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 think it's a very significant loan, given that it belonged to the Queen's great great grandmother, (Queen Mary's grandmother, I think?) and is also one of the HM's favorite pieces, worn by her on many meaningful occasions.
Diana's jewels are of course sentimental to everyone, but I think the loan of such an historically important piece speaks volumes.
I definitely am iffy on the portrait, mainly because of the dress, but I think the artist did a phenomenal job, technically. I do think W&K's positioning looks a bit odd, and W looks just a tad bilious, but my God, YES, it is far and away better than Diana's statue. And again, an incredible likeness. Guessing it's even better in person.
Bea's taste has vastly improved (or to be fair, perhaps she's less interested in having fun with her clothes, and wants to look more grown up now) and I bet she's getting tips on styling from some of her in-laws, or one their stylists. French women get all the credit, and deservedly so, but I think Italian style can be even more classically elegant, and they perhaps understand a fuller figure a bit more. She does the Vampire Wife style much better than Catherine.
I adore Catherine's coat dresses, but understand why people might have grown weary of them. Some of the choice to wear them might be weather related; she generally looks as though she's wearing something underneath, and I think I read once that Royal women don't want to be seen removing coats or jackets. (Not sure if this is one of those things HM wants, or a holdover from even further back in history, but it is thought unseemly, as it looks as thought they are undressing)
I don't like her at all in the loose flowy and/or frilly dresses; she does need some structure, and yet, as @Enbrethiliel so brilliantly observes, she can look harsh if she goes too starkly simple. I thought the gold dress worn at the James Bond premiere was a perfect mix of feminine flow, and yet still fairly simple; it played to her willowy figure, but softened the overall look at the same time. She was gorgeous all throughout the Jubilee events, but I especially loved her pale yellow dress at the SoT. A bit of flow to soften an otherwise structured outfit, and of course she is magnificent in an updo and hat. My favorite ensemble to date remains the one she wore to Prince Phillip's funeral. She was jaw-droppingly gorgeous, and everything from hat to heels and jewels was absolute perfection and impeccably appropriate.
Magatha, you bring such fun to what can be very dull days for me, thank you so much! All of you, really; I very much appreciate your insights and snark!
Yeah "pwife" is genius. Jesus, the bar is so low...
Here's what I heard this is all about. Netflix and Spotify were allegedly really concerned about the fact that they were booed at the Jubilee and got a bunch of fucking nothing for Netflix while there. The Jubilee really exposed how disliked Harry and Meghan are. This is something else that is fueling NF and S to try to back away from the Dipshit Duo.
I am almost certain that Meghan's PR, aka Meghan herself, wrote that bullshit and had Delphina post it as a PR exercise to make it seem like people like her. This is also to plug their alleged upcoming Netflix project. I heard part of their documentary, or docu-series, or whatever the fuck [sic] will feature a polo segment, as if the average person gives a shit about polo. Harry and Meghan are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for this. Meanwhile in reality, a place that Meghan has never even visited, the Netflix open-door Sussex documentary is allegedly on the chopping block right next to the gruesome remains of Pearl.
Bottom line is that Harry and Meghan are desperate for content and positive press. They are allegedly realizing how close they are to losing their biggest money-making ventures, i.e., Netflix and Spotify. There has also been some cock up with Harry's book, but I don't know the details about this.
Anyway, the point is that Delphina's post is allegedly driven by Meghan's PR, or Meghan herself, and it is all in an effort to make Meghan appear likable so as not to give NF or S yet another reason to break up with her and Harry.
Thanks for posting SecondhandCoke's take on Delphina's tweet.
Re: I am almost certain that Meghan's PR, aka Meghan herself, wrote that bullshit and had Delphina post it as a PR exercise to make it seem like people like her.
I have to ask: What's in it for Delphina? She just made herself look like a PR tool who is as desperate for attention as her "fellow pwife." (Did anyone else originally read "pwives" the way it's spelled rather than "pee-wives"?)
When those other celebrities tweeted support for * as part of their own Sunshine Sachs obligations, the court of public opinion had not quite made up its mind yet. A few people saw through her as early as the thirsty press release and Mad about Harry attention grab, but most others were still willing to give an inexperienced American the benefit of the doubt. After the booing at the Jubilee, however, it's obvious to anyone that she's PR napalm.
My own theory (knowing nothing of Delphina's character) is that she did it out of genuine goodwill. I'm betting that * has been love-bombing her like crazy, and Delphina just wants to stand up for her poor, misunderstood new best friend. In this case, however, now that the tweet has been posted, the countdown for the inevitable discard can begin!
From the many excellent commentary posted here, this painting does have the depth to invoke mixed reactions and lively discussion!
I agree! It's one of the more interesting topics of late. Portraits didn't use to interest me so much, but royalty's approach to them is changing my mind!
Have our art discussions made any of the Nutties think about how they would like to pose and be dressed in a portrait of their own? :-)
I hope the marriage goes the distant and she and Edo contribute in the the slimmed down monarchy going forward although Charles might be reluctant due to her father's disgrace. I would want to see Bea any day over the 'wiked witch of the west' aka as *. On the contrary 'Just M' gets uglier in deed, demeanor and distraction by the day!
I do not care to watch it.
I get that his younger son, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews might be tempted, but he's got plenty of brass, I would think, and doesn't strike me as being greedy.
Couldn't it have just simply been for the Charitable Funds account into which it was deposited?
Also, I believe Henrietta was quoting an article with the cursing, not doing so herself.
Henrietta, please do not use foul language. Cursing everybody and everything removes any and all intelligence from posts.
I haven't used foul language on the blog. I've posted other people's writing that includes curse words, and I do that purposefully because the original author still has a copyright to their work, blog and all.
I take it you want me to censor their writing?
you realise, don't you, that Henrietta has simply copied SecondHandCoke's comments from reddit and posted them here in italics?
Regardless, I haven't seen anything the least bit objectionable from Henrietta.
Profanity is kind of a gray area. Along with certain body parts. And, some times things get swept into the spam filter for reasons I have yet to figure out.
General take is not to really use them but sometimes a good choice word is like no other, quoting others is traceable (not you editing out women's ankles or similar to protect others), try not to continue using body parts (I thought that conversation had died so I was trying to not revive it so let me explain that thinking) ...
And, if you really find something offensive, you have two, three options:
You can ask moderators to review a particular post.
Scroll on.
Stop reading this blog.
Not attacking other posters.
I post the rules as the first comment for each new post for a reason: to remind people of the rules.
I'm sorry that I missed that. I am sick (have been for two weeks) so I've been a little slow to react.
Hello All,
Nutty and us Mods strive as much as possible to make this a welcome and friendly blog. Please do keep in mind that everyone posts with the risk of potential dissent, criticism, and unpopularity. We depend on Nutties to keep this place respectful and hopefully fun.
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Anonymous posts are not allowed.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject.
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-And, thank you posts are nice.
Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.
Thank you again for all your patience and support.
Moderation still on.
I recognized that you quoted someone else's comment. I appreciate when you and other Nutties post comments from other parts of the internet that we may not have seen.
Yep, I also read it as 'pee-wives', and immediately associate it with the 'peeing in the bush' story from the Botswana love bombing holiday (yes, like you, I love roughing it in the African bush ... not!).
Nacho's and Delfina seem like genuinely nice and decent people. They do promote themselves, but never attack anyone or lie about their accomplishments, and so on. He has done a lot to bring attention to polo, which is what his sponsors want. I suspect that they genuinely like the hapless prince and are not close with the wife. The interactions between Delfina and the wife at polo are few and far between and tell a story of their own!
Maybe the wife had a meltdown about the 'optics' of her from the photographs, he shared the turmoil with his close friends, and they are trying to calm the waters with a SM post, as they move on to the next polo venue and away from the limited (and probably stilted) interaction with her.
Some photos of Catherine and Chelsea together, presumably at polo and at some kind of formal event. The difference between the two young Cs together at polo and TBW interacting with Delfina at polo are striking.
Perhaps the great tragedy in the life of the hapless prince is that he did not marry Chelsea.
If Haz had been the sort of person he’d been promoted as—heroic, dedicated to serving, desirous of a private life in his beloved Africa, passionate about conservation charities and helping underprivileged kids— Marriage with Chelsy, Part of the year spent in her country… Would’ve seemed like the best of both possible worlds for Harry.
But we’ve had ample proof that marriage to H would not be the best of all possible worlds for Chelsy or any woman. They may have been a case of young love, but they certainly wanna different things out of life in the end, And he treated her poorly. Her face at the wedding showed that things were complicated. She didn’t want that kind of life, but it Hass to be hard to watch someone you’ve cared about since you were a girl making the mistake of his life on a global stage. I’ve heard is it Chelsy recently got married … She and Cressida and all the other short term girlfriends can be glad they dodged a bullet. They avoided the tragedy of marrying number six and living to regret it. The real tragedy for H is that he wound up with exactly the woman he deserved. Or maybe the real tragedy is that we can’t go back in a time machine to find that adorable ginger tot and fix what ever went wrong in his little mind before things got to this point.
This article looks at the similarities and parallels between the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and the royals of Montecito. However, there are key differences:
* Edward was king. The hapless one is the spare, destined to slip further down the LOS.
* Edward was not the dumb person that he is portrayed as in modern times. I have watched lengthy interviews with him, and he comes across as intelligent, articulate with clarity, and very knowledgeable about the monarchy. The more the hapless one speaks, the more stupid he seems.
* Wallis was always impeccably dressed, and her jewellery was legendary (unique, very expensive pieces). TBW is the complete opposite.
* Wallis was legendary as a superb hostess as she encouraged guests to speak about themselves (it was never about her) and genuinely listened with interest. She also never waded into expressing opinions about subjects of which she was ignorant (and there were probably a lot of those subjects!). Very different from the self-absorbed grandiose pretentiousness of TBW.
* Wallis had impeccable manners (and posture). She may have been the poor relation of the family, but she learnt high society manners from elite society in America. TBW is lacking in those manners.
* Wallis was hated for her lack of aristocratic credentials and previous marriages. TBW was given a free pass on those issues and even allowed to marry in St George's in a spectacular relaxing of the rules from the Church of England.
* Contrary to the story being told now, Wallis did not want the king to abdicate, nor did she want to be Queen. TBW grabbed those title and a prominent royal role (and had a baby) so fast that it came across as rather voracious ... and then she took the titles and money and the prince and ran.
Of course there is much to criticize about the abdicating king and his American wife, but the Harkles do not come close to the Windsors. Their only plus in a comparison is that they attack his family but have not come close to the breathtaking idiocy of consorting with Hitler (even in the environment of appeasement at the time, so he technically was not a traitor, it was unforgivable).
He doesn't seem to understand that being a scamp and rogue isn't funny when you're a grown man with supposedly two children. It's no longer amusing when you're 37 years old.
Time to grow up, dude.
Also, TBW wanted to monetise her title, and therefore the monarchy itself.
She also seems to want a shot at being Queen, if her own statements are to be believed, for example about being "one plane crash away from the Throne".
Looking back on the raft loads of photos we have documenting H’s childhood, both candid and formal, There isn’t much hint that hairy would turn out like this. Sure, we can point to a lot of pictures where he’s looking sulky, but that goes for a lot of kids. The face is Prince Lewie made during Jubilee weekend will be legendary, and I think he is normally a happy sunny boy. He was just a very small boy and a very overwhelming and overstimulating set of situations. The royal family did a bang up job in managing hairy and keeping his difficulties from being public knowledge, but I think even before Diana died and he became a substance addict and Wildling in his teens, Harry probably suffered from a multitude of emotional and behavioral problems. I think his miss behavior at school probably is rooted in some learning difficulties like dyslexia or other, coupled with ADHD, or the affliction his wife has been armchair diagnosed with… Oppositional defiant disorder. I always laugh at that label when it’s applied to a toddler because what small child isn’t oppositional or defiant at points? The thing is that most emotionally healthy children will grow out of that phase and learn how to regulate their own impulses. It’s called executive functioning and I don’t think Harry has any. Underneath the outer façade of the rapidly aging and dissolute figure, I think in his mind he’s still about 14-year-old adolescent who completely ran wild in the aftermath of Diana‘s death.
His family has a right to feel angry and betrayed, but I’m wondering what they really expected from Harry. The situation that he is in really could not be more of a worse case scenario in terms of getting him to be a functional adult. All of his life, his position and the family wealth has insulated him from consequences for his behavior. Now that he is and cut loose from the firm and his free range in the world with his American opportunist, it’s not like he’s going to suddenly develop life management skills that have eluded him until this point. He is the quintessential Peter Pan, if Peter Pan had been instead of an ethereal sprite, a mean spirited nasty jealous little rhymes with spit. If he had stayed within the Firm, He could’ve continued at Nott Cott, Or perhaps Charles would have bought him a modest pad, In exchange for him continuing to turn up and do royal engagement and they could’ve kept an eye on him. Harry was a liability but he’s an even bigger one out in the world and now everyone can see how the RF has enabled their village idiot for the last three decades. I can’t muster any pity for the gigantic tool he has become. But I do feel pity for the child Who, through twin failures of both nature and nurture, never got the tools he needed to be a successful, contributing loving adult. He is as broken as his wife. Back in the early days, we felt sorry for hairy as an empathic hostage an emotional bondage to a controlling narcissist. I feel now that he has chosen his own bonds… That he is subservient to her Owing to being far less worldly and intrinsically lazy. Also, if his intelligence is indeed childlike and he has been trained to having all facets of his life organized for him, it’s much easier to handover all control to his wife. But on a fundamental personality level, the two are so very alike. I call him Loeb to her Leopold. Another case of a lower functioning sociopath of limited intelligence being controlled and ordered around by a superior sociopath. Watch and see: with their dreams of Hollywood glamour and dominance in the toilet and their shared fantasy in tatters, H Is going to become his wife’s Patsy. When the inevitable announcement comes that the couple has been fired from all of their high profile big money deals, her next scheme to generate attention and a huge payout is going to be a Heard/Depp style divorce trial. She will wait until the queen dies most probably in order to upstage King Charles. Wait for it.
