Not much has changed since the last post.
Spotify? Nope. Netflix? Nope but they could just be in the editing phase perhaps. Political scene? Nope. Not a whisper yet.
There, however, is the trial.
This is starting to get interesting as it can totally change their long term trajectory look. They would now more easily maintain their appearances of being VIPs by needing security as the world is a dangerous place for them.
Is it? Maybe? Maybe not when you think of all the different adventures they have where they have limited security present or security physically present but not really appearing to be on high alert for the accidental pap/scary dangerous unknown or not at all but it was ever so luckily documented by someone who just happened to be in the area. Funny how that just keeps happening so unluckily for them.
It is as if they are a boat which has left the marina (BRF), left the pond (intentional pun), and charted themselves out into the big oceans. Leaving behind the safety of his family, they have been systematically cutting the anchors which tied them back to the family to show their independence. The family tried to keep them with a safety net in the leaving negotiations. But no dice rolled by the pair. Now, they are trying to reattach one of those cut anchors by legally suing for claims of needing protection.
If they win - then it's game on for them to retake what they feel is/was their manifest destiny.
Comments
I find this article rather odd. It gives the impression that she is the one who works and has a career while he stays at home and takes care of the children. What the heck has she produced with all this work she does?
It gives the impression that they go out a lot, and that they are very very close friends with Oprah and Gayle.
It also gives the impression that they live a very expensive lifestyle.
PR piece? Megsie making up stuff again?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23PrinceHarryisaracist
https://www.change.org/p/united-nation-must-disinvite-racist-prince-harry-from-nelson-mandela-international-day
Puff piece. * making stuff up again.
@WBBM
H sees * in a similar light as the reincarnation of Mummy. She's his new Mummy-with-benefits.
Ugh. Stomach turning if true!
TWEET says ---
Pre order your Tom bower book at Waterstones! Release date 21st July. Over 400 pages of ruthless research! I hope Bower doesn't hold back!
Twitter is going to be noisy and I can't wait! �� ��
This beats out the Hapless book by months. Thus, advantage Royal Family. Same as at Wimbledon.
@Maneki
2 fer 1
UN Chumpo 😉
Off the Rails
These UN capers
Giving off mental vapours
His mouth’s not en-gauged
to his brain
With much flapping of arms
And greasing of palms
He’s hitched his
Blighted Station
To a corrupt corporation
All aboard the UNscrupulous
gravy train…
Next stop WHO knows!!
Brilliant as always ♥️
Jesus absolutely knows Harry, but I don't think it flows both ways.
@ Hikari:
Your comment made me think when it comes to the Harkles, two verses from the Bible pop into my mind:
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
Matthew 6: 1, 5-6
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Thank you for your latest excellent offering🤣🤣. It's good to start the day with a laugh😉. You've surpassed yourself
Thank you for the info re. Tom Bower's book. I checked and it's also available for pre-order at Amazon.
BOT: I wonder if the duo made one of their miserly donations to the Nelson Mandela Foundation, and that is why the Foundation pushed for them to be allowed to make a speech at the UN (it is not a keynote speech, but they will be filming it and making it look as if it is a major UN speech... she has a history of doing that). They could have asked that the donation be kept a secret, pretending modesty but actually trying to hide the fact that they bought this platform (they usually do) for image building. (Donations tax is 20% in South Africa, which the donor must pay, and foreign exchange costs are high. So, whatever the donation is, if that is ever revealed, remember to subtract all those taxes from the amount!)
Great timing for Tom Bower's book! There are going to be teasers, but at least a lot of speculation and hype. Bad luck for the duo ... fate is not your friend when the past turns up uninvited to your major publicity stunt at the UN!
Tom Bower, Britain's leading investigative biographer, unpicks the tangled web surrounding the Sussexes and their relationship with the royal family. From courtroom dramas to courtier politics, using extensive research, expert sourcing and interviews from insiders who have never spoken before, this book uncovers an astonishing story of love, betrayal, secrets and revenge.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1788705033/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=&linkCode=w00&linkId=&creativeASIN=1788705033
No 'Look Inside' available on Amazon yet. The cover is interesting:
* She is bigger than others on the cover.
* Only three people are looking at the camera: hapless, Camilla, Catherine.
* The cover is black and white!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19178458/william-harry-princess-anne-book-squash-squabble/
No, Jane. Anne and Mark Phillips did not blindside anyone with a ridiculous public manifesto, tell a bunch of lies in an Oprah interview, cry fake tears and tell lies in interviews for a royal tour, brief the endless line of arriving/leaving staff and anyone else they can capture to brief tabloids with more lies and attacks, drag petty squabbles into the British courts, over and over again ... No, Jane.
@Sandie
Pole vaulter
Can’t fault her 😉
@Swampie
Sod the gym
Pies & cookie’s
And a snifter of gin 😜
I read this latest post and agree it's pretty clear that H is on a hiding to nothing. Will he end up being judged a `vexatious litigant'?
Btw, I let the slideshow at the bottom of HarryMarkle posts run - it struck me that the photo of * at that wedding, in bog-paper hat & toile de jouy duvet cover, made her look for all the world like Raphael Nadal in drag, although he's probably got better dress sense than she has.
UNrequited
Heading for the Big Apple
More salad to grapple
Will she be over
or UNder-dressed
Another belted coat
Merch to promote
UNimportant file
clutched to her chest
She’ll take pole position
With rat-eyed precision
As haz bows UNto
madam’s request…
Not sure what to make of
Tom Bowers book
“Revenge”
Bit Jackie Collins?
I’m hoping for a
bride lied stripped bare
transmogrification,
not tit for tat
RF versus H&M.
according to Hello!
Above headline from the Yahoo Homepage just now reveals just how pig-ignorant some journalists are!
https://www.bookdepository.com/Revenge-Tom-Bower/9781788705035
5-8 day delivery to us. Currently a $2 discount.
Happy dance!
`The Bride Stripped Bare' - have you really got to the bottom of all this performance since 2017 and found it is just a Dadaist happening?
Perhaps they'll get a gig at some venue that sees itself as successor to the Cafe Voltaire? They are not only absurd but completely Absurdist.
Let us flush them down that porcelain `Fountain.'
Or will H deliver his keynote address wearing a full diving suit?
It is available hard copy, worldwide, free shipping, for pre-order at the link below.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Revenge-Tom-Bower/9781788705035
Thanks for the Closer artiy. 'Prinxrss of Montecito'!! I ask you! What a lot of twaddle. So she likes to wake t late, take the dogs fy a walk etc but she's 'often very busy on business Zoom calls, or nipping into LA for meetings'. Which is it? And although I 'm not familiar with the geography of the area, I'm not sure Montecito is very close to LA. Pure PR.
She is bigger than others on the cover."
Haha! what a great observation, and in typical narc fashion #666 probably is proud, telling 6 that even book publishers acknowledge that she is most important, hence biggest on the book cover.
----------
i looked more closely at the cover and two additional things struck me:
1. The title REVENGE is in bold gold, making it stand out from the low key black and white imagery of the rest of the cover...probably meant to imply Fool's Gold. i hope so!
2. beautiful Katherine's face is bathed in light, facing forward as you mentioned, and capturing our natural attention as a shining beacon, while Big Head smirks with partially shadowed face.
The more i look at this cover and think about the myriad messages it conveys, the more i love it.
Make of that what you will.
At 464 pages, I’m expecting a certain amount of background that rehashes info most people interested in the Meghan Markle dumpster fire already know, but I am expecting at least some information we haven’t already read or heard.
It will be a colossal disappointment if it turns out to be more suitable as a door stop.
The BetterUp script sounds like rubbish - the idea that the mind is a like a muscle certainly sounds like an utterance from some dumb bloke such as Harry but not necessarily him.
------------------------
I've started wondering what sort of shape Charles's coronation might take. The Scots pledged to let the Stone of Scone come to London for future coronations but I wonder if they'll stick to it under their present administration. They tried to make Charles II come up to Edinburgh to be crowned King of Scotland but he didn't bother. They have their own Crown Jewells, btw, the `Honours of Scotland'.
And what will happen when it comes to the nobles pledging their allegiance to the new king? Will H expect to be included and allowed to make a false declaration of fealty? Will he throw a wobbly about the order in which it is done? Will George be of age by then?
