upon. So imagine his surprise when she tells him enroute to E's wedding that Today is the Day and We've already had the 12 week scan so get on the same page. H was visibly agitated in the pew at the ceremony and I think he'd just had a stunning revelation laid on him and was desperate to talk her out of it. Operation Sussex Heir was happening, ready or not. Maybe she'd gotten confirmation that the surrogacy was successful. No woman only 3 months pregnant needs to unbutton a maternity coat, so that was the beginning of the Pregnancy Vaudeville Show.
Hence, the arguments in Australia, overheard by staff. Harry's dumb but presumably he knows the basic facts of life. If he hadn't slept with her for at least a year, I can imagine his confusion. Had he forgotten about a deposit back in Toronto? Or, even more insidious--was a genetic contribution harvested from him without his consent? Maybe this is what the Soho House contingent have on him.
On the face of it, if H is either disinclined to or unable to perform with women and father a child the usual way, if * proposed a contract marriage/surrogacy agreement as is widely commonplace in Hollywood (Clooneys, hello) maybe in theory, H was initially onboard as it seemed the solution to all his problems. He gets to maintain his image as Butch Hero Hazza, Swordsman Extraordinaire, gets the perks of marriage, including a Dukedom and increased allowance and stature in the Firm proceeding from that; gets to keep pace with William in the production of heirs . . it was going to be good for his image and keep his private secrets private. But what sounded good in theory proved to be hellishly difficult/impossible in the execution. * probably convinced him when he was high, when every stupid idea sounds brilliant. Now he will be paying for that impetuous decision forevermore. I can't work up any pity regardless of how it went down. He's made his bed and can d*mn well lie on it and rot.
ok irked today. Prince Williams bday. so the clarence house pic is charles with the two young sons. dude you have no pic with just your heir? ever? why is hazbeen in there. it’s not his birthday. stop trying to be the “good guy” appeaser. it was a look that didn’t serve Neville Chamberlain well
finally i think i said it before. i think no direct solecism media was part of the megxit agreement or at least for a period of time. there is no mystery around the two of them (well except for the kids) but now would be time to brand things further. wish your brother a happy birthday to keep the royal link going. highlight your philanthropic work. get an unpaid intern on this for the wife to abuse. so it is still so curious why they don’t have anything. heck sussexwales or harryand megwales i would think would be a thing.
"ok irked today. Prince Williams bday. so the clarence house pic is charles with the two young sons. dude you have no pic with just your heir? ever? why is hazbeen in there. it’s not his birthday..."
I don't see Harry in Charles' birthday wishes for William. He posted 4 shots and no sign of the picture you describe. Are you sure you aren't looking at a photo posted for Father's Day?
So . . the idea of adoption was discarded tout suite. On to Plan B which was surrogacy. It would have been easier to arrange this under the radar *before* the wedding and while * had more freedom to come and go without RPOs. IF (big IF) Harry provided genetic material knowingly and willingly for this little experiment, that's problematic on a couple of fronts:
1. Having his DNA out in the world without being in an approved marriage was terribly sticky (pun unintended). This would have been drilled into he and William as teens, though Yob was probably too thick to absorb the lesson.
2. Would it be possible for the couple to visit fertility clinics, maybe multiple times without his RPOs being aware? I know H often used his RPOs like errand boys to fetch him 'gear' and stuff, but visiting a fertility clinic abroad with a woman not his wife, whom the Queen hadn't even met surely would have crossed some line of duty which would have forced them to report it. If the clinic in question were in London, I don't see how it would have been under Royal radar for any length of time.
What if H, not being terribly bright, was coerced somehow? If he thought he was just having a 'fertility checkup'? But would even H be stupid enough to agree to that in a foreign country in the company of a woman he wasn't even engaged to? Admittedly, things unravel a bit here with this scenario. H hates his family and wants to get at them, but this was a very sophisticated con having to do with bodily processes and I just don't think he'd have been capable of going through with it on a number of logistical fronts. Perhaps he had agreed to consider it. But then she turns up 'pregnant' just months after the wedding--NOT what was agreed upon. Indeed, for her to have conceived when she said she did, she would have only been married a month, month and a half. Not *impossible* but improbable. Even 20-year-old Diana was married longer and her eggs were fresh. Did * let H have one for auld lang syne just to keep him wondering if it *could* be his? Or--with the devaluation process already begun once the ring was on her finger, had she flaunted affairs in front of him, leading him to be suspicious? Was he a cuckhold, a clinical dupe, was she blowing smoke up his bum? It's pretty clear that mere months into his marriage, H had lost any semblance of control he thought he had over his own life.
And that's how it is with a Narc.
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2022
Blind Item #7
The deal between the audio streaming service and the alliterate one and her husband is not working out. A breakup announcement is imminent.
Awful article, so brace yourself if you choose to read it.
British colonies in Africa chose full independence more than 50 years ago. The correct question to ask and issue to explore is why did these other nations not and why are they making such an issue of it now.
It is not the British monarchy holding onto empire that has prevented full independence, but those countries holding onto the Queen and the UK. The Queen is no longer able to, and I am sure neither Charles nor William want to, continue to do state tours to those countries.
The author has a very warped view of the dastardly duo.
The tour the Cambridges did was not a complete failure at all.
There are at least another 5 monarchies in Europe. Three of these had colonies in Africa and elsewhere. All human beings, all countries, all empires did things in the past that we find appalling today. (Germany, Portugal, France all had colonies in Africa that did not have the relatively peaceful and prosperous future that most British colonies had.) Look forward, as Africa does, and make the future better. Like ask yourself how the UN allowed the genocide to happen in Rwanda, and then why luvvies are appalled that refugees supposedly fleeing from abuse and persecution, in fear for their lives and livelihoods, should not be grateful to find refuge in Rwanda (a lovely, peaceful, clean, relatively crime free country where the people understand the horrors from which refugees are fleeing).
I think the article is awful. I wonder if people who feel inadequate are the ones who worship the talentless duo. Easier to blame someone else than face and come to terms with your personal accountability for failure.
Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but I don't believe the 'kids', born of surrogates were even in the UK. Period.
* would have known whether or not HMTQ would allow the christening or the photo of Lil'bit meeting her GGran prior to their departing Monteshitshow for the Jubilee.
It is a narc's revenge not to bring them.
The California pregnancies were less visible than the first one. I didn't see any documentation for baby 2.
There haven't been " normal" series of photos either. If they wanted ratings, they could have both "royal" spawn on camera during a televised interview. Their heavily edited home videos awkwardly reacting with children don't convince me. The children don't seem to know know their " parents". The video clip with M reading to Archie reminded me of kids posing for pictures with Santa at the mall. The poor child seemed uncomfortable being held by a stranger. Who know how many hours/days of filming it took to get that clip.