Time for both of them to grow up and recognize that titles do not equal a free pass at life there's o free lunch. Everyone has to work for money including the royals by representing HM.
A tweet from Luca31404488:
"Divorce talk is in the air."
https://twitter.com/Luca31404488/status/1541053689695244290?t=ZanEvRs-USE6eDm1HEQlRQ&s=19
"Word has it that MM plans to tell the world it was Harry who kept her away from her family. He insisted that she cleave into him alone. She will say she is a victim of domestic abuse by an unstable, anger-driven sociopath who isolated her from her family and friends."
She really has a regal mindset, eh?
William confronting someone filming him on a bike ride with his kids at Sandringham on Saturday. Supposedly Catherine can be heard in the background.
What astonishes me is that the idiot keeps filming. No clue that he is completely out of line.
The 'P' of Pwife can also stand for Panooch...
*Panooch* means: Slang word for a famale's private area.
panooch meaning
Pretty much just a slang term for kids who can't say 'p*ssy' in school.
Originating from the spanish word "panoche" A girl who acts skanky or slutty. She is bitchy and backstabbing. (pa-new-ch)
panoochoplasty meaning
Pronounced "pah-new-cho-plass-tea". A procedure used to correct'Cave Crotch'.
What is Cave Crotch? - meaning and definition
Cave crotch is a condition which afflicts the common whore and women who birth multiple children. Cave crotch occurs after extreme stretching of the snatch, rendering it practically useless.
Oh and the last is surely inspired, as someone who has 'yatchted' extensively as Madame may have, surely could suffer from Cave Crotch!
Link for second tweet from Luca31404488
https://twitter.com/Luca31404488/status/1541053601321189377?t=UkllaT6SvHrAEozyuXPRQQ&s=19
William confronting someone filming him on a bike ride with his kids at Sandringham on Saturday. Supposedly Catherine can be heard in the background.
The intro to the video says it was taken during lockdown.
If British law doesn't allow for one-party consent to recording, then this photographer is clearly breaking the law by continuing to film William during the altercation. The way the photographer promises the full video at the end of the clip seems like an implicit threat.
"Word has it that MM plans to tell the world it was Harry who kept her away from her family. He insisted that she cleave into him alone. She will say she is a victim of domestic abuse by an unstable, anger-driven sociopath who isolated her from her family and friends."
Have my fellow Nutties heard the term DARVO before? If not, it's an acronym that stands for: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. If the above is really what * is planning, then it will be a DARVO case for the textbooks!
The video was hard for me to watch. I couldn't finish it. Prince William is so angry at the violation of his children's privacy and probably right that the idiot with the cell phone had stalked them to get that footage. It's doubtful that the guy *just happened to be there*.
I'm sympathetic to those who think that there was one rule for the "elites" and another for the common folk during the lockdowns, and I was prepared to agree with the idiot's point while deploring his methods. But there was such malice in his decision to film them and an ugliness to his voice when he started lying about what he was doing. I can't support him at all.
He wasn't a crusader for fairness. He was a amateur muckraking yellow journalist.
If that video was filmed during lockdown, shouldn't they all, including the person filming, have been at home?
I found the video very disturbing as William seems to be phoning security, which implies that they do not have security with them. Perhaps they feel safe on the private Sandringham estate, but the estate is open to the public in limited ways - just not during lockdown.
I think it is only children who are protected by the law, not adults. Unfortunately adults can be filmed without their consent, unless they are on private property. That may have been cycling on a public access road, so as long as the douchebag with the camera did not film the children, he was not breaking the law. I may be wrong about that.
Supposedly Catherine can be heard talking in the background (I could not hear it) saying (not exact words) that the douchebag with the camera had been seen stalking them at their home.
I used to be convinced that they were heading for divorce, a view mostly influenced by one very accurate tarot reader who foresaw that she would dump him, but, in time, that changed to him dumping her (the tarot reader always saw him returning to live in the UK, with the children).
Now, I am of the view that they are locked into a toxic co-dependency that will last a lifetime.
Bell End
Panooch
Cave Crotch
May I suggest Canoe Crotch aka cave Crotch for aging yacht girls.
* If it was filmed during lockdown, Sandringham was closed to visitors, so how could the person filming have been there? And it sounds as if the person had been stalking the family when he should have been at home.
* People were allowed to go out into their garden during lockdown. Sandringham is one big estate and thus I assume the royals were allowed to wander around the estate, as long as they did not mingle with people outside their household. I assume that royals were not seen out and about in their estates during lockdown because people were confined to their homes and thus could not stalk them. The Wessexes admitted that they would go to Windsor and stand underneath the window for a long distance visit with the Queen and Prince Phillip, and that was not breaking the rules.
@Enbrethriel
I agree that even if lockdown rules were being broken by all concerned, the behaviour of the person filming was unacceptable.
I sympathize with public figures who are always being pursued by photographers, and everyone with a cellphone is a photographer nowadays. But, the law does allow them privacy on private property (which people ignore and celebrities and public figures have to sue if there is a breaking of that rule). I have always believed that they must all always sue and thus make the cost of such photographs not worth the effort.
William is undoubtedly angry, but no swearing or threats, physical or verbal. Admirable!
I would be interested in what the view here is about divorce for the Harkless. (See @Henrietta's post above with the link to a tweet from Luca.)
I am in the “there will be a divorce” camp. If the $$$ contracts are pulled, their money runs low and the mortgage is in danger of default, I believe * will initiate a divorce. One may already be on her drawing board.
People with strong narcissistic tendencies can never admit they have failed, especially in such a spectacular fashion. All the failure will need to be H’s sole fault. A divorce will show that * is separate from all that failure (at least in her own eyes.) it would also free her to find the rich man who will be able to fund her desired lavish lifestyle.
She will paint H as a villain and try to extort a large divorce settlement from the BRF — “Pay me or I will tell the world in excruciating detail just how horrible he and all of you are.”
The Family may just pay her to go away. She and her constant scheming/lying are exhausting. In fact, if they are smart, which they are, the family will pay her and give her a fist full of private phone numbers of rich, elderly single men who feel they owe a duty to the Crown.
For his part, H has never had to be responsible for anything in his life. He gave lip service to “providing for his family” but that is hard work on a daily basis. H is not up to the task. He needs his birth family for financial and personal support, especially if there are two real small children in the picture.
And, what of the children? Sadly, I believe they exist, although they were probably delivered by a surrogate. If she cannot monetize them, * will have little interest in them. They would be much better off living with the RF and their father. Hopefully, the Family can extricate them from her grasp for a reasonable sum.
She still has dreams of being Hollywood royalty, it appears.
Delusional.
I would be interested in what the view here is about divorce for the Harkless. (See @Henrietta's post above with the link to a tweet from Luca.)
If they're talking divorce, then IMO the money has run out. MM probably has some money squirreled away that PH doesn't know about, but it won't be enough for a nanny and a full-time maid -- the two things in the world she probably can no longer live without. I'm no longer sure who will leave whom. But the final break may come when they're evicted from Mudslide Manor.
In my town, people stood well back to let others pass on narrow paths or even crossed the street. We were not supposed to meet up outside with others deliberately, even if we kept 2m apart. Fortunately the roads were empty of traffic so we could hear the birdsong, and it was possible to have impromptu conversations from one side of the street to the other.
William and his `bubble' weren't out of order.
Thanks for providing the fuller context. Restrictions varied greatly in early 2020, depending on where one was in the world. I've always thought that being outdoors, especially in nature, was very safe, especially if people from different "bubbles" kept their distance in the manner you describe. (It has been a while since I've had to discuss "bubbles." The concept seems almost quaint now!)
@Sandie
If, as @WBBM has pointed out, the Cambridges were following the rules just like everyone else was, then the only purpose of filming them was to be an irritating security risk and the only reason to make the video public is to embarrass Prince William. But I think it will backfire. People whose first response to a perceived problem is to whip out a cell phone and to start filming are starting to look obnoxious. They certainly objectify those whom they film, rather than treating them with common decency and respect. That the stalker kept himself safe and anonymous only highlights his hypocrisy.
I kind of wish someone had been there to film him, too -- not just to give him a taste of his own medicine, but also to give us another record of the incident. But would this be stooping to his level?
Anyone have access to Reddit? There is a long post in the SaintMeghanNMarkle thread, by a person who claims to have known her in Toronto since a few years before she met the prince.
Here it is. It's a long post so be patient, guys:
Part 1
u/Lesetoilles
Did anyone else know from the beginning? (Toronto native here with some insight)
I'd like to know if I'm one of the few here who knew right off the bat that Meghan was trouble. And I'm not talking about the wedding, the Africa interview, or even Oprah. I'm talking...2016 unconfirmed rumors swirling around about Harry potentially being linked to Meghan Markle. Let me take you on a journey of everything I thought and believed that has led me to my current-day vindication of those feelings where I see forums like this one.
First off, I was born and raised in Toronto. I knew of Meghan Markle's existence at least a couple years before the met Harry. My sister's friend, who is a freelance writer in the city, heard about an event that MM was either organizing or hosting (can't remember) in Toronto. Consensus about her behavior toward staff was -- and I quote..."she was a scathing b****." Now keep in mind this likely would have been 2014/2015...she was an absolute nobody and there would have been no need to spread mistruths about someone so barely relevant. For me at the time it was just an interesting tidbit about Rachel from Suits. My brother also met her once at a party. Nothing interesting to report from his account lol, just that she was "super skinny" and "looked bored of everyone" and "didn't say hi despite being introduced."
Part 2
Meghan was a regular at an exclusive lounge, Soho House (Toronto location). For anyone who might not know, to get in you either need to know someone who is a member or you have to be a member with a couple thousand dollar fee. As she frequented it, there was talk about her and amongst these whispers was the rumor that she was a "yacht girl" (aka an expensive prostitute). To take this rumor a step further, some actually said afterwards that THAT is how Harry met her. Now I don't know if that's true...but I'll tell you one thing and it's that no fiber of my being believes that BS of a "blind date arranged by a mutual friend." Please. Spare me.
Now onto Cory Vitiello. Meghan loves to correct articles that list dates that overlap the two relationships. I can tell you that the relationships ABSOLUTELY overlapped and she 100% did CHEAT on Cory with Harry. Everyone in Toronto within those circles knew that to be a fact and Cory didn't hide the fact that she blind-sided him. She moved out of his home only after her relationship with Harry became public.
Now why was she even with Cory? Well, she's always been a social climber, we know this. And at the time (after being married to a producer [who] only gave her a few non speaking roles in movies) she was using Cory to elevate herself...via the cooking world. Look up "Meghan Markle cooking" and take notice of all the guest appearances she makes on daytime TV either cooking something, talking about recipes, or even acting as a "celebrity" guest judged [sic] on Chopped Jr. Lol. Who did you think was getting her these gigs? They were all around at that time, it was something.
I would be interested in what the view here is about divorce for the Harkless.
I think * is completely disgusted by the man Harry has revealed himself to be and can barley stand being in the same room with him. But I really can't see her letting go of the title she has by virtue of marriage to him. Not even for a man with ten times Harry's net worth.
If the story about her refusing a huge settlement to back out of the wedding at the last minute was true, then she knows that some things have a certain unquantifiable, ineffable value that one simply can't put a price on. This is so ironic to say where she is concerned, because she started monetizing her royal connection the split-second she could. But even she is savvy enough not to kill what she sees as a golden goose. Without her marriage to Harry, she would be nothing. This must be her greatest source of rage.
What I think she sees as the best possible outcome for her now is to become a widow. A few months ago, I voiced my concern that Harry might be in danger of "accidentally" OD-ing out of depression and wondered if the BRF have a mole in the Harkles' staff to prevent something like this from happening. (His wife certainly can't be trusted to care about him.) But Harry seems a bit happier now, playing polo with Nacho. And * can pretend she gets along with women again , thanks to Nacho's wife. I don't think she wants to lose the connection to Delfina just yet. It is the most glamorous "friendship" she has had in a long, long while! Unless Delfina herself gets repelled by * and decides to keep her distance, she won't be discarded too quickly.
Part 3
Next up: Jessica Frickin Mulroney. It may be hard to believe, but Jessica Mulroney has pull in Canada. She is married to Ben Mulroney (the SON of a former Canadian prime minister). The Mulroneys have associations to some of the highest elite in Canadian showbiz AND more importantly, politics, including the Trudeaus. It is no coincidence that MM would find herself associating with people of this caliber. But most importantly, Jessica is NOTORIOUSLY known for being...horrible. Treats everyone poorly, racist, intolerant, selfish, greedy and spoiled. I (and all of Toronto I assure you) literally jumped for joy when Sasha Exeter exposed her. And have you noticed MM hasn't talked to her since? She was the latest flying monkey to be shelved by the narcissist. She even posted a pathetic Instagram story about "distancing from friends" recently. Lol. But anyway, bottom line, I didn't trust anyone who would be friends with Jessica Mulroney.
So knowing all this about MM, when she started dating Harry, I didn't buy for a SECOND that it was authentic. I already had my preconceived notions about her, which truthfully I think is more than she had because 99% of the world didn't even know who the hell she was. The 1% being mostly watchers of Suits lol.