What tricks might they be expected to pull? If excluded, will they try to emulate Queen Caroline at Geo. IV's coronation and hammer on the closed doors of the Abbey?
An interesting kindle price for Tom Bowers book at Amazon £6.66.
Make of that what you will.
Americans might be able to buy that Kindle edition from https://www.amazon.co.uk/
I was able to sign into https://www.amazon.co.uk/ with my US name (log-on) and password
For this book at Amazon UK --- https://tinyurl.com/4ud9s4rr (it only lists the hardcover edition for me, in the US) (but perhaps this will change on the day of publication)
Harry and Meghan's new head of security - who worked for Michael Jackson and One Direction, was FIRED by the Jackson family after they discovered his past criminal record which includes a domestic violence charge and two DUIs
I thought H was concerned about security?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10987611/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-new-security-chief-fired-Michael-Jacksons-family.html
Thanks. Actually, when I wrote 'I'm not sure Montecito is very close to LA' it was British understatement. Driving to LA for meeting didn't make any sense.
https://harrymarkle.substack.com/
https://harrymarkle.substack.com/p/tom-bower-revenge-meghan-harry-and
And what will happen when it comes to the nobles pledging their allegiance to the new king? Will H expect to be included and allowed to make a false declaration of fealty? Will he throw a wobbly about the order in which it is done? Will George be of age by then?
What tricks might they be expected to pull? If excluded, will they try to emulate Queen Caroline at Geo. IV's coronation and hammer on the closed doors of the Abbey?
Young George is still only 8, though probably as tall as an average 12-year-old. He will be nine very soon. But for him to be of age when Charles is coronated means that ER would have to survive 11 more years to the age of nearly 107. Given ER's seemingly iron constitution and will to match, not an *impossible* scenario--the Queen is made of some tough indefatigable stuff. Indeed, she's been so sparky and lively lately I'm questioning whether her recent bout of 'periodic mobility issues' that flared up during her Jubilee celebrations were actual or a bit of regal subterfuge to avoid certain family members One did not wish to see or be photographed with. If that's the choice the Queen made . . well, it was her choice to extend an invitation to the toxic twats who then made it a necessity to skip her own Jubilee festivities so they wouldn't get photos or taped conversation. But making it to 107 is surely rather improbable.
I guess we shall have to wait and see. After Charles's coronation would be the investiture of William as Prince of Wales, an event second only to William's eventual coronation that would cause the Montecito Mountebacks to froth as the mouths.
I hope to God, St. George and her Majesty that the pressing problem of Twit & Twat are definitively dealt with before that. They really must be. They have completely and utterly disregarded any directives set down for them at Megxit and have gone so far beyond the pale, it's astounding. Remember the relatively innocent days when the duo's plan to take the world by storm was to merchandise the SussexRoyal trademark and sell hats and tea cosies? Maybe have a Goop-style website? Those days seem positively quaint.
My friend Mischief Girl informs me that the entire Cambridge clan boarded a helicopter in the last day or two to go somewhere, a fact which makes both of us extremely nervous. Whirly birds are incredibly dangerous . . basketball star Kobe Bryant was flying with his child for a very short distance, too. As long as the ginger traitor remains in the LoS and they are, morbidly but correctly 'just one plane crash away from the throne', the BRF cannot afford to be laissez faire with the Cambridges' security. William and the children should not travel together from now on. Horrid Harry and Mucky on the throne of the United Kingdom would cause the Apocalypse.
That's going from top notch to the bargain bin in terms of reputation.
I could be wrong.
Regarding hoped-for topics in Bower's book REVENGE I read couple of great comments on Duch*ss of Montesh*tshow's newest video with link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGNmtRFRZ0
1.
Lost Control
I just want to know if those kids truly exist, and if so, do they look anything like the little actors they parade out a few times a year to pretend are their children. The poor actor-children are traumatized by the Claw grabbing at them continuously while she pretends to be their mom in public. We all know in private she would have a nanny look after her kids 24/7. I wonder if part of the children’s pay is lifetime PTSD therapy from Chimp’s BetterUp company
2.
Clarita De Luna
3 hours ago (edited)
it was reported M once complained about being happy she didn’t have to kiss the filthy mouths of old men anymore. Well, I have been thinking that in the little bit of her acting career, she never acted beside old men. So, who were the old men she referred to, and where was she having to ‘please’ those old men? Do you think perhaps those old men are the ones protecting her so their names are not disclosed? That is what I would like to know. I hope...his book will disclose this.
Yeah, right. She drives to LA just to "hike" with their two dogs? (How environmentally conscious!) On trails she remembers from over a decade ago? (Because, of course, LA never changes.) Sure. We're supposed to believe "incredibly busy" "young mother" Meghan takes a 4-hr round trip by car with two dogs most days to go "hiking" in out-of-the-way spots. Uh huh. As I recall she and Harry were papped with the two dogs headed into a wooded park for a "hike" shortly after landing at Tyler's house in spring 2020. When they came back Meghan was having to carry the beagle. MM adopted him as an adult dog but based on an interview she gave in 2016, that dog has to be at least 11. I'm not sure he's up to long hikes in the summer. He didn't look too spry "hiking" on paved paths in Canada with M and the Archie doll. And the blurb says she goes by herself. What about security?
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/07/blind-item-10_13.html?m=1
The alliterate one and her husband have signed a lease on a house in Bel Air. The alliterate one has been getting tited of the commute.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/07/blind-item-10_13.html?m=1
The alliterate one and her husband have signed a lease on a house in Bel Air. The alliterate one has been getting tited of the commute.
So, who's in Bel Air? David Foster? It's someone they have entreated for help in getting something or somewhere. Twit and Twat will be welcome until they are not, which will be sooner rather than later.
There was a rumor SS and Harkles had parted ways but don't think there was confirmation of that?
But just posted on CDAN...blind item that they are moving to LA, perhaps to better micromanage their failing PR?
Can anyone spot any changes in the effectiveness of their PR? I used to be able to spot all of the bots when I posted regularly on the DM, but it's been a while. I guess you could call PH's upcoming speech at the U.N. a PR "win."
"My friend Mischief Girl informs me that the entire Cambridge clan boarded a helicopter in the last day or two to go somewhere, a fact which makes both of us extremely nervous...."
I agree 100%. But there's been no sign of them stopping. And given that Will is a helicopter pilot, I could see him digging in his heels about it.
I hoped when they moved to Windsor that might cut down on the whole-family helicopter trips (as it looked like they were traveling to Norfolk that way every weekend) But if Will doesn't want to give it up, I doubt he will. It's not as though he wouldn't have thought about it. So if they are still doing it, it must be a conscious decision.
He is seething with rage and bitter jealousy that his elder brother will have the job that he longs for - being the king of a country which he professes to hate and whose people he has traduced before the world.
She wants the top job in a well-armed nation, becoming the no.1 target for any nutter with a grudge and gun.
Ah, son=mebody else has been asking my coronation question too: 1
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/07/blind-item-10_13.html?m=1
from
Irish Lass Maggies Mommy • 35 minutes ago
`Much like the Kardashians, I'm afraid they will never go away. I have this image of the two of them doing the commentary on Williams's coronation for the BBC. Megs will talk about how Kate ruined her wedding by making her cry and Harry will keep asking everyone if they know his mummy is dead.'
Brilliant!
AMartel • 2 hours ago
Now this is a story
All about how
My life got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how I became a prince of a town called Bel Air
In Buckingham Palace born and raised
On the playground was where I spent most of my days
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And all playin’ some polo after failing out of the school
When a shady lady latched onto my wood
And started telling stories about doing good
My family told me she was crazy and I got scared
She said, "We're movin' to Canada, and Montecito, and Bel-Air
F.M. Awl • 2 hours ago • edited
The (servants') chores!
The stores!
Fresh loss of hair!
Bel Air!
Obey my wife-
Goodbye English life!
California, we are theeeeeere.
Maneki- the head of security had last DUIs. ugh oh kissy like dody’s driver. shades of diana again?
when is the big speech to the UN Security Council? 😉will the prince fly to new york with his flappy hands? will the mrs be on her broomstick?
twitter: so a lot still going on about the drive by at Oprah’s. oprah’s father was dying and they pulled that stunt while she isn’t there. guess someone musta said no second interview and blockers the duchass’ number. playing around with oprah will get you shadow banned across hollywood. Oprah is besties with the likes of David Geffen. guess someone isn’t playing the long game. ha!!!
