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
Money. Who is going to provide the finance? The SussexSquad?
Democratic Party. So everyone else who has been waiting in line, doing the work, for years, is going to step aside for her?
Debates. How is she going to survive the debates with her word salad, misuse of words ...?
Her past. Her lies, during the Oprah interview alone, are piled up waiting to come crashing down on her. The bullying while she was royal can be exhumed at any time. It is like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in her face. The ghosts of the people she has ghosted can reappear at any time.
She has a really stupid husband who will say and do stupid things.
And so much more ...
But, it will be very entertaining seeing her put on a show.
Taking a bag of money is so Delboy Trotter (if you know the reference) or Arthur Daley; I am also reminded of comedian Ken Dodd who kept his money under the bed. 'the notes are very light my Lord' he famously said in reply to the Judge - site meetings are always so useful in obtaining an idea of the lie of the land - who was trying a case against him for tax evasion.
The Prince of Wales may well be well-educated, comparatively speaking, though just two A' levels to obtain a place at Aberystwith is not something one would want to write home about. I tend to agree as to the combined awfulness of his parents especially since they behaved exactly as mine did (in relation to upbringing). He may be well-meaning (as well as gullible) but I have come to the view that in life sincerity is not of itself, necessary though it is, a sufficient mark of competence. Sincerity can blind one to reality. Even the brightest people can fall for scams - far too many examples - but I will pick Hugh Trevor Roper falling for the Hitler Diaries fraud. As an Historian it was what he would have wanted to believe.
The problem with the American system is that the president has all the functions of a Prime Minister as well as being its figurehead - a difficult balancing act. The problem with Prince Charles is that he wants to be Prime Minister. He isn't and should follow his mother's example. Your point as to her Majesty's longevity in comparison to the length of the American republic stopped me in my tracks. As I keep saying you write so well.
Float a really impossible goal, like becoming President of the USA.
The idea is clearly so insane, we all talk about it, and express outrage and disbelief.
But we TALK about it, in the media and between ourselves, and by default we are giving it the patina of possibility. We have converted the impossible to the possible.
And then, she is half way there to achieving her goal.
The only solution, and the most powerful weapon in these situations is to ignore what she is saying.
She is after all the world's most empty vessel, with nothing original, nothing substantive, and nothing of value to add, driven only by her own raging thirst for fame.
I am absolutely certain that the Royal Family has so much negative information about her, that when the time is right, all sorts of dreadful, truthful information will be leaked, and she will be globally humiliated.
And I suspect the groundwork for it all will be laid with Tom Bower's forthcoming book.
How can Charles be easily bought? He is lacking in nothing. What does Charles require money for?
And, yes, I've known some very wealthy individuals who kept very large amounts of cash lying around. And Picassos on the kitchen table.
TBW running for president? Everything you've said is true, money, her past etc but do American Nutties know if this article of the Constitution applies to her?
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
In a way, it would be good if she ran for office, she'd only expose her ignorance, incompetence etc and the press would have a field day trying to dig up dirt. I'm not sure she's ready for that. Kamala Harris might have a better chance of getting to the presidency first.
I imagine the BRF does not want another war with the 6s with * suing for libel/distress/harassment/hurt etc (take your pick), equally they may keep the outcome secret as a weapon against * if there are any more shenanigans. The staff concerned should have been told about the findings in confidence, though. Bullying leaves its mark on you, as I know to my cost (workplace bullying).
I don't think it applies. She doesn't hold the titles Harry does. And the wording says (paraphrasing) "if you hold a federal office, don't even think about letting a foreign gov't give you a title or anything else without the prior approval of Congress." It's not designed to address titles or any other gifts that predated holding federal office.
Certainly Eisenhower (Supreme Allied Commander in Europe WWII) received tons of foreign awards and some were given before he became our 34th president.
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/awards-medals
MM won't get anywhere. I'm sure. But she certainly wouldn't waving her titles around. But the Constitution can't stop her IMO
Allow her opponent to use that as a claim the British are trying to reclaim what they lost.
She's just the advance party to start it they can say.
Most people aren't going to know what we know about how she really is but with all the pr fluff of trying to show how they they are linked the monarchy (to save the NF deal and so on), the average person's understanding of what she/he/the monarchy can and cannot do may begin with Henry VIII and end with King George. That she was brutally treated by the family she would now be willing to help overturn the country she grew up in is kind of contradictory of how she would be allowing herself to be used by the people who treated her so badly but a lot of people aren't going to stop to think that through. It is a when did you stop beating your wife comment. Dirty but that is election politics.
And, all the conspiracy people will love this.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CfXPQS5hlsg/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
“Meghan’s flacks talk of a future run for the Senate from California, or even the presidency. This is DSM-5-level fantasy. Good judgment and introspection are not the pair’s strong suit, it seems, but don’t they know? The caravan moves on, always. As their hollow selves grow tiresome, the brand will likely fade. The Netflix cancelation and their unsteadiness suggest more psychodrama to come. The Sussexes are not emotionally prepared for derision or pity — nor are they ready to go away unnoticed.”
Buckingham Palace and the Sussexes said to be downplaying long-running dispute as they seek to move on from the controversy
By Hannah Furness
Buckingham Palace and the Sussexes appear to have called a public truce over a controversial bullying report, after its contents were kept secret from the public.
The Palace has blocked details of a report into the handling of bullying allegations made against the Duchess of Sussex in 2018, with its limited findings kept hidden from even those who contributed.
In response, the Duke and Duchess will make no public comment on the unresolved allegations, despite previously authorising the strongest of statements defending Meghan.
The unusual silence on either side has led to speculation that the Palace and Sussexes, who work closely with their lawyers, are both moving to downplay the long-running dispute.
Both sides are understood to be hopeful of drawing a line under the episode.
Those involved in the review, said to be around half a dozen one-time members of staff, have so far remained tight-lipped about the details of the Duchess’ alleged behaviour in 2018.
'We will not be commenting further'
On Thursday, a senior Palace source confirmed the findings of an independent review into how staff handled allegations of bullying made against the Duchess would not be made public.
Those who shared their experiences working for the Duchess of Sussex for the purposes of the report have been told only that the review has concluded and that internal “policies and procedures” would be changed as a result.
Most have now left the Royal Household, leaving them without access to the intranet on which they could see any updated bullying and harassment policies.
The limited findings are a significant about-turn from the original scope of the report.
In early 2021, when accusations about bullying came to light, a Palace source said they were very concerned and pledged to hold a privately-funded review to see if “lessons can be learnt”.
Any changes to human resources policy were supposed to be included in the Sovereign Grant Report, the annual Buckingham Palace financial review, this week. However, those changes did not materialise.
“The review has been completed and recommendations on our policies and procedures have been taken forward, but we will not be commenting further,” a senior source said at the launch of the report.
The Telegraph understands that the Duke and Duchess do not plan to issue a response to the news.
The decision is a stark contrast from when the allegations first came to light, when their team issued a stinging statement calling it a “calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation”.
Ahead of the Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey, the television presenter, they claimed: “It’s no coincidence that distorted several-year-old accusations aimed at undermining the Duchess are being briefed to the British media shortly before she and the Duke are due to speak openly and honestly about their experience of recent years.”
Their silence will lead to hopes at the Palace of a cooling in tensions, following a broadly successful Platinum Jubilee visit.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have not yet shared details of their meetings with the Queen or the Prince of Wales while they were in the UK. They also fulfilled their promise of “sticking to the script” during the celebrations.
The change in approach will inspire hope in royal circles that the Sussexes will continue to rein in their more outspoken criticism of their family in Britain and its staff.
They had previously made very clear their frustration with the “institution”, airing grievances about how they felt unsupported and silenced during their time in the working Royal family.
The Duke of Sussex is due to release his autobiography later this year, promising an “accurate and wholly truthful” account of his life to date.
They are also reported to be taking part in an at home-style documentary series for Netflix.
--------------
Richard Eden has something interesting to report about the use of the name Lilibet:
Mystery has surrounded the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's decision to call their daughter Lilibet since the BBC's royal correspondent, Jonny Dymond, claimed last year that they did not ask the Queen if they could use her family pet name.
In response, Prince Harry and Meghan launched an unprecedented legal attack on the BBC, saying the story was 'false and defamatory'.
Their spokesman said: 'The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement — in fact, his grandmother was the first family member he called.
During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honour.
'Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.'
Now, a friend of the royals has added to the mystery of what they did or didn't say in their telephone conversation with the monarch.
Interior designer Nicky Haslam, whose royal pals include everyone from the Duchess of Cornwall to Prince Michael of Kent, claims the Queen had been under the impression that the child, who was born last June, would be named Elizabeth — and was taken aback to discover that the couple had, in fact, called her Lilibet.
Says Haslam: 'I heard he [Harry] rang her and said: 'We want to call our daughter after you, Granny'. She said: 'How charming of you, thank you', thinking that it would be Elizabeth.
'So they got the permission, but they didn't say the name.'
What Haslam, 82, heard may, of course, be inaccurate, and we may never know where the truth lies.
Lilibet has important sentimental connotations for the Queen because it was the name used in private for her by her father, George VI, and by her late husband, Prince Philip.
Speaking on The Third Act podcast, Haslam goes on to question why Harry and Meghan didn't name the baby after the American former actress's mother instead.
'Why on earth didn't they call that baby Doria?' he asks. 'It's the prettiest name ever.'
A spokesman for the Sussexes did not comment, more than three days after I asked them about Haslam's claims.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10971349/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Nicky-Haslam-adds-mystery-Prince-Harry-naming-baby-Lilibet.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-suspicious-about-convenient-timing-bullying-report-093833286.html
I predict Mrs. Sukkit will get way less than Kanye, maybe 6,000 votes total.
Some people like Kanye's "music" and his clothing line. He has some talent, and appeals to some people.
Mrs. Sukkit only has talents for self-delusion and lying, and spending Mr. Sukkit's money.
I hope she runs. The popcorn will be ready!
*' level of crazy is amazing. First it was a "kick in the teeth" that the RF wouldn't meet "Lillibet,"; and now it's PC had a warm meeting with "Lillibet." Mrs. Sukkit makes up shite constantly. And Mr. Sukkit hasn't tuned into that level of crazy yet?
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/meghan-markle-is-happy-her-name-has-been-cleared-in-bullying-drama/
So predictable. No, her name has not been cleared. She is probably going to get away with this, but it is not the truth.
The investigation actually assumes that bullying did take place because it looked at what processes took place to enforce the 'Dignity At Work' policy, and why did the policy fail staff. The investigation also required recommendatuons to be made to ensure that staff are protected from such bullying in the future.
The investigation was never about if bullying took place or not.
She is misleading the public and, unless someone very powerful with a huge audience calls her out on this lie, convincingly and truthfully.
The Telegraph article has not aged well. TBW cannot shut up and is now claiming that the investigation/review cleared her of bullying charges.
Of course she would!
So from this point of view, having the Palace say we choose to not release information might be protective of someone like me. Protecting people, people who are afraid of someone who is alleged possible to be vindictive, might allow them to feel safe enough to speak out farther/more specifically than if they know that buried on page 347 is your name and the following (embarrassing to me) story. Things on the internet can live forever.
And it is not always unusual that once you start digging into things, it is not as you thought, So for me, being transparent might well have evolved in what they thought it would look like in a this is a better way to handle it. Having an outside agency do the investigating was a clear move that they did indeed want to know the truth.
It clears her? No (LOL). (stops LOL) If it cleared her, they would say that specifically in all releases.
It's what isn't being said which is more important than what was.
Apparently yapping on about RF issuing statement re bullying allegations in order to distract from the cash-in-a-bag business.
Thank you for the link to the US Magazine article. We know * is completely delusional but "She’s happy that her name has been cleared from the defamatory claims" is up on another level!