Then the blind items started pouring in. Take a gander and note how some blind items knew about the Diana angle 5 whole years before MM smudged her eye makeup and gave that Oprah interview and they knew how she would use it to manipulate him:
2016: No dignity.
2017: Rescue me; Vacation ingratiation; Beware the beehive; My iconic fiancee.
2018: Appalling, frustrating and embarrassing.
2019: Wounded little boy; The big plan; Her own game.
2020: Alarming around the children.
Part 5
I couldn't find them all, but I also remember ones about her completely ditching her dogs, wearing Diana's perfume on their dates, and how she had a coffee table book of Diana. In 2017, Ninaki Priddy, MM's childhood best friend for like two decades, gave an interview and shared photos where she claims MM cut her and Trevor off savagely (shelving) but also that MM had an obsession with Princess Diana: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/female/article-5137785/meghan-markle-revelations-friend-knew-best.html. This article from 2018 innocently calls attention to the fact that MM actually wrote about the Duchess of Cambridge on her blog, the Tig, in 2012: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a22727998/meghan-markle-blog-princess-kate/. She refers to her as Princess Kate and there almost seems to be a passive aggressiveness when describing her wedding. I don't know about you, but I think MM's master plan would have been William. He's more her age and he was a mega-heartthrob when she was a teenager. I digress.
Now, despite all of this, I tried to be reasonable, I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. But my intuition was screaming at me: she is a narcissist and she is manipulating him! And step by step, month by month, year by year, she proved ALL my instincts true...
Part 7
--"My family is the family she never had." Until she discards them just like she did her own.
-- He needs to save her, rescue her, she's trying to be Diana...cue Megxit, cue Oprah, cue the me you can't see bombshell where she was going to kill herself and their unborn child if it wasn't for the fact that he "already lost a woman."
-- The fake doe eyes at the wedding and her "duper's delight" smirks in nearly every picture/video of her.
-- Even just the fact that their relationship moved so fast. Dating. Engaged. Married. Baby. Within 2 years. It makes me laugh that she reminded the world of "Waity Katie" (of course with the intention of taking a dig at Kate). William took his time with Kate so she could truly decide if that was the life she wanted. If Harry had any scruples, he would have done the same.
-- This relationship is TEXTBOOK narcissistic abuse and if the roles were reversed, people would be talking about it a lot more.
Anyway that's my rant. I'd love to know if anyone was staunchly anti-Meghan as I was from as early as 2016! Intuition, insight or otherwise?
She's not going to dump him unless she has something better lined up or unless she can earn money money and fame without him.
HE'S going to dump her because she outlive her usefulness for him. He was always looking for a way out of the royal family. He had been saying he didn't like the royal life and he disliked London/the UK. Now that he is out of the royal life and experiencing non-royal life for the first time in his entire life, he's going to go crawling back to the royals before she even thinks about divorcing him. The lack of money and jobs, the booing he experienced during the Jubilee, watching his family perform their duties and get applause and love from the public, he's missing all of that.
She's going to do all that she can to keep him interested in their marriage and prevent him from leaving but no amount of throwing pussy at him or blowjobs is going to wipe away the memories of all that Harry gave up for the life they have now.
Harry whined about getting financially cut off by his father at 30-something years old. He's not cut out for a life of hustling for his cash. He's not the type of guy who can live as a poor man (or a poor man by rich people's standards).
Nothing Meghan is going to do, not even the kids, is going to make a man like Harry who is used to people bowing to him, paying his bills, throwing money at him, etc. stay with a woman like Meghan and continuously beg for jobs or money. The stress from dealing with Netflix, Spotify, and Penguin publishing house is going to drive him up the wall. BetterUp is going to put stress on him as well because he has to continously find new clients for BetterUp. Clients who PAY.
Bottom line: Meghan isn't going anywhere. Harry is the one to watch. He loved to say that he's more normal than his family. Now that he sees the grass isn't greener on our side (non-royals), eventually he's going to place all the blame of this whole Megxit mess on Meghan as he go out the door. The divorce is going to be very messy with Meghan desperately trying to either keep him by her side or sink his reputation along with hers. He's a man-child who will retaliate against all that Meghan say and do to him if his family don't put a lid on him first.
Past behavior predicts future behavior; she's not leaving until she's got someone else lined up with more money than Twit.
But she's been trying for a while now and hasn't managed to snare anyone. If they've run out of money, she may be thinking that she might have to try something new.
I wonder if the children are holding her back. Her ex husband-to-be isn't just anybody. I wonder if having to deal with a royal family for child custody is turning a lot of men off.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10958157/Harry-Meghan-seen-pulling-Oprahs-Montecito-home-weekend.html
https://mol.im/a/10958157 via https://dailym.ai/android
What does the future hold for our Saint?
I want to know what future Madam had envisioned for herself.
Did she really wish to be a wife? A mother?
She was with Trevor for nearly a decade before getting married. Why did she stick with him so long?
It's not like her career started to climb the ladder in the first 3yrs of dating him. Was it financial security?
You hear of jobbing actors working as waiters to pay their bills, but this doesn't seem to be the backstory of Madam. Was this type of life beneath her? Considering she opined that at 13yrs she had to work in a frozen yoghurt restaurant to make ends meet for her family, you'd think laying tables wasn't too difficult.
Did she plan children with Trevor? Because as soon as Trevor remarried the babies started coming.
What exactly did she hope to gain in marrying H?
I recall their Megxit manifesto stated that they were only going to work with A-list directors, but I'm not seeing her name in lights or on massive billboards in Hollywood.
Did she think it would be that easy? Marry the son of Diana and have the world at her feet?
Seeing as the fantasy is not going to plan....what is in store for Madam?
We can safely say that she will disengage from Harry in the near future as he's never going to wear a crown or have doors opened to him in Hollywood. What's happening with his CHIMPO role at Bettercup?
Also he's not being promoted in their recent PR puff pieces. It's all Madam.....polo femme fatale, her "motherly" trip to Uvalde, phone calls and voicemail messages, sweets to mom's fighting for gun control, being "pwife" 🤦🏾♀️, blah blah, blah...
Thoughts...
Part 2
Meghan was a regular at an exclusive lounge, Soho House (Toronto location). For anyone who might not know, to get in you either need to know someone who is a member or you have to be a member with a couple thousand dollar fee. As she frequented it, there was talk about her and amongst these whispers was the rumor that she was a "yacht girl" (aka an expensive prostitute). To take this rumor a step further, some actually said afterwards that THAT is how Harry met her. Now I don't know if that's true...but I'll tell you one thing and it's that no fiber of my being believes that BS of a "blind date arranged by a mutual friend." Please. Spare me.
Now onto Cory Vitiello. Meghan loves to correct articles that list dates that overlap the two relationships. I can tell you that the relationships ABSOLUTELY overlapped and she 100% did CHEAT on Cory with Harry. Everyone in Toronto within those circles knew that to be a fact and Cory didn't hide the fact that she blind-sided him. She moved out of his home only after her relationship with Harry became public.
Now why was she even with Cory? Well, she's always been a social climber, we know this. And at the time (after being married to a producer [who] only gave her a few non speaking roles in movies) she was using Cory to elevate herself...via the cooking world. Look up "Meghan Markle cooking" and take notice of all the guest appearances she makes on daytime TV either cooking something, talking about recipes, or even acting as a "celebrity" guest judged [sic] on Chopped Jr. Lol. Who did you think was getting her these gigs? They were all around at that time, it was something.
Part 6
--"My family is the family she never had." Until she discards them just like she did her own.
-- He needs to save her, rescue her, she's trying to be Diana...cue Megxit, cue Oprah, cue the me you can't see bombshell where she was going to kill herself and their unborn child if it wasn't for the fact that he "already lost a woman."
-- The fake doe eyes at the wedding and her "duper's delight" smirks in nearly every picture/video of her.
-- Even just the fact that their relationship moved so fast. Dating. Engaged. Married. Baby. Within 2 years. It makes me laugh that she reminded the world of "Waity Katie" (of course with the intention of taking a dig at Kate). William took his time with Kate so she could truly decide if that was the life she wanted. If Harry had any scruples, he would have done the same.
-- This relationship is TEXTBOOK narcissistic abuse and if the roles were reversed people would be talking about it a lot more.
Anyway that's my rant. I'd love to know if anyone was staunchly anti-Meghan as I was from as early as 2016! Intuition, insight or otherwise?
did you see the photos? why is the twat in the back seat? and have you seen how different she looks? I thought it was Andie McDowell.
@Holly, yes she is sitting in the back seat. Has anyone noticed that there are no children's seats in the Range Rover? that's unusual for a family with two young children. Most people would remove only the one seat of the two if they needed extra space.
@Henrietta,
did you see the photos? why is the twat in the back seat? and have you seen how different she looks? I thought it was Andie McDowell.
I'm on my phone so I can't really tell how she looks.
There's a rumor on Twitter that "someone" on the Montecito "crew" had some kind of a breakdown. I think it's BS.
https://twitter.com/MaggieMobrules/status/1541346607194570752?t=i8m78rabg6zWjdr_pzlMZg&s=19
Soap Oprah WOW
Back seat Bertha
losing pole position
Neighbourhood Travelling Cants
on a mission
Spinning their lies
more rachist Oprassion
Not happy with pews
or boos at Jubilee
Another OWN goal
for Harpo Whinefree
You area master.
Oprassion. LOL
Great idea! Hope that is what they are doing. If they do another tell all, they may have burned down the final bridge back to the Royals.
Desperation, folks. Desperation.
Interesting. I did not get to see it but do you think that the person filming it may have had some sort of trying to provoke agenda? So, why take it down now?
Oprah's house is a $100 million mansion. The sulky Sussexes live in one worth a paltry $14m. It must really stick in their throat that they are the 'poor relations' in that transaction. Harry was brought up the richest kid in town, and his horrid wife can't stand any one being better off or richer than she is. It's just one minor moment of them being put in their place, and it would really burn them up.
Harry and Meghan hire leftie director to helm Netflix reality show
https://pagesix.com/2022/06/27/harry-meghan-hire-leftie-director-to-helm-netflix-show/
The caption on the DM photo says ?`Janina Gavankar'. Wasn't that the name that came up in connection with the Baby-Sasquatch-Christmas-card photo?
I think Kensington Palace acted to have the video taken down, so that may be one reason. But the person who took and posted the video may be getting a lot of negative comments.
---------------------
They were supposedly at Oprah for only an hour, which is a short visit. Do you know if they were photographed arriving or leaving?
Would Oprah do another, worse whinefest interview full of lies? In my opinion, yes. The duo are flailing in failure to launch, following the grandiose announcements and actions. They would be now wallowing in victimhood and they resort to attack when they don't get what they want. Oprah would relish a chance to attack the BRF yet again.
Why else would they be visiting Oprah? A bit short for a social visit. Much too short to record a podcast or video. Maybe they proposed something and begged to see Oprah so they could try to persuade her?
You already had me at "Soap Oprah," but "rachist Oprassion" really took the cake!
If someone ever accuses me of being anti-* because I'm racist, I can now inform him that what I actually am is rachist. Thanks!
Or were they?
The last pap photo is captioned: "The couple's Range Rover was snapped turning into the 70-acre property late Saturday afternoon." But we don't actually see that. We see the car right outside a closed gate, but no evidence that it was opened to them or that they were allowed inside. It's all smoke and mirrors -- the same trick she pulled when she hired a pap to show her walking into Kensington Palace with groceries.
As for why she's in the backseat, I'm guessing that it's because she needs to be in shadow as much as possible to hide new plastic surgery swelling.
Even * is obviously unhappy about having to stoop to this, as she's currently not looking her best. Otherwise, she'd be in the front seat, for maximum visibility and merching.
I don't know if this is just "manifestation" again or if she needed some quick attention and foolishly tried to get it this way. It would be very unfortunate for her if it were the latter. Oprah may not be as influential as she was twenty years ago, but she's still not someone you'd like to tick off. If Oprah feels she's being used or manipulated, I doubt she'd take that sitting down.
My bet is that we will soon learn that Oprah was wasn't home at all last weekend. Even if she was!
I did not get to see it but do you think that the person filming it may have had some sort of trying to provoke agenda? So, why take it down now?
My first thought at this was that BP made him take it down. If the footage shows a bike trail that the Cambridges take often and is easily recognizable, then the video might be a security risk.
I also think that the damage the uploader wanted to cause has been not only minimal, but more to himself than to Prince William. We were all upset about the restrictions two years ago, which was when the iron was hot. But even then, as @WBBM pointed out, the Cambridges were following the rules.
These days, I think we're more likely to despise those who engage in cancel culture -- like the idiot uploader. There's also a greater stigma now against stalking. I think Prince William got more sympathy than the idiot expected.
https://mysteriouslytransparentwitch.tumblr.com/post/688285114037387264/well-i-looked-with-my-cards-its-meghans-energy
"Well I looked with my cards, it’s Meghan’s energy but the consequences will be harry.
She wants to control the narrative, relaunch something and attract projects and opportunities. Having money…. well nothing new under the sun.
I asked about the consequences of this interview….. Charles will make a decision on the status of power….. as usual, don’t expect an answer from the BRF (long games)
on the other hand the reaction of the public will be slightly different (we come back after the trial of Amber and Johnny) there is something sly that people will notice….
Well, she’s probably going to talk about the intimidation case like everything is fake and it’s to smear her name….
How Lilibeth was cast aside (forget Archi, he doesn’t count)
in short, it’s the beginning of the end for harry and meghan."