Commute for what? I’m sure they’ve got plastic surgeons of plenty in Santa Barbara.
Most likely, they have defaulted on their mortgage for mudslide towers, or else they’re free squatters’ contract has expired. It’s been two years nearly to the day that they allegedly moved in there, and that is the absolute limit of Mugsy’s attention span.
When Hapless did that humiliating interview with James Corden on top of the bus, they stopped at a house in Belair and Corden joked that Harry should get that place, which was for sale, so he could be the “fresh Prince of Bel Air“. I wonder if it’s the same one? Oh dear; this means that Archie is going to have to change preschools. Or maybe it was getting too hot in Montecito with people wondering where the phantom children are. I give them no more than two years in Belair, presuming this travesty lasts that long. Why did they think invisible children will be easier to hide in Bel Air than they were in Montecito?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ecb94abacb4f24628c6b3afc77c256f743e1aad6a3d9b5d003ee7ad50c97b391.jpg
Henrietta she is setting him up to keep the “kids” 😉. everything is leading to her exit strategy.
I hope you're right, Snarky. His procreating with a sociopath is absolutely unforgivable.
He has an interesting take on why the other book has been delayed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYImpThTPMo
The excuse of not liking the commute and needing a second place in LA might be just that, an excuse.
But remember that narcissists are notorious cheaters. The Bel Air home gives Meghan a base to shop for her next husband. They’ve been married over four years and Harry is well into the devaluation stage of being in a relationship with a narcissist. This provides her with a way to not only move an emotional disconnect from Harry forward, but it also provides a physical disconnect from him too.
It’s not a cross-continent relationship that helped her to pursue her career that is much like her marriage to Trevor, but this arrangement has similarities and provides her freedom and a field of play she doesn’t have in Montecito with Harry and two little kids she likely cares nothing about beyond photo ops and marketing opportunities.
And we all know how things went with Trevor.
@Lizzie
I’m worried about the Cambridges flying together in a helicopter (or airplane) too. Supposedly William agreed to stop piloting the copters himself at the Queen’s request. Not sure that makes it any safer for them as a family.
Harry must look at those photos and think bad thoughts.
I just did, in order to check, so must go back and remove from my basket, else I'll end up with 2 copies.
I've found out that a Richard Saghian owns the biggest house in Bel Air, a mega mansion dubbed ‘The One', the biggest in Los Angeles with 21 bedrooms and 49 bathrooms. It was sold to Saghian for $126 million. Good enough for *? His marital status is not disclosed so she might be in with a chance and as he is the CEO for Fashion Nova - 'sexy club dresses, jeans, shoes, bodysuits, skirts and more. Cheap & affordable fashion online' - she could kill two birds with one stone😉
'He described Meghan as ruthless, self-centred, selfish, a legend in her own mind and out for revenge against Hollywood who rejected her as second rate & the RF because they wouldn’t let her be Queen. Harry was pathetic & lost when they met, he fell in love, she wanted the title. She already hated the RF at the wedding.'
At the risk of facing crushing disappointment, I have high hopes that he has indeed managed to get numerous people to talk and that it is not simply opinions but what actually happened that he uncovers.
Where did you get that absurd piece of information? If something is not your opinion, perhaps you should provide references?
https://trends24.in/south-africa/
https://trends24.in/united-kingdom/
https://trends24.in/united-states/
These are indeed hashtags but they are not trending anywhere:
https://mobile.twitter.com/the_nation/status/1546532329258209280
Comments you selected hit on the top two things we’d like to know about Mugsy for sure:
1. Existence/Provenance of the two alleged children
2. The exact nature of her previous history as an “entertainer” aboard ships or other venues in LA and Toronto. Samantha Markle Openly referred to her sister as an escort, which is a fancy name for a prostitute. Those two ladies have a rancorous relationship, but even so, openly calling one's sister a sex worker wouldn’t Happen without some justification for that label. It’s too specific to simply be an insult.
I bear no ill will toward sex workers, unless they personally give me a disease, which won’t be happening, so the reasons for which a person may find themselves in that line of work are their business. In Mugsy‘s case though, I am more than happy to judge her for being a rank hypocrite, calling herself a “humanitarian” when she was, or rather I should say if she was allegedly blowing rich old man in exchange for cash and gifts. Her own special brand of humanitarianism.
Additionally, I am hoping Tom will shed some light on:
The true timeline/nature of the Harkle relationship. Sifting through all the myriad lies of the engagement interview and press, did Harry actually hire Muggsy by the hour? Did she then Stalk and harass him for 18 months And, with the help of her friends at Soho House, extort an engagement out of him via blackmail? It’s absolutely common knowledge that H Has a history of hiring prostitutes and not treating them well at all. Did he stumble into one who beat him up instead?
Any light Tom can shed on her university/pre Harry years would also be desired. Has she uncovered evidence of illegitimate pregnancies/gender irregularities/potential hazing incident or other run-ins with the law? What caused her to seemingly disappear from Northwestern after her sophomore year? Was she suspended for misconduct, pregnant, runoff with some married professor? Her documented time between high school and popping up as a bit player in movies/briefcase girl is a big hole.
To what extent has the BRF covered over her sins, and how? Will there be any specifics about the bullying of various royal staff, international staff while on tour, or anything about the bullying investigation within the palace? I know Tom can only go so far, and certain areas would be verboten. But I can’t help thinking that Mr. Bower Might be functioning as a mouthpiece for the BRF— Clandestinely— To put certain information about the Dutchess into the public domain which the family has heretofore Refused to comment upon.
I cancelled the Amazon UK order and ordered from Book Depository. Saved about $12.00. Thank you !!!
I agree with your hopes of what Tom Bower will share in his book. To your list I would add:
• *'s first wedding. Was she married to Joe Giuliano? Did his mother really pay her off to leave? (and how much?)
• What really happened with Trevity Trev Trev?
• Ditto Corey?
• Any interviews with Samantha? Former Palace staff?
One can dream.
Happy to help! Thought the expedited shipping was your extra cost. I can recommend book depository which I have used several times in the past. Hopefully your book will arrive before your vacation, but whenever possible I try to avoid giving Jeff Bezos anymore of my money.
"Additionally, I am hoping Tom will shed some light on:
The true timeline/nature of the Harkle relationship. Sifting through all the myriad lies of the engagement interview and press, did Harry actually hire Muggsy by the hour? Did she then Stalk and harass him for 18 months And, with the help of her friends at Soho House, extort an engagement out of him via blackmail?"
It still puzzles me that there is so little attention paid to the "Roast Chicken" references that come up. Forgive me, I am new to posting here but an avid reader and this may seem crass, but there is a whole other meaning to "Roasted Chicken". It is a slang term for a rather explicit sexual position, more commonly heard in the gay community. There is a second in the engagement interview where* describes the proposal and when she says the roast chicken part, Handbag gets a brief squirmy look that you cannot miss....
Makes one wonder what SoHoHouse shenanigans might be on tape or what she and Markus might have concocted.
I agree with Hikari, and I also agree with your puzzlement about the far-worse-than-naughty euphemisms thrown about by Ginge and Unhinged in the media when they think they’re being cleverer and more audacious than other adults. They’ve used other sexual position and fecalfeliac terms such as crocodile and waffle maker in addition to roast chicken while thinking no-one catches their ugly gutter-level drift.
If you don’t know those words, I don’t recommend you look them up in Urban Dictionary, they are offensive.
However, we all know that happily, the term ‘Markled’ has entered everyday usage and is, or at least was in Urban Dictionary.
Meghan Markle and her handbag Hazbeen individually are each a piece of work, and synergistically are mega destructive to everyone and everything around them, including the Royal Family.
The comments are meant in good fun and as “way out there” impossibilities, but each time I’ve thought Ginge and Unhinged can sink no lower, they unpleasantly surprise me and do just that. So we might just be assaulted by such a déclassé show.
New Palace Confidential: the memoirs of the hapless one; Camilla; the Queen.