As for Richard Kay's article, firstly the time difference to explain * at her desk at 5am won't wash, the US is between 5 and 9 hours behind the UK. Secondly, what does 'she has high standards mean'? That the BRF/Palace staff don't? You can have exacting standards, you don't need to be a bully. And then she claims to promote compassion or compassion in action. In any case, the ostentatious wedding went to her head and made her overbearing and high-handed. She had zero experience of dealing with staff.
Meghan McCain has written an excellent op-ed piece in the DM about why TBW should NOT run for President. It is an insightful article.
I hope she DOES run for political office so all the tea gets spilled.
That article clearly explained practically what it is like running for office.
I just do not see TBW being 'up to the job'!
She would plaster a huge smile on her face, hug everyone, put on o a great act, like she did in those few months between getting the engagement ring on her finger and wedding day. But, I foresee two problems:
The mask would slip. We gave seen this happen countless times, even before she met the hapless prince.
People sense insincerity instinctively, and they will be put off her. I don't know how much a PR team can cover this up with spin.
California and New York may be wealthy and heavily populated by 'her kind of people', but my impression is that presidential elections are won are lost in the 'heartland' states, where people are not going to be taken in by her BS. Oh, she could be very charming in a whistle stop tour (superficial charm is something she is good at), but I don't know how far her word salad would go to satisfy those folk, and stop after stop after stop ... the mask will slip!
Why did a working member of the BRF have personal business interests in America? Specifically as these interests were not around a business she had established nor any charity she was connected to. These people in America did what? The merching and seeking publicity deals were done through Kruger Crowne (I think that was their name).
Considering the time difference, there would be at least another 5 working hours in Los Angeles, so the 5 a.m. was unreasonable.
What was so urgent that it could not wait until the next day?
Why were UK staff being involved in her personal business interests in America?
Try to build a brand on being "kind and compassionate" sending food to people you don't know while actively trying to destroy your family.
The powers that be in the world value discretion.
Us common folk value a good work ethic.
Majority of people don't like mean-spirited people which is why they took a big hit after their interviews.
No one likes a liar.
Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose not to remain with other members of the Royal family for the Trooping the Colour highlight
By
Camilla Tominey,
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
1 July 2022 • 8:00pm
It was one of the highlights of the Platinum Jubilee celebrations - the Red Arrows’ patriotic plumes of red, white and blue filling the skies over Buckingham Palace, to the delight of the Royal family on the balcony.
Yet The Telegraph has learned that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were in such a rush to leave last month’s Trooping the Colour ceremony in honour of the Queen’s 70 years on the throne that they missed the flypast altogether.
As the aerial show featuring the Royal Air Force aerobatics team captivated the nation, the couple were already making their way back to Frogmore Cottage, their Windsor home, to see their children Archie, three, and Lilibet, one.
Although prevented from watching from the balcony, they could have joined their fellow “non-working” royals on the roof of St James’ Palace for the display by 70 aircraft including Typhoon fighters, but opted to go home instead.
The swift exit meant the couple also avoided a family lunch with royal cousins, including Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips, after watching the parade of pomp and pageantry together from the Major General’s Office overlooking Horse Guards.
According to several sources, the cousins had planned to pay Harry and Meghan a visit at Frogmore later that day, but the “celebratory” lunch went on much longer than planned. As one insider put it: “It was quite boozy and went on well into the early evening, by which point there was no time to get to Windsor to see the Sussexes.”
The details of exactly what happened when the Duke and the Duchess of Sussex were reunited with the Royal family for the first time since their bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview have emerged amid talk of an “uneasy truce” between the couple and “The Firm” over allegations of bullying against the Duchess, which she denies.
On Thursday, it emerged that an official investigation into the handling of claims made against Meghan would be kept secret, with even those who participated kept in the dark about its findings.
The review, conducted by an independent legal firm, will never be published, nor will staff be updated on the changes made as a result.
The decision has raised serious questions about transparency at the publicly funded institution and its responsibility towards members of staff working closely with the Royal family.
The unusual silence on either side about the issue has also led to speculation that Buckingham Palace and Sussexes, who work closely with their lawyers, are both moving to downplay the long-running dispute.
Both sides are understood to be hopeful of drawing a line under the episode - after the Duke and Duchess met with the Queen at Windsor Castle as soon as they arrived in the UK on June 1.
Contrary to reports they introduced her to Lilibet after the Trooping ceremony, they actually flew into Farnborough airport the day before and headed straight for Her Majesty’s private apartments.
The couple had hoped to bring their own photographer to capture the first meeting between the sovereign, whose family nickname is Lilibet, and her great-granddaughter.
However, the Queen personally intervened to prevent an official image being taken, apparently advising the couple that she had a bloodshot eye and did not want to feature in any pictures for public consumption. It came after aides expressed fears that publicising a private meeting could set a dangerous precedent, not least if any photographs were shared with US television networks or Netflix, with whom the couple have signed a multi-million dollar contract.
The Duke is thought to have expressed a desire to get an official photograph of the two Lilibets together at some point in the future.
One of the reasons the couple were spotted leaving Clarence House that Friday morning was because they were in a security “pod” with the Duke of York’s daughters, having apparently expressed concerns about their level of protection throughout the whistlestop visit.
Clive Alderton, the Prince of Wales’ private secretary, was strategically seated at the end of the row behind the Sussexes - who had no contact with the Duke of Duchess of Cambridge during the hour-long service, nor throughout the weekend.
Although the wider family were invited to Lilibet’s first birthday party on the Saturday, only the Tindalls’ and Mr Phillips’ children attended, while their parents spent the afternoon at the Epsom Derby.
According to one source: “There was a bit of reluctance among the royals to admit to having any involvement in Lilibet’s birthday party.”
That day, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge took Prince George and Princess Charlotte on their first official engagement to Wales, carrying out a series of duties in Cardiff. There was no interaction between the couples or their children.
The Sussexes were offered the opportunity to attend both the Party at the Palace on the Saturday night and Sunday afternoon’s Platinum Pageant, but declined both - leaving the UK before the colourful carnival swept down The Mall.
Thankfully, Duchass Polho almost instantly comes across as so fake and insincere that I think even the powers that be can tell she's bad news.
Has anyone mentioned that Serena is out in the 1st round of Wimbledon? The Markeling continues apace....
One of the reasons the couple were spotted leaving Clarence House that Friday morning was because they were supposed to be transported to the service in a bus along with other attendees and their meeting point was Clarence House. I've seen this stated in many other articles.
The Telegram is playing with the truth when they say that they were there because they "were in a security pod"
Security pod: As GWAH says, The Telegraph is playing with the truth. The duo followed the York sisters and were followed by one security car. Does not sound like a pod to me, but it does sound as if Tominey has swallowed the usual nonsensical garbage that comes from the Montecito camp.
Visit with the Queen: If it is true that the Queen claims to have had a bloodshot eye, then she astounds me with her brilliance! One short visit, and they dashed there straight from the airport on the Thursday. It is the only day that they could have seen the Queen. I wonder if they turned up with their photographer and he was turned away? If that meeting did happen, I bet it was a bit awkward (note I say 'if' with scepticism).
Meeting with Charles and Camilla: Sure, I think they saw them in passing at TTC (the duo were briefly at BP because they were photographed there), but the children were not there. Nothing in that story makes sense. They travelled to Clarence House with the children, and security was not an issue for them, or no one noticed them travelling with security? Nope, there was no warm reunion.
Birthday party: The Tindalls and Peter Phillip's sent their children to Frogmore Cottage for a birthday party with people they do not know? No photographs from the Montecito gang? Did they drop off the children, go to the races, fetch the children, and then drive back to London where I think they were staying for the weekend? I do not believe it!
Thank you so much for pointing out my error. Your correction makes the story completely implausible! (Between 3 and 5 p.m. UK time would be the window of opportunity for conducting business).
Besides, as I said, there would be no reason for their staff to work with her lawyers and business managers in California.
I do hope Tom Bower calls her out on all this nonsense in his book, because royal reporters do not seem to be doing so.
The difference between the brothers us stark.
More lies.
That's all Duchess Sukkit does, she lies.
If her lips are moving, if her fingers are keyboarding, if her hand is writing, if she's thinking, it's all lies.
She is stark raving mad.
Hairy gave up a castle, a nice life, and all his needs taken care of, and most importantly really superb PR, for that?
Cause the PR she presents for him makes him look the fool every time. At least the palace continually cleaned up his image.
Mixed Megaphors
Deep throat and feminhim
and their guttural growl
Have become rather painful
like irritable bowel
Confusing d & c
with capitol D.C.
They’ve managed to curette
a new image, dilatory…
a thread about the twat over at d listed. A few months ago, most of the commenters would be on the twat's side, saying how racist the UK press was towards her.
I doubt very much that Harry penned the entirety of his own speech, and it’s actually a bit better and considerably longer than I would have expected from him. But there’s a definite “bro” vibe to it, like it’s a commencenent speech from an Ernest high school graduate. William uses more grown-up and complex language, dare I say like a future king.
H Is trying so hard to prove that he is relevant. If things had gone differently, he could have been making a joint speech with William in person to honor their mothers birthday. Instead he is “delivering the speech from an undisclosed location”! Lol!! Makes it sound like he’s in WitSec, Which isn’t too far off the truth. Perhaps the Daily Mail did not want to tell a fib ie and say he was broadcasting from his Montecito mansion.
I’ve been noticing a plethora of errors lately in regards to HazNowt’s age. If his birthday had just passed a few days ago, I might be able to overlook a publication in correctly listing him as 36. But in 10 weeks he’s going to be 38. William is 27 months older than Harry, not four years as these dates seem to suggest. I wouldn’t mention one occurrence, but it’s been happening a lot in different magazines. Harry’s birthday is September 15, 1984. He has most definitely left his mid 30s behind.
@GWAH: The Sukkits are being excoriated on CDAN and DListed, by the vast majority.
from that dlisted thread
MEGHAN MCCAIN: I wish Meghan Markle would pursue her delusional plans to run for president for no other reason than to see The Duchess eating deep-fried Oreos at the Iowa State Fair. Of course - she never would
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10973195/MEGHAN-MCCAIN-Meghan-Markle-run-president-eat-deep-fired-Oreos-Iowa-State-Fair.html
`The BRF knows how to deal with traitors and how to play the long game. There's a lot of precedent'
How true!
It may have been the British Royal family only since 1603 but first king of all England can truly be said to have been Athelstan in the 10th century, although it can be argued that Alfred, King of Wessex, in the 9th century was `King of the English' if not of England.
That's a heck of a time dealing with traitors.
The investigation was never about finding out if bullying had taken place, nor about clearing the duo of allegations in the media. In fact, the wording from the Palace indirectly said that they knew that the bullying had taken place (numerous staff had been badly mistreated, no matter what you want to call it). The investigation was about how and why the Dignity At Work policy failed to protect staff or deal with the bullying.
From what I have seen in Dignity At Work policies that are available on line (Parliament, government departments ...), the recommendations seem to be to try to resolve the issue at a lower level before escalating it up the chain of command and making it a formal complaint.
Did anyone ever talk to the duo and point out to them that the way they treated staff was at odds with policy? Who can staff go to with a complaint? Who has the authority to try and resolve the issue at each level? What is the procedure to follow if a complaint has to be escalated? Who decides on sanctions, and what would they be?
These are all tricky questions as the Principals have no employment contract, they are not chosen for the job according to suitability, they are not subject to a formal management system, and the only sanctions that can be imposed seem to be a reprimand from the Queen (seems to be rarely if ever used), sending them out of the country on an extended holiday, and essentially 'firing' them (removed from the role and honorary positions stripped from them).
There is no point in condemning or sanctioning the duo in any way because not only have they left the job, but they have been stripped of all honorary roles, they have left the country, and they will never again get a job in the Firm (the subtle signs of that are all over the place).