Harry seems much happier playing polo when the wife isn't around. He seems happier in general when she is not around ( except when we was visiting his mother's memorial with his brother). Not sure if this indicates homosexual/bisexual orientation. I interpreted it as a reprieve from an unhappy marriage to a controlling manipulative spouse.
The polo team, league and venue are getting world wide press with H on the team. Nacho is 45. His days of professional sports and related sponsorships are limited. Adding a quasi-royal celebrity to the team is a smart strategy.
I didn't consider Harry's genetic sample collected without his knowledge at SoHo house. Yikes. That would be a royal scandal for the ages, especially if the sample were obtained by a man.
When it comes to doubting the paternity of a child of a married woman, the sprog is always assumed to be the product of the husband's loins, unless there is absolute, evidence for the opposite that will stand up in court, even if the child is a dead -ringer for the lover.
Blood group testing might show the husband, or the lover can't be the father but it takes DNA to prove that someone IS the father.
Sneaking a DNA sample isn't legit either.
Do you really think either of the miscreants would confess?
Netflix braces for MORE layoffs by the end of the week - just a month after hundreds of staff and contractors were cut - as the company loses 70% of its value and reveals it shed nearly 200,000 subscribers and expects to lose more
The streaming giant is expected to notify impacted staff at the end of the week
It comes on the heels of a massive layover at the company prompted by the company's 70percent loss in value this spring
Last month, a total of 150 recruitment workers were fired, as well as another 70 animators, and 70 contractors working on promotional materials
The streaming platform shed 200,000 subscribers in the first three months of the year and lost $54 billion in a single day in April
Executives also said at the time that they expect to lose two million more subscribers in the second quarter
Netflix is trading at $171.81 per share, as opposed to $348 per share in April
By ANDREA BLANCO and NATASHA ANDERSON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 13:00 EDT, 21 June 2022 | UPDATED: 13:04 EDT, 21 June 2022
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10938579/Netflix-braces-layoffs-end-week.html
Blind Item #7
The deal between the audio streaming service and the alliterate one and her husband is not working out. A breakup announcement is imminent.
Snarky at her best:
...so we watch for netflix and spotify. since we haven’t heard anything about the podcast i’m guessing it may already have been canceled.
I thought I was the one to guess that Spotify would take legal action against the Sussexes first, but it was Snarky.
Congratulations, Snarky! You called it!
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/ots2xj/did_anyone_else_know_from_the_very_beginning/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-7.4863691/post-83061420
Hope the link works, but it was originally posted on the SaintMeghanMarkle Reddit account.
"It's interesting that * could be stalemated by a bullying report but not by the truth about how her children were conceived, gestated and brought into the world."
Shall we call that the Al Capone Effect?
Funny how H can consider UK so dangerous, if he really is going to Ukraine. TV news has reported the Dastardlies have employed a former paramedic to shoot film for them to use in a Netflix offering. Apparently, she was captured by the Russians but is safe back after being exchanged .
i’m a little disappointed. i half expected the mrs to put out something to combat williams birthday. perhaps all that is coming down the like and flurries of meetings has the mrs distracted. one does have a lot to manage what with the global philanthropic brand two small children and of course the photoshopping. empire in the works 😉
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/vhjkke/harry_had_a_ukrainian_soldier_film_content_for/
It is a long article but worth reading. At present, there is no mechanism for the Queen or Parliament to remove titles. A Labour MP wants a law passed that gives the Queen, or a committee in Parliament, the power to do just that.
For the monarchy, it is a double-edged sword: the power to bestow titles becomes, well, far more powerful if the monarch can also remove them; but, the public will endlessly agitate for removal of titles for the flimsiest of reasons. (The latter is perhaps not such a great obstacle because the Queen is not afraid to go against public opinion, like giving Tony Blair the Order of the Garter.)
For now, I think the duo are safe with their titles, but I would be worried if I were them. I doubt they have a majority of supporters in Sussex! He will always be a prince, but the HRH is effectively gone and the other titles may be taken as well.
I bet she is wondering if the monarchy has a returns policy!
After hearing gossip about Hewitt during his childhood, it is disappointing that Harry permits his children growing up under a cloud of suspicion.
A striking point! That he doesn't seem to care is such a terrible reflection of his character.
(In contrast, when the Rose rumors were first planted, sugars loved to say that Prince William should have known better than to do to his wife what his father did to his mother. But not a single peep from them now that Harry is doing to his children what his mother -- let's concede, inadvertently -- did to him.)
A site that loves to make fun of the Montecito royals!
On Nacho and Delfina: beautiful love story. The royal one, is Delfina (and see her hugging is very different, less cheesy).
Nacho was the middle class groom who learnt to play polo and was gifted at it; she comes from one of the wealthiest Argentinian families, owning ranchs. Her father was Eduardo Blaquier Nelson; her grandmother Malena Nelson Hunter de Blaquier, who hosted Prince Philip at their 6000 ha ranch in March 1962. Some gossip about romance but in any case they shared the knowledge and love for horses. PP stayed and played polo at their ranch.
I believe Delfina holds her real thoughts on * private and simply "tolerates" her. She probably feels at par with the royal family. Nacho is a good guy and perhaps a good - honest friend for Harry.
Slay, Queen! She must be enjoying the howls from California. Absolutely nothing amiss with her hearing.
"Queen is selling £55 handmade walking sticks made of locally-sourced wood at her Sandringham estate - after she adopted a mobility aid earlier this year
* The Sandringham estate's royal shop are selling stag horn walking sticks for £55
* Sticks are handmade from locally-sourced wood including Hazel, Ash and Yew
* Queen taken to using walking sticks when out, including Prince Philip's favourite"
The dastardly duo should rethink their BS that the Queen needs to be protected and is somehow not able to take care of herself - not only is she making walking aids fashionable, but she has quickly turned her disability into a commercial opportunity!
https://investorday2022.byspotify.com/
They are still trying to trademark Archewell, and the trade for Archetypes has also run into trouble. The person hired to be head of Archewell Audio has been in the job for almost a year.
None of this looks promising.
Ha,the Queen is beating the 6s at the commercialization game! And she does not even need an "Elizabeth's Mirror" web site to do it!
@Henrietta
Your post from the SaintMeghanMarkle Reddit was fascinating. Thank you for sharing!
She needs to control, dominate, be fully supported no matter what she says or does or wants, and be adored in the way she dictates. In my opinion, we have seen hints of cracks in this aspect of their relationship - in their body language, in her accompanying him to the UK where he really tried but she probably did not want to be there and hated it and returned home victimized all over again ... But, he is still very isolated and his closest friends, Nachos and his family, are not around all the time. Her key in controlling him, in my opinion, is in isolation and the children (I doubt the love bombing works, unless he is feeling very lonely).
She wants to live a life of luxury, but without significant financial success, which is becoming more elusive, he will not be able to provide this. There are plenty much wealthier men who would fall for the con. The Duchess has a history of ghosting and moving on.