I think they were on a public access road at Sandringham when they were filmed. I don't know if the full video included the children. Posting on YouTube could be classified as publishing for commercial purposes.
The following excerpts come from commentary about the law in my country:
"If anyone confronts you on the act of taking pictures, you will need to cease as the law will not favour you as the photographer."
"You may not invade someone’s privacy, once they voice a desire it becomes impossible for you not to transgress. I don’t think there is a court of law that will support the photographer once an individual has stated their objections. As a photographer, you will have to oblige and cease shooting them as you will have no legal standing."
"In summary, while the letter of the law allows you to photograph children, you will need to stop immediately when confronted with any objection, no ifs, ands or buts. Pack up, you are done."
https://digitalphotographycourses.co.za/the-law-as-it-pertains-to-photographers-in-south-africa/
In practice, the law may very well work in the same way in the UK.
@Marnie
The California Birth Index, published by the State of California is online and free. Rachel Meghan Markle was born exactly when she says she was—August 1981. Gives her full name, mother’ maiden name, place of birth. (The Index is also available at Ancestry.com, but isn’t free.)
That she is “older” pops up periodically, but she was born in 1981.
LINK: californiabirthindex.org
He looks miserable and surly, but he often does, and always does when he is papped in the car. He is not contributing to the conversation at all.
The friend in the front is doing all the talking, and is being very expressive. I do not think it is wise of them to listen to this friend.
She looks unhappy and is listening rather than talking. It is noticeably unusual behaviour from her. (By the way, she looks more attractive without the layers of make up.) Something is up with her.
There is a child car seat next to her, and it is covered. I suspect that the daughter may be in the car with them. Maybe she is asleep, or very docile. Or maybe they are playing games and there is no child in the car with them.
As I said above, just over an hour is a short visit, but I suppose it is much longer than the supposed 15 minutes they got with the Queen! Five minutes on each side for arriving and leaving; 5 minutes on each side for greetings, being shown to venue in mega mansion, and 5 minutes of polite conversation each side of being served beverages and snacks ... which leaves over 30 minutes for business.
I don't think Oprah has distanced herself from them at all. She has a busy, self-involved life going from mansion to mansion, and spends a lot of time with Gail (Gayle?). The interview was a hit piece on the BRF. That is how Oprah did the interview, edited it and promoted it. That blind hatred has not gone away. If she thinks she can get more 'dirt' on the family from them, she'll do the interview. (Note also that TBW has to destroy her own family as there is the threat of a court case hanging over her head.)
---------------
It seems they are doing a propagandist reality show on themselves, as rumoured months or more ago. There will be nothing real about it, but the few thousand of the SussexSquad and the few mouthpiece media folk are going to lap it up!
Can't for the life of me figure out why no one has been born in California with the family name "Mountbatten-Windsor." Lilibet should come right up.
this is getting fun. the occupants of mudslide are clearly not having fun these days.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-61965005
I think we can safely say that the Harkles put a tremendous burden on her over the Jubilee w/e. They should rot in Hell.
The California Birth Index . ORG has birth records from 1905-1995. This explains why you can't find Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.
I would think that the official birth records for the state of California would be housed on a .GOV site.
Speaking of reality shows, I wonder how their reality show will compare to the British TV show The Windsors? A spoof on the Royals and very funny.
I think Oprah.2 will happen. I don't know why Oprah wouldn't want round two of the sh*tshow? She's never been a serious journalist and these two numbskulls are still a "get." If this doesn't happen, well they really scr*wed the pooch here didn't they? I'm beginning to think their true talent is in burning bridges.
The California Department of Public Health is the government agency which administers vital records including birth certificates.
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/meghan-markle-in-contact-with-oprah-over-damage-control-interview/290867
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1632111/Meghan-Markle-news-Samantha-Markle-legal-case-defamation-lawsuit-latest-update
"She’s so sick of the negative headlines and she’s desperate to come out fighting with some major damage control.
"Meghan feels as though doing another chat with Oprah is the best way to change the narrative and counter all the negative claims she’s read about herself recently.
“She’s been in contact with Oprah’s people already.”
Doesn't this just sound like her. She sure does want to control that narrative and she can't. Not with Tom Bower's book coming out. Not with Samantha Markle's defamation case moving forward. All of which makes me wonder whether Oprah will play as nice with her round two? I'm thinking not. She might want to repair some of her own reputation after the dents it took from round one. Then again, good, bad or ugly, the Suck-its are keeping Oprah relevant and that's all these cats really care about, end of the day.
PS: I get all the lastest scoop from SaintMeghanMarkle from reddit.
Yahoo News UK
Prince Charles has blown his last chance to win the public over before taking the throne
Omid Scobie
·Royal Executive Editor
Tue, 28 June 2022 at 4:12 pm·5-min read
Prince Charles speaking at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Kigali. (Getty)
.
In a year that saw other royals disastrously bulldoze their way past opportunities to prove their ability to modernise and take accountability for past actions, it has only been Prince Charles who has successfully demonstrated the art of diplomacy and compassion to less able family members.
During last week’s visit to Rwanda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), the Prince of Wales chose not to shy away from uncomfortable conversations about Britain’s imperialist past and historic role in the slave trade. Though CHOGM has often seen painful legacies such as these swept to one side, the heir instead made it his priority to describe the depths of his “personal sorrow at the suffering of so many”.
While he stopped short of the apology that many are still waiting for, his words and acknowledgement of the growing list of countries planning to drop the monarchy showed a willingness to support realms choosing to break away from colonial roots. “Each member’s Constitutional arrangement, as republic or monarchy, is purely a matter for each member country to decide,” he stated.
It was a stark contrast to the failed Caribbean visits by Princes William and Edward, who both caused offence by handling those same conversations with such little tact.
Widening the gap between his peers even further, Charles also admitted he is deepening his own understanding of “slavery’s enduring impact”, later letting it be known that he wants the difficult history of the transatlantic slave trade to be taught in British schools. “He believes there is a fundamental gap in national awareness of the trade, despite Britain’s direct involvement in it,” a source said. About damn time.
Read more: Other royals can’t match the success and popularity of the adored Queen. The jubilee proved it
The heads of state of the Commonwealth. (Getty)
The steps may be small compared to the speed at which society has evolved in recent decades, but Charles’ efforts seem authentic. And while there is an argument that the prince needs to tone down his political views as a future king, I have always found it admirable that, despite the constrictions of his role, he has been unafraid to address issues that others consider too political—from the environment and Islamophobia to youth unemployment.
Most recently, sources close to the next-in-line revealed that he is disgusted at the UK government’s policy to send migrants to Rwanda, calling the deportation plans “appalling”. Though palace representatives later backtracked on the leak, it was clear that Charles wanted his views to be heard. To him it was not about politics, it was about human rights. So it’s a great shame that the attributes that could potentially make him a great king are being undermined by a series of terribly poor decisions made by himself and the people he chooses to keep around him.
The recent news that the prince accepted €3 million from Qatar’s former Prime Minister and billionaire Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani shows incredibly poor judgment given Qatar’s record on human rights
God Save the Queen
God bless the Prince of Wales
God help us all.
I do not believe that paparazzi camp out permanently outside their home. Someone inside called them.
Absolutely. Hope she feels she got her money's worth because they are really crappy photos, especially of her.
He looks miserable and surly, but he often does, and always does when he is papped in the car. He is not contributing to the conversation at all.
Miserable and surly is his baseline, as Jesus Rosas would say. At least Hazza gets to drive himself round in California and has apparently learned to drive on the right side of the road without too much remediation. Driving must be the only 'manly' thing besides polo he gets to do anymore.
The friend in the front is doing all the talking, and is being very expressive. I do not think it is wise of them to listen to this friend.
She looks unhappy and is listening rather than talking. It is noticeably unusual behaviour from her. (By the way, she looks more attractive without the layers of make up.) Something is up with her.
The DM identifies this person as the elusive Janina Gavankar. Is this confirmed? Why would Janina be in the car with them on the way to Oprah's? Makes more sense for them to bring their head of Archwell if they are going for a podcast or an interview. I have no idea, but this person was identified in other sources as their head of content hire.
There is a child car seat next to her, and it is covered. I suspect that the daughter may be in the car with them. Maybe she is asleep, or very docile. Or maybe they are playing games and there is no child in the car with them.
Just one car seat means that Phantom Arch was left behind (again) so Mummy could introduce Lili to Auntie Oprah? She's probably still 'breastfeeding' even though the Lili we saw has a full mouthful of teeth consistent with 18 months at least. Playing games? Hell yes. If this is a business meeting AND they actually have a one-year-old at home, this would be the time to leave her with Nanny, isn't it? Oprah is not a baby person. Unless there's going to be a follow-up about Auntie O. bonding with Lili. Ask me how likely that is.
We've got grainy photos of three people in a vehicle on a street and pulling in/out of a residential area. No PROOF whatsoever that this is Oprah's place. It could literally be anywhere. Even if they are doing a drive-by Oprah's, where security is probably tight--gatehouse guard and all--there is no PROOF, only the speculation that TBW is encouraging that they 1. Had an appointment 2. Were actually received by Oprah for any length of time and not turned back at the gate . . if they were brazen enough to get that far.
I don't think Oprah has distanced herself from them at all. She has a busy, self-involved life going from mansion to mansion, and spends a lot of time with Gail (Gayle?). The interview was a hit piece on the BRF. That is how Oprah did the interview, edited it and promoted it. That blind hatred has not gone away. If she thinks she can get more 'dirt' on the family from them, she'll do the interview. (Note also that TBW has to destroy her own family as there is the threat of a court case hanging over her head.)
I don't know that I can agree. Other sources have been saying quite definitely that Oprah has not returned the Harkles' calls for over a year. The fallout from the first interview as Philip lay dying was so radioactive that it was yanked. I haven't tried searching for it lately but I understand that it's been removed from all platforms. I don't think the Queen of all Media O was expecting that kind of backlash, but the toxic duo has splashed back on her. Oprah is still a billionaire or close to it even in the twilight of her influence. I can't believe she'd think there was anything to be gained by associating with the Harkles again. I'll believe it when I see anything come out of this 'meeting'.
I think this is very possibly more of her projection. She's trying to force Oprah to meet with them by preemptively releasing the publicity that it has already happened. Shades of 'birthday party/baby shower', etc. Also, it is a not-so-veiled threat to the RF. They are still enraged over the booing and the refusal to be received by any of the family. This is their "You booed us and ignored us. You are going to be sorry."
Ho-hum. So boring, so 2021. Let's see. If Oprah truly is involved, then she's way stupider than I gave her credit for.
Interesting thought there. Supposedly they have been filming a propoganda documentary on themselves. Maybe they want footage from the Oprah interview for their show? But would they visit her at her house to ask for that ? (I am sure they would not want to pay to use footage from the interview, so there would be some begging and manipulation involved.)
It's pretty obvious that if Oprah had been willing to see *, there would have been no need for this stunt. Instead of these photos, we'd have a proper leak from "a source." (Ideally, "a source at CBS.")
Even * is obviously unhappy about having to stoop to this, as she's currently not looking her best. Otherwise, she'd be in the front seat, for maximum visibility and merching.
I don't know if this is just "manifestation" again or if she needed some quick attention and foolishly tried to get it this way. It would be very unfortunate for her if it were the latter. Oprah may not be as influential as she was twenty years ago, but she's still not someone you'd like to tick off. If Oprah feels she's being used or manipulated, I doubt she'd take that sitting down.
My bet is that we will soon learn that Oprah was wasn't home at all last weekend. Even if she was!
I concur. If O were foolish enough to still have business dealings with the Harkles--considering how the first interview was received--she'd insist on controlling the release of information that it was happening. O's terms, not *'s. * delusions of self-importance are so great that she doesn't recognize a superior Narc when she sees one. I think O is an absolutely cold-blooded self-promoter who's created an empire based on the trauma/victim narrative, and she's able to skillfully project empathy with her audiences. I'd like to see H.G. Tudor deconstruct Queen O. I think she's in the top grade Ultra class, along with himself. Superior specimens of *'s kind are laughing at her, poor little Midrange without an ounce of self-awareness. It's hard not to view that interview as Oprah trolling * while lobbing the softballs. "WHAAAAT?" It became like vaudeville.
Would O really put herself forth again as a Harkle collaborator to poke the Royal family with another sharp stick? Depends--does O report to other masters (yeah, I'm leaving that stand) that have a vested interest in taking down the monarchy? The age-old debate. What's in it for Oprah by producing a sequel to her first hit piece on the RF? O's not gonna do anything that doesn't benefit O. She and * have that in common.
IF (a big IF in my opinion) Oprah had agreed to see them to discuss anything, once the Backgrid photos hit the papers, I'm guessing any deal would be off. Oprah doesn't get dictated to--she does the dictating. Papp photos crowing about "Going to Oprah's!" wouldn't be met at all well, methinks. It's the same childish very high-school clamoring for attention that propels a kid to drive by an ex's house in stalker mode. That's what * does--she stalks people.
It's desperate and sad . . will it be effective? We'll see. I sincerely hope that Charles has seen enough sense to ensure that Hazmat is not receiving one red farthing of allowance in any form. Not a cent. Once H burns through his inheritance, the RF have to be prepared to see papp shots of H living in a cardboard box on the street and not intervene. He's wasting so much money on lawyers, even a large fortune is not going to be infinite. How much do they spend on security? The wife's cosmetic surgery bills, clothing and jewelry have to be astronomical. H hasn't hit bottom yet but when he does, it's gonna be ugly.
@Henrietta
The California Birth Index . ORG has birth records from 1905-1995. This explains why you can't find Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.
Thank you for letting me know.
Tip: Just scroll past all the coding.