Loose ends, in my opinion:
* Future staff are not given the assurance that the Dignity At Work policy will protect them from repeated bullying and other mistreatment. The Royal Family may find it difficult to attract the brightest and best to work for them.
* The hapless one still is COS and in the LOS, as are his children, and he leases a house on Crown property. The Sussexes are a problem that has been shelved rather than solved. I assume that history shows that, with time, they will slip into irrelevance.
* Staff that were abused may be left feeling that justice was not done for them. However, we know that the Queen did find other jobs for staff where she could (she personally employed a few, but the Cambridges took on a few as well), and others were provided with private confidential recommendations from the Queen/the Cambridges so they could find good employment elsewhere.
No one in the royal family wants a media war, but the duo are poking the bear in claiming that the investigation cleared them of allegations of bullying. A big lie has a way of becoming in itself proof that it is true.
What can the royal family do? Quietly let everyone know that former staff can feel safe to break their confidentiality 'oath'? The duo will scream and sue, if they can find the money to do so, and the Royal family would be dragged into the mess. But a court case would further devalue the 'Sussex Brand'.
For now, I put all my hopes into the forthcoming Bower biography.
Not true.
I doubt that Bower has shown the manuscript to the duo and their lawyers. The latter are bracing themselves for when the book is published, but they have no idea what is in it.
The original publishing timeline would have taken into account the legal checks the author and publisher would have to do. So, why the delay?
I suspect the delay is because of new information (perhaps a new source or recent events).
Birthday party: The Tindalls and Peter Phillip's sent their children to Frogmore Cottage for a birthday party with people they do not know? No photographs from the Montecito gang? Did they drop off the children, go to the races, fetch the children, and then drive back to London where I think they were staying for the weekend? I do not believe it!
I share this skepticism, especially after the way Mike Tindall and Peter Philips behaved around the Dollars after the Thanksgiving service.
Trevor Coult also had a short video saying that Mike received a lot of taunting from British rugby players and fans after the Dollars used his children for merchy pap shots. They didn't want him to take it lying down. And while it was funny when he introduced non-British English speakers of the world to the word "bellend," that wasn't really (in my humble opinion) the best response. It's possible for parents to be frosty with each other and still want their children to get along, because mature adults don't use children to fight their battles. So it's still plausible that Mike, Zara and Peter took the high road.
Having said that, I don't think they did. It baffles me a little that MIke, especially after all the taunting he has received from his peers and his target audience, isn't simply saying so.
For me, the biggest sign that this is fake is that * didn't name-drop the most obvious royal cousin, whose presence at a party for Lili no one would disbelieve at all. Why didn't she say August Brooksbank was there? (My theory: The birthday party story was targted revenge at Peter and Zara, for the way they treated her at the cathedral steps, in front of all the cameras.)
Sorry, I just started reading Reddit and can’t navigate back to that thread to post the link here.
@Enbreth@Ian’s Girl
@Rebecca@Maneki
@Fifi
Much appreciated 🥰
Satire is a good antidote
For Feminhist haz
and his guileful Misquote😳
Flatliner
Eating fried oreos
a piece of cake
Compared to what passed
through her lips
on the make
Her problem lies
with her oral debate
She’ll find it hard
to run whilst prostrate…
@WildBoar
The long arm
of the long game.
Athelstan and St John
are familiar to me.
God Save the Queen
Your 'Faltliner'poem was genius gold! Keep 'em rolling and Thanks for the laughs!
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/meghan-markle-royal-family.html
PART I
Meghan Markle’s Bigger Dreams
She isn’t letting the royal family get in her way.
By Vanessa Grigoriadis
Several years ago, Meghan Markle came in to Elle magazine for a conference-room chat, hoping to dazzle the staff with her smarts and savvy. This was fairly common practice for actresses of some fame but insatiable ambition: charm the editors during the meet and greet, and maybe they’d assign a profile, even a cover story. This was not that long ago, and magazines were far from all powerful. But Markle was not yet a duchess, married before 1.9 billion TV viewers — around that time, she was begging friends for introductions to single tech entrepreneurs — and so not yet in a position to complain about, let alone flee from, the scrutiny of what later would turn out to be a torturously hostile media.
In fact, the opposite: Then, she was unusually solicitous of the press’s dimming spotlight. During the chat, Justine Harman, an editor at Elle at the time and now a podcaster, mentioned she was planning her nuptials, and Markle, who had long supplemented the actor’s lifestyle with the pre-princessy job of freelance calligrapher, asked Harman if she had found someone to do the wedding.
“This is really random, but I met with the actress Meghan Markle from Suits and she does amazing calligraphy,” Harman wrote her wedding planner afterward. “She offered to do my place cards for the wedding, which I assured her she doesn’t need to do! However, she is really eager to help out! Perhaps she could do the table menus?”
Markle’s forward nature is part of what makes her so special, and so American, especially for a British audience that has seemed desperate, since she arrived in the middle of its strange national soap opera, to alienate and punish and segregate her for reasons of race and nationality, of course — but also class. The nature of being a princess is hiring other people to do your calligraphy, not the other way around. And while Markles of previous generations — Grace Kelly and Rita Hayworth — represented a fantasy of escape from competitive celebrity into royal ethereality, Markle is very much a creature of her own. She’s inverting the Disney dream — one she got, and which wasn’t to her liking — of a prince whisking her away to a castle; now the princess is ready to make her own empire. She seems to have perceived royalty, ultimately, as merely a stepping-stone back into the game of self-salesmanship she seemed briefly to leave behind.
One imagines it must have been dreadful to be an independent American woman in one’s late 30s placed under amber. By marrying Harry, she not only lost her name, her country, and her religion (she had to convert to the Church of England) but also her ability to vote, voice political opinions, work, and go bare-legged without questions about why she didn’t wear nude stockings like other royal wives. Most notably, she was prohibited from running her personal Instagram page — effectively killing her control over her digital image. It’s a very modern sort of hustler who would see that as the ultimate breaking point.
Markle did not come out of nowhere, and her marriage was not the first sign of transcendent ambition. Before she was a princess, she was a self-made multimillionaire from her roles on film and in Suits who managed to put herself in the center of Hollywood after growing up on its margins. Her father, Tom, was a lighting designer when he met her mom, Doria, a makeup trainee, on the set of the popular soap General Hospital — and Markle’s early life was like a soap, too, with half-siblings bouncing in and out of the house, her mom leaving town through some of her adolescence, and her complicated dad providing for her but not quite understanding how to emotionally connect with her, according to a family member.
She may be poking the Royal bear but that's like bullying Winnie the Pooh or Paddington. Has it not occurred to her that there's a much larger and infinitely more dangerous Bear at large which she might have to deal with as President? Being the Commander in Chief is not all beer and skittles...
Markle hustled hard in her early days as an actor, taking roles like “Briefcase Girl No. 24” on the illustrious Howie Mandel game show Deal or No Deal, which required revealing whether a contestant had correctly guessed the amount of money inside a piece of luggage. At 30, she married Trevor Engelson, a film producer of some repute. “Omg, Trevor and I went to college together,” says a friend, via text. “He’s super cheesy. Like a guy who wears those Adidas slippers to a fancy event. A suit with those shoes.” This might not be true, but Markle and Engelson didn’t seem like they were afraid of cheesiness: When the new couple married in Jamaica, they reportedly handed out joints to their guests in tiny muslin bags printed with the word SHH.
Most notably, she was prohibited from running her personal Instagram page — effectively killing her control over her digital image.
Cheesy is not a word that comes to mind when describing the royal family (though one might think it about its fans), and Harry, perpetually the hurt child, sent to boarding school at 8 and attending his mother’s funeral at 12, seems to have been at least as enthusiastic as Markle about abdication. One doesn’t need to be Jane Goodall to read the humanity in some of Harry’s many fantasies of escape, issued over decades now — from describing his delight at joining the Army (“I wasn’t a Prince, I was just Harry”) to musing, “Who among our family wants to be king?” — though in a bizarre development, Goodall herself had recently connected with Harry. Weighing in on his escape, she said, “I know that Prince Harry really felt constrained, and he desperately wants little Archie to grow up away from all the pomp and circumstance.” Of course, how could he not, given the experience of his mother with the British press and the British crown. A tragic toddler victim in that drama, he can play the liberating hero in this one.
These days, Harry and Meghan are living on Vancouver Island, a quiet spot popular with the “newlywed or nearly dead,” as locals say, and it’s rumored they want a home in Whistler to enjoy the winter, too. Torontonians have been speculating about where Meghan and Harry would settle down were they to live in the city — would they want a cookie-cutter mansion on the Bridal Path, where Drake lives and recently the site of a scandalous double murder? A friend of a friend instead says they have bought in Rosedale, a tonier and more old-school area. Markle’s taking hikes through evergreen forests in her Lululemon leggings, carrying a lopsided Archie in an Ergobaby like it’s her first time using one, and living in a $14 million mansion borrowed from an anonymous individual whose identity even the ferocious British tabloids cannot ascertain — a small victory that must have felt, to them, like freedom.
It’s clear from the recent lawsuits they’ve brought against the British tabloids and even Markle’s wildly inappropriate father, as well as a long-lens cameraman in Vancouver who shot her while she was walking their dogs, that they mean business about guarding their privacy. This will, ironically, be much more difficult outside Britain, which has many prohibitions about where the royal family can be photographed, than inside it.
Regardless of where Markle’s being photographed, no one thinks she’ll be content taking hikes for long. What she seems to want for herself is to become the next Oprah, or Michelle Obama, a new, more discreet Kim Kardashian West, but hopefully falling short of a postdivorce Ivana Trump, newly shorn of her golden position in ’80s New York and hawking branded Champagne glasses and baubles on QVC. In other words, what is sometimes called a “goodwill ambassador” but in other contexts a “brand ambassador” by a world that isn’t always so able to tell the difference. The path forward from here is not entirely clear, though it is lucky for this type of image-conscious endeavor that the queen did not, as was rumored, rip away Harry and Meghan’s Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles and downgrade them to the far less mellifluous honorifics the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton.
For this quest, much effort has been put into securing a new court: In her time as a princess, Markle ran through many assistants, courtiers, and press officers and is now reportedly under the firm hand of the Sunshine Sachs firm and Sara Latham, a redheaded American political adviser. Latham is known to be smart, funny, and extremely competent. “Is she nice?,” I ask one of her former colleagues. “She can be,” she says. “People who know her love her.” Latham was John Podesta’s right hand and might be one of the only people who has worked on a presidential campaign (Hillary ’16) and in the White House (circa Bill), 10 Downing, and the British palace. “Sara has a serious pedigree, and she knows how to play the political game — she survived the Clinton orbit forever.”
The PR playbook for Meghan and Harry, says a specialist, is clear. “If I were them, I’d go away for a while,” she says. “They’re caught in a hurricane right now, and all the coverage is process and intrigue and gossip. They need to keep a low profile and let this news cycle exhaust itself.” When it does, she’d advise them to engage in an activity that can generate a unique series of new photos, rather than grant interviews and “tell their story” on Ellen or to Oprah. “They need to roll out a month or two from now with some ‘showing, not telling,’ and positive-leaning charity stuff. Whatever they’re going to do with themselves, they should go do that — go do some Africa and elephants, if that’s the plan. Then you feed the news with those images.”
But this is advice from another era and assumes that Markle can resist the siren song of the influencer lifestyle. When she became famous in the mid-2010s, she was a master at feeding her online image, hitting as many red-carpet events as possible and taking selfies both at home in states of undress and on her philanthropic missions. And her two best friends, stylist–cum–Canadian one-percenter Jessica Mulroney and fashion-designer-married-into-Hess-dynasty Misha Nonoo, are hustler businesswomen as well. The temptation to put out a line of Duchess of Sussex knitwear must loom large, even if hawking one’s brand doesn’t feel like it should be the ultimate in self-affirmation.