She wants global attention (as she cries privacy) and a global platform. She has already achieved the former, but the platforms are getting less prestigious and they do not last so she always has to find another one. There are plenty of people who will give her a platform, as we have seen, but they are small and do not have longevity. A very wealthy man can buy her platforms; one who is also globally well-known or has great power can get her the prestigious platforms.
One thing I do not understand ... there are a number of photographs of her with Trevor and a couple of her with Cory. She did not do the adoring gaze love bombing with them (although the one photo with Cory foreshadowed her engagement photos - the ones where she wore the very expensive frock). Why? I do wish the two men would talk and reveal if she ever used the claw to control, obsessively held hands, gazed at them adoringly.
The Queen is hosting William and Catherine a joint birthday party for their 40ths.
The best part is that the sugars can't say that the Queen is playing favorites, because didn't * supposedly get a birthday party at Balmoral, with a cake baked by the Queen herself?
But perhaps * will try to take credit by saying that she started this new "trend" in the BRF.
Ha,the Queen is beating the 6s at the commercialization game! And she does not even need an "Elizabeth's Mirror" web site to do it!
If I were a tourist with extra money to burn, I wouldn't mind bringing home an elegant walking stick from the UK! It would be unique and classy -- and a poignant reminder of the longest-reigning monarch in history.
Moreover, these will be collector's items in a few years. Nothing * has ever merched will ever achieve that status.
Oh! That break up is happening as we speak. I bet it is made official and the terms are released by the end of the year.
Better glam up * and get going, before he finds Mrs. No. 5.
More PR. Of course they did not ask for a photo because they could see the Queen was not feeling well/was in ill health, but they met with her, with the children, on Thursday and maybe even on Friday as well.
Hmmm ...
Wasn't Friday the busy day for the Queen, and after that (a trip to BP and three balcony appearances and then remotely lighting the trees/beacons remotely, plus watching TV coverage of the Jubilee), she rested or declined to appear because of mobility issues? And when did they arrive? Was that on Thursday? And they all went to visit the Queen after that long flight!
I don't believe their PR. They were at BP for TTC, so of course they saw the Queen because she appeared on the balcony.
Did they visit the Queen at WC? When? For how long? Who was present? Were the children there? We may never know.
Probably a coincidence! Let us not read too much into this, because these kind of fertility clinics and surrogate programmes are plentiful.
Is hapless perhaps angry because she released a photo of the daughter without concealing her face (two photos actually)? The boy's face has been hidden since the book reading video, except when she was papped carrying him to school while husband was out of the country and in the Oprah interview video. There have been about five photos of him released by the duo, all with his face hidden, plus her pap walk in the park where his face was also hidden.
Here’s what I know firsthand about the OB. The antifandom can get a bit toxic and forget that normal ppl are involved. One of my good friends is a pregnant woman under her care, and she told me about having to find a new doc a month ago bc she was closing the practice. She was really annoyed bc finding a new dr in SB is really hard. From what I understand the OB was just overwhelmed by the stress of being one of the few providers in a small town and taking time off. From my understanding she will be moving back to larger healthcare system in LA to practice in a few months. SB is one of those areas that got a huge pandemic bump in population - in the pre remote work days it was a weekend destination, with a population comprised of college students, retirees or rich celebrities. But a lot of young families from SF and LA moved there during the pandemic, spurred by friendly remote working culture that is continuing in most CA companies even after the end of most restrictions. For those of you who understand the healthcare system in the US, understaffing is basically a chronic issue and even a few extra cases can throw the whole system into chaos. So imagine this dr having to handle a natural new influx in families, and getting a bit of a celebrity bump from being MM’s dr. If you guys know any OBs personally, you’ll also know that it’s a speciality that you don’t get into for work life balance. You truly have to be pretty even keeled and able to handle stress. Anyway, I think the article was a bit in poor taste and an overreach. The journalists need to do their job and dig more into her shady content deals, foundation, and bullying.
@CatEyes
I read Rupert Murdoch was getting divorced but never thought of * as a replacement for Jerry Hall! What a genius idea! And think about it, given his great age * won't have to stay with him too long.
Too bad about Jerry Hall. She looked so happy to be marrying Murdoch after the shabby way Mick Jagger treated her. Hopefully, she gets a very, very nice settlement.
I think this is the only copy of the bc that was tracked down. It was not provided by the duo. The daughter was born in Santa Barbara.
The duo did release a press statement:
https://www.google.com/search?q=lillibet+diana+mountbatten-windsor+birth+certificate&oq=lillibet+diana+mountbatten-windsor+birth+certificate&aqs=chrome..69i57.23274j0j7&client=ms-android-lenovo-rev2&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=POJlau2icQjEIM6
Totally agree! I would love to have one of HM walking sticks! I wonder if they ship to the US?
Thank you.
The Wreck of the Desperus
How green was our harry
To bed, and then marry
Barreness of the Heads*
knees to floor
Only a fool
Being ruled by his tool
Would give his crown**
to that wanton w*ore…
*ships toilet, or 😉
**bellend 😳
@Maneki
Cheers, I had fun with
“Heard Mentality” 😘
Porky Pies-Tweeting Lies
Foghorn Legshorn
and Daffy Duke
Santa-Barbera
Enema Dudd fluke
Goofy’s a possessed
Vile M. Devotee
Sylvester Sneekly
loves Hugs Mummy
Boo Hoo was trapped
by her Yogi Bare snare
She’s no smarter
than the average mare…
That’s All Wokes!!
Apologies: Hanna-Barbera
Looney Tunes etc
Here’s the article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-61691976.amp
The one being sold at her Sandringham Estate shop @ £55.00 is obviously a different type. 🥴
Just seen Kate & Wills portrait,
sublime.
Oh, it is! Beautiful, just right.
"I really think that you, along with Hikari and Sandie should write a book about our topic. I am envious of your skills - all of you!"
What a great idea,,here are some suggestions for a ptential book title by them:
*A Brash Commetary on Princess Henry AKA Meghan Markle*
or,
"Poeitic Justice by the Little People Meghan Despises"
or,
"The Sleuthful Truth by Royal Fans"
or,
"Inspired Opinions on Mrs. 6"
All these were meant to compliment and encouraqge the wonderful poems and commentary by such creative, learned and thoughful Nutties whose contributions make this site great (along with all other contributors here).
I am sure some could have a filed day thnking of *desrving* titles highlighting the antics and attitudes of 'Just M'.
The later one seems to have the lowdown on the paramedic, Ukraine & Netflix
I'm hearing now that they are in deep financial shit and that they couldn't make money at this point if they begged for it. The only thing that would make money is a satirical reality show skewering Meghan for every dumbfuck thing she does and skewering Harry for being dumb enough to hang on her every word. But neither of them will go for something like that. They take themselves too seriously. Anyway, they're losing Netflix and Spotify. It's already in serious discussion and it is just a matter of time before the official announcement comes out...allegedly.