If you want a good laugh ... this is a person's attempt to get Wikipedia to change the photo used to one where she is royal and to change the caption from 'Meghan Markle 2018' to 'The Duchess of Sussex'. (The request was recently made, after she lost the HRH.) The Wikipedia person gets very obstinate and argumentative, and just does not want to change the photo used (must be in public domain, must be a suitable photo, Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie don't complain...)! I find the lengthy exchange hilarious! (The Duchess of Gloucester is a full-time working royal, which the person complaining to Wikipedia does not seem to know.)
I don't understand of someone filmed the Cambridges and their children during lockdown why this is coming out now. Apparently it's not illegal: "It is legal to take photographs in public, even of other people or children, without the permission of the people in the photograph (or their parents, in the case of children). There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, so others cannot expect to be free of all photography."
https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/illegal-take-pictures-minors-permission-uk/
@Hikari said
"She's probably still 'breastfeeding'". I highly doubt * would/did breastfeed her children. Firstly, a bit difficult if she wasn't pregnant in the first place and breastfeeding is hard work. You also need to be really dedicated to your baby, which doesn't sound like *. So much easier to let a servant give the baby a bottle!
The piece written by Scabies, looks like Twat and Twit's attempt to butter up Charles for $$$. The trashing of William won't work, because the RF is not going to be torn apart by the Sukkits. Those two are a perfect match, both 13 years old emotionally. Both stunted, both personality disordered.
And they got loudly Booed for all the world to hear. Lots of nails in their coffin, but that's the one they can't deny.
The breastfeeding bit was me being satirical of course. One cannot breastfeed without giving birth and I will never believe the Duckarse gave birth. At least not in 2018 or again in 2021. Someone may have. The inclusion of a baby seat in the vehicle is more of her Mommy bluff IMO. Super easy to buy an infant car seat and throw a blanket over it; Proves nothing.
What's in it for Oprah by producing a sequel to her first hit piece on the RF?
And there's the question! Given how poorly the first interview has done and how unpopular the Dollars have become since then, there is nothing in this for Oprah.
I'm a little surprised that she hasn't done anything to distract from that since then. Maybe I'm just used to *'s shenanigans of giving us a quick, shiny distraction to cover up a recent mess, and Oprah has a different playbook. But if I were someone with Oprah's career, I wouldn't want the Dollar interview to be the last thing people remember me for.
And perhaps she's already on it and just has a greater ability to delay gratification than * does. (It took her two years to distract us all from After Neverland.) Perhaps she's thrilled about a certain US Supreme Court decision this month, because she can produce something about that in time for its anniversary next year. Like clockwork.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDHYlQYlzVE
He says that Harry had genuinely hoped that having children with * would recreate the loving home he once had with his mother. He is sorely disappointed in this area. And if the relationship weren't so public, he would have left * already.
Harry is also witnessing the way * behaves with "a sibling" and thinks she's "f***ing crazy" for being so mean and petty. (I had to laugh at that.) It actually triggers him because it makes him think of his own family.
Antphrodite says that Harry would be happy living on a farm with a bunch of kids and just enjoying life, and he thought * wanted that, too. But what she really wants is the last word. (Antphrodite says this a couple of times and it's such a precise encapsulation of all of *'s motivations.)
In general, it's very interesting to me that Antphrodite, who pays no attention to the Dollars outside of an annual reading, got a lot of the same impressions that we Nutties, with all our research and eagle-eyed attention, have shared here.
Apologies if another Nutty already posted this!
Agree pretty much about breastfeeding. But if they used a surrogate, she could have taken hormones to be able to breastfeed. I have wondered if that's why she looked so puffy after Archie was born. Admittedly we hadn't seen her since March, but after a very long public pregnancy with all the coat-flipping and bump shifting, she never gained weight or looked puffy in any of the expected places until after the baby was born. And despite her claim to those teenagers that she was still nursing Archie in the fall in SA, the breast-binding dress she wore to the Lion King premiere in mid-July says otherwise. (That dress looked painful to wear. Ugh.) So even if she breastfed Lily, I doubt she still is.
Wow, Gloria Steinem, a woman I've always admired, has really drunk the Meghan Kool-Aid. It's a reminder of how enormous the effects of a sociopath can be. All her contributions in this interview are incredibly "light." She really couldn't speak to black women's rights at all.
Also, the way she referred to her miscarriage: She couldn't even come right out and say, "I've had a D&C because I needed that medical procedure after miscarrying. Thank God I didn't need two fetal specialists to approve the procedure before I could have it." (Pretty sure those are the terms that are now law in Arkansas, assuming MM carried into her second trimester.)
Twit must have been driving at 5 MPH to make sure the pap gots lots of photos.
The Body Language Guy also pointed out that the photos were taken with a long-range lens. You don't just have that lens ready on your camera and then have a bunch of perfect photos unless you knew it advance your subjects would be there.
From The Telegraph:
Meghan pledges to take on US Supreme Court over Roe v Wade abortion ruling
The Duchess of Sussex said the reaction to the ruling in her house was “guttural” with “feminist” Prince Harry equally despairing
Can any of our Nutties with a Times subscription let us know how the comments are going? This is such a hot-button issue in the U.S.; MM jumping into it with both feet has got to be making waves among Times readers.
A miscarriage is not an abortion, so I do not know why that is even mentioned.
The lack of intelligence in her arguments is quite astounding, but I won't derail the thread with an exposition about the issue that is not simply about women's rights to choose.
Mutter and Nutter
Mal & Prop
and their ‘gutterul’ sounds
Dogberryism
from the ‘utter bull’ hounds
Canis-anus
and Mega-horus
Should ditch Witchionary
and consult
Thesaurus…
-----
He comes from a famously private family, she was a Hollywood actress, so Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were always going to have different ideas of how much is too much. And now that issue is coming to a head as they increasingly rely on TV and tell-all book deals to make a living.
The couple looked as loved-up as ever at the polo last week, but insiders tell heat they’re at odds over the subject – with Harry said to be desperate to scale back the attention, while the former actress has told friends they’re just getting started.
“Harry did dial back on some PR engagements and filming commitments,” says an insider close to the 37-year-old Duke of Sussex, who quit royal duties in 2020 to move to California with the former Suits star. There, they scooped up a $100million Netflix deal and gave interviews slamming their old life in the UK. “It feels like it’s all become too much for him, especially with the Netflix crew everywhere. He’ll be so relieved when it’s over.”
Meghan, 40, and Harry, who are parents to three-year-old Archie and Lilibet, one, have previously been open to TV interviews, with the pair causing controversy back in March 2021 with their infamous Oprah Winfrey tell-all. Harry’s since appeared on The Late Late Show With James Corden and the Today programme, while last year, Meghan did a skit with comedy actress Melissa McCarthy in honour of her 40th birthday. They’ve also been filming a behind-the-scenes documentary about the Invictus Games called Heart Of Invictus, for Netflix, as well as working on a rumoured docuseries about their family life in California. But now, we’re told, Harry’s had enough – especially after seeing his family at the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee a few weeks ago.
“The frosty reaction he received from William and other members of the family really alarmed Harry,” says the insider. “He was embarrassed and felt no one wanted to be seen with him. It made him want to get away from the spotlight and focus on his charity work. He’s worried all the endless TV interviews are starting to look a bit tacky, and it feels like he’s drifting away from the reasons he and Meghan stepped down from the royal family in the first place.”
But his wife of four years is apparently not on the same page. “They’re really at odds over this,” says the source. “Meghan feels like they’re only just getting started with their showbiz work.
She’s already preparing for their next big TV show and wants to collaborate with Oprah’s network to give people a look at the more glamorous aspects of their lives. She’s even considering going down the reality TV route. In fact, the Duchess has been getting advice from her friend Oprah, 68, who’s got all sorts of plans for the couple.
The source continues, “Oprah thinks a reality show is a great idea. She’s pointed out that many of her own fans thought of her talk show as trashy, but now she does renowned interviews with legendary figures in her perfectly pruned rose garden. There are really tasteful and classy ways to do reality television now, without looking like the Kardashians.
She suggested Meghan let cameras in when it comes to her getting ready for top world events, catching a glimpse of her dress fittings and discussions with designers. Meghan loves the idea and is increasingly frustrated about Harry’s lack of enthusiasm. She is adamant that they can’t pass up these golden opportunities.
“They could be the most famous couple in the world – why would they turn that down?”
This is how Ancestry describes the source for the CA Birth Index:
Source Information
Ancestry.com. California Birth Index, 1905-1995 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005.
Original data: State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Sacramento, CA, USA: State of California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics.
Description
This database is an index to over 24.5 million births occurring in California between 1905 and 1995. Information contained in this index includes: child's name (names may be truncated at 8 letters), gender, birth date, birth county, mother's maiden name (names may be truncated at 8 letters). Learn more...
Bettina Thwaite
1 HR AGO
Before jumping on the passing bandwagon perhaps Markle should actually sit down & read the SC judgement. They have not banned abortion. What they have done is examine the Constitution with a fine tooth comb & found nothing in it relating to abortion. Thus Roe v. Ware is irrelevant & so they have scrapped it passing the decision to e#ch individual state for voting. It’s called democracy. Markle should try it sometime.
Jack Jones
1 HR AGO
I am puzzled as to how Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor plans to “take on” the US Supreme Court. Delusions of grandeur, perhaps? The US Supreme Court has not outlawed abortion it has reversed what a number of legal commentators in the US have conceded what was a dodgy ruling 50 years ago and returned abortion laws to the States Legislatures. If protestors want to change minds they need to be camping on the doorsteps of the state legislatures. Parading around Washington shows how silly they are.
Stephen Glover
1 HR AGO
She probably makes Harry wear a tampon when she is on her period so that he can appreciate women’s suffering.
Dave Garver
1 HR AGO
And he probably enjoys it.
Dave Garver
1 HR AGO
She’s an incredible moron who is, as usual, on the wrong aide of history.
Just more pressware intended solely to keep her and the idiot “prince” in the news. EDITED
Hugh Oxford
46 MIN AGO
Jesus Christ. I know they’re being bankrolled by the neoliberal global corporations but they don’t need to make it this obvious. Thank God they are being ostracised from the Royal Family, because if they weren’t it would be catastrophic for the monarchy.
Angus Edmonton
34 MIN AGO
Poor Megan's confused TV with reality again, someone should explain to her that acting on Suits does not make her legally qualified.
Bidita Sadiq
6 HRS AGO
How’s your father been Meghan?
EJ
Emily Jensen
2 HRS AGO
And how is your one brain cell?
5 HRS AGO
Feelings, not facts, for the Leftwaffe!
Alexandre Zagoskin
6 HRS AGO
I'm afraid, "guttural" doesn't mean what she thinks it means.
Jonathan White
6 HRS AGO
I like to think of this as a cry from the gutter.
Daniel McGrath
6 HRS AGO
"Nobody should be forced to make a decision they do not want to make, or is unsafe, or puts their own life in jeopardy,”
Many 'liberals' are coming out with statements like this right now, conveniently forgetting that they were screaming for forced vaccination a year ago. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Camlock Trelawney
6 HRS AGO
Liar spots bandwagon. Decides to get on.
P Sutherland
6 HRS AGO
Let's just be thankful that by marrying each other they made two people miserable instead of four.
Top Flat
6 HRS AGO
Very good. And she had already made her previous husband happy by leaving him.
Chris Beasty
4 HRS AGO
This is beyond the pale. How can we have effectively a branch of the Royal Family in exile campaigning for constitutional amendments in the US whilst spreading bile and hatred against Britain?
Kick them out of the succession and whilst we’re at it, do the same to Andrew.
Daniel Lo Presti
6 HRS AGO
"This moment requires unity—really listening to people, " ...... who share exactly the same ideas as me!
(Everyone else is a fascist by default, naturally.)
P M Bosworth
6 HRS AGO
When will that attention seeking harridan shut up? Nobody is interested in what Meghan Markle thinks. She is just preparing herself for the role of President of the USA - what a complete joke! How does anybody take that ghastly woman seriously, and as for “feminist” Harry - laughable fools.
P M-G
3 HRS AGO
Meghan really doesn't understand the reason the Supreme Court overturned the Roe vs Wade judgement.
Just for her benefit — the US Constitution does not say anything about abortion rights, so it wasn't in the remit of the Supreme Court to overrule the State laws.
That's why it's handed back judgement to the various States. The Supreme Court has not prohibited ANYTHING — it just wasn't a Constitutional matter.
Even a more genuine fighter for women's rights, like Ruth Bather Ginsberg, understood the weak and unsafe 1973 judgement.
Meghan had better understand what's being debated before rushing in with her woolly-haired brain.
That must have been $$$$ for Sunshine Saxs.
Yes, you were being satirical re breastfeeding, I should have known. I should have known not to post when very tired!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle hire Oscar-nominated, left-leaning director of The Handmaid's Tale to shoot their Netflix docu-series
Prince Harry, 37, and Meghan Markle, 40, have hired a director for Netflix show
* Oscar-nominated, left-leaning director Liz Garbus will helm their docu-series
* The filmmaker was seen with the couple last September during New York trip
* She was previously due to work on Duchess' series Pearl before it was scrapped
* Comes after the Duke and Duchess left Netflix 'dismayed' with Jubilee 'failure'
So they were 'dismayed' with the Jubilee failure? It goes to show how ignorant and unrealistic they are.