She’s also obviously interested in getting back into Hollywood: In one of the world’s great hot-mic moments, Harry was caught at the London premiere for the film of The Lion King asking Disney CEO Bob Iger if he could give Markle voice-over work. “We’d love to try,” said Iger, an affirmative answer clearly the only one even a CEO can give a prince. With Hollywood in the midst of a streaming gold rush, and even smaller influencers making deals there off the power of their reach, one could easily see Markle taking any role she wants, like succeeding Gal Gadot as the next Wonder Woman.
Though Caitlyn Jenner recently said she heard Markle was also house hunting in Malibu, if she wants to act again, she can insist on shooting in film-friendly Vancouver or Toronto and send her kids to a Canadian boarding school in the tradition of their now-disgraced uncle, Prince Andrew. The world will be ready to watch; as Netflix head Ted Sarandos recently said, when asked if he would want to work with her, “Who wouldn’t be interested?” She could also make millions for a dishy tell-all on the royal family — something the queen is rumored to have worried about when Harry and Meghan were hashing out their agreement to leave.
The trick, for Markle, is going to be marrying her instinct for commercialism with a desire to stay above the fray. The Obamas are perhaps making hundreds of millions post-presidency from socially aware projects at Netflix and Spotify and their own book deals — a model of public engagement suddenly more venerated than philanthropy as practiced by plutocrats or the institution-building Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did after their presidencies. Harry already has a deal with Oprah and Apple TV to create a six-part doc about mental health, and one could see Markle making the same sort of deal for a doc about one of her causes, like women’s empowerment or boosting immigration in Western countries. No longer duty bound to donate all the proceeds of her activities to charity, as she had pledged to do with the Disney voice-over job (her fee went, in fact, to help the cause of African elephants), one could see Markle doing hybrid deals that include some donation to charity and a larger fee she would keep herself. A high-level publicist agrees: “The plan has to be world domination, though I don’t think she’ll do a lot of commercial stuff for a while, because she wants to prove the British wrong that she’s just a brat and a gold digger.”
@Sandie@Enbreth
Long day for the
Tindall/Philip’s kidlets.
Party at Frogs Maw
followed by concert
at BP?
But whatever the advice she’s getting, she may want to be wary of waiting too long to sort out her new image — as any influencer knows, the time to monetize is always “now” and the drama of Megxit may dissipate sooner than you’d think. Royalty is forever, celebrity is not. “Our readers love Kate and the way she’s embraced being a princess,” says a tabloid insider.
“On that front, she’s a much better actor than Meghan.”
--------------------
Some thoughts:
* She did not have to convert to become an Anglican. The Royal family does have Catholics in its midst! She could not be Queen if she did not convert, I presume, but she will never be Queen anyway. Was it all part of the con? (Wedding, christening, pre-marriage Sandringham appearance, public appearances that include a church service - only time her and the hapless one have been anywhere near a church.)
One can easily spot the lies that were not questioned and have been accepted as fact by being repeated (the big lie becomes the truth). But, the article saw her for the grifter and hustler she is, more than two years ago!
@Mel
Metoo, let Diana rest.
@Longview
I agree, the RF have it all
on record.
Time will tell
Karma Chameleon!!
Having said that, I don't think they did. It baffles me a little that MIke, especially after all the taunting he has received from his peers and his target audience, isn't simply saying so.
Yes, the family's feelings toward the Sussexes were clear on the steps of St. George's. Even if the Tindalls and Phillipses were leaning toward burying the hatchet . . Harry and Meghan simply cannot be trusted not to film children or record children unauthorized. They had the brass neck to do it at Horseguards' Parade in full view of everyone including courtiers. How much worse would it be in the confines of their 'private home'? And the idea of the parents dropping the children off and picking them up later would be most ill advised. What kinds of 'admissions' or 'secrets' could a Narc wheedle out of a child or 'overhear'? Are they going to leave their children around a woman who abused 3 year old Charlotte and brought Catherine to tears? Hell, no.
The party was a fantasia spun by * to pretend that she and her kids were having a grand old time with the family. Trevor Coult also says that his mate on the ground crew at Farnborough says there were NO children, baby gear or nannies at ALL seen either coming or going. And fellow vlogger Bookworm is offering three bottles of top shelf vintage to ANYONE who can produce accurate time stamped photographic evidence of the Harkles boarding or disembarking with children. So far no takers.
There simply was no time in the midst of a busy Jubilee weekend for this party to have happened. The rest of the family had other evening events to attend. It's all pretense.
As for Mike going silent . . I think he was embarrassed by the rogue 'bellend' remark that probably got mentioned reprovingly by courtiers, even though it was overheard party conversation and not an official remark to the media. Poor Mike, a hale natural bloke was not raised in the aristocratic code of omerta and sometimes he lets things slip without thinking . . he got in hot water before for saying guilelessly to a reporter that none of the family had yet met Archie . .and the lad was about four months old.
It is not enough to not speak TO the Harkles--for absolute self-protection, one must not speak ABOUT them either where anyone outside the family, including staff, can hear. I think he's finally learned this and we won't be hearing from him again.
For me, the biggest sign that this is fake is that * didn't name-drop the most obvious royal cousin, whose presence at a party for Lili no one would disbelieve at all. Why didn't she say August Brooksbank was there? (My theory: The birthday party story was targted revenge at Peter and Zara, for the way they treated her at the cathedral steps, in front of all the cameras.)
Eugenie's move to Portugal couldn't come at a better time methinks. She and Jack were in London for the festivities but perhaps they couldn't make it since they were preparing to leave immediately after the evening party?
* is so freakin' predictable.
just saw one of the alleged bully victims is moving back to the cambridge foundation. that is a loud move of support. clearly puts any fault at the feet the perpetrator(s). this is a valued employee. and she will have the protection of the cambridges/foundation.
I was shocked to see how many kinds if oreos there are in the stores. I haven't been in the store cookie aisle since the last time I baked a cheesecake and needed cookie crumbs..
I look forward to a funnel cake at the state fair.
I thought the author may be adding a bell end note to the sussexography including the jubilee.
June is over and I don't see any new podcasts on Spotify. I have regular spotisfy, not subscription.
I've just read today's posts and your Mixed Metaphors is just brilliant!🤣🤣 Loved Flatliner too 🤣🤣. Some Nutties have said they think * reads this blog - I hope she does...
Brilliant as always!!!! Ha, ha!
I had work and then I took a friend out (who has a close family member with something with a long term death attached to it with a component of dementia health issue). They have full care and it is messy. They needed to down load with someone who isn't part of their problems.
https://youtu.be/0QJop7luiKk
I actually don't like Trevor Coult. But, in this instance, he's the only named source.
That means the baptismal photo was a complete fake.
The RF must have been rightly frightened at the thought that a stark raving mad lunatic had married into the family.
The b*tch wife also took photos of and filmed poor children of color in Harlem without anyone's permission. What a snake she is.
I'll bet the office gossip about the Harkles at Netflix is about getting combat-grade pay to work with her.
I have a relative who was mightily abused as a child, and married an abusive, mentally ill woman, and stayed married for 35 years (until she died) because he didn't know better, didn't get therapy. What puzzles me about Hairy marrying and staying with an extremely abusive, personality disordered, absolute b*tch of a person is puzzling. He wasn't abused as a child.
@Sandie: Thanks for the re-posting. Interesting.
From the NYMag article: "One imagines it must have been dreadful to be an independent American woman in one’s late 30s placed under amber."
I've never seen this phrase before. Meaning, anyone? Google hasn't been much help.
But 6 is dim. Probably does not want to admit failure and get all the "I told you so's" from the family.
As for Mike going silent . . I think he was embarrassed by the rogue 'bellend' remark that probably got mentioned reprovingly by courtiers, even though it was overheard party conversation and not an official remark to the media. Poor Mike, a hale natural bloke was not raised in the aristocratic code of omerta and sometimes he lets things slip without thinking . . he got in hot water before for saying guilelessly to a reporter that none of the family had yet met Archie . .and the lad was about four months old.
We all loved MIke for both the "bellend" comment and the "They never met him" bombshell, so it's sad for me to think that they put him in a very awkward position.
He is such a relatable member of the BRF because he's so down-to-earth and "one of us" . . . but this also means that he might still feel out of place among his in-laws. And although they must all accept and love him by now, it must really embarrass him to make faux pas that none of the others would ever make. Having a foot in two different worlds also means having to deal with pressure to do two contrary things. He knows exactly what his rugby base want from him; but if he gives it to them, he lets the BRF down. And when he grits his teeth and toes the official royal line, he disappoints those who are "his tribe" in another meaningful sense.
Re: "placed under amber"
I presume it means frozen in your current state -- never to evolve into anything else. The imagery comes from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park, in which scientists extract dinosaur DNA from prehistoric mosquitos that had been perfectly preserved in amber.
Amber is a sticky resin from trees, a tree sap I think - it has historically trapped insects and such within its clear liquid, preserving them in time.
So to be placed under amber could mean fixed in time, fixed in place, frozen in spot.
Thanks for the post about the new Harry Markle. It was a good one, worth the read!
Well, this is embarrassing!
From the NYMag article: "One imagines it must have been dreadful to be an independent American woman in one’s late 30s placed under amber."
I've never seen this phrase before. Meaning, anyone? Google hasn't been much help.
Placed under amber, frozen in time, a rather pedestrian, low-rent THOT perfectly preserved for all eternity in pictures as she slowly morphs into her dad before our wondering eyes.
Dr. Raman I and Lewis Howes discuss the differences between Narcissism and psychopathy. Very interesting. Not all narcissists are psychopaths, but the malignant narcissist qualifies. Pretty illuminating. Sorry if anybody doesn’t get Facebook watch, but the full podcasts are only available by subscription on guess where…? Spotify!
https://fb.watch/e0Ni4JpUkA
I wonder if it was a sly reference to her small role.
https://people.com/royals/mike-tindall-hasnt-seen-archie-yet-whatsapp-playdate/
H&M do plenty wrong but I don't think there's any evidence no one in the family saw Archie before Sept (when he went to SA and a few months after he supposedly went to the polo game with M in that green tent.)
The Queen:
* At Windsor when the new parents, dressed-up Doria, and new-born ran into them before or after the presentation at the castle. Photographic evidence.
* Rumours that the Queen visited them at FC shortly after the birth of Archie.
* Supposed quick meeting on the Thursday of Jubilee long weekend, when both children were presented.
Cambridges:
* Rumoured to have visited at FC a few days after birth of Archie.
* Christening of Archie. Photographic evidence.
* At polo, when there was no interaction between the duchess of Montecito and baby Archie and the Cambridge family, other than Louis who was gregarious irrepressible Louis, but was ignored by the deranged woman with the baby. Photographic evidence.
Charles and Camilla:
* Supposedly also visited the couple and newborn Archie at FC.
* At the christening of Archie. Photographic evidence.
Eugenie and Jack:
* May have seen both children when they visited California, but may not.
It is rather pathetic and sad. Especially as the royal family are close. The hapless one grew up spending a lot of time with family (outside of appearances at formal engagements) ... summers at Balmoral, skiing holidays in the winter, family get-togethers for birthdays, at sporting events, at concerts ...
Brilliant of you to make the connection with the series Fringe! I loved that show!
Interesting post ... her possessiveness over him and not being happy with 'the optics' of him being photographed with other women.
@SwampWoman
Brilliant of you to make the connection with the series Fringe! I loved that show!
You can see that I was (okay, still am) a huge fan, too! Yes, MM definitely lives in an alternate universe. She wasn't drop dead gorgeous back in the pre-royal days, but I think more attractive than her present plastic look.