As for netflix and ukranian athletes, well they arent meeting with zelensky who will meet with anyone to get the help they need so its obvious they are of no help if netflix is smart they will put the kabash on this move - doesnt look good for anyone involved at this point
Like the Cambridge portrait - with his legs slightly apart is a more of a power stance and she looking her shoulder in the "im with him" stance really works.
I hope in the future there will be many more portraits, as they are such wonderful subjects to capture (being an amature artist myself.)
The last official portrait of the Queen recently released was lovely and her dress was so nice and pretty (pale blue) although it wasn't the usual bright bold colors she favors on public appearances. She looked serene and it was such a flattering depiction of the Monarch. If God grants me 96 years, I (at near 70) can only hope to look half as good as she. God has blessed her in so many ways. Truly, God has saved the Queen! :)
Archewell Audio
In this groundbreaking new podcast, ARCHETYPES, Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, investigates the labels that try to hold women back. Meghan will speak with historians and experts to uncover the origin of these stereotypes and have uncensored conversations with women who know all too well how these typecasts shape our narratives. Find the teaser transcript here: https://spotify.link/ArchetypesTranscript Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
...
Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, present Archewell Audio, only on Spotify. Follow for updates. ( Follow? No thank you! I'd rather try to read Beowulf old english )
https://open.spotify.com/show/7kz7cRLYAcPiWxqiKw1nlG
I think the trailer for Archetypes has been out for a while - that is how we found out about it. Unfortunately for the duchess, she has run into trouble in trying to trademark the term 'Archetypes', just as she did with 'Archewell' (yep, that trademark has still not been approved). The problem seems to be that she 'throws too much mud at the wall' ... she includes so many categories and can show no realistic proof that she will ever use the trademark in that way ... and not necessarily that she is trying to trademark a well-known term.
Apple and Windows are two very common words that are used every day, but two companies managed to trademark them for very specific products, but not for every possible use they could have thought of (I bet Steve Jobs was not thinking of an iPod at the time or even a streaming service, so Apple has had to expand their trademark.)
The duchess seems to be stuck in her thinking and it certainly does not seem to be the kind of thinking that creates success ... just a lot of grandiosity and virtue signalling (when she is not whining).
----------------
Is sending an organization a hamper of unhealthy 'treats' something common in America? She seems to do that a lot. (Obviously constrained by how little money they have raised, through the SussexSquad, for Archewell.) In return the organization gives her publicity by praising her on social media and publishing her 'sweet' letter or gushing about a phone call or voicemail. Maybe I am being hypersensitive but, to me, it has a Marie Antoinette 'let them eat cake' vibe!
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-sends-note-donuts-coffee-moms-demand-action/
I think the trailer for Archetypes has been out for a while - that is how we found out about it. Unfortunately for the duchess, she has run into trouble in trying to trademark the term 'Archetypes', just as she did with 'Archewell' (yep, that trademark has still not been approved). The problem seems to be that she 'throws too much mud at the wall' ... she includes so many categories and can show no realistic proof that she will ever use the trademark in that way ... and not necessarily that she is trying to trademark a well-known term.
Apple and Windows are two very common words that are used every day, but two companies managed to trademark them for very specific products, but not for every possible use they could have thought of (I bet Steve Jobs was not thinking of an iPod at the time or even a streaming service, so Apple has had to expand their trademark.)
The duchess seems to be stuck in her thinking and it certainly does not seem to be the kind of thinking that creates success ... just a lot of grandiosity and virtue signalling (when she is not whining).
----------------
Is sending an organization a hamper of unhealthy 'treats' something common in America? She seems to do that a lot. (Obviously constrained by how little money they have raised, through the SussexSquad, for Archewell.) In return the organization gives her publicity by praising her on social media and publishing her 'sweet' letter or gushing about a phone call or voicemail. Maybe I am being hypersensitive but, to me, it has a Marie Antoinette 'let them eat cake' vibe!
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-sends-note-donuts-coffee-moms-demand-action/
1 minute 6 seconds!
Some recent tea on the duchess that is quite interesting. Spoiler: she supposedly does drugs (alcohol and weed), to 'self-medicate', has a violent temper, is mentally unstable, is looking for the next rich husband ... and lots more!
I am not sure about the account of her supposed behaviour in South Africa, but the country does not have a 'paparrazi' culture so she may have been partying at high-end restaurants and bars. (For example, the Earl of Spencer's ex-wife lives in South Africa and his children grew up in the country but they were never 'papped' or featured in media (even their social media posts) in the country. I have actually been at a party where his ex-wife was also in attendance, just like every one else, and briefly greeted her!
If the couple wanted to escape the media frenzy and paparazzi, South Africa was the place they could do so (plus he has family living in the country). Their claims, while on an official tour, about the country being unsafe for them (or something like that) was in appalling bad taste.
She introduces herself simply as 'Meghan'
Her voice is very deep.
She says she will be exploring the archetypes that hold women back and will be speaking to historians about it.
It seems to me that there are two aspects to this - how society holds women back, but how women deal with it and either accept it or break through.
And, by the way, it's true that society and people want women to play a certain role but the same applies to men, albeit the role is different.
Him:
*African Parks (President)
*The Queen's Commonwealth Trust (President)
*Royal Marines (Captain General)
*Royal Naval Command, Small Ships and Diving (Commodore-in-Chief)
*Royal Air Force Honington (Honorary Air Commandant)
*Commonwealth (Youth Ambassador)
*The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Founder Patron)
*Dolen Cymru (Patron)
*Invictus Games Foundation (Patron)
*London Marathon Charitable Trust (Patron)
*MapAction (Royal Patron)
*Rhino Conservation Botswana (Patron)
*Rugby Football League (Patron)
*Rugby Football Union (Patron)
*Rugby Football Union All Schools Programme (Patron)
*Rugby Football Union Injured Players Foundation (Patron)
*Sentebale (Patron)
*Silverstone Heritage Experience/Motorsport World (Patron)
*WellChild (Patron)
*Henry van Straubenzee Memorial Fund (Joint Patron)
*Royal Ontario Museum (Honorary Life Member)
*Gloucestershire County Cricket Club (Honorary Member)
(HALO Trust: Patron of their 25th Anniversary Appeal in 2013, but has no formal role in the organisation)
Her:
*Queen's Commonwealth Trust (Vice-President)
*Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Founder Patron)
*Association of Commonwealth Universities (Patron)
*Mayhew (Patron)
*National Theatre (Patron)
*Royal National Theatre (Patron)
*Smart Works (Patron)
Him now:
https://www.royal.uk/The-Duke-of-Sussex
Her now:
https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex
Although I'm sure if anyone had tried, they would have earned the Hot Tea -> Head Award right quick.
Thanks for that link.