Good luck to the filmmaker, not even the best could help. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
https://tinyurl.com/2p85z638
Jurisimpudence
Next on the rounds
For the guttural nouns
A political stance
On Oprah perchance
Doria and Gloria
cohorts on the panel
Supreme courting
more bull dust and flannel
Oprah may end up
aborting her OWN channel…
@DesignDoc@GWAH
@Enbreth
Cheers, glad you’re enjoying
the Megabites ☺️
Dash-Scam
Back seat driver
doesn’t look all there
Wearing no makeup
and sporting her own hair
No-one can fathom
what’s going on here
But don’t be fooled
‘twas all led by the rear…
As I understand it, if you’ve suffered a miscarriage in America, in some states having a D&C afterwards counts (in some way) as an abortion (I stand corrected if I’m wrong) I have absolutely no idea why. Plus Arkansas has a ban on all abortions including cases for rape and incest victims, Texas and other states might have the same new ruling.
Even if Maggot was still a respected working member of the royal family, she’d still be way out of her jurisdiction to say anything about the Supreme courts move. It’s absolutely not her place to get involved. 🥴
@Sandie
Thanks for the Hear,
or was it Heat, article😙
Sounds plausible.
@Rebecca
Thanks for the Telegraph
comments.
Loved “Leftwaffe” hahaha!
@Enbreth
Bit late re Pwife,
how about Polho?
Kist by Fate
Sorry US Nutties
but I’d like to see
Madam running
for Presidency
All her past life
wiped clean from the net
Miraculously re-appearing
by the hand of Kismet…
Guttersnipes/Analwipes
My gutterul reaction
to their verbal infraction
Was to growl, choke
and then spit
Meh’s misunderstanding
blame all on her handling
Lacked reason, and wit
full of s*it…
Someone needs to step up to 'take the stage' and encourage critical thinking, intelligent debate, and democracy over 'influencer' dictatorship.
I doubt the article from Heat magazine, even though it rings true. There have been rumours for many months that they are doing a reality show, and why else would they be filming everything they can?
Ironically, if it is true that Oprah is encouraging them, then she realizes that they are without talent or intelligence or the likeability to gain power, so ... do a reality show and persuade yourself it is a classy thing to do! But does Oprah realize that they are not very entertaining? She always was, and she worked hard and has a very good business sense and was well liked by a lot of people.
I still suspect that Oprah is doing something with them ... an interview or a special show around the abortion issue.
Check this one out:
Does Archie Exist? by Andie
https://youtu.be/2w3Fv3Ac33U
I think the bottom line here is the Suck-its have no real charisma and no product to sell. Oprah, on the other hand, created an empire because she does have charisma and talent. She can give them all the pointers in the world, but they have to have the ability, the talent to take it home. And they don't cuz if they did have the Brangelina magic they always thought they had, they would have dominated the news these past 2 years. That's the rub here. They only have the alliance with the tiny woke base, which admittedly have been able to punch way above their social relevance for some time. But the tide is turning and the public was but briefly enchanted by the fairy tale that played out in a way only the Firm can pull off. They mistook their moment in the sun for reality and caught a royalty high all out of bounds with reality.
I see Meghan is still cosplaying political ambitions with Gloria. Yes. Do run for office. We'd love to see you answer questions live and take questions from real people.
POLHO! I'm dying!!!
* Comes after the Duke and Duchess left Netflix 'dismayed' with Jubilee 'failure'
So they were 'dismayed' with the Jubilee failure? It goes to show how ignorant and unrealistic they are.
As far as the rest of the world was concerned, the Jubilee was a huge success. It was intended to celebrate the Queen's 75 years on the throne and it did exactly that -- to great fanfare throughout the nation and with active participation by most of her beloved family members.
To call it a "failure" betrays a different agenda.
A thank you as abortion politics appears to be moving into their future plans. It is a tricky topic all by itself before they touch it.
I appreciate the tiptoes around not slamming the various sides of the arguments. I suspect we will be seeing/hearing of increasing involvement. So please keep up the good work as how they chose to handle it is not a forbidden topic in my mind.
Well done. And big thanks.
"As I understand it, if you’ve suffered a miscarriage in America, in some states having a D&C afterwards counts (in some way) as an abortion (I stand corrected if I’m wrong) I have absolutely no idea why."
That's not quite my understanding although I could be wrong too. Here's what I do know.
1. D&C is a common method of early abortion.
2. Sometimes a D&C is needed after a miscarriage. Not always certainly. Sometimes things can be allowed to proceed naturally. Some doctors have said they worry they'll be accused of doing abortions if they do D&C's after miscarriages now. AND sometimes when "miscarriage D&C's" are done, the non-viable fetus still has a heartbeat. Some states already had "heartbeat laws" re: abortion on the books so I'm not sure what effect the recent ruling has.
I'm not surprised MM is jumping into this but I find it gross. As usual too, as @Sandie notes, MM tends to misrepresent the facts. And I'm not sure how she thinks she can "take on" the Supreme Court. I'm sorry Gloria S is willing to associate with her. But I guess that doesn't surprise me either. While she was relevant in the 70s and 80s, before MM sat in the yard of a borrowed house with her last year ("cue the dogs") I couldn't have told you if GS was dead or alive. And I suspect that was true for many Americans. For some reason she seems to want to be back in the spotlight even though I think she is largely irrelevant.
D&C = Dilatation (opening the mouth of the uterus with instruments, (ie forced `dilation) and Curettage (scraping off layer with instrument called a curette), done under full anaesthetic, now largely replaced by other techniques.
Can be performed after a miscarriage to ensure no extraneous material left behind to cause trouble later. If done on a pregnant woman it'd certainly cause an abortion.
See
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/dilation-and-curettage/about/pac-2038491
Despite the masterful containment done by the RF over the Jubilee, the fact remains that the two are an international embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen. This latest is beyond the pale, and is far worse even than cosplaying grief at a murdered children's memorial or tromping through a veterans' cemetery in couture. Harry has already insulted the American government by calling its founding principle "Bonkers". Now his wife is going to harass the nation's highest court over the hot-button legal matter of the last 50 years?
Truly, HM created a monster when she created that one a Princess of the United Kingdom. If she were just Markle, unemployed actress with a regular deadbeat husband banging on for attention and posing as a celebrity, she'd be excoriated. But she is, as long as Harry lives, a Princess and a Duchess and appears to be to some degree, Teflon.
A publicized vote in Parliament on the matter of removing the titles from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be a fine rejoinder to all these threats she's making. And it's what the people want. Would Netflix, Spotify, BetterUp, Penguin et. al be keen to work with just "Harry and Meghan W."? If Boris hurries up, he can convene a vote and get it done and dusted before the release of Hazmat's book. I'd love to see Penguin et al slapped with injunctions that they may NOT market any materials whatsoever branded with any form of Prince/Duke Harry and his Duchess. Penguin would have to redo all the book covers to say 'by Just Harry'. Bye bye any 'Royal' stuff for Netflix.
Time to bring out the big guns, Ma'am.
There is a huge difference between elective abortion and a medical need for D&Cs, and while technically the heartbeat laws could be used against providers, those scenarios are brought up as scare tactics, much in the same way that the other side uses legislation allowing for post-birth abortion as a scare tactic. Although allowing abortion up to the point of dilation is actual law in some states, albeit not Arkansas. Also FYI, the governor of Arkansas does want rape exceptions, but the legislative branch ( many of whom were voted in based on their stance on abortion) have refused to include it.
As someone upthread said, * never met a leftist bandwagon she didn't like. That article was so vapid, I wondered if she had written it herself. It seemed to me to be less about the issues at hand than some sort of story time about how * and GS met. Did anyone else feel like * was rather stalker-ish in how she went about that, by the way?
Not sure what to think about Harry being shocked at the frosty treatment he received during the Jubilee. I don't recall it being all Happy Families at the DoE's funeral, so he had to have had an idea of how his family felt. I think the shock might have come more about things like how precedence was ignored in the seating arrangements at the church, or else it's just a load of their usual codswallop trying to make themselves look like victims.
I skimmed most of the page, but one aspect of the page I find very interesting is the Filmography. You will notice that most of her jobs prior to Suits are for 1 episode of television shows except as the suitcase girl on Deal or No Deal (34 episodes) and a few television movies. Hardly a *star* television actress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex
Perhaps can join Nacho and wife as a throuple. According to the tabloids, it us a "thing" with the trending types. That may be frowned upon in South America. If the wailers are evicted from Cali camp crazy, perhaps they can spend time in Buenos Ares. M can annoy the RF with topless thing pictures while H gets friendly with the locals.
@Magatha
You’re welcome! It was kind of a slapdash effort on my part in the middle of the night. “Straight to comments” is my new mantra when it comes to reading about the grifters.
@Sandie
The Heat article really does sound plausible. The sad thing is, a divorce might really launch Her into the Kartrashian stratosphere if she were to refuse to sign an NDA (which would rule out a mega-settlement but maybe she’d rather be unfettered in the Hollywood cesspool.)
-----
This from the woman who has only managed one podcast in 2 years, and nothing for Netflix.
@Sandie,
As I understand it, if you’ve suffered a miscarriage in America, in some states having a D&C afterwards counts (in some way) as an abortion (I stand corrected if I’m wrong) I have absolutely no idea why. Plus Arkansas has a ban on all abortions including cases for rape and incest victims, Texas and other states might have the same new ruling.
Even if Maggot was still a respected working member of the royal family, she’d still be way out of her jurisdiction to say anything about the Supreme courts move. It’s absolutely not her place to get involved. 🥴
Her Royal Hiney tried to ride to fame and fortune over the bodies of dead children at Uvalde because she felt for them 'as a mother'. Now she's trying to ride to fame and fortune over the corpses of infants. Such a motherly thing to do!
There is an incredible amount of misinformation being promulgated about the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade. It was never legally correct for the Federal government to be the regulator; this was/is a state's issue. People overseas should think of the states as 50 separate countries with their own economies, their own tax system, their own governance, and their own laws. If abortion is limited or not allowed, that is because the citizens of those states voted for those restrictive laws.
Many of the states have reverted to their state statutes on abortion that existed before Roe vs. Wade until they decide otherwise/revise the laws. Some of the states (such as Florida) had already severely limited the time frame for abortions.
Maybe H will find someone else. Male or female. If he us gay/bi, coming out with a new "partner" could change the narrative.
Perhaps can join Nacho and wife as a throuple. According to the tabloids, it us a "thing" with the trending types. That may be frowned upon in South America. If the wailers are evicted from Cali camp crazy, perhaps they can spend time in Buenos Ares. M can annoy the RF with topless thing pictures while H gets friendly with the locals.
Ew, ew, ew, ew! There is not enough bleach at Walmart to disinfect my mind's eye!
The D&C I was referring to, was the medical need after an incomplete miscarriage, that is to ensure no infection can set in etc. It was just something I’d seen many American’s refer to regarding possible problems and the (new) laws in some states, but not necessarily to Arkansas. 🥴 Many thanks for the clarification though.
Hypothetically speaking or otherwise, I think if Maggot is going to go anywhere other than California, it will be New York City…she craves the attention far too much….as gorgeous as Arkansas is and anything else….it’s far too quiet for her. 😕
So one of the sugars posted:
"Princess Meghan is a true inspiration. She's the new Diana."
Immediately the mind thought up: Oh? Really? Is she also going to die unexpectedly in a car accident soon too?
Sorry. My mind just went there and laughed at the how the whole thing is wrong once we get past the inspirational part (thanks to the smart people here who taught me why it is Princess Michael).
All of a sudden this week what shows up in my Facebook video feed but 'Scenes from 'Suits''
This must be based on my searches for Twat-related videos on YT like BLG & Taz, because I am certainly not searching for Suits. I watched 15 minutes of the pilot and it was excruciating. When we first meet Rachel, she's under her boss Mike in bed. Very Gray's Anatomy rip-offesque.
While I have no problems looking at Gabriel Macht all day, there is no other reason to watch that show. The quality of the writing seems abysmal and the acting is soap operatic to match. But watching * in action, she was adequate to the (cheesy) level the show was pitched at, and she looked good. Too intense, with the wrinkled brow she connotes with 'Acting Dramatic!' but it was not apparent then the sheer level of psychosis we were dealing with. Tales from the set *now* have outed her as a nightmare diva to work with .. demanding her character's lines be changed and her part expanded; hiding in her dressing room and refusing to come out if she didn't like something and treating crew members like dirt. But when cameras rolled, she did the job and seems to have been at least somewhat amenable to taking direction. The producers and director must have found her at least adequate since she was employed for seven seasons. If she were a PITA to the level she has been to the RF, wouldn't they have fired her and hired another ingenue? She was hardly irreplaceable to the show. In show business, divatastic behavior is very often tolerated, but usually only the A-list talent can get away with it and still be employable. Herself was not J. Lo or Alec Baldwin, so she seems like she'd have been way more trouble than she was worth, for her overall importance to the show. Either she's escalated 20-fold since her Suits days or the people in Toronto kept so many secrets for her. Again, why? Why does this talentless lowlife hustler get so many byes for her outrageous conduct? M was not marketing herself as half black in Toronto. Latinx maybe but not Black.
She's had a lot of help crawling to her current position by people who have collectively refused to out her as a nightmare.
Thank you for cutting the 6s down to size with your wit. Kist by fate and Polho!! 😂
My parents never forgave the previous Prince of Wales so perhaps this antipathy runs in the family or perhaps all Princes of Wales are dreadful.
The trouble is that turning the country in to a Republic probably would be even worse.
Among the items mentioned was that * and H went to NYC last Sept. for a "Sex Vaction". Hmmmm are they trying to divert attention away from rumors.