I agree with your fairly short list of times we know of members of the RF might have seen Archie. It is pretty pathetic but
1) I was just saying I don't think Mike was saying no one in the RF saw Archie for the first 4 months of his life and your list supports he likely didn't say that. If that had been true, then yes, he would have been saying the christening photo was faked and the Windsor Castle photo of the QEII & PP was faked. And the polo photo? The photo was real but the baby was fake?
2) If, instead of making a list of when the RF saw Archie from his birth until the SA trip near the end of Sept, make a list of when the RF saw H&M. It's almost the same list. Except that H&M went to the TTC (and for all we know Archie was somewhere in BP with a nanny.) My point is H&M were not in contact either.
3) It appears the RF cousins, first cousins once removed, etc do tend to see each other. But I'm not sure George was seen too much during the first 4 months of his life either. Kate did stay in the hospital at least one night and had visitors there. But then the 3 of them went to her parents' house for a month. Then they went to Wales until Will left the RAF. They didn't go to Balmoral that year, I don't believe since George was born in late July. And George was christened at age 3 months in late Oct. So I doubt Mike or other members of the RF saw him much either before age 4 months. Most of the RF "family outing" interactions don't involve infants (except that polo one and it was weird.)
Was that the podcast with Dr. Ramani "How to SPOT a narcissist when dating! (Watch Out for This)"? If so, for the people that do not have Spotify, it is on YouTube and has had 1.4 million views, so there must be a lot of narcs in the dating pool.
/I watch a lot of podcasts on Rumble and YouTube.
The "duck" "rabbit" kid didn't know who * was, didn't have any connection with her.
Very good observation. How old was Archie when they fled to Canada? I think they were in LA in Mudslide Manor by the time he turned one (three continents, about five countries, four homes by the time he was one, so the family was very unsettled).
Supposedly Charles was miffed that he did not see much of George when he was a baby, and the Middletons did. It was a scheduling conflict as Charles is so busy and booked up months in advance. By the time Louis came along, they had all sorted out scheduling and Charles spent a lot of time with baby Louis, but you can also see that all the Cambridge children do spend family time with Charles and Camilla.
Baby Charlotte was photographed with the Queen and Prince Phillip, so maybe the Cambridges made the effort to get together with family, and were more comfortable in dealing with a baby, once she came along. Although, George is also featured in formal photographs with the Queen and Charles from a young age.
The duo probably felt isolated and cut off and 'rejected', alone at FC with the baby, and unable to see objectively that others also had to, and did, adjust.
By the time Archie came along, the Cambridges had three children and Charles and Camilla were experienced grandparents. The Queen and Prince Phillip always spent time with grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but everyone in the family knew you had to go to them and fit into their schedule. The duo were living in Windsor Great Park, not Wales, and her only family, her mother, came to her (briefly for about two weeks). It should have been easier for the duo to adjust to fitting in with the family with a new baby than it had been for the Cambridges.
If they could take Archie to Southern Africa (plus the holidays on the continent they had), they could take him to Clarence House.
Yes, that appearance at polo was weird, in every way. For someone who supposedly cares so much about optics, she seemed completely unaware of optics that day. The tabloids she hated so much were actually very kind and pretended they did not notice, for the most part!
So, although I can see that circumstances made it very difficult for them and their children to spend time with family, most of those circumstances were created unnecessarily by them. I think he may be feeling the negative consequences of their stupid words and actions; I doubt she is. He knows how it could have been (she doesn't), and surely can't spend the rest of his life taking no responsibility for that.
Guttaral instead of gut wrenching. Archetypes instead of stereotypes. 'Denied Archie the Prince title' instead of 'Archie was never entitled to that title'.
And do on ...
For a woman who is still claimed to be super smart (I came across another tiresome article about how she is the smartest, most intelligent, best educated royal.), she sure does come across as stupid!
What I recall is Mike Tindall saying that about his children. This was after the Trooping at which Harry yelled at * on the balcony and at which all the cousins supposedly met Archie for the first time. "They never met him" directly challenged the story that * introduced a live baby to the other children in the BRF. I can see why Mike would have got into trouble with that, as the BRF's apparent policy at the time was still to go along with everything the Dollars were saying about Archie.
You're welcome!
@SwampWoman
Actually, Meghan had a guest role on the science fiction series "Fringe", where people/locations were "Ambered" in a sticky, fast-hardening resin in order to protect the integrity of one universe from an alternate universe.
This makes me glad I quit watching Fringe before I got to her episode! (Petty, I know, but I'm not sorry!)
It's interesting if it were indeed a sly reference to *'s small role. The author of the article might have even watched the episode in question as part of her research. We've been discussing * here for years, and the only roles of hers that ever come up are her bit part in General Hospital and her supporting character in Suits. (I may vaguely recall a mention of another bit part in Horrible Bosses . . . but that may have been another forum I'm thinking of.)
Unknown, my friend, you have some interesting points so please update your login so everyone can read them. Thanks.
Placed under amber, frozen in time, a rather pedestrian, low-rent THOT perfectly preserved for all eternity in pictures as she slowly morphs into her dad before our wondering eyes.
SwampWoman, LOL! You make it sound so ominous! But I agree with you that she's already losing her looks. It's curious that she didn't seem to learn anything a out self-presentation in 7 years of working with professional make-up and wardrobe people.
Do you by chance remember what her small role in Fringe was? I definitely think the NYMag writer could have been alluding to it as it's not a common phrase.
Any teachers on here who can comment as to if/at what grade this would be on a vocab list?
I swear I'm not showing off . . . words are my profession and that's the one that came to mind!
I posted the link to *'s Wikipedia page in this thread where it lists her filmography.With the exception of Suits and Deal or No Deal, her roles were one episode. So not a great actress or star by any stretch of the imagination. She was I. Horrible Bosses, I think the Fed Ex girl for a brief moment or two on the screen.
Also you can watch the Dr Ramani comments on Narcs and Psychopaths on You Tube if you don't subscribe to Spotify. I just searched YouTube. That was a fascinating broadcast.
She was in her mid-30s when she found her life's calling - to be the wife of an easily influenced and not too bright, but popular, well liked, wealthy and famous, prince.
Unfortunately, she has to be the star, in control, dominate, and loves spending money unwisely, so much of what attracted her in the prince she has destroyed. One wonders if she still has his unquestioning love and obedience.
River did a tribute for Major Johnny Thompson.
I had never heard the claim the children in the RF met Archie at the TTC in 2019. (2019 was the year MM was blabbing when the National Anthem was about to start.)
I can't even say I ever have heard Mike say anything about that gathering. I like Mike alot but don't really "follow" him. Mike could have commented but I am not even sure he and Zara, much less the two kids they had at the time even attended. Zara attended Troopings regularly as a child but not much as an adult. And I don't see them in any balcony photos from 2019. IF anyone got upset with Mike and i don't know that they did, it might be because he wasn't even there so why would he feel the need to discuss what did or didn't happen?
The 2019 balcony appearance was on the 8th of June so Archie would have been a couple of days past a month old. H&M were *supposedly* living in Windsor by then so I could understand if they didn't want to leave him at home with a nanny while they went off to London. In fact, initially M wasn't expected to attend as I recall. But when she did, I could also understand maybe not being ready to have Archie in a room with lots of relatives including "germy" kids.
H&M went on extended vacation/leave starting in mid-Nov 2019 and never really came back. Archie would have been less than 7 months old when they left. I don't think the lack of extended family interactions with Archie was so remarkable up until the time they left. But they've been gone & even when they returned in 2020, they didn't bring Archie. And it sounds like they didn't bring the kids to the TTC this year either. So that's definitely odd.
I do recall that background with Charles and the Cambridges @Sandie. There really did seem to be friction about Charles not seeing George much and later maybe not seeing Charlotte either with Kate's parents seeing them all the time. I know at one point Will said in an interview Charles worked too much so he couldn't see family. (There was some irony because this was when there was the hoopla over W&K being "work-shy.") I don't know how it all worked out but it seems better now. Personally I suspect Carole M may have stepped back a bit. According to some articles she was practically living with the Cambridges for awhile. I know she and Kate are close and I doubt that's changed. But Pippa has kids now and James and his then-girlfriend lived with the Middletons during the lockdown. So day-to-day interactions may be different. Of course, supposedly the Cambridges are moving to Windsor in part so Kate can be closer to her mother.
I had never heard the claim the children in the RF met Archie at the TTC in 2019. (2019 was the year MM was blabbing when the National Anthem was about to start.)
I looked it up again. The story was an US Weekly exclusive:
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/news/meghan-harrys-son-archie-met-his-cousins-at-trooping-the-colour/
Baby Archie Met Some of His Cousins at Trooping the Colour Parade: Details
A family affair! Duchess Meghan made her first royal outing after giving birth to her son, Archie, and the infant enjoyed the quality family time as well.
“Archie was at Trooping the Colour,” a source told Us Weekly exclusively of the Saturday, June 8, parade in this week’s issue. “[It] was a chance for him to meet some of his cousins.”
Prince William and Duchess Kate’s youngest son, Prince Louis, made his Buckingham Palace balcony debut in the same outfit Prince Harry wore in 1986. The 13-month-old’s older siblings, Prince George, 5, and Princess Charlotte, 4, were also in attendance.
The insider went on to say, “The reason Harry and Meghan didn’t appear on the balcony when the Queen returned back to Buckingham Palace was because she was breast-feeding.”
During the parade, the former actress, 37, had a hard time being away from her baby boy. “She has spent almost every moment with him and saying goodbye was very difficult,” the source told Us. “But Meghan truly wanted to be at the celebration for the queen. … Meghan loved seeing all the other royal children and was doting on them.”
Since an American publication got the "scoop," perhaps the UK outlets didn't bother to run it any longer?
As for Mike Tindall's controversial comment, it was in Hello! magazine:
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2019071475286/mike-tindall-talks-daughters-meeting-royal-baby-archie/
Over the weekend, Mike and Zara Tindall enjoyed spending some quality time together at the star-studded Celebrity Cup 2019 tournament, which saw Mike compete in the competition, while Zara showcased her vocal chords during the Saturday night karaoke session at the two-day event. The couple also took along their two daughters, Mia, five, and one-year-old Lena, who had just as much fun as their parents! Talking exclusively to HELLO!, Mike said that his girls have loved being there. "They only came down last night, so they've enjoyed it," he said. The dad-of-two also revealed that Mia and Lena are yet to meet the newest member of the royal family – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's baby son Archie Harrison, who was born in May. "No, not yet," he said when asked.
Celebrity Cup 2019 was a little over a month after Trooping 2019. Mike's throwaway commeent totally demolished what the US Weekly "source" (Hmmm, I wonder who it could have been . . .) said about * "doing" on the royal children as she breastfed Archie.
@Magatha said..."Metoo, let Diana rest."
Yes some may feel completely over (and never perhaps liked Diana in retrospect, or upon hearing details that surfaced about her posthunmously) and that is understandable.
But Willlam and Harry did have a mother who they greaqtly loved and want to keep her memory alive. I admire that. But it is somewhat unusual to literally both bury a historical female and put up a blocade on them in history books, the media and the general public (who in the UK I think she is still highly regarded) in such a short amount of time. In terms of history, and years, it has not been that long ago when she passed (1997). Other historical events which occured in 1997 and which are still in history books and occsionaley form the basis of media reference are...
* President Clinton took office for his 2nd term.
* Monica Lewenski & Clinton affair ended and she saved the dress" & confided in Ms. Tripp
* O. J. Simpson found liable in civil suit (Feb. 5).
* Mother Teresa died (Sept. 5)
* US shuttle joins Russian space station (Jan. 17).
* Timothy J. McVeigh sentenced to death for Oklahoma City bombing (Aug. 14).
* Two convicted in New York Trade Center bombing (Nov. 12).