Rebecca English tells some stories of her personal encounters with Camilla. Years ago, I remember her having the same kind of interaction with the hapless one. I don't remember TBW ever having any kind of personal interaction with these royal reporters who have been following senior royals around for ages. Striking similarities: Camilla and Harry were aware of what was going on Rebecca's life and asked her about it. There was a genuine human connection. I don't think TBW has even had such a connection with or awareness of Scobie (just sends him briefing notes via staff). Does anyone know if Scobie has actually met and spoken to the duo, face to face?
Makes one wonder what SoHoHouse shenanigans might be on tape or what she and Markus might have concocted.
Gina,
The roast chicken story is dodgy as hell. To be honest, I do not believe that she *ever* lived at NottCott with Harry at any point. In fact I would be surprised to learn that they have ever lived under the same roof as an engaged or married couple. Including now, though H's status as an immigrant may mean that his housing options are limited. Let's just say that I doubt with every fiber of my being that they have a conventional marital relationship in any sense of the word. Which is part of the reason why I doubt the children are actually theirs or possibly even do not exist.
I'm increasingly convinced that H is bisexual and is into some hardcore deviant bedroom sports, just as legend has it Great-Uncle David was. Whether these tastes involve girls, boys, animals, inanimate objects, autoerotica, multiple partners, being chained and beaten, etc., I can only speculate at, but I think it was Muggsy's function to provide whatever or whoever it was that H wanted. Afterwards, she felt entitled to call herself 'in a relationship' with Diana's son and refused to let him go. The couple shares a very juvenile and corrupted world outlook where it's guaranteed that all their seemingly casual references to foodstuffs and other random but specific words have a deviant sexual meaning according to the Urban Dictionary. Remember when 'Archie's' first word was 'Crocodile'? Yeah, look that one up. *No* one year old baby in the history of time is capable of using Crocodile in a sentence. Or 'Waffle maker'? What 'Archie' asked Great Gan Gan for for Christmas as a toddler? Uh-huh.
Everything is some kind of disgusting insider joke with these two and when they let slip one of their code words in an interview with the world press and people swallow it whole . . they absolutely get off on it. They think it's hilarious and are mocking the entire world.
Markus is in this up to his neck . . which is why he hasn't been seen or heard from these last 2+ years . . last heard, he was sharing digs with the couple at Mudslide Mansion or Tyler Perry's. I don't think he was actually there, though it's possible, but that smacked more of a veiled threat by TBW to Harry . .Invoking Markus Anderson is like calling upon Satan in my opinion.
God bless and protect Tom Bower. It could get very ugly for him in a couple of weeks after his book hits the stands.
Your guess is as good as mine. All speculation?
Wasn’t a new Spotify podcast due out imminently (about a month ago)? Usually, a teaser and/or publicity would start a couple weeks before the release. We still have nothing…
It was all about wealth, material stuff, for her. No cards indicate love.
Page of Pentacles: This is how she approached the job ... persistently pursue (material) goals. A person who can be responsible, hard working, focused, materialistic, reliable, stubborn, lacking in emotional warmth.
3 of Wands: She regarded becoming wealthy and globally famous as her divine destiny. Doors that had been closed now opened for her. She was buzzing with ideas and plans that she saw as highly creative and wanted to take the initiative in everything. At last she thought she could dare to think and do whatever she wanted. But lack of careful thought caused negative actions and consequences. Closed heart (it was all money and ambition and ego). Possibility of dishonesty in friendships.
2 Pentacles: Material change (she became very wealthy very quickly) but this card is about balancing change ... gain and loss, weakness and strength, elation and melancholy (my interpretation is that suddenly she had millions to spend on designer dresses but she had to get the money from Charles and the public would scrutinize everything and criticize as well). Other meanings: varying occupations, visits to friends. Card can indicate an industrious but unreliable person.
5 Cups (underlying energy): Disappointment, big time! Frustrated by a situation that does not happen as you wish. Become immersed in self pity and regret about your expectations that have been let down. (Although her goals and what drive her were material, she felt her disappointment in an emotional way.) End of pleasure, disturbance where least expected, misfortune, disappointment in love, loss of friendship (when she ghosts someone she emotionally sees it as her loss because she is a textbook narc), treachery, ill will, sadness, vain regret.
https://celticcrossanon.tumblr.com/post/689671604715880448/brf-reading-13th-of-july-2022
-----------------
I did a couple of readings on the consequences for her and for him of Bower's book. Cliff notes: although the book is supposed to be mainly about her, he is going to be far more affected than her ... devastated, feeling betrayed, immense depression (dark night of the soul stuff). Initially they are both going to see the book as not as bad as they thought it would be perhaps, but will withdraw and take some time out. Consequences for them both: lose money, profession, face poverty (consequences of what is revealed, even just one small story, will have dire financial consequences for them both). She will eventually go back to all the old tricks and just carry on. For him there is going to be some kind of final ending (leave her or break with his family and UK forever?).
----------
Just for interest!
Thank you for asking. I appreciate another pair of eyes asking for me to look at it again. I may/may not change but I am always willing to reconsider the decision.
So I tried finding out what I could (given that I'm not on Twitter).
And, it all appears to be old, old cake.
https://www.insider.com/prince-william-criticized-defends-euro-england-players-racism-meghan-markle-2021-7
It appears that he commented, not for the first time, about racist abuse directed at UK players being wrong and that such persons should be held accountable for their behavior.
In response, a lot of the actual blah blah blah tweet comments relate to how certain other people believe he had failed to support his SIL from assorted others in power who acted in unspecified racist ways toward her, said/did other racist things and so on.
But this was last year. The interview was fairly current events and many people expressed similar outrage at that time. It's like fireplace embers you thought were out. Sometimes they come back to life. I think this is what happened here. It doesn't appear to be current.
So, we can and do ask for sources when something isn't making sense to us. And, sometimes careful reading discovers old news resurfacing as if it were new. That's happened more than once here.
It is helpful to use the magic words when asking. We can't always hear how it might be received but it may help lower a perceived accusatory tone. And, as always, we don't attack the poster if we don't agree.
When you disagree, your options are: Ask for moderator review. Continue to talk politely about the subject. Scroll on by (as there will another point you can discuss soon enough).
Thank you as always.
There is a lot of irrational hate directed at all the royals on social media (even some of the threads/posts on the duo are completely wild). Twitter etc does nothing about it, no matter how wild it gets.
Any men that paid $500 an hour for Madam paid far too much, if they allegedly did so. Even in her prime she was odd-looking and shapeless. Maybe her specialty was foot fetishes? Those boats have got to be good for something. I watched a video featuring a young lady who makes a VERY good living as a foot fetish model online. She pulls down $5000 - $6000 a month just from posting photos of her feet and offering her used and smelly socks and shoes for sale, and selling pictures of her feet.
A hustling, aspirational but unemployed starlet like Mugsy is just the sort of girl ripe for recruitment into this line of work. I had never heard the term 'yacht girl' before her, but now that I know what they do, I see evidence everywhere. When a middle-aged but still hot woman like Elizabeth Hurley posts bikini shots of herself on the Internet every fricken day and generates headlines about how hot she's looking . .that's paid promotion and she's advertising her availability for yachting.
*'s shady past isn't even the most interesting or salacious thing about her. I am fully prepared not to be shocked if Tom Bower uncovers that * was a prolific lover of cruising. She's got no moral compass so I doubt she was a bit bothered by spreading herself around like a party favor. What I am interested in is how *Harry* came to meet up with her and what went on when he did. IIRC, Harry's Old Etonian mates Guy Pelly and Tom Inskip were very keen to talk their mate out of marrying this woman. It was heavily implied that several of Harry's friends had attended some of these yacht parties at which H was not present had had shall we say made her acquaintance prior to being introduced to Harry's fiancee. The same speculation runs rampant about what secrets Andrew and Twat may be keeping about a prior connection from yacht world. Whether Andrew himself sampled the tired wares (Mugsy would have been over 30 and far too old, methinks) or, more likely just saw her around the circuit and knows people who did use her services. It would explain his instant and unshakeable froideur toward his nephew's wife.
Wonder if Tom will uncover a definite Epstein connection with TBW too. He did say that he'd discovered "quite extraordinary things" about her. I don't think he meant to be laudatory. Let's wait and see how many lawsuits come out of Montecito once that book is released. Tom says he has been sued before but he has NEVER lost a case, because he does his homework. I can't wait for my copy to arrive.