And their "New Hire" leftie Liz Gorbus, was taking pictures of them while they were on that vacation last year. [Should we expect a sex tape, lol]
What is hilarious os that this site which is definitely pro Mr. & Mrs., is their reference them as the "Markle Twins". That has to burn "H', or is he so feminist now he has cave croch folded to her being on top (no, not the sex position, the name!).
Ande this site hints maybe the trip to Oprah was to make up for lost Netflix funds.
Two of their recent articles titled:
"The Montecito Diaries: Harry & Meghan's Big Week" (dated June 28)
and,
"The Montecito Diaries: Meghan Explains Abortion to Gloria Steinem" (June 29)
***I know Gloria Steinem definitely knew what abortions were Before Meghan was even born!***
Why does this talentless lowlife hustler get so many byes for her outrageous conduct?
One rumor I remember reading a while back, before Megexit, was that she was about to be fired from the show around the time that her and Harry's relationship became public. And who caused her relationship with Harry to become public? Why, Rachel herself, that's who. She had criticized the show's directors in public for giving her too many sex scenes.
When Casey Anthony was found innocent of her daughter's murder, one of the forensic specialists at the time said that's one of the reasons sociopaths are so dangerous. They slither out of one situation after another.
/channeling inner grouch: "Not soon enough!"
As a resident of Arkansas, and the SIL of an OBG NP practicing in Arkansas, I can assure you that, should Markle find herself in Arkansas, God forfend, and is in need of a D&C because of an incomplete miscarriage ( also God forfend, I do not wish anything bad upon her!) she would be able to get one.
Thank you so much for sharing. The states all have such a hodge-podge of laws it's difficult to keep them straight. Curiously, your governor was among the first to be quoted by the Washington Post, I believe because he was being interviewed right after the decision came down.
Also, curiously, the DM's story about the American couple in Malta who suffered a miscarriage addresses this issue directly.
Woman who nearly died from a miscarriage gets life-saving termination https://mol.im/a/10965061 via https://dailym.ai/android
Among the items mentioned was that * and H went to NYC last Sept. for a "Sex Vaction". Hmmmm are they trying to divert attention away from rumors.
ROFL. If they went to New York for a 'sex vacation', it probably wasn't for sex with each other!
Just when I start to think Charles is all right, he goes and does something incredibly stupid.
Why would a sheik have to schlep bags of money to England? Were they suitcases full of Qatari riyal or where they pounds? Wouldn’t international banking transfers have been considered a lot less messy? Charles is very well educated man, and he didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday, so I can’t believe he was that clueless, or reckless or both.
I guess we shouldn’t be that surprised at his self-indulgence and belly button gazing. I respect the Queen and Philip for many attributes but their parenting isn’t one of them. Charles was raised by a largely absent mother, a domineering father and an even more insidiously domineering grandmother, who spoiled Charles and competed with her daughter to exert the most influence on the boy. He gets his idea of Edwardian indulgence from Granny, not his parents. How did Elizabeth turn out to be so frugal and relatively unspoiled and simple in her tastes, Being raised by the queen mother? Margaret certainly took after Mummy. For being a princess growing up in great privilege, Elizabeth almost seemed like the product of a more down to Earth family. She said her cup for Philip, a man with no money and no home, and she never looked back. Charles does not get his personal extravagance from her. I’ve read that even when staying in a friends home for a weekend, Charles has his entire bedroom suite furniture and all of his personal articles imported at great cost and demands that his guestroom be set up according to his specifications. Is this true or is it an urban myth? One would think he fancied himself a medieval monarch on progress.
Even so, George IV was worse, no? Charles looks like he enjoys a tipple but Seems fairly ascetic in other personal habits. He is not corpulent, being fond of rambling and allergic to overeating. It’s hard to reconcile the guy that rambles for miles and doesn’t eat lunch because he’s too busy, who potters in the garden and talks to his plants with the extravagance of moving every stick of his personal furniture for a two day stay somewhere else. Doesn’t really compute.
All forms of government function best when the people at the top are persons of good character, and the wheels come off when there are too many personal feelings in the mix. The advantage to a republic is that there is no lifetime employment, and if someone is a real disaster, we’ve only got to tolerate them for four years. Compared to the British monarchy, the American presidency is a revolving door. It may be easier for Americans to esteem the office first occupied by George Washington as a noble idea and continue to hope that the very best and brightest would occupy that position. It seems we must be continually disappointed, but still we hope that the individual will be worthy of the office. Good bad or indifferent, he will not be there more than eight years which is an absolute blip. ER’s reign has lasted for nearly one-third the time the US has been a country Which is astounding, and you will never see her like again. None of us will. Imagine if it had been George IV for 70 years.
King Charles will be lucky to get 10 years, a fact for which we are probably all grateful. There is an article out about his absolute and fitness to be King which is pretty scathing. Just as well then that the sovereign does not make governmental policy or appoint his ministers. Like his ancestor George III, Charles is a cultured and energetic man who is deeply interested in agriculture and incredibly well intentioned, but who has won gaffe after another And who will ultimately be remembered as a disaster. Let’s hope that he is not as bad as it’s feared he will be.
And I think a great many people would find my state extremely boring, not just the Harkles! We haven't got much but natural beauty, and that we have in gracious plenty.
And I see that you absolutely pegged them as heading to New York...for a sex vacation, of all things, per Cat Eye's post! Too funny!
@Magatha, was literally gasping for air at Polho...... you are brilliant!
@Hikari, I agree that if these two can't keep their noses out of politics, on either side of the pond, they should definitely lose their titles. I do have a certain sympathy for her, sympathy is too strong of a word, but I do understand how hard it would be for an American to not be able to just come right out and say what they think, ( we have that reputation worldwide, I think) but that is something she should have understood at the beginning. She did know that, but chooses not to abide by yet another long held tradition.
@Artemisia 19, the news that BetterUp have scored a government contract makes me want to break out my tin foil hat, and Little Golden Book Book of Conspiracy Theories....
"As I understand it, if you’ve suffered a miscarriage in America, in some states having a D&C afterwards counts (in some way) as an abortion (I stand corrected if I’m wrong) I have absolutely no idea why."
If I may, I read something today that may help shed a little light on this topic. As someone in the medical field explained today, a "D & C / termination" is used in medical coding. It is basically the same procedure, used for different purposes, but apparently is the standard billing code for that procedure. For either reason. Useful to muddy the waters...and the exaggerations about "what if" this latest news out of Supreme Court might auger. Or not.
As for * (I love this * usage, BTW) "taking on the Supreme Court", she's going to have become a top flight litigator....running her mouth, spewing word salads, isn't going to do it. Or become a heavy-weight fundraiser for the pro-Abortion crowd. $25 donations, notes, phone messages, and/or delivered dozens of cupcakes IS NOT going to do it. Her big statement is just HOT AIR. Nothing more.
As for her jumping on this bandwagon, people here in the US are fed up. The Uvalde pap walk was bad enough, but this is a bridge too far. She's a nobody, her opinion doesn't matter. And Harry's opinion on abrogating Roe..."WHO CARES? Isn't abortion highly regulated in Europe?" The "feminist Harry" caused a few moments of hilarity today on a Fox show "Outnumbered" (4 women, 1 guy). The women were dismissive and snarky, and the man, who is kind of a "manly man" type (good looking, funny combat vet) said "I'd like to interview Harry, and say 'Dude, BLINK TWICE if you want to be rescued'" made howl with laughter. They're now official JOKES here in the States. Their fall can't come too soon. Although it is rather amusing. AND I did learn about narcs. So there's that.
So I'm told the Netflix doc has a few points of focus. They're supposedly focusing on Polo, Invictus, and yes, the kids. The kids, specifically Lili, seem to be her last little paychecks waiting to be cashed.
I've heard that Meghan's swan song is merching the fuck out of Merchie and Lilibucks, using this Netflix docu-series as a kickstart where everything they wear gets promoted. Meghan herself is shit at wearing clothes, but the children can wear all kinds of cute clothing while Mommy Dearest collects the paycheck from designers. Meghan allegedly also sees this as the eventual launching pad for her own line of children's clothing, hence the Lilibet Diana trademark. She's supposedly been keeping the kids' appearances locked down not for their own benefit, but to create ultimate interest when she starts to merch them.
The thing is, if Meghan can keep her claw out of the clothing design and wardrobe choice, this scheme could actually work and make her a lot of money. If she won't let go of control over the artistic details, this will go the way of *Pearl.* Literally, all she needs to do is sign release forms for her kids' images and let talented people do the work while she sits on some pretentious beige sofa somewhere and collects paychecks. The question is, can she do it? Or will she get in her own way like she has with every other thing that could have ensured her a lifetime of success?
The other issue with this is the question of this docuseries falling on the Netflix chopping block. If she can't get a wide audience of other "young mothers" seeing the Marklets in clothing and then buying it for their own kids. Rumor has it that she's been scrambling to keep it on the Netflix line up. Thats why we see these articles being pushed through about hiring on [sic] the Oscar nominated director, etc. She also, what with the blowback after the Jubilee booing, is scrambling to endear herself to people, hence her reaching out to those women "as a mom, as a friend..." bullshit. It's all ALLEDGEDLY a strategy to appeal to the mom audience. I'm told we should expect to see more of this gratuitous performance-momming as a build up to whatever piece of shit Netflix is letting them do... for now...
Really? How? Expect nothing. There will be more fluff PR pieces inserted into whatever social media outlets her PR firm can manage to get.
They really do need to have their titles taken away.
Both are an obnoxious embarrassment to the UK, to the Royal Family, and a great annoyance to the citizens of the USA.
Prince Charles had 'very emotional' first meeting with granddaughter Lilibet and a reunion with Archie during Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's visit to the UK for the Jubilee celebrations
Heir to throne Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall were 'absolutely thrilled' to see Harry and Meghan and their children when they travelled briefly from California for the Queen's Platinum Jubilee celebrations earlier this month.
The 1688 settlement was designed to keep the monarch out of active politics - the power rests with the PM & the Cabinet, their inner circle of ministers and Parliament, a system which developed in the reign of George I, who couldn't be bothered to leave Germany. We do have the means of getting rid of the PM and so on.
With one notable exception, most ex-PMs of working age stay on in one or other chambers of Parliament - the odd one out would surely like to be President, probably in perpetuity. It possibly stuck in HM's craw to give him a knighthood recently but the situation was unjust for his successors, as the delay was holding up the queue.
Confirmed that the findings of the investigation into bullying will never be revealed. We have discussed at length why this was to be expected, but I wonder if the previous staff will always keep quiet. The report with summary of findings would be so much more powerful!
----------------
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10967401/Charles-emotional-meeting-Lilibet-reunion-Archie-Jubilee-celebration.html
What do you make of this and what the senior Palace source supposedly said?
------------------
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10967525/Financially-independent-Prince-Harry-paid-Easter-visit-England-Meghan.html
I thought it was old news that they had repaid the cist of renovating Frogmore Cottage? It seems, from the article, that they pay a small amount for maintenance of the garden.
--------------------------
Allegations that the Duchess of Sussex systemically targeted and bullied female staff have been deeply troubling – and problematic – for the Royal Family since they were aired early last year.
It was the first time a member of the Royal Family had been the subject of a formal complaint to senior management about their alleged behaviour – and there was no formal HR policy in place to deal with it.
The fact the allegations had first been made three years previously without any action seemingly being taken also uncomfortably accentuated the depth of the Palace's paralysis over the issue.
The delicacy of the situation was further exacerbated by the state of relations between Harry and Meghan and the rest of the Royal Family.
In the wake of their acrimonious departure as working royals and explosive Oprah Winfrey interview, palace officials were simply unable to predict just how this most defensive of couples would react. This is why they decided to focus their inquiries on how the allegations against Meghan were handled, as opposed to the substance of the claims themselves, whose truth or falsity has not been objectively established.
It seemed a neat-ish solution and one that was specifically designed to prevent the duchess and her legal team from having any say in what was being treated as a purely procedural matter.
Now officials have confirmed what the Daily Mail suggested would happen back in December last year – that their entire review is being buried, never to be made public.
And as I reveal today, even the tiny handful of staff who were consulted during the process haven't been told what, if anything, the Palace plans to do to sharpen up their procedures in the future.
Senior palace officials such as the Queen's private secretary, Sir Edward Young – who I have been told by multiple sources was also frequently on the receiving end of the worst of the Sussexes' ire – wanted to do the right thing, but have clearly prioritised peace with Harry and Meghan over their workforce.
It has led some within the household to ask the question: is how your staff are treated and protected really deemed less important than angering the Sussexes?
The answer, for many, is clearly 'yes'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-10967173/Palace-prioritised-peace-cost-staff-wake-Harry-Meghans-departure.html
Not a problem at all. I just wanted to note I wasn’t just referring to Arkansas laws. 🙂
Too bad Maggot couldn’t get lost in the wilderness! 😂
@SwampWoman,
For me, it doesn’t matter what side of the fence you sit on with regard to opinion etc, Maggot uses and abuses situations and causes. She uses charity events etc for both monetary and publicity attention, Uvalde and now The Supreme Courts ruling (which I personally understood why they did it, Maggot though….well we know she just doesn’t care for facts. She doesn’t care what or who she upsets or offends or whether it’s in anyway appropriate. It’s her complete lack of sincerity, she will literally run roughshod over anything or anyone she sees fit…. her actions stink to high heaven! 😟
More coverage of the bullying investigations.
She will spin this to say that she was cleared of all allegations, but that has actually never happened. If there had been no bullying, the Palace would have issued a statement saying that/would have defended her against false claims.
Am I being nasty in saying that I do wish she would be exposed in some major way (leaked emails, video evidence, credible first-hand accounts)?