* Super Bowl: Green Bay d. New England
* Wimbledon:
Women: Martina Hingis d. J. Novotna (2-6 6-3 6-3)
Men: Pete Sampras d. C. Pioline (6-4 6-2 6-4)
* Heaven's Gate cult members commit mass suicide in California (March 27).
* Higest grossing US movie stars: Robin Williams, Mel Gibson, Jim Carey & John Travolta
Perhaps more relevant is the continuing discussion, reference and remeberances of these women:
* Jacqueline Kennedy: who was in the White House only 3 yrs (Diana was Princess longer)
* Margaret Thacher: Prime Minster for 11 yrs.
* Mother Teresa
* All of Henry VIII's wives (some more than others)
* Norma McCorvey AKA 'Roe' (of Roe versus Wade)
As one can see I just touched the tip of the iceberg on women who are talked about long after they are gone. I dare say the awful undivine Ms M, Meghan Markle will be remebered 30 yrs after she leaves the BRF thru divorce or death.
But if it is because of so much sentimentality is shwn by the UKK public or otherwise, then I say give Diaqna her due (as surely there have been both negative and positive things since her demise). She was so instrume4ntal in bringing aqs least one huge significant thing to the world, the birth of William who seems to be maybe the saving grace of the Monarchy goingt forward. Then too there were her positive effects of her causes she promoted, such as we all know, destigmatizing AIDS patients.
I seem to be in a minortity on this site as far as speking out on the posituives that Diana had. Such a pity, as no person is a complete saint and many are far more sinful than Diana was. I believe her detractors (not you in particular btw) did not understand how her emotional foibles were sometimes caused by Charles affair and even her own dna, which people have exco4rciated her for. I for one, would have been emotionally crushed if my husband loved another womaqn before and after marriage (although I would have turned the pain inward instead of running out and alwo having affairs).
For Diana, I say God grant her mercy and peace. For her life, I say she did her best perhaps (far more than many of contribute in swuch a short life)!
Blogger DesignDoctor said...
...Also you can watch the Dr Ramani comments on Narcs and Psychopaths on You Tube if you don't subscribe to Spotify.
I did watch her interview on psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists. It's the first time I've heard that psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made. Never heard that distinction before. She was good.
It just seems so over the top right now. Catherine can't wear *anything* without it being a 'sweet nod' to D. If I never hear sweet nod again it will be too soon.
I can't fathom that there's anything about Diana that we don't already know. I'm kind of done with with remembrances, retrospectives, made up movies.
And I'm really sick of H constantly bringing up his mother, especially after complaining that he objected to people who didn't know her wanting to mourn her.
Bringing her up now and then, sure. When it's appropriate to the event. But not every time he speaks, trying to tug on the heartstrings.
I don't recall the Kennedy children going on like that in public about their mother. Maybe they did, but I don't remember it that way.
I wasn't saying don't talk about her at all. But I do wish it could be kept in context. And not used as something for H to talk about in a maudlin way to get attention and make money from.
Thanks for all the links. I had not seen them. But I do think there are some issues of accuracy (although I wouldn't doubt MM made a big deal of breastfeeding Archie if he was at the 2019 TTC or even if he wasn't. She sure does like to talk about breastfeeding including to those teenagers) BUT
The article link from US weekly says:
"The insider went on to say, “The reason Harry and Meghan didn’t appear on the balcony when the Queen returned back to Buckingham Palace was because she was breast-feeding.”
Yeah, those magical boobs again. She WAS on the balcony though and so was Harry. That's when it looked like H told M to "Turn around and STFU." And she looked liked she might cry. And when that wasn't happening, H&M were towards the back. Maybe the US Weekly story was to convince us we didn't see those things?
The article also says (as many did at the time)
"Prince William and Duchess Kate’s youngest son, Prince Louis, made his Buckingham Palace balcony debut in the same outfit Prince Harry wore in 1986..."
I wouldn't doubt Kate might have copied an outfit worn earlier because she seems into those "sweet nods to history" (although it would be pretty weird IMO to copy an outfit Harry had worn especially *after* Harry's son had been born. If that was done, I'd think it would be entirely legit for that to piss off the Sussexes big time. Royal rank makes no difference in that sort of thing.) But the link below claims the outfit was also worn by William at a different event when he was young. That's absolutely not true. And it does not appear to be true Louis wore Harry's outfit either. Look at the actual pictures in the link.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2019060873961/prince-louis-same-outfit-prince-harry-prince-william-trooping-the-colour/?viewas=amp
1. Smocking design and color are different across the shirts. None of the blues are alike. Harry's color is close to Will's color but the design is totally different. Harry and Louis's designs look alike or close to it but the colors are too different to just be the light IMO.
2. Will's collar is outlined in blue. The sleeve embroidery is more prominent.
3. Pants colors look different but that could be the light. Maybe.
4. Louis's pants are bloomers with elastic legs. Will's are shorts. Can't see the bottom of Harry's but they fasten in the middle like Will's. Louis's fasten on the sides (more like a fancy fabric diaper cover than a pair of boy's shorts.)
Last, the issue of what Mike said. I see no conflict between stories. Mia and Lena weren't at the 2019 TTC that I know of. Mike and Zara didn't appear to be there and usually do not attend. So even if M was introducing Archie while her top was pulled down to breastfeed him, the Tindall family wasn't there. So his kids hadn't likely met Archie by the time he was about 2 months old and Mike was interviewed at the Celebrity Cup. I'm not sure when his kids met Louis for the first time either. But no one would ask Mike that!
It would drive me crazy if I couldn't wear anything without someone thinking it was a reference to something my late mother-in-law, whom I had never even met, once wore!
During the Caribbean tour, Catherine wore a couple of outfits that were, for a change, "sweet nods" (haha) to Queen Elizabeth. It's too bad that the significance of these dresses was buried under the bigger controversies of the tour. But I also suspect that even if the tour had been a raging success, people would have found the new reference point nice . . . but ultimately unremarkable. A dead woman most of us have never met (but imagine we knew as well as those who did) will always be more romantic than an elderly lady who is still with us.
So glad you enjoyed the YouTube on narcs, psychopaths, and sociopaths. Dr Ramani is great!
To be fair, Caroline and John Kennedy were 37 and 34 when Jackie died. Not 15 & 12. (And when JFK was shot they were quite young-- not quite 6 & 3.) I do know what you mean though. It seems like every time we turn around there's some sort of "Memory of Diana" event or Harry is yammering on about her. And to be honest, I think talking about the cards the Cambridge kids make for Diana every year is weird too. Fine if they want to do that as a family. Weird to tell people about it. Harry's story about Archie saying Grandma Diana to a photo hung in the nursery was ridiculous. But even Will had said years earlier they had lots of pictures of Diana displayed and often pointed to them when telling bedtime stories so the kids would know Diana.
Some have said Will's tribute for the Diana Awards was more appropriate than Harry's. I guess. But looking at just that event, Will's statement was a written one & I'm not sure spouting off that kind of fairly "dry" rhetoric would have worked in person.
While wanting to "keep a memory alive" is very understandable, trying to make the public do that just looks desperate. And as unpopular as my opinion may be, I think both Will and Harry have done that too much. As @CatEyes points out, much has happened since Diana died. There will be an increasingly small number of people who remember Diana. I think the best either brother can do is to keep the causes she cared about alive. That may be through obtaining funding or involving people or both. And making a difference in those areas will serve as her legacy. Asking the public to grieve her loss as her children always will just can't work especially as time goes on. And as others have said, it's kind of ironic given that Harry (and to a lesser extent Will) seemed to resent any grief the public felt at the time Diana died.
I need to call out a comment by Longview, that resonated with me and sums * up succinctly:
“She is after all the world's most empty vessel, with nothing original, nothing substantive, and nothing of value to add, driven only by her own raging thirst for fame.”
I always thought that it was because the masses of people crying and grieving over Diana's death could never understand the depth of pain her young sons felt. Maybe they resented exhibiting the British stiff upper lip when they just wanted to sob and scream in grief.
The street markings didn't match, there was a light signal, that doesn't exist on the route, and etc., etc.
It was totally faked. Oprah must have seen that, and thought that the Harkles are as mad as a box of frogs. LOL!
It was part of the revenge for the Jubilee, IMO. A threat to the BRF that the Harkles were going to spill beans on Oprah once again. Except it was all fake, and not happening. There was no meeting with Oprah.
Subsequent events lead me to speculate that they were there to discuss the abortion issue, but I still think she wants another Oprah interview. She wants to bury the bullying claims (risky to poke the bear on that one), but she also wants the platform to spew a load of grandiose word salad about the abortion issue.
The daughter seems to be the golden child, so she may well have been in the car with them.
It is a pity the photographer did not stick around to photograph them as they left the estate, but maybe his job was done and he was told to vamoose! I would love to have seen their faces when they left Oprah as that would indicate how that short visit panned out for them.
It was a visit, not a phone call, so I think they are still in cahoots with Oprah about something. She is still an avid Sussex supporter, but she must realize how messy and incompetent they are. Perhaps she sees herself as some kind of mentor and thinks they can still 'make it big', hence she is trying to steer them into the direction of the reality show, convincing them they can make it classy.
@Maneki Neko, I couldn’t work out the fuss made of Mole’s so called response and the word guttural uttered, because this is what I assume was meant. I just didn’t see the different spellings. So I agree, it was a typo. 🥴
@CatsEyes, So well put about Diana. She had many, many faults, many of which only came to light after her death. We mustn’t forget all the good she did and all the positive things she did too. For those abroad, here in the UK she will never ever be just any public figure, not only because of the positivity and good she possessed, she made history, she changed our Monarchy for the better in many ways. Not only was she the ex wife of a future King, she’s the Mother of two boys, one of which is a future heir to the throne. Her time as a highly valued member of the royal family will never be forgotten. As adult children most are aware of our parents faults, I’m sure William is now aware, but when speaking about and remembering someone loved and now gone, we don’t tend to bring up their faults, in the public domain(!) 😳most certainly not when it’s an anniversary as this is; 25 years since of her death.
William and Mole inherited both the best and worst of her, I’m grateful we have William and without her positive influence he’d be another type of heir I’m sure. 😕
The tragedy is compounded by the repercussions within the family which we are now seeing the sorry fruits of. No one is equipped to lose their mother as a young teenager, but that goes 100 fold for H. He still would’ve been a problem child, and probably gotten involved with substances and too much partying due to his privilege and lack of discipline. But I don’t think it would’ve gotten so bad that he would have ended up with Markle. It’s impossible to say what Diana’s influence would’ve been in the day today lives of her adult sons, or if she would’ve been help or hindrance in their romantic relationships. I think she would’ve had a hard time seeing her self “replaced“ as the primary female in their lives, and she might have been jealous of their partners. The friendship with Fergie cooled after Fergie took Diana‘s place as the fresh new Windsor bride and started Unfavorable comparisons with herself. Fergie was the Jolly, down to earth curvy girl who eight verses Dianas Showhorse neuroticism and disordered eating. That lasted for a hot minute, until Fergie fell from favor and became the “Duchess of Pork.” I think Diana would’ve had a hard time with other younger female Royals getting press attention. But there is no way she would’ve ever wished Markle on her younger son. She would have encouraged him in another direction, even if it was another “Hollywood” marriage.
I saw a family picture of Diana with William and Harry on Harry’s visitation day at Eton. They are striding along and she’s got her hand on Harry’s back, a supportive gesture to be sure since they were press there.. But it was also like she was steering him so that he wouldn’t run amok. In all her photos with H She tends to do that. She’s either holding him, steering him, admonishing him. Harry was her baby and he was clingy so at the time it didn’t seem at all unusual. Diana was well known as a tactile mother, and she was physically affectionate to William also, but not as much. Harry seemed much younger than his age even as a child and viewing those pictures now, I get the sense that Diana was riding herd On her juvenile live grenade So he wouldn’t explode in public. I can imagine if Horrid Was a nightmare behind closed doors, the stress of managing him so he wouldn’t have a complete meltdown in public must’ve been considerable. She definitely had some stressful balcony moments, but to the world watching it just looked like the adorable ginger imp was being impish. He was very little. But in retrospect it seems that the royal family was aware from pretty early on that there was something very off kilter about Diana’s youngest. We are certainly seeing that now.