I was going to say I cannot imagine Miss Bossy Boots, Always has to be in charge, being any good as a yacht girl ... but she got the Prince to fall completely in love with her before she revealed her true nature, and by then it was too late!
I actually do not believe she ever did yachting (college to Trevor to Suits to Harry, with a chef and various dates with low lying celebrity guys before the chef). But, I think there was a lot of dating before Trevor (including the guy from porn movies), so I would say that if she tried yachting it would have been then, and I would also guess that she was so bad at it that she was never invited back again!
Who knows how she would have ended up without Trevor.
“… (Tom Bower) did say that he'd discovered ‘quite extraordinary things’ about her (Meghan). I don't think he meant to be laudatory.”
Haha! Laudatory. Great word, thanks for your subtle understated observation.
Royal Family LIVE: Meghan Markle given cruel nickname by California neighbours
Meghan is 'on path to unparalleled stardom' as Duchess 'creates new form of celebrity'
Meghan Markle 'most intelligent' royal and would be richest 'in real world'
Prince Harry 'fed up being the spare' as Duke to reclaim 'power' over William with book
But, I think there was a lot of dating before Trevor (including the guy from porn movies), so I would say that if she tried yachting it would have been then, and I would also guess that she was so bad at it that she was never invited back again!
Blogger Wild Boar Battle-maid said...
Back in the day, IIRC, Jerseydeanne alleged * was hired, at $500 per hour, to entertain gentlemen on board ship. No supporting/substantiating evidence given so we should not take that as necessarily true.
The only piece of evidence I saw supporting her yachting was a highly redacted screen shot, allegedly from one of Harry's friends, of a text message asking her if she would be available for certain dates for a boat trip he was organizing with some friends. It really didn't prove anything as it didn't include the addresses of the sender or the recipient. But it was not historical. It was allegedly in the year before Liar and Friar's engagement was announced.
I also read on more than one blog -- no, I didn't keep copies of links -- that in the Toronto Soho club, where she would hang out at the bar, it was common knowledge she was --allegedly -- "pay to play."
No one seems to want to come forward and say anything publicly. Given the UK's libel and defamation laws, I guess this isn't unusual. But I also guess that several members of the board have "heard" (that is, "read") that Tom Inskip was --allegedly -- one of Liar's customers and that -- allegedly -- he was the main person who tried to talk Friar out of getting serious with Liar and that he was -- allegedly -- banned from Liar and Friar's close circle of friends as a thank you.
Have I described everything carefully enough?
Tom Bower really only needs one supposed yachting customer to come forward to validate this particular piece of gossip, but I hope it doesn't color the rest of his book. My feelings towards sex workers are probably similar to Hikari's: I don't want to pass judgement on them or on how they came to be in their profession unless it somehow affects me personally. And if I was a British taxpayer who had helped pay for a £30 million spectacle for -- ALLEGEDLY -- a royal to marry a sex worker, that would constitute affecting me personally, and I would probably be pretty angry.
I just don't want that alleged part of Liar's past to color all of Tom Bower's research into her.
I agree. Some of the headlines are so much fun.
Each publication has its own slant, too, and can be used as a predictive tool:
My favorite is the US rag, US Weekly. They have regularly run headlines stating “Princess Kate Pregnant with Twins” — so, we can be certain Kate is not pregnant.
They recently ran a cover reading something to the effect: “Meghan and Harry closer and more in love than ever!”
That got me believing the divorce is looking a lot closer…
Could not find anything from Chris Ship on that Saint Meghan Markle thread, but there was a brief clip from Australian Sky News: speculation about if Harry will do a runner (and a reminder that he was warned not to marry her but ignored all warnings) or if she will dump him when he is no longer useful to her. No new info on anything in the clip.
----------
Hilary and Chelsea Clinton are releasing a podcast on strong women:
https://people.com/politics/hillary-chelsea-clinton-announce-docuseries-gutsy-conversations-trailblazing-women/
Basically the Chris Ship video says that Harry is homesick, questioning his decision to move to America with MM and leave his family and everything he has ever known behind. One of the questions asked is do you think he will "do a runner?"
The answer is that she will dump him when he has outlived his usefulness to her and maybe he should leave first!
“Prince William and Kate Middleton Are Expected to "Snub" the Sussexes During Upcoming Royal Tour of U.S”
We can only hope the Cambridges are too busy for a visit.
https://youtu.be/Ebm5YyYoQYE
Apparently HazNowt’s tell-all has been D-listed—-Do not publish.
Rachet has been familiar with the D list For her entire adult life, but I imagine this is a new experience for H.
Quickie 🎤
Apologies: Flanders & Swann
The Hippopotamus Song
(Mud,mud)
Hippocritami*
Crud, crud, odorous crud
Nothing’s so shallow
as promoting this Dud
To wallow, and follow
All down to her swallow
Marrow and sparrow
are stuck in the mud…
*Plural 😉
Number two 🎤
Apologies:Julie Andrews
Feed the Birds
Meggie Droppins
Pay the bird
Tuppence a shag
Tuppence, thruppence
nah, tuppence for hag
Hear her words
downward dog lies
Heels overhead
as her merde stings your eyes…
"Prince Harry is to make a speech at an informal meeting of the UN on July 18 – Nelson Mandela International Day. This is appropriate. He was so inspired by the great African leader’s book Long Walk To Freedom that he chose Finding Freedom for his own tome about he and wife Meghan’s harrowing royal travails. Isn’t life grand?"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11015861/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-Prince-Harrys-Nelson-Mandela-tribute.html
@WildBoar
Dadaist nah, sadist?
Meglene Dicktrick
Life’s a cabaret
Ich bin prostituierte
With Steamdrunk Harray!
Meant to add apologies to
Marlene Dietrich, prostitutes,
Steampunk
and the German language 🥴
@Rebecca
Love it, especially
“When a shady lady
latched onto my wood” 😜
@DesignDoc
Thank you, as always ☺️
What kids walked into which church?
Does Stella know what the words `young' and `innocent' mean?
----
`Meglene Diktrick' - that's pure gold,Magatha.
Who would agree
with Stella Parton
Only idiots
Like the
Earl Dumbarton…
HM is out and about, this time visiting a hospice in Maidenhead.
One Cathedral Architect at Winchester commented of his charge that `it won't last for ever but it's not done yet' (no, not the original architect but the person with oversight of the building in modern times!).
I believe we can say the same of Her Majesty.
Obviously she doesn't know what "young" is although at 73, 41 could seem young. But neither M nor H is a "kid" no matter how old Stella is. (And her sister Dolly isn't "a little hillbilly singer" as Stella said either.)
Stella has one son but he was born when she was very young (she married for the first time in high school & he is from that marriage; no kids from her next 3 marriages.) Maybe she doesn't remember her son's babyhood. Because no one who knows anything about babies would say M was holding Archie "like a real mom should" at the polo game. Yeah, barely 2 months old, clutched like a sack of potatoes, and held against her body in the sun on a hot July day with no hat, no shade, no feeding.. like a real mom, uh huh.
Is the fantasist perhaps thinking of 'delisted'? That term simply means to remove from a list (not traditionally used in book publishing but technically correct and recently increasingly used by the media so it may well have become a common term in book publishing).
Technically, since the publisher has never put the book on a public list, it cannot be delisted. I doubt that at this stage Penguin has declined to publish at all and will embark on the expensive and difficult task of trying to recover the advance paid to the prince.
Speculation is swirling that since the book does not appear on the list of books to be published for the next season, there is a problem. Word has been put out that it is still scheduled for publication in 2022, but the publisher has not put out any official notice of a publication date, at any time.
Bowers' book was only 'listed' in the last few days, about a couple of weeks before publication, so there is nothing unusual about the practice.
Bower wrote and published a book on Charles that was not altogether kind.
If his book on TBW has become a book about TBW in the royal family, he is not going to make them the good guys.
She can deflect from what is revealed about her in the book by rallying another attack in his family using (and misusing to the extent of spreading lies) whatever Bower has written about his family.
William, Catherine, Charles and Camilla should be bracing themselves. The Queen could be attacked in that sly way they have.
The duo sure do scrape the barrell in their tired old game of finding people to attack on their behalf and sing their praises.