The people in South Africa thought she was racist! and that Desmond Tutu didn't like her! wow!
And neither the twat nor the twit knew basic answers about Archie!
I think she's worse than we can even imagine!
----
No!!!!
That's what one purchases for book club, a church meeting, a staff meeting at work.
But usually better stuff; people are not interested in junk food. One might get nice donuts or cookies at a bakery, not Doritos or Fritos or whatever.
Interestingly, most of us would spend more than that to buy some nice stuff.
She buys $25 worth of food and expects to be adored and praised as if she had donated 25 million.
The meager amount of food that she donates isn't enough to make a difference for anyone. And it's not like it's buying for food for people who don't have any food or are short on food. It's people who have plenty of money to buy their own food if they wanted it.
It's all about getting praise for herself.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/princess-beatrice-obsessed-reformation-dress-182500502.html
Does anybody here subscribe to Spotify? Apparently MM has a "trailer" out for Archetypes. Has anyone heard it?
-----
I have Spotify account and have not noticed anything regarding MM.
I hope in the future there will be many more portraits, as they are such wonderful subjects to capture
Body Language Guy Jesus's latest is a deep dive into the composition of the portrait. He praises the technical skill of the artist but says the composition is awkward and terrible. Apparantly W & K should be facing the other direction (viewer's right) to symbolize the future. Instead, they are looking to 'the past' and the placement of the figures is quite awkward. Catherine's feet are pointed right, so her body is turned at an angle that looks uncomfortable. Then the weird spindly looking pillar behind them on the bland background . meh.
There are many things to like about the picture. The artist did a fantastic job capturing their skin tones and details of the textiles and jewelry (C. wears the Duchess of Cambridge brooch, fittingly enough . .often worn by Her Majesty.) That's worthy of a Vermeer, but I don't think the facial expressions are quite right. I think the idea is that they are looking back toward the Queen in respect for her reign and she's still on the throne, so maybe that's fitting. But it's an extreme left-facing look which makes the viewer wonder what they've been distracted by off frame in the distance. The expressions can be read as 'bemused' or 'irritated' depending on one's PoV. There will be decades to come, God willing, for this couple to painted in more regal-looking poses. C.'s dress looks better here than it did in person. I did not care for 'The Vampire's Wife' frock in life as I thought it looked cheap and tatty with the shiny fabric. There's a lot of black in this dress so I get a goth vibe more so than 'fresh, youthful, forward-looking'. Green traditionally has also signified 'jealousy' (Wouldn't the Meganuts sugars just love that?)
I'm no art historian and didn't know about the conventions of portraiture composition before Jesus explained it to me (he is himself a painter, he said.) I just know what I *feel* when looking at the picture--It feels like W. & C. are caught by surprise/unbalanced/unsure? Read this way, with those expressions, it could be a commentary on the whole Sussex situation--the couple are thrown off balance and bemused/irritated by a distracting situation out of frame. Some of the shadows also look sinister the more you study the picture.
The artist is a master with textures and brushstrokes but the picture does not give me personally a sense of comfort and ease from the central couple. Definitely unexpected choice of setting and scene but perhaps that was the intent. Certainly it's not in the class of offputting as Graham Sutherland's notorious lost portrait of Winston Churchill in his dotage . . but if you ask me if I wholeheartedly like this picture, I have to say, apart from the brooch--No, I don't.
And neither the twat nor the twit knew basic answers about Archie!
I have said it before, and I will yell it from the rooftops until I'm blue in the face . . Every fiber of my being and my 22+ years in early childhood education settings scream to me that that little boy had no idea who these people were. Twat and Twit wouldn't know basic answers about a child they had literally plopped into their (her) arms minutes before cameras rolled. He's a bonzer little bloke, happy and doesn't seem to mind the bizarre circumstances he's in . . but that was a very brief visit and I think his real mum was nearby posing as Nanny. Watch how Twat holds him . . away from her body and with only some of her fingers on both hands circling him under the arms. A real mother would have a firm grip on him and he'd be snuggled into her. Twat is holding him as though he is a bag of poo that could explode on her dress at any moment. Look at how gingerly Harry barely touches his little foot in the too small sock. We would have loved to see Harry the Dad holding his little guy and some evidence of manly bonding, no? Harry is afraid to touch or hold this kid because he'd never done it before.
The baby looks to be the same one they used for the color photo of the 'christening'--though not the B&W one which is of a different baby altogether--that baby is beefier and blond. Not sure who Duck Rabbit Archie is but it is NOT Tutu Baby. I firmly believe once they'd relocated to North America they'd lost access to their first baby model.
This is the con of the century, folks.
Thanks for listening to the Archetype trailer and reporting back. I take it you weren't tempted to listen to the podcasts. Reddit rumor is she has scraped together two.
I had read somewhere she had changed her voice from the one she used on the elephant documentary, but I'm guessing it doesn't do much for her content. What a shock! /s
https://www.exposingsmg.com/blog/meghan-harry-lack-of-profit-meghans-temper-threw-hot-tea-australia-lady-c-prince-harry
I am not sure about the account of her supposed behaviour in South Africa...
I'm also not sure of the South African account. In general it agrees with her behavior on other foreign tours, but I find it hard to believe there is still much high-end nightlife in South Africa, and I REALLY find it hard to believe that Archbishop Tutu would gossip about her or anyone else for that matter.
It would be great to receive confirmation that South Africans saw through MM like everyone else, but I don't think this particular account of it is credible.
Netflix has announced it is laying off 300 more employees as it continues to flounder. Its stock is down by 70 percent since the beginning of the year.
If they’d like to make that number 302, I can think of a pair of true slackers to get rid of in the next round of cutbacks.
An archetype is an original model that other things of the same kind will copy or be based on, as in The company’s 2007 product would be the archetype that all its later models would be based on.
The word archetype is also used in Jungian psychology to refer to unconscious thoughts or symbols that seem to be universal, as in Loki and Pan are two of the Trickster archetype that appear in ancient mythology.
An archetype as an original model is very similar to a prototype, which also refers to an original design or model. However, an archetype is sometimes used to specifically mean that something is considered to be the best, something that all similar things should strive to be. A prototype, on the other hand, may be unfinished or flawed. Things that are based on the prototype as an example may be quite different from it in the end.
In psychology, archetype is specifically from the theories of psychiatrist Carl Jung. Jung theorized that all humans unconsciously share certain thoughts or images that are expressed in fairy tales and mythology. For example, many cultures have similar ideas of what a hero is even though they never shared the idea with each other. That similar idea is called an archetype, and the hero in a story would be a specific archetype.
Based on Jung’s usage, archetype is often used similarly to the word trope or stereotype to refer to a recurring theme or an element that constantly reappears in art, as in The character was a classic example of the grizzled veteran cop archetype.
The adjective form of archetype is both archetypal and archetypical, as in In this story, the wise old man is an archetypal messiah figure.