Being steered By a firm maternal hand feels very familiar to Harry, and this is why the Claw has been so effective on him.
According2Taz
@according2_taz
So the Diana Award promotes Harry, leaves nasty tweets about Prince William visible yet blocks & deletes tweets defending William. Well it comes as no surprise Better Up & Sales Force have their fingers in the pie….
https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/22/entertainment/feat-emma-watson-prince-harry/index.html
Emma Watson addresses Prince Harry dating rumors
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I share it purely for entertainment purposes, though the Tumblr user who alerted me to it was more serious when she speculated that Emma Watson may be the one * is trying to model her face after these days.
And I can indeed see Emma as an aspirational model for * . . . Emma is a very pretty B-list actress who was once in one of the biggest franchises of all time and had her day as Hollywood's It Girl. Since then, she has had middling success with projects ranging from Hollywood blockbusters to Indie films; and now she's better known as an activist who cares about women's issues and has worked with the UN.
It's easy to imagine * believing her peak in Suits and humanitarian cosplay means her career parallels Emma's.
Now, I'd need to see * less made up than she was at the Jubilee to judge if the Tumblr user's joke has any bearing in reality. (Emma doesn't do raccoon eyes or bronzer two shades too dark.) But this gave me a nice giggle today, so I thought I'd share it with the Nutties.
@OKay
@Mel
@lizzie
Thank you for bringing up valid points, many of which I accept/agree with. I can heaatedly say it's beyond time when Harry needs to quit using Diana to promote himself (he may be her son, but he IS NOT Diana in the ways she was positive & good, by and large. As for Diana throwing herself down the stairs, I can't help but think of the old adage "desperate people do desperate things". Horrible action tho! But by a desperate women seemingly plagued by mental illness at the time. By her own account she was suffering extreme stress. However she should not IMO, have released the account for media consumption but kept it a private family matter (we see Mr/Mrs 6 commit the same sensationalism of 'private family matters'.
@Rasberry Ruffle
I appreciate your comments; points better said than me!
Ultracrepidarian
Definition: one who is presumptuous and offers advice or opinions beyond one’s sphere of knowledge
See
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/polite-words-for-impolite-people/ultracrepidarian
Last, the issue of what Mike said. I see no conflict between stories. Mia and Lena weren't at the 2019 TTC that I know of. Mike and Zara didn't appear to be there and usually do not attend. So even if M was introducing Archie while her top was pulled down to breastfeed him, the Tindall family wasn't there. So his kids hadn't likely met Archie by the time he was about 2 months old and Mike was interviewed at the Celebrity Cup. I'm not sure when his kids met Louis for the first time either. But no one would ask Mike that!
You make a good case for Mike's supposed faux pas where the Dollars are concerned being big nothingburgers.
But when we understood them as Mike publicly exposing the Dollars, when BP was still letting them get away with a lot of things, it was easy to see why he might be holding back now. The idea was that he was loose lipped and got in trouble for it, hence his current reticence even though * blatantly used his children to merch some ugly rings. I don't know if it's more or less disappointing that he may simply want to rise above the fray where the Dollars are concerned. On the one hand, I admire the maturity. On the other hand, I share the fighting spirit of everyone who has taunted him for this.
Not to mention her behavior is ultra creepy.
I don't mean to be dense but I'm still confused about what Mike T is getting grief for or has gotten grief for. I do understand some people would think using a vulgar term (bellend) to describe anyone including Harry would be ill-advised. So he might have gotten grief for that if he really said that. And I guess some people might have thought he shouldn't have shared that the cousins' lunch was a big boozy affair. I didn't think any grief he got was serious but even if it was, I just don't get the other stuff.
As I said before, it appears Mike and Zara weren't at the Trooping that infant Archie might or might not have attended in June 2019. And as I said, Zara rarely goes to TTC probably because she's riding in competitions at that time of the year. So Mike saying in July 2019 his kids didn't meet Archie the month before at the TTC wasn't letting anything out of the bag. His kids weren't there. Lena would have been about to turn 1 and Mia was 5 so they wouldn't have been there by themselves. So I can't even see it as a faux-pas. Now if he'd said something like "I know the christening was fake" that would be a big deal. But apparently the story of Archie meeting everyone at the TTC only appeared in one US tabloid and not in UK papers. And that story contained the grossly inaccurate report that Harry and Meghan never appeared on the balcony because M had to breastfeed (and I guess H had to help?) But we all know they were on the balcony. They are in pictures, after all. So I'm not sure how much the RF was "going along" with the story about Archie meeting people that day anyway.
I just don't get it. What am I missing?
I guess they have their own reasons for tiptoeing around this pregnancy subterfuge, or whatever it may be. Just seems out of step when "transparency" is such a buzzword in the rest of the world these days.
"Never complain, never explain" covers a world of sins, doesn't it?
==================
@Wild Boar
Ultracrepidarian - beautiful! This is * to a tee. As a linguist, I was interested in the origin of the word. My Latin is very rusty but apparently 'This Latin word literally means ‘beyond the shoe’.
The story goes that when the Greek painter Apellis displayed his beautiful painting of Alexander the Great, a shoemaker pointed out that the sandals in the painting did not have the required number of loops. The artist thanked him, and immediately set about making the required changes. Once they had been carried out, the emboldened shoemaker began to comment on other aspects of the painting — the shape of Alexander's legs, his robes, etc.
Apellis put an end to it by saying, “Sutor, ne ultra crepidam”, meaning “shoemaker, not above the sandal”. The wise painter was trying to tell the shoemaker that he should limit his comments to his area of expertise — shoes — and avoid passing judgment on things he knows nothing about. William Hazlitt, the well-known essayist, coined the word ‘ultracrepidarian’ in 1819. https://www.thehindu.com/books/know-your-english/know-your-english-what-is-the-meaning-of-ultracrepidarian/article5086267.ece
So * can be said to be 'beyond the shoe' or 'not above the sandal' 😁
Back in 2019, there was the idea that Mike Tindall's comment about his children not yet having met the Harkles was not merely a casual comment, but a direct salvo in *'s face. This was a fair interpretation, given the greater context of all the fake stories (a birthday party at Balmoral, a cake baked by the Queen, a baby shower hosted by Catherine, etc.) that had been appearing regularly in the press. * had been leaking lies with impunity and suddenly there was a contradiction of one particularly embarrassing one. Remember that we had also just been treated to the ten-month moonbump pregnancy show -- so any hint that she was lying about Archie in any way was pounced upon immediately.
Whether or not the Tindall children were even at Trooping 2019 was lost in the excitement over the "bombshell." And if they actually weren't there, well, Mike's comment doesn't disprove the possibility that other royal children met her.
I don't blame you for finding it confusing, because now that I'm laying everything out for myself, too, I see that at least one detail doesn't add up. Something everyone (both sugars and "saltines") took for granted was that Mike got told off by BP for blowing *'s cover. (I'm really not sure how we all got that idea.) We were all still high on the irregularities in the birth announcement, the unsent emails to the press, the sign in front of BP with no doctors' signatures, etc. that it seemed that BP was actively colluding with *. And IF BP was indeed doing that, then it logically follows that Mike would have been asked to be more careful about anything which called the official story into question.
https://wordhistories.net/2018/02/03/ultracrepidarian-meaning-origin/
I won't copy & paste all of it, partly so as not to bore Nutties who might not be interested and so as not to take up too much space but this quote describes TBW:
(from The collected works of William Hazlitt – London, 1902)
Your overweening self-complacency is never easy but in the expression of your contempt for others; like a conceited mechanic in a village ale-house, you would set down every one who differs from you as an ignorant blockhead; and very fairly infer that any one who is beneath yourself must be nothing. You have been well called an Ultra-Crepidarian critic.
Thank you, @Wild Boar, for this little gem.
Interesting!
Now how is this for synchronicity? Just the other day, I learned the German expression: "Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten." I'd translate it as: "Shoemaker, stick to your lasts." (The last is a part of the shoe.) It's highly possible that this expression evolved from "Sutor, ne ultra crepidam"!
I get it now. The big piece I was missing was that Mike supposedly got grief for "blowing it" in 2019. I knew never that (& see it might not be true anyway but that's why I wasn't getting it.) And as you say, his comment really doesn't address whether anyone else met Archie at TTC since Mike's family wasn't there.
I also don't know that there is always retribution in the RF for failing to stick to "never complain, never explain." In fact, I thought that's what many criticized TQ for-- failing to read "the riot act" to people in her family who "crossed the line" in some way. So I don't know that Mike would have gotten "in trouble" anyway. I'm also not sure that there was a giant spoken and explicit coverup of details about Archie. There may have been discussion at the top. But I seriously doubt there were any family-wide discussions about keeping things quiet and not challenging H&M about their child. I do remember all the oddities. It's not that. But I suspect instead of instructions & scoldings if needed, silence would have sent messages within the family just as it often does with many family secrets in ordinary families.
March 25, 2022
You remember that children's book that was released last year to a lot of fanfare, but not such great sales? In the weeks that followed the release, the number of sales really rose exponentially. The reason? It is now estimated that the author of said book, who all of you know, bought about 70% of the total number of books sold.
Meghan Markle/The Bench
`Huh! He'd better stick to his last...'
.......
I've also just realised that at least 3 people I know who fall into the `know-all-nothing' category are already on my mental `narcissist' list as on the spectrum. Two are fairly harmless but irritating; the third, the real malignant, informed me I'd have more space on my worktop (`kitchen counter') if I put my microwave away each time after I'd used it. (There spoke someone who had never lifted one up!) It's another red flag, along with letting one know that they don't think much of the birthday present one has given them.
Haha! The last is a (often, I think) wooden or metal form used by shoemakers in the shape of a shoe. The word comes from Old English læest (footprint).
I've still got my dad's last that he used when applying Stickkasoles or segs to my childhood shoes. It's made of iron with 3 arms - several online images.
Tina Brown shouting her mouth off.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/07/01/prince-harry-meghan-missed-platinum-jubilee-flypast-rushed-exit/
It seems the Telegraph spoke to some first-hand sources who could provide details of the day.
A couple snippets:
The swift exit meant the couple also avoided a family lunch with royal cousins, including Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips, after watching the parade of pomp and pageantry together from the Major General’s Office overlooking Horse Guards.
According to several sources, the cousins had planned to pay Harry and Meghan a visit at Frogmore later that day, but the “celebratory” lunch went on much longer than planned. As one insider put it: “It was quite boozy and went on well into the early evening, by which point there was no time to get to Windsor to see the Sussexes.”
And -
The Telegraph has also learned that the Sussexes’ decision to take a solo walk down the lengthy aisle of St Paul’s Cathedral for the service of thanksgiving on June 3 “raised eyebrows” behind palace walls - not least when they could have walked with Beatrice, Eugenie and their husbands, who were seated next to them in the pews.
It sounds like they successfully cooked up an excuse not to do something they didn't want to do in the first place. Like deliberately moving more slowly so that you miss the train.
Perhaps the cousins then sent their children to the Froggy bday party as an olive branch…
The RF seems to be sending the pair a lot of olive branches lately. They could have an orchard soon.
�� I supposed the olive tree was Markled…
Thank you for sharing these links. The little girls in those photos do not look alike at all.
And you are correct, someone is trying to make us believe they exist.
I think they purposely missed the bus so they could "make an entrance" and walk down the aisle without others blocking the audience's view of them.
Thanks for the links.