I finally found the term:
'Notice number 3 says that in order “to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of classified information” editors and journalists are “requested” to seek advice from the committee if they about to publish information relating to “the methods and techniques of organisations involved with the execution of national security operations including details of Special Forces and other MoD units engaged in security, intelligence and counter-terrorist operations or Security and Intelligence Agency operations that are in the planning or execution stages or after they have been completed”, (my emphasis).
Ironically, little is publicly known about these “D notices”, as they are commonly called, and although they have no legal force, many editors and publishers abide by them.'
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-03-26-the-uk-militarys-secrecy-problem/
The entire article is very interesting.
It is highly unlikely that the memoir has been scrapped because of an objection from MoD (and note that the 'D notice' has no legal means to stop the publication).
If the publisher submitted the manuscript to the MoD and there have been objections, they have a few options: They can remove or rewrite the problematic chapters (most of the book will be about Diana, royal family, being a working royal, the wife, the wife, the wife). If the hapless one refuses to make changes and Penguin declines to publish, the hapless one can take the manuscript elsewhere for publication, and sue to keep the advance he was paid.
Also, the hapless one was a gunner in a helicopter.
Maybe the people involved are completely unreasonable, but I see many ways that any supposed problems that may have arisen can be overcome.
Here is a useful explanation:
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/viral-news/2017/06/16/what-is-a-d-notice-debunking-claims-the-media-is-being-gagged-over-the-grenfell-fire/
On the odd occasions something is mentioned in the outline at the start of a radio/TV bulletin but isn't dealt with in the body of the broadcast, it may be because a D notice has been issued.
I recall in 1982, during the Falklands campaign, I caught the tail end of an item in the introduction to a BBC 6pm radio news broadcast. It was clear that something terrible had happened but it wasn't mentioned again in that bulletin. It later proved to be the bombing of the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram - the news of it was broadcast more fully later - it was just too early for the news to come out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if H blabbed on about matters he has no business to mention and which he should know he shouldn't be talking about.
https://archive.ph/TLRn7
Many thanks. Let the games begin!
The Sun is starting to cover the contents of the book:
ROYAL REVENGE The Queen said ‘Thank goodness Meghan is not coming’ on day of Prince Philip’s funeral, explosive book claims
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/19213753/queen-meghan-philip-funeral/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/19213319/meghan-markle-vanity-fair-buckingham-palace-fury/
Wow!
Meghan, Prince Harry and the war between the royal family
In the first extracts from Tom Bower’s new book chronicling the Sussexes’ falling-out with other royals, Harry arrives alone for Prince Philip’s funeral knowing he is about to betray the Queen and the family
On April 9, 2021, Prince Philip had died. His funeral was set for April 17. Harry arrived in London just before the service. The mood was sombre. Daily, the media extolled Philip’s remarkable life and devotion to the country. The duke had planned a simple funeral at St George’s Chapel, Windsor. The rehearsals displayed faultless military drill. Few would not be touched by the perfection of British ceremonial tradition. The weather was forecast to be perfect. The only uncertainty was the relationship between Harry and his family. How would he cope with his father and brother? Meghan had cited her seven months’ pregnancy as the reason for not travelling.
In Windsor Castle the Queen was preparing to face the public on one of the saddest days of her life. Philip had been her rock for the previous 70 years. To comply with Covid restrictions she would grieve alone inside the chapel. “Thank goodness Meghan is not coming,” the monarch said in a clear voice to her trusted aides. Buckingham Palace declined to comment last night.
Harry’s presence remained a problem. As a private citizen stripped of his military titles he could not dress in uniform. To minimise the embarrassment for both Harry and Andrew, who was mired in allegations of sexual sleaze, all the male members of the royal family dressed in morning suits. To avoid any problems with William, the brothers were separated as they walked towards St George’s Chapel by their cousin Peter Phillips.
During that short procession many watched whether Harry signalled any regret towards his family. Some interpreted his sideways glance towards William as the outsider’s unease. No one grasped the truth about Harry’s nervousness. In four weeks’ time his Apple TV series about mental health would be broadcast. Transmission had been delayed until after the funeral.
Looking at his family standing in St George’s Chapel, Harry must have known that his damnation of them in the Apple TV series would widen the rift. Sitting alone and isolated, the 94-year-old monarch’s grief was concealed behind a black mask. Everyone was moved by her dignity. William looked tense, Kate serene, Charles visibly anguished. Only Harry’s expression defied accurate reporting. Flapping his order of service against his thighs as he left the chapel, he was clearly impatient. None knew that Harry, the once adored young prince, had betrayed his whole family.
After the service, eager for signs of reconciliation, the media seized on Kate’s manoeuvre to engineer a conversation between the brothers. Cameras followed them as they walked up the hill towards the castle. Later reports of the aftermath veered between a two-hour conversation between Harry, William and Charles, and a perfunctory exchange before everyone departed. Few realised that Harry wanted to return to California as fast as possible. The three princes spoke briefly before Charles drove to his cottage in the Brecon Beacons in Wales. William was handed the burden of rescuing the monarchy from the damage caused by his brother and his uncle Andrew.
Buckingham Palace finally understood very precisely on May 14 that the Sussexes were beyond control. Apple TV released Harry’s broadside, called The Me You Can’t See. In it Harry denounced William, whom he had previously praised as the only person he “could trust”, and dishonoured Charles, whom he had previously thanked for being so “kind”, for causing a cycle of “genetic pain”. He had even criticised the Queen, despite saying she was “hugely admired”. All were cast as villains responsible for his “cycles of suffering” and “unresolved anger”.
The Palace struggled to understand why Harry should publicly criticise the Queen and his dead grandfather for their upbringing of Charles. America’s men were gripped by Harry’s advocacy of therapy. He was credited with removing the stigma of admitting to anxiety and depression.
The gulf between the Windsors and Harry was widening. Five days earlier, Harry had nailed his colours to political campaigning. At Vax Live, a Los Angeles charity concert, Harry told an audience that Pfizer and other pioneers of Covid vaccines should abandon their intellectual property rights and let poorer countries have their patents free. President Biden supported that gesture, but it was opposed by Britain and the EU. Harry’s participation would have been impossible as a member of the royal family. As would Meghan’s two-minute video. She weighed in by asserting that women of colour had been disproportionately affected by Covid. Women’s progress, said Meghan, had been “wiped out” for a generation.
Powerless over events in California, Charles had good reason on his accession to strip the Sussexes and their children of their titles. The Sussexes’ status depended substantially on their royal titles. Every appearance or statement was issued under the label “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex”. Neither considered it odd to honour the Queen yet damn her as a bad parent to Charles, or label her family as racist and neglectful of Meghan.
In America, no one would be aware of those contradictions. But Harry could not assume that Charles would tolerate the enmity without retribution. In the possibly brief time before the Queen died, Harry needed to cement his status.
The Sussexes organised a Lilibet website before their daughter was born. Lilibet was the name used by George V, the Queen’s grandfather, as he imitated his young granddaughter’s attempts to say her own name. After his death in 1936 the name stuck, but was only used by the closest members of the Queen’s family.
Harry’s daughter was born at Santa Barbara’s Cottage Hospital on June 4. On the same day, but two days before the birth was announced, Meghan’s lawyers registered the lilibetdiana.com website. After the birth, but before the public announcement, Harry called the Queen. He told his grandmother about the birth and their decision to call their daughter Lilibet.
To stymie the Sussexes, the Palace told the BBC that the Queen was “never asked” for permission for the use of her name. In his telephone call, Harry was “telling” the Queen about the name.
Legal wrangles in London could be easily forgotten in California. Only when the whole royal family descended on the G7 summit hosted by the prime minister in Cornwall on June 12, and Kate was filmed laughing with Jill Biden, could Meghan see the unequal struggle for attention. For the British, the sight of William, Charles and the Queen walking through a garden, and alongside the world’s leaders, represented the monarchy’s enduring strength, and William and Kate represented its future. The Windsors felt reassured by the international accolades. Their future public appearances were carefully scheduled and inserted on to a grid, building up to a climax later that year in New York. Their own royal event was planned to consolidate their status in America.
In their timetable, the unveiling of a bronze memorial to Diana in Kensington Palace’s Sunken Garden on what would have been her 60th birthday became a sideshow. In the bitterness sparked by the Sussexes, only the Spencer family were present alongside the brothers. Everyone else, including Diana’s grandchildren, stayed away. Meghan’s absence passed without comment, except in those parts of America where Diana was revered.