Example: The award-winning film would become the archetype for the genre that many following films would try to duplicate.
Madam's pretension is showing again. She's referencing the 12 Jungian archetypes of personality. Raftloads of stuff available on the Internet, hard to condense into a digest for this space. There are elements of 'stereotype' but it's not precisely the same.
The whole "Archewell/Archetypes" thing is just further proof to me that 'Archie' is not a flesh and blood boy--he is, and always was, a branding tool. And an anagram of 'Rachel' too. She only sees all other people, whether real or fictional, as objects to promote her agenda, which is, of course, Meghan, Queen of the Universe.
There is no other reason I can conceive of that an American Millennial of color (as she's always banging on the she is) would choose 'Archie' randomly for the name of her firstborn. Even supposing Harry had some mates called Archie and liked the name . . . which Americans would consider a nickname at best and associate forevermore with an old bigot from Queens or a red-headed cartoon character. "Archie" is not a complimentary name in the States. Archie sounds like a pet hound or a movie character, not a little Prince.
ARCH is a brand, not a kid. At least she gave up the idea of merching t-shirts, car decals waterbottles online.
Thank you for posting the article. So interesting! I agree with whichever Nutty said she is worse than we can imagine! I will never forget the Moroccan official's comment, "She is repugnant!'
I loved Bea's dress. So soft and beautiful. It does remind me slightly of the awful dress * wore to the country wedding. Her dress did not fit.
Bea's clothes fit her and are beautiful lately. Her fashion style has improved since marrying Edo. Bea is looking great!
I did not want to presume about American work culture, but it seems it is similar to what I am used to. I think that sending these hampers of goodies is her 'bribe' for getting them to give her free publicity (note that she does not do any actual work).
-----------------
I am sceptical about the tea about the South African tour. If Tutu did indeed not like the Duchess, how would this person on social media know? Tutu was an extremely tolerant and forgiving person, so I doubt that he disliked her so much that he said so to someone. As for the racism ... I doubt that as well. Both were very self absorbed during the tour and used it to get publicity for themselves, with no benefit at all to the people they met and visited. That attitude could have been mistaken for racism, but South Africans are very quick to scream racism and there has not been even a whisper ...
-------
So, the sister vs sister court case is going ahead. The judge dismissed the duchess's application to dismiss the case as it has no merit. My personal view is that she started off on a wrong foot by throwing around royal this, royal that, title this, title that (do you know who I am and who my husband is kind of attitude), but, at the end of the day, Samantha's case does have some merit and her sister's application to dismiss had none. Stock up on popcorn!
Re. Bea
It is not implausible that with Andrew OUT and Twat most definitely OUT, and with Eugenie, the til now more visible of the York sisters living half-time in Portugal, we will be seeing more of Beatrice on Royal engagements from now on. She does seem to be enjoying a higher profile recently, since the Secret Garden wedding in 2020, which will always be poignantly remembered as one of the last appearances of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh.
Charles wants to slim down the monarchy but the ranks are getting even more slim than he envisioned. The defection of HazNowt has really torpedoed what the RF thought the future was going to look like, had Hznwt married a decent woman and stayed on-side. Like it or not, Uncle Charles may have to call upon Beatrice to step into the breach. When he is King, he will not be calling upon his pervert brother or his renegade son to deputize for him as CoS. Only William and Camilla will be left, and Charles will have to fill his own place on the council. Bea is next. Perhaps this eventuality is in view as she receives more attention lately as the out and about Royal.
She wouldn't have to be a full time 'working' Royal. It's my understanding that Royals not supported by the Sovereign Grant get a 'per diem' for appearances at events to cover their wardrobe and styling, etc. Beatrice does not need the money now . .it's the principle--Eugenie's tainted due to her association with Twit and Twat and the whole Soho House crowd. It falls to Beatrice to try to restore some honor to the House of York, and I hope William will see that if his dad doesn't. Bea seems to be more respectful and warm towards her cousin than little sis.
I love the expressions on both their faces. There's more softness in Catherine's face than we normally see (as she tends to telegraph strength), but I can forgive a degree of romanticizing where she is concerned.
On the other hand, I'm not crazy about the dress the painter chose. I disliked it when she wore it in real life and I don't care for it here. The ruffle on the bottom is too frou-frou for me and the shiny fabric screams "Disco!" For maximum (subjective!) appreciation, I'd cut off the painting a little past their shoulders, so that we still see the Cambridge brooch, but not the rest of the dress.
@Hikari
Body Language Guy Jesus's latest is a deep dive into the composition of the portrait. He praises the technical skill of the artist but says the composition is awkward and terrible. Apparantly W & K should be facing the other direction (viewer's right) to symbolize the future. Instead, they are looking to 'the past'
Mr. Rosas makes an interesting point. I like your take that their facing left is a nod to the Queen's long reign, from which they will surely take inspiration when their time comes.
Speaking of the past, I think that future generations will see Catherine's dress here kind of the way we now see Diana's and Sarah's big 80's jackets and puffy-sleeved blouses. Dated and trendy. But worn by a beloved figure.
And now that I've typed that, it occurs to me that Catherine's usual silhouette, which has been described as a throwback to the 1940s, probably isn't the look she wants to take into the future. It served its purpose when she was still a new senior royal, making her look classic, familiar and stable. When she joined the Queen on engagements, it highlighted her awareness that she was in a supporting role. But she has been breaking out of that old style since the Caribbean tour . . . to mixed reactions. I think what we see in this painting is a hint of her future style. I'm currently not crazy about it, but it will be interesting to watch her evolve further over time.
I like Princess Beatrice's new dress, too. It's a much better fit than the circus tent * once wore. The floral pattern is very romantic, which suits her, too. There's a dreamy quality to Beatrice that I don't think modern styles and severe lines show off very well. In this softer palette, with flowers, she shines a little more.
I would love to see Bea have a higher profile in the royal family and restore some honor to the House of York. Bea has matured into a lovely, caring woman. (I am thinking of how she has accepted and been so loving to Edo's boy.)
In their appearances Bea and Edo represent Her Majesty with class, dignity, and respect.
I find your comment about Eugenie interesting. As usual, your opinion is astute and well stated! As a member of the Royal Family, I would not trust anyone who associates with the Duo.
There's a dreamy quality to Beatrice that I don't think modern styles and severe lines show off very well. In this softer palette, with flowers, she shines a little more.
Agree wholeheartedly. There is an elegance and soft loveliness about Bea that is new since she married Edo and became a mother to Sienna.
I loved her wedding gown made from Elizabeth's gown, her tiara, and especially the sweet picture outside the church with Their Majesties.