WTF?? A photo montage of random children/royal cousins mixed with photos of the Queen, supposedly kissing them in some cases, does not make Archie & Lilibuck$ real. Who on earth made those collections of pix? Sadly, there are people stupid enough to believe that's the 6s' children.
I don't know that people are stupid enough to believe those photos all represent one child, a child who just turned 1. Likes can be given by non-humans I assume. And Likes can be given by people determined to support MM even when they don't believe the particular thing they are "liking."
My bet is that H&M arrived late to join the procession behind Kate and William.
The couple were escorted to their seats in the second row. I think H&M expected to join the procession
She [MM] is uniquely notorious in Hollywood. She throws tantrums like a three year old. That's not hyperbole. She allegedly stamps her feet, jumps up and down, literally screams, and she assaults people. Allegedly.
Personally, my opinion is that Harry is very likely a battered spouse, and I worry for those kids.
One more detail about her stay in Tyler Perry's house. The person she shoved was an elderly housekeeper, and MM supposedly pushed her into the pool.
We joke about smashed crockery, but I wonder if MM actually does this. It must be terrifying for the children if so.
Meghan has had every political door shut in her face...Her new plan is merching children's clothing (with the royal LilibetDiana brand.) That's why you are going to see a hard push of her reaching out to and talking about being a mom. They are trying to rehab her image at least as a mother to build interest in that brand. I think it is too little too late, but that is what she is doing. I've heard it from multiple sources.
Maybe some connection to the YouTube videos? The little girl is dressed very beautifully.
wow, that's vicious. Pushing an elderly person into the pool! that woman may not have known how to swim! or she could have hit her head, had a heart attack, injured herself in some other way!
The woman is a psychopath!
And, about 50% of the American population, the pro-lifers associate pro-choice people with bad parenting. She cooked her own goose!
If only Twat would go radio silent for at least 6 months. Twelve months would be better. Just go away so people can forget how awful she is.
But when we think about the need to control the narrative of how one is defined or described to the public, then the she's the one who has the high standards ... which somehow implies that everyone else has much lower standards. Would that make them slackers?
Is this them celebrating 4 July in Jackson Hole, Wyoming? It looks like them, except:
How did she get so thin so quickly? Why are they in Wyoming? Why only one kid, and is Archie not a bit older than the kid in the photos?
Thanks for reminding me about Chrissy Teigen! I had forgotten all about her! But I do recall checking her Instagram a short while after her own bullying scandal, seeing her post a photo of a new puppy, and predicting that it was the beginning of her PR rehabilitation. Now I'm checking to see if I was right or wrong . . .
It seems to be less a case of radio silence than of the press simply not wanting to give her attention any longer. For one thing, she remains an active poster on Instagram, Cravings is still in business, and her show on Roku, Chrissy's Court has just been renewed for a third season. On the other hand, her account is poorly managed (if all the troll comments and spam that make it through are any indication), the supportive comments (mostly emojis) look like they were left by bots, and her show (which I hadn't even heard of before today) looks extremely dumb even by reality show standards. (As for how Cravings is doing, I'll leave it to someone with more time for research and with better business savvy.)
And yet she's still doing better than *! Chrissy fulfills her contractual obligations to her streaming service, has a good relationship with her mother, and is raising children whose existence no one would ever dispute. As for her husband, he has a new single out and is currently on a tour of eight countries in Europe. The Legends aren't doing great, but they're still aspirational where the Dollars are concerned.
I've just realised we use (or formerly used ) an English version. as in
`Huh! He'd better stick to his last...'
And I've just realized that, until today, I had completely understood that expression my entire life! *embarrassed emjoi*
https://www.instagram.com/p/CfpzUrxMybz/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=9a58e5c7-0d01-4331-902e-2d9c8e50d991&ig_mid=6429871D-CD53-4E83-ADD3-B3EE36962CFE
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/971909-prince-harry-celebrates-the-us-with-meghan-archie-at-4th-of-july-parade-see
They assume we are even more stupid than they are!
Take, for eg :
"Lilibet is extremely beautiful in a rare appearance with Prince Harry at Windsor Castle"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWLOp47Hy5I
At 1.06, an outsize head of HM has been attached to some other body, as if she's wearing a carnival head of papier mache. Worse still, would anybody would believe that HM no longer wears her wedding ring nor that she would wear tiara & other jewellery along with not one, but apparently 2, thermal vests! Or do they think that we think she goes to bed like that?
A fair number of the baby pics have the picture credits on view as well.
As for "The Queen and the Baby - The Queen reveals everything about Lilibet"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWM35GTLnEg
- words almost fail me.
eg The caption at 1.47 `Louis Never a Prince' WTF?
Also, I'm sure |I've seen the pics at 0.57 and 3.15 before - IIRC, that's Miss Katherine Middleton before she was Duchess of Cambridge.
I hope they get sued by everyone who used photos without permission.
The whole thing is an insult to our collective intelligence - tho' I doubt if she knows what the phrase means.
---
As for the bus, I agree completely but I bet her life position is that `Only Losers Use Buses'. Heaven forfend that Her Glorious Wonderfulness should be expected to travel with the Riff-Raff Royals.
* No Doria, no friends, no Lili, only one bodyguard.
* Him with arms crossed (defensive gesture), not engaging with or even seeming to acknowledge wife and child.
* Her, definitely her with big hat and sloppy casual clothes, but wearing the trophy gold bracelets, fussing over child, who is not engaging with her at all. She has lost a lot of weight.
* No Netflix crew nor paps called.
Why are they there? Who lent them a private jet and luxury holiday home, or are they paying for it?
The person who posted about seeing them and sitting by them seems pretty excited about the celebrity encounter, and completely uncritical. I guess they still have fans who are taken in by the glamour of them being royals!
I have to confess I'd forgotten the Classical story behind the saying and am delighted to learn that `crepitudinarian' was coined by the great essayist,Wm Hazlitt, whose work we were introduced to at school.
Truly, * is stark, staring, raving bonkers.
Thank you for your response and links regarding the 4th of July parade. She does look much thinner than she did a couple weeks ago.
I can confirm that the photo was takin in Jackson, WY. (We live somewhat near there and the hills looked exactly like they did in the photos when we look our son to the airport on Saturday, which re-opened on 28 June after being closed for a couple months to resurface the runways.)
Which we could blatantly advise Twat to knock off the constant PR, phony statements, statements from "sources," etc.
Twat is making her own cesspool, and drowning in it.
Yes, it is them. Hopefully you can still see the photos via the links I posted. But thanks for confirming the location.
Archie does not have the distinctive red hair that you see in the photos they post. It is light brown with a reddish tinge.
What do you think could have bought them to your area?
--------------
I haven't watched the videos, but, generally speaking, why do people make and post videos like this? In my view, it is completely deranged. Are they simply creating content they think people want to see (doing the favourite activity of the duchess - jumping on a bandwagon) to generate lots of views and likes and thus earn some kind of income?
@MattSunRoyal
New: Prince Harry v The Home Office trial will start tomorrow at The Royal Courts of Justice in London, it has been confirmed. The Duke is appealing a decision to remove his security after he and Meghan quit royal duty to start new life in the US.
Matt Wilkinson
@MattSunRoyal
Slight correction: Despite earlier guidance, the hearing will be held to discuss whether the Duke of Sussex can proceed with the case. The judge will decide whether there is an arguable case to go to full trial. But it will be interesting regardless…
https://mobile.twitter.com/login
He was on Kelly Clarkson's show talking about how much he loved the town. (And no, I don't watch Kelly Clarkson's show but I was stuck under the dryer in the nail salon and they had that on the TV).
Blogger Girl with a Hat said...
@Henrietta, please remind me what your avatar represents. I know I've seen it before, but it escapes me.
It's Albert the Alligator from Pogo Daily, an old cartoon.
Pushing an elderly person into the pool! that woman may not have known how to swim!
This was my first thought. Older African Americans especially may not know how to swim.
Question: Have you ever opened up IG and quickly looked at the first post and then it re-loads and you lose that view. And if the account deletes that photo, it is impossible to go back and find it?
Yes, I've had this happen. Try scrolling down to find the picture again. It was probably generated by the accounts you follow and/or your search history so it should show up again if you keep scrolling among all the auto- generated pictures.
(apologies if it's a repeat post)
So I'm told the Netflix doc has a few points of focus. They're supposedly focusing on Polo, Invictus, Meghan's humanitarian gestures, 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 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...
-----------------------------------------------------
It never ends!
What brings them to this area? Jackson is a resort town in Wyoming that is similar to Aspen, CO and Sun Valley, ID. (I am guessing that Sun Valley might be a bit busy now because of Summer Camp for Billionaires which began on Tuesday. Or perhaps they hopped over there after the parade?) Wyoming is interesting in that, similar to Nevada, Texas and Florida, am I missing any?, there is no state income tax. One needs to establish a nexus in the state and live there at least six months and one day. The price of real estate in Teton county is through the roof. Average-looking homes and condos are in multiple millions of USD.
Similar to Sun Valley, most locals who work in Jackson live out of the area, mostly in Alpine or Star Valley. Whole Foods recently opened in Jackson though shelves are not always fully stocked. An interesting story out of Grand Teton this spring is that the former wife of Tom's Shoes founder Blake MyCoskie 40, has been banned from the national park for intentionally fabricating a sighting of missing man Cian McLaughlin 27 of Ireland
Henrietta:
Thank you for the helpful IG info. I was frustrated because it was late, the photo vanished on the reload and I was looking for the photo, not remembering that it was a multi-page post, with the first being print and not the photo of the kid. Grrr.
I for one, had three little girls in three years so I liked to occasionaly buy therm all the same dresses. No way would I ever buy something the * might develop, even if the styles were precious.
Just like people have bans on real fur and buy ethically sourced products of all kinds we AntiMarkle folks should create a boycott of all things Duchass Dollars touches and tries to monetize. At the very least I hope the BRF reacts and strips them of their titles. This scheme of hers truly would be selling their titles for cash IMO.
But I would forsee * would not resist actually getting involved in the design process and produce horrible outfits (unless it involves little crowns and tiaras motifs). I could just see a line of Princess inspired clothes for little girls. Oh, the marketing ploy: "Clothes for the little Princess in your life" or "By a Princess for your little Princess" I better shut up now before my creative marketing brain gives her any ideas (in case she or her minions read here).
Since going missing, Mr McLaughlin has not been found and we did see polo players and horses on a field south of Jackson.
since the mrs answered with where’s archie with these pics what other things do we wish to see her do (like a trained seal). lilibuck$ archie and doris together?
But I would forsee * would not resist actually getting involved in the design process and produce horrible outfits
Remember, * is an ultracrepidarian! As such, she won't be able to help herself interfering and meddling with designs etc. I don't know who would buy anything designed/developed by *. She has to have a finger in every pie but doesn't stick at anything and is not very successful.
Word has it that Harry has called and weighed in on our Prime Minister’s problems. Are the harkles now involving themselves in British politics like they are trying to do in American politics? Have they completed lost the plot? Btw, Harry is NOT a supporter of the Tory party.
Word has it that KP was notified that the Duke of Sussex had called a MP (name unknown) to give his opinion and to advise about the Johnson political situation in the UK. (My apologies. I have no more specific info at this time)
Very weird. Isn't this literally what royals are not supposed to do?
I don't think there is any law that says that the monarchy cannot be involved in politics. The Queen, as head of state, stays above the fray and never (or rarely) has said or done anything that can be regarded as political (i.e. who makes the laws and what those laws should be).
If the hapless one is indeed interfering in British politics, especially at this time, then his hubris is way beyond anything I expected.
He may not have broken any laws, but, if this is true, he is pushing his family way beyond breaking point.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10989569/Desperate-Boris-nuclear-drag-Queen-shameless-battle-stay-PM.html
Maybe the hapless one is frantically phoning granny to 'advise' her on what to do!