Standing in front of an uninspiring depiction of Diana, William and Harry defied speculation. The ceremony would not trigger a reconciliation. William’s reluctance to attend was well known.
Any doubts about Harry’s strength of feeling were dispelled by his stony silence after the Queen announced on Accession Day 2022 that Camilla would be Britain’s next queen. Seventeen years after their controversial marriage, Charles had persuaded his mother and a majority of Britons that Camilla should be crowned during his own coronation. Charles may have had good reason to fear that Harry’s dislike of Camilla had been re-energised by Meghan.
Most Britons could not understand Harry’s seeming hostility towards his country and family. What many saw as his disloyalty to his grandmother was particularly mystifying. Occasionally, he appeared willing to betray every value he formerly held dear.
Yet visibly retaining their relationship with the Queen was critically important for the Sussexes’ status. By March 2022 the ailing 95-year-old monarch had repeatedly cancelled public engagements. The exception was her appearance at Prince Philip’s memorial service. To the royal family’s misfortune, the event was overshadowed by Andrew’s bold appearance centre-stage, escorting his mother to her seat in Westminster Abbey. Defiantly ignoring his banishment from public duties, Andrew also indicated that he expected to appear in the spotlight during the Queen’s jubilee celebrations in June.
Keeping Andrew out of sight was one problem. Another was Harry and Meghan’s demand also to appear with the Queen on Buckingham Palace’s balcony. If the three outcasts did successfully appear in the spotlight, the media’s focus would no longer be the Queen’s achievements over 70 years, but on her dysfunctional son and grandson. Inevitably, the public reaction would be unenthusiastic.
To achieve this goal Harry asked the Queen’s resistant advisers. When this failed he asked the Queen if he could visit her in Windsor on his way to the Netherlands for the Invictus Games. To secure her agreement, Harry appeared to give the impression that the meeting would offer an “olive branch” to “clear the air”. At the last moment, keen to see her grandson and instinctively forgiving of Meghan, the Queen agreed to meet the couple on April 14. William avoided the problem with a previous arrangement to ski with his family in France.
After spending the night with his cousin Eugenie, Harry and Meghan were driven to Windsor Castle. On the Queen’s insistence they met Charles and Camilla before her. The Sussexes arrived late. Their first encounter was civilised but failed to resolve the fraught relations created by their Oprah Winfrey interview. By contrast, there was no tension drinking tea with the Queen. Yet the issue of their appearance on the balcony remained unresolved. The danger of allowing the meeting surfaced six days later.
Followed by Netflix cameras, the Sussexes proved themselves modern and compassionate as they faultlessly mixed in The Hague with the athletes. Always smiling and dressed in an unending change of expensive clothes while watching the events, Meghan played the stunning hostess and pledged to offer “service” to the world. But, as later events seemed to show, festering was their fury that the Palace had refused all of their demands for a prominent role at the jubilee in return for returning to Britain with their children.
Harry could not resist venting his anger to an American NBC TV reporter. His “special” relationship with the Queen, he told the world, meant that the Queen confided in him secrets unknown to others of her family.
Her four children and seven other grandchildren, he implied, were excluded from her confidence. More inflammatory, he declared his duty was to make sure that his grandmother was “protected and got the right people around her”. Charles, Anne, William and all the Queen’s staff, implied Harry, were inadequate for the task. He appeared to speak from the heart. It seemed Harry had resumed the war against his family. The “olive branch” media headline about his visit to Windsor splintered.
Predictably, Harry’s assertion of his special status aroused accusations about his “breathtaking arrogance” with “no bounds to his self-delusion”. Responding to the public fury, Downing Street even issued a statement that the Queen was well-protected.
Unconvincingly, the multimillionaire implicitly linked his mother to a plea for “a more equal world”. Finally, he volunteered that America was his “home”.
Within those few minutes on television Harry had demonstrated the danger of his appearance at the jubilee celebrations. Everything was about himself and Meghan.
Merely four years after Harry and Meghan’s wedding the royal family had been transformed from a relatively harmonious group, embracing multiculturalism as part of their service to Britain and the Commonwealth, into a beleaguered institution uncertain of its future. To their harshest critics, the Sussexes had become agents of destruction.
© Tom Bower, 2022. Extracted from REVENGE: MEGHAN, HARRY AND THE WAR BETWEEN THE WINDSORS by Tom Bower, to be published by Blink Publishing, on July 21 at £22.
Thanks so much!
The excerpt is a summary of what was in the media, but it is useful to have it all in one place as a narrative.
@Magatha: D'ya think Megelene Dicktrick ever sang about `What the Boys in the Backroom will
Have'??? Doesn't bear thinking about.
Sure as H*ll, TBW's never drunk sarsaparilla' but she would have done well to heed Tom Destry's words:`... Y'know, I had a friend once used to collect postage stamps. He always said the one good thing about a postage stamp: it always sticks to one thing 'til it gets there, y'know? I'm sorta like that too.'
A great film!
While it's all very interesting so far, I think one of my favorites was that Vanity Fair would not print the P&G story because it couldn't be proven & parts sounded sketchy. Apparently M was furious it wasn't in the article but the author didn't tell her why. Guess she knows now!
I'm not sure I understand the claim though that Thomas Markle "invented the success of her (P&G) campaign." She's the one who said Clinton wrote to her. I hardly think he convinced her she got a letter from HRC. Or is the contention that TM faked a letter? What is the deal? Thomas would have also known it was a school project but apparently let her act like it was all her idea. Not sure he could have stopped her---she was pretty bossy/overbearing re: the other kids in the Nickelodeon blurb about the letter.
You’re welcome 🙂. I agree that there is nothing revelatory in the excerpt—do you think I should delete it? I know it takes up a lot of blog space, which can be frustrating for those just interested in the comments.
The Vanity Fair excerpt was a bit juicier. Why am I not surprised that Meghan’s kitchen walls were covered with photos of her! 😂
The extract about the Vanity Fair article is a hoot. All the experienced & sophisticated people at Vanity Fair knew she was a fraud from the get go. Too bad Conde Nast has let itself go down the tubes, & they seem to employ empty headed nonentities these days. Poor Serena Williams, one of the greatest tennis players in history, male or female, gets roped into a fake friendship with a two-bit grifter. It seems to happen to a lot of prominent people.
The members of this blog are the best!
----
That would be me. I'd holding off purchasing the book until I saw that it was not going to be a flop. Excerpts did it for me! Out waiting by my mailbox now.
Other Royal girlfriends had been dispatched for far more innocent sins.
* was given the world and managed to throw it away. The shame and regret should be all hers….
The posting of the excerpt is great and my vote is to keep it up on the blog. Sometimes people are busy and don't get to read the blog every day.
Wonder how many books were sold with the posting of the excerpts by our dear Nutties? Thank you! I was on the fence, but after reading them, I ordered a copy from the Book Depository. Thank you Nutties for that suggestion, too. I am very annoyed it is not for sale on the US Amazon site. The members of this blog are the best!
Indeed! They should be paying royalties to some of y'all!
I don't think I'll be buying it, though. I was considering whether I wanted to invite their malign influences into my house while I was broiling ribeye steaks, and the ribeyes burst into flame. That might be a sign, LOL. Husband said we didn't even have to go outside and light up the charcoal to have blackened steaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms3TsthhgjY
LOL Bringing malign influences into your house. Great point! So sorry about your steaks.
I will not be buying 6"s book if it is ever published but the excerpts from Tom's book are very enticing....
Even though the excerpts seem like the book is less about Meghan and more about the Sussexes vs. Harry’s family, I am still hoping there will be some reveals about Meghan that are interesting, such as her stalking of Harry and her questionable pregnancies.
I still think both children are genetically theirs, but I am in the camp that the children were both IVF and both carried by a surrogates.
Henrietta: One can go to some of the very first posts of Nutty's blog to find the references to a screen shot of someone asking * if she's free for yachting season. There's another good post on Nutty's blog of "10 Floors of Whores" from a British tabloid, slyly referencing *.
I agree with Mel or Snarky that * has been shadowed banned due to the hijinks about Oprah. Moving from Monteshito to 90210 or wherever they're going won't change anything financially or luck-wise for them. They will continue to stagnate, and/or go downhill. It's all downhill for the two of them.