Thank you 😋
@CatEyes
Love it
How about
The Liar,
the Witch and her Whor’daub😉
Archetypes anagrams
Rache Spyte
Espy Rachet
Shyte Caper
Psych Eater
Cheat Preys/Cheats Prey
Yacht Pee’rs
Cheats, Preys, Shoves
Will she, won’t she
rehash her Poscast
More hunger games
won’t come to pass
Along with Netflakes
pipe dreams, bagatelle
Archetypical traits
from a mind that’s not Well
Fanatically flogging
her why on the sly
Pushing and shoving her truth
Spotalie…
@Fifi
The only good thing about
Rupert Murdoch, his mother.
Dame Elisabeth,
a true philanthropist,
wonderful woman.
"I think what we see in this painting is a hint of her future style. I'm currently not crazy about it, but it will be interesting to watch her evolve further over time."
Good points about K's style. Honestly though, in some ways I don't know if I want Kate to have "a style." I tend to prefer her in the classics she used to wear (although the number of coat dresses was becoming a little excessive IMO. It didn't matter they were mostly bespoke. They were starting to all look *just alike* despite many being brand new. That was too uniform a style for me.) But if she wears mostly trendy stuff, the look ends up dated like the puffy blouse Diana/Fergie look you mentioned.
While I guess Kate has to be a fashion icon whether she wants to be or not, Anne was considered pretty glamorous when she was younger. And many of the clothes she wore then wouldn't look out of place today. In fact we've seen Anne in some decades-old clothes that look fine.
The VW dress in the portrait will hardly stand the test of time in my opinion. In fact, I think the hem and sleeves will look very dated in 2-3 years, never mind a few decades from now. And the shine is iffy. I don't quite see how Kate can develop a style built on trends. And when I see a style detail on a pricey outfit worn by Kate (or anyone else) whether it's the ruffled sleeve look or hem like here or an exposed industrial zipper or a print look (a particular kind of floral, all-over plaid, whatever) or IMO, odd trouser details like a super wide-leg, I figure if the detail is on clothes at a store like Walmart, that look is not going to last long. And I think this general look can be found at Walmart.
I do like the idea the pose shows them looking backward towards the Queen's long reign. My first take wasn't nearly so warm. I thought they were looking back to check to see if they were being pursued, maybe by H&M. I've seen
worse official portraits for sure but I've seen a few I liked better. So mixed feelings.
Oh, so Samantha's case might still be dismissed. If it does go ahead, it will be very ugly and will be exhaustively covered by media. TBW would put on such an act on the stand, but, like Amber Heard, she may just annoy a jury instead of winning them over. The hapless prince would have to be in court supporting her as well.
A tweet from Delfina, Nacho's wife.
The same pattern - wifey cries victim when she gets criticism or is exposed in some way, and 'friends' are recruited to post syrupy, flattering support for her. This all takes place on social media, which the duchess has claimed she ignores
The duo (and ButterUp, formally known as Better up) have been expunged from this organization, which is still going strong.
This article explores some of the symbolism in the portrait, which has surprising depth to it (the earrings and bracelet belonged to Diana):
https://www.newsweek.com/kate-middleton-first-official-painted-portrait-prince-william-1718388
I don’t know how you feel about tarot. I have never believed in it, but for some weird reason, my Facebook feed has been full of videos from 2 tarot card readers lately. The whole Maggot and Mike saga seems to have been a boon for them. One called Andie did a reading on “Is Eugenie an emotional support for the Queen?” We’ve all speculated what E.’s connection with her renegade cousin and his wife means— If she is functioning as A channel of communication/lifeline for H With the royal families consent, Or whether she’s defying the family by being seen publicly visiting them, having dinner, attending sporting matches, sub letting Froggy Cott etc. I am undecided on this question, but I will say that since discovering how E. has been with the Soho House crowd And that she most probably was the unnamed female person who introduced Maggot to her cousin… Let’s just say I do not trust her motives anymore. When Maggot pulled that stunt at E.’s wedding, I felt sorry for her— Thought it was narc revenge over a tiara, but now I think it’s somewhat more. Some insider signal that E. Would understand relating to their past history with Soho House. I can’t help noticing that Maggot does not touch Bea. It makes me wonder why. If Euge has grievances against Charles and William for the demotion of her father, and her own decreased status thereby— We can only speculate that if Andrew had been an exemplary support to his brother and to the crown with no scandals, along with his equally scandalous wife, perhaps his daughters would be enjoying working royal status and protection which has been denied them. Somehow I don’t think that Charles would’ve been quite so keen to slim down the monarchy and exclude his nieces if he had always had an excellent relationship with his brother. Zara and Peter are not working Royals nor titled, But had she wanted to push for these things, I think they would be working HRHs now and it would be accepted.
Andie says the cards show “traitor energy” in E.— She and Hazmat are aligned. The cynical part of me which does not believe in Tarot thinks That she’s only giving her audience what they want to hear. I do have my doubts about E.’s loyalty. One would expect that Beatrice, the firstborn of the York princesses would be even more upset on behalf of her father and their reduced privileges and esteem as a family. It seems like neither of the York girls were particularly warm or friendly to Catherine when she joined the Firm. But over a dozen years a lot can change. They are all mothers now. But there are recurring rumors that the York sisters are not as close as they once were, and the Sussexes are the cause. The girls were pictured together recently attending a Jubilee Street party and seeming to be as comfortable together as ever.
Time will tell. I wish good things for be in the future, whatever that looks like.
A lot of the commentators on BLG’s channel expressed the same thing—the couple is looking to ‘their’ right. Yes, they are. But the symbolism Jesus is talking about is classically interpreted from ‘the viewer’s’ POV. Therefore according to convention, they are considered to be looking backwards. Jesus also pointed out the detail of the column in the background, which appears at Catherine’s back. He suggested that the pillar ought to be at William’s back, displaying a greater sense of strength. He has studied art and says he paints himself so his comments were interesting to me as I have not had that backgrounds. Catherine has studied art, so I wonder what her impressions are.
The portrait artist is quite a young man, and I get the sense that he was purposely trying some thing ‘modern’ in the realm of Royal portraiture. He was working from photographs, so presumably this image was captured by a camera. The composition does have a much more “candid” feeling than as usual with formal portraits like this which tend to be more static. It’s almost like a William in Catherine have been captured in a moment of amusement. Considering that the figures are quite nearly life-sized, making this a massive canvas, The artist is quite confident in his abilities. I’m sure we will be seeing more from him.
As is so often said here in UK, with a derogatory snort, `Typical!!!'
Her pretensions lead her into areas which immediately expose her lack of general education - hasn't got the sense to ensure she understands a word derived from Classical sources before using it publicly - or perhaps those who could have helped knew it was best not to intervene and to allow her to make a fool pf herself.
Harry is the Trickster/Joker/Fool, but not a Shakespearean one who has wisdom used for advising a ruler but she can never be Wise Old Woman, just an old woman if she's lucky.