To have everything swept under the carpet and play happy families leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. But it is notable that the Cambridges kept their distance from the dastardly duo.
Correction!
According to Lady C, they were clean bags of money, I don’t know though. Qatar isn’t known for its squeaky clean ethics….look at the fiasco surrounding their FIFA involvement!
Am I being nasty in saying that I do wish she would be exposed in some major way (leaked emails, video evidence, credible first-hand accounts)?
Not at all! Then again, I'm the one who is still hoping against hope that the "tea spilling" video from Australia will be leaked within my lifetime.
BP isn’t sweeping the bullying allegations under the carpet, they are simply choosing not to publicly publish the investigation findings. Most of the British public think and know she is guilty and BP knows this. If Maggot was found innocent, BP would have publicly stated so. Both Maggot and Mole know the result of the investigation, be quite sure of that. It’s a passive-aggressive move by the BP. 🙂
This move by BP stops Maggot playing the victim and race card. If any leak about the investigation becomes into being….we’ll know just who leaked it. Maggot can’t play the victim in this scenario either, because the Palace state the investigation will never be made public. She’s been cornered. 🙂
Meghan allegedly also sees this as the eventual launching pad for her own line of children's clothing, hence the Lilibet Diana trademark.
She must have been so furious that she couldn't launch it with Archie. But boys are simply not as good for merching as girls are. Were this not true, she would have given him a much better first name than a near anagram of her own and a better second name than something that doth protest too much about his paternity. (The first casualty of Archie's being a boy was Archie himself. She will never forgive him.) Moreover, if Prince Philip hadn't had the foresight to pick Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel for Harry's secondary titles, you can bet she'd be throwing them all over the place, too.
@Rebecca
What the h*ll? A new article in the DM:
Prince Charles had 'very emotional' first meeting with granddaughter Lilibet and a reunion with Archie during Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's visit to the UK for the Jubilee celebrations
Nobody cares about * as a mother, but practically the only good PR Prince Charles gets these days is for being a beloved grandfather. Look out for a flurry of stories about how delighted Charles was with Lili and how he practically begged the Dollars to move back to the UK so that he could see her more often. And of course Lili was comfortable with him immediately, despite it being the first meeting. Etc.
-------------------
Does Meghan Markle know what ‘guttural’ means?
Possibly, she meant visceral
30 June 2022, 7:00am
When the Duke of Sussex heard about the Supreme Court judgment revoking the ruling in Roe vs Wade, ‘His reaction last week was guttural, like mine,' said his wife Meghan Markle. ‘Men need to be vocal in this moment,’ she told Vogue magazine. If we are to take her at her word, the Duchess of Sussex was saying that Prince Harry vocalised his reaction by growling. This sounds quite unlikely. But she added that her reaction was the same.
It is impossible not to wonder whether she meant that theirs was a gut reaction. Of course one can say gut reaction, but it is impossible to say a reaction is gut. You can say that it is gutsy, but that has a different meaning from ‘heart-felt immediacy’. So the Duchess reached for guttural, which already has a meaning, referring to the throat.
In The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, the narrator takes captive one of the ‘savages’ that he has not shot dead only to find that ‘his speech was so odd, all gutturals, and he spoke in the throat in such a hollow, odd manner, that we could never form a word after him; and we were all of the opinion that they might speak that language as well if they were gagged as otherwise; nor could we perceive that they had any occasion either for teeth, tongue, lips, or palate, but formed their words just as a hunting-horn forms a tune with an open throat’. So there would not have been much point in asking him his opinion of Roe vs Wade.
There has long been a prejudice that accords to growliness of speech a primitive, doggish quality. ‘R is the Dogs Letter, and hurreth in the sound,’ wrote Ben Jonson 400 years ago, though as a classicist he was taking his cue not from listening to fellow speakers but from Aulus Persius Flaccus (who died AD 62). Persius warned of the dangers of growling out the canina littera and coming out with the biting truth.
The littera canina, the canine letter R, is not, though, made in the throat in English, nor I think was it in Latin. It is the French who have enthusiastically taken up a guttural rendition of the R.
None of this would be the sort of thing that the Duchess meant to suggest. A word that covers her sense would be visceral. Psychologists have even spoken of the visceral brain, which is said to ‘mediate bodily activity, especially visceral activity, in response to emotion’. That seems to fit in nicely with the approved concept of lived experience.
a) the show will happen (come something or high water)
b) the editing will allow for the clothing to be shown and linked in a promotable way so that focus is on the clothes and less about the kid being in the room - meaning people would be more focused on that clothing instead of the parenting tips dispensed/family interactions which usually are the driver of reality shows (how often does, say, the DM run clothing ads for Kardashians? PMK does not miss a lot of angles for her kids or grandkids)
c) if there is a recession, that people will still gladly run out and drop moohla (buy) expensive clothing from designers instead of Target
d) Netflix has enough subscribers with this target market to remain viable/grow
RE: the alleged emotional visit of PC with his other grandkids
When exactly did this happen in the schedule of that week end? The active members of the family have very tightly scripted schedules/lives and I suspect that that week end was no different (if for no other reason than the traffic might have made going some place difficult).
And that this comes out now is odd. It might have been a bigger punch about how multiple generations met the beloved kids (implied greater family support) instead of a drip here and a smaller drip later (after all the hoopla/and the news cycle has moved Jubilee to the ancient history pile).
One of the comments was something about they really had an emotional visit with legal team about the bullying report.
And actually that could make some sense.
At first I bet that * wouldn't jump on this bandwagon, because she wouldn't want to remind people of her fictional, plagiarized miscarriage. Or of the medical oddity that was a 39-year-old woman getting pregnant again so soon afterwards. (Or of all her alleged pregnancies, really.) But among all her past shenanigans, this one seems to have been most effectively memory-holed. Even Lili isn't being branded as a "rainbow baby."
This will backfire on her in other ways, but not where her past lies about her own reproductive capers are concerned.
For me, it doesn’t matter what side of the fence you sit on with regard to opinion etc, Maggot uses and abuses situations and causes. She uses charity events etc for both monetary and publicity attention, Uvalde and now The Supreme Courts ruling (which I personally understood why they did it, Maggot though….well we know she just doesn’t care for facts. She doesn’t care what or who she upsets or offends or whether it’s in anyway appropriate. It’s her complete lack of sincerity, she will literally run roughshod over anything or anyone she sees fit…. her actions stink to high heaven! 😟
Indeed. I just wanted to put the facts out there for the people that get their news from the MSM who too often put out pure publicity releases and works of fiction as fact. Duchess Dipsh*t depends on people taking fictionalized accounts for fact.
I agree. The media reporting on this 'manufactured' scandal have no clue as to how wealthy the elite are in these Arab/Gulf states, and keeping millions in cash in the 'home safe' is normal for them. I assume these wealthy Arabs have homes in the UK, probably London as well, so the cash was not necessarily illegally brought into the UK via private jet.
Supposedly the money was handed directly to the charities and they did the due diligence.
Maybe the 'new wealth' does not do this anymore. Maybe bank cards and electronic transfers have replaced the cash in the safe practice. I have not been a guest in the home of the wealthy for a long time, so I have not checked!
Who on their staff talks like that, and to reporters who are not in the pack of officially recognised reporters?
When did they have the time in those few days?
No one saw either Charles and Camilla going to Frogmore Cottage, or the Harkless going to Clarence House?
If a short meeting did happen, I am sure Charles and Camilla were very gracious and friendly and charming. They have a lot of practice in greeting and chatting to all sorts of people in their public work. TBW would misunderstand, but I do not think her husband would.
It was an emotional time for the BRF ... celebrating the Queen and seeing the huge outpouring of love from the people. Charles is soft-hearted, but I can imagine him saying 'Dear boy, how lovely to see you and the children ...'.
But I still do not believe the story!
That the duo are not trying to sell a reunion story with his brother and his family is rather interesting. They must have crossed paths behind doors on the day of TTC, but not a whisper, yet, of that reunion with the Cambridges, or any other royals.
One of the candidates was Neville Barnes Wallis inventor of the Bouncing Bomb (Dam Busters!) but also the R-series airships in the 1930s, described as something like `ships of the air with the dog-growl letter' (my translation). (My dad applied for a job of radio operator on the R101 - luckily he'd also applied for a telegraph clerk's job with the Post Office and the PO made the first offer to him)
Another recipient of the Honorary DSc that day was George Gaylord Simpson, US palaeontologist.
-----
As for H being `gutteral', I can't imagine him exclaiming `Ach! Nein!!!' at the Supreme Court's decision, despite German ancestry, just as I doubt whether he can pronounce `loch' correctly, despite Gt.Granny being Scots.
Not clean as in bribes for special favours (and not money laundering🙄). Why send bags of cash?! 😂Nothing normal about that. It wouldn’t be the first time Qatar have been guilty of bribing officials and VIP’s. You obviously don’t know about the FIFA and World Cup host bid. 😕 Sadly Charles comes off as either terribly naive or easy bought. 😟 I sincerely hope it’s the former. 😉
I had to laugh over Magic Mouths use of the word guttural. She really has no idea what the word means
The Danish language is guttural. Many a time I have been sat open mouthed wondering what I have just heard and given up.
I've just looked at the DM after you mentio the article about Charles & Camilla meeting the 6s & their children. Bizarre! And why now, weeks later? One commenter said
Yrksgal, Vancouver, Canada, 1 hour ago
The lies just keep coming... Staff working at Farnborough airport where they landed and flew from during the Jubilee have stated that NO CHILDREN were seen coming off or going onto the plane!!!
I watched a YouTube video mentioned upthread by a Nutty - a tarot reader talking about the ever elusive Archie. It was actually quite disturbing. Joseph Magi has also done a tarot reading about Lilibet and concludes she never met the Queen and is not with the 6s.
Palace response to bullying claims against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, shows family still comes first
Decision to renege on promise to publish changes to Royal household HR rules seems to confirm The Firm’s ‘nothing to see here’ policy
By Camilla Tominey
No one was expecting the bullying report to be published in full. But the decision to renege on a promise to publish consequential changes to the Royal household’s HR policies in Thursday’s annual Sovereign Grant report represents more than a missed opportunity for “The Firm”.
If the investigation has led to the Royal household “improving the policies and procedures” in its HR department, then why not share those with the public?
The decision, instead, to bury any lessons that might have been learned flies in the face of the Queen’s longstanding mantra that the monarchy should be as open as possible and not, as the Duke of Edinburgh once put it, “some sort of secret society”.
‘Men in grey suits have a lot to answer for’
It also seems to confirm initial suspicions of an all-pervading “nothing to see here” policy that protects principals at the expense of the people who serve them.
When he submitted a complaint in Oct 2018, Jason Knauf cautioned: “I remain concerned that nothing will be done.” After questioning whether “the household policy on bullying and harassment applies to principals”, he appears to have been largely ignored – despite his insistence that Samantha Carruthers, the head of HR, “agreed with me on all counts that the situation was very serious”.
As one source put it when the allegations finally came to light in March 2021, shortly before the Sussexes’s Oprah Winfrey interview: “I think the problem is not much happened with it. It was ‘How can we make this go away?’, rather than addressing it.”
Another added: “All the men in grey suits … have a lot to answer for, because they did absolutely nothing to protect people.”
It was only when the accusations were plastered across the front pages two-and-a-half years after Mr Knauf sent his email that Buckingham Palace instructed outside lawyers to probe the claims.
A spokesman said at the time: “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.”
Yet there has never been a clear explanation of what processes are put in place when the finger of blame is pointed at a member of the House of Windsor.
The Duchess – and by association, the Duke – are not the first Royals to be accused of bullying, and probably won’t be the last if the Palace continues to be opaque about the measures that have been put in place to insulate employees from Royal bosses who appear to transcend the HR department.
The Palace insists that because the Queen privately funded the independent legal inquiry, then the findings should not be published in the annual review as it only details the 96-year-old monarch’s public funding.
It also argues that any publication would compromise the confidentiality of those involved, even though sources have indicated that some of the alleged victims would not have any objection to being named.
The decision could perhaps also reflect the risk-averseness of an institution faced not only with the threat of legal action from the Sussexes, but talk of another interview with Winfrey, not to mention Prince Harry’s forthcoming warts-and-all autobiography.
‘Victims of a calculated smear campaign’
It came after a spokesman for the couple said they were the victims of a calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation. They said the Duchess was “saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma”.
Throughout the Megxit saga, the Queen has rightly reiterated that despite all that has been said and done, the Duke and Duchess “remain much loved members of the family”.
But in concealing the conclusions drawn from a probe into the behaviour of two of Her Majesty’s nearest and dearest, the Palace has left the Queen open to suggestions that she regards blood to be thicker than water when it comes to the treatment of her hard-working staff.
Charles was far too busy Jubilee weekend. And I can’t see him slumming it to FC even if he did have space in the diary. He would have received them at Windsor Castle or Buck House. No personal homes. More lies.
Has Clarence House released a copy of Prince Charles's itinerary over the Jubilee weekend? If not, could it be recreated from what we know of where he actually was? I think it would be hilariously easy to prove that he simply wouldn't have had the time to do what The Liar claims he did.
It doesn't take a whip-smart individual to figure out that if * had REALLY, TRULY wanted Prince Charles and the Cambridges to meet Lilibet, she would have stayed longer. The week after the Jubilee must have been like the post-Christmas doldrums, when everyone is both still a little high and already a little over it. A low-key belated birthday party for a baby would have been appealing both to those wanting to extend the celebrations and those wanting some help coming back down to reality. But she really can't think past her impulses.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10970265/DAN-WOOTTON-Meghan-kicking-delusional-bid-end-White-House-early.html