Kate and Wills are busy hustling the firm while Harry and Meghan produce nothing for the past 2 years. I think Harry and Meghan showed up to the jubilee because they are desperate and that was their last ditch effort to deliver for Netflix. And the Firm shut that down in an awe inspiring manner of coordination and circling of the wagons. Whether they had any foreboding that they would be booed, they needed to keep the royal connection going and had to risk it. Last chance saloon for them, indeed.
And of course the Democratic party has no use or time for Meghan. Only a fool would believe than can market themselves here as the Duchess of Suck-it and run for office in a land that broke from England to get rid of the titles, among other reasons.
All I see in this beautiful
portrait is William steadfast,
Catherine by his side.
No more, no less.
The same pattern - wifey cries victim when she gets criticism or is exposed in some way, and 'friends' are recruited to post syrupy, flattering support for her. This all takes place on social media, which the duchess has claimed she ignores
This reminds me of the early days, when Sunshine Sachs's other clients would tweet in support of * -- and in condemnation of her critics -- seemingly every time * had a hissy fit over something . . . Well, I can't say I miss them!
Honestly though, in some ways I don't know if I want Kate to have "a style." I tend to prefer her in the classics she used to wear
I enjoyed the coat dress era, though you're right that they soon started to look identical (either the same cut in different colors or different styles in the same color). And I had to agree with critics who wondered why she didn't just rewear things more often. But I also think there's something of the ingenue in the coat dresses that she can't really carry off any longer. I suspect we'll see a lot more trousers and pantsuits going forward. Like you, I hope she sticks with classic styles as much as possible.
With great respect to Catherine, I don't think she understands style very well. (I normally like what she's wearing, but I've been raising my eyebrows a lot more often since we saw her birthday portraits last January.) She definitely gets symbolic pieces and the meaningful use of certain details, but she doesn't seem to know how to make them work for her face and figure. Someone with her tall, athletic body and strong yet blunt features doesn't look very natural in ruffles or other "girly" details. On the other hand, when the lines are too straight (as we saw in her dress, her earrings and her hair at the Maverick premiere), she looks terribly severe. The classic styles were very good on her -- and all the better if they were also a little boring. I sympathize if she's tired of them and wants to wear other things, but it would be smoother sailing for her if she worked more closely with a stylist.
On the one hand, this seems to be right up her alley. Doesn't she want to be seen as a champion of women?
On the other hand, she probably doesn't want to associate herself with any cause that will remind people of her own reproductive issues.
Knowing her new modus operandi, if she does decide to hitch her wagon to this, it will be with actions rather than words . . . if only because actions translate into camera footage. Maybe she'll show up at a protest or something.
someone sending out letter head with her snacks. awwww at least she didn’t write on the food this time. but interesting she did that on her own. no H in this one
Nachos wife posted a glowing tribute to her “friend” but looks more trolling than glowing. Harry’s grey suit has it in twitter (and i am not phone sufficient enough to link it here) a few comments refers to a nickname P wives (polo or peeing in the woods) almost too sugary. and “can you believe this is the only photo we have together) and it’s a pap photo and in it there is some weird shadowing and the duchass arm hanging out there with no known support.
There's a dreamy quality to Beatrice that I don't think modern styles and severe lines show off very well.
I kept thinking you guys were talking about Bea in the museum fundraising dress:
https://news.yahoo.com/princess-beatrice-husband-edoardo-mapelli-183901778.html
She"s stunning.
https://twitter.com/Canellelabelle/status/1540420698014945281?s=20&t=b8WrHA0W7EmstqtyVFTrdA
Nachos wife posted a glowing tribute to her “friend” but looks more trolling than glowing. Harry’s grey suit has it in twitter...
I think this is the tweet.
https://twitter.com/hrrysgreysuit/status/1540445929907421184?s=19
Maybe it's my cynicism, but I don't think this is trolling.
A lot of the commentators on BLG’s channel expressed the same thing—the couple is looking to ‘their’ right. Yes, they are. But the symbolism Jesus is talking about is classically interpreted from ‘the viewer’s’ POV. Therefore according to convention, they are considered to be looking backwards.
I see an issue in the interpretation of "their" right as "forward" for them. It became really obvious when Mr. Rosas flipped the painting so that they appeared to be looking at "our" right: It makes their feet point left, which means they may be looking into the future, but they're actually going backwards! Plus, Catherine has turned her whole body from the future. So even if they are looking to "their" right and "their" future, their body language doesn't make them seem like dynamic leaders.
On the other hand, as figures reflecting on and honoring the past, their body language makes a lot of sense. They are looking at the example set for them, but their bodies are ready to start walking into the future.
Nachos wife posted a glowing tribute to her “friend”
For a few seconds, I hoped it was a private letter and that * leaked the contents and could be sued for breach of copyright!
Re: "my now fellow 'pwife' -- genius of you to come up with this"
How in the world is this "genius"? As nicknames go, it's extremely awkward. ("P" sounds like "pee," is often an allusion to the male reproductive organ, and was the street name for meth when I lived in New Zealand.) We don't even need to recall that story about * taking a leak in the African bush!
If my husband spent a lot of our usual quality time on polo, I might joke that I was a "polo widow" -- and the assonance in that makes it roll off the tongue a lot better. I'm sure @Magatha could come up with a more attractive nickname in no time at all.
That's a beautiful look for her, too! She rocks the headband so well!
If our speculations turn out to be right and Beatrice will soon enjoy a higher profile as a working royal, I'm glad that she is finally dressing the part!
It won't be the British Royal Family that Prince Charles wanted, but it may be the BRF that he truly needs.
"On the other hand, as figures reflecting on and honoring the past, their body language makes a lot of sense. They are looking at the example set for them, but their bodies are ready to start walking into the future."
That is how I interpreted the painting, and the light shining 'from the past' 'lights the way forward'.
If it is a good painting, it invites speculation on meaning, and reveals and conceals hidden meanings. A very good photograph can do the same, but the endless high-quality media photographs we are so used to seeing perhaps do not prepare us to sit still and contemplate a painting that may evoke mixed feelings and thoughts.
From the many excellent commentary posted here, this painting does have the depth to invoke mixed reactions and lively discussion!
But there are recurring rumors that the York sisters are not as close as they once were, and the Sussexes are the cause.
Despite my own feelings about the Dollars and Prince Andrew, I don't think their public sins are the source of all the problems in the BRF. Instead of larger-than-life drama involving movers and shakers from different countries, it may simply be an all-too-familiar sort of inter-family conflict that's taking place.
In the last discussion thread, I shared a rumor from Tumblr that the reason Eugenie is frosty toward her sister these days is that Wolfle, not August, is being treated as Andrew and Sarah's first grandchild. As an unverified story, it's perhaps less credible than a tarot reading . . . and perhaps that's why it was roundly ignored when I brought it up! But for some reason, I do find it credible. If I put more stock in tarot, I'd request a reading on this specific issue!