For instance, Queen Victoria, as revealed by her diary, was a right little goer despite projecting the opposite image.
By summary, I mean that Bower, in that chapter, seems to have put together all the information that was in the media. That chapter was thus a bit disappointing for me. Apologies I was ambiguous. We are all immensely grateful to you for posting the full article/chapter here.
-------------
Something that struck me: he writes that she was 'hysterical' on the phone after the Palace's disapproval of the VF cover and article. I doubt the disapproval was major (the Queen has even reprimanded William in public, so even a direct reprimand from the Queen is not the end of the world).
She has this 'fixed smile in public' thing going on, but the mask does slip. However, in private she seems to throw mega tantrums, like a two-year old. What kind of personality disorder/psychiatric illness does she have? Also of note is that he knew this about her (although did not have a professional diagnosis) before the engagement was even announced. Actually, she was still just his booty call in Toronto when he first experienced her craziness (hysterics about being hounded by non-existent paparazzi). He was completely infatuated so tried to rationalize it, probably, but he seems to have been sucked into her craziness.
It is also of note that she displayed this behaviour to people who could have made it public but did not - the protection that being in the royal family gave her.
I also wonder if the true story is that his family suggested that they seek professional help and that was the catalyst for them bolting, instead of them seeking help but the family stopping that. If not, why did she not get professional help when they left the family?
I laughed out loud at the quote you posted about Whats Her Name "hiking on old trails in LA" and that moving to Santa Barbara was "moving to LA". Its a good one hour and a half plus drive from where she lives in Montecito to her old stomping grounds in West LA. On a good day. When traffic is light on the 101 / Ventura Freeway and San Diego or Hollywood Freeways. And if you drive PCH from Oxnard add at least another 30 mins. I've done that (101 / San Diego Frwy / Hollywood Frwy ) drive many many times over the decades.
To say moving to Montecito was "moving to LA" is like saying moving to Southampton was "moving to London" and then saying after moving to Southampton they went to hike regularly on Hampstead Heath.
It sounds that stupid. So made up stuff. Unless Dumb and Dumber actually have moved base to LA.
As for hiking in her Montecito 'hood. The Cold Springs, Hot Springs, Sycamore Canyon trails are great hiking trails. But not with dogs. She lives very close to one of the trailheads. All have had major trail closures the last few years due to all the wildfire damage and flood damage but are starting to open up again. The best place to walk dogs around there is where I walked dogs when dog-sitting for friends. Down on Butterfly Beach and Miramar Beach when the tide was out. You can walk all the way to East Beach and back. A good mile or two.
Well, well well!!!!! The roast chickens have left the Chick Inn and are coming home to roost! Two things come to mind before I start my analysis:
“ When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.” Game of Thrones
“You come at the king, you best not miss.” Omar. The Wire.
First, William hit the bullseye right from the start and so did Philip. Both of them quickly ascertained that Ginger was dealing with an opportunistic liar. And my guess is that Ginger has been using the Queen for YEARS as his power back up to fix his messes. Now, on to the lovely, delicious myths the article exposes as lies through detailed fact checking. Something Nutmeg betted would NEVER happen.
Sunshine Sachs and Nutmeg were absolutely desperate to reap returns on what was a bad investment in a D list actress on a Z list cable show. This story is all about money and reaping returns for all parties involved.
“The feature could even prompt Harry to announce their engagement — delayed, according to Harry, until the Queen’s formal approval on her return from Balmoral in the autumn.”
So to begin - Ginger himself was foot dragging on a proposal as he waited for formal permission from the Queen. This is about respect and requirements from a formal system. So he wasn’t trapped by the system - he was trapped by Nutmeg. He was following the system at that time.
“Harry had proposed to Meghan in Nottingham Cottage one evening while she cooked roast chicken. She could hardly wait to say “Yes”. Harry gave her a ring that he had commissioned, with two of Diana’s diamonds set in yellow Botswana gold. He was particularly proud of his design. Meghan did not conceal her excitement, even though it would seem she was secretly determined to have it redesigned as soon as possible.”
Well, the whole roast chicken thing has now been exposed as a Soho house inside joke about certain sexual practices so I seriously doubt it was about cooking anymore. Regardless, how telling it is that Nutmeg wanted the ring redesigned. The first disrespect and insult. You all know this is about Nutmeg’s jealousy at Kate wearing Diana’s original engagement ring. Ginger made the smartest move of his life giving that ring to William. Kate respects the history. Nutmeg doesn’t give a shit.
“Contrary to Omid Scobie’s assertion that Meghan wanted “to tell the world ‘I’m in love’ ” and did the “interview with Harry’s blessing”, Kashner arrived at Meghan’s home and was told that his interviewee was under strict orders from both Harry and Thomas Morgan. Aware that Diana and Sarah Ferguson had destroyed themselves in interviews, Harry had ordered Meghan to maintain tight-lipped silence about sensitive subjects — Donald Trump, race, their relationship and especially himself. He was not to be mentioned.”
This is the point Ginger should have pulled the plug on the whole thing. The interview was supposed to be about Suits 100th episode, philanthropy and activism. Ginger knew the minefield that journalism is and walked into this with eyes wide open. So who’s racist now Nutmeg? Your future white husband literally told you “not to discuss race.” I don’t want to hear one more word out of either of their mouths about the racism of others when it clearly starts inside their own marriage. She was also explicitly told by her own fiancé not to discuss him or their relationship.
“Looking around, Kashner noticed that the kitchen walls were covered with photos of herself and the books piled on the coffee table were picture guides and history books of London. “Only the A-Z of London’s streets was missing,” he thought, uncertain whether she had actually read any books about Britain.”
A textbook narc move. Staging the story. In a way that is so obvious a child can see it. You know in the few days before that interview, she ordered a bunch of books from Amazon on Britain and the pictures of herself were always there.
““Every day after school for ten years I was on the set of Married . . . with Children, which was a really funny and perverse place for a little girl in a Catholic school uniform to grow up.” Kashner could not know that Thomas Markle insisted that the studio visit was her Friday treat.”
This was probably where Thomas Markle knew it was time to start setting Nutmeg’s wild imagination straight. She was already lying about her childhood experiences with him. Samantha Markle: Tom Bowers presents exhibit A - Nutmeg lying, yet again, about a simple fact. A simple, provable fact.
““Tell me about Harry,” said Kashner, not expecting an answer. “We’re a couple. We’re in love,” Meghan replied into the recording device. Clearly prepared, she balked when asked, “What does love mean?” “
So right away she was fully prepared to disregard any of Ginger’s wishes, any protocol and throw Ginger right under the bus. She was asked to say nothing about him or the relationship. Here it is Ginger - black & white. The original betrayal.
“Over the next few days Kashner called those who Meghan had recommended as her friends. The tennis player Serena Williams denied she was Meghan’s friend but just an acquaintance. She gave him an enigmatic quote: “You’ve got to be who you are, Meghan. You can’t hide.” Kashner’s unease grew. Soon after he had returned to New York, Meghan sent him spices from the market. “Meghan’s snow job,” he decided.”
So, now we know. Serena Williams got used. And she cut these two off. Serena knows who Nutmeg is: a climbing user. She may have a softer spot for Ginger but after his ridiculous performance at the mental health speakers conference, I’m pretty sure she’s done.
“Sunshine Sachs had demanded that the magazine satisfy Meghan’s requirement that she be presented as a philanthropist and activist, without considering one problem: Vanity Fair’s scrupulous researchers could find no evidence of her global philanthropy and activism. “Hollywood philanthropy is PR philanthropy,” Graydon Carter often observed.
Meghan had used her relationship to promote herself. The Hollywood-isation of the royal family had sealed Meghan’s fate as Harry’s fiancée.
Within hours, Meghan called Ken Sunshine and Thomas Morgan. Hysterically, she described Buckingham Palace’s fury at “Wild about Harry”. Sunshine Sachs, said Meghan, should have ensured that her comments about Harry were removed. Why wasn’t the focus on her philanthropy and activism?
Sunshine feared that Meghan would fire his agency. Puzzled why Buckingham Palace was angry, he called the magazine’s editor to deliver what he imagined to be the ultimate threat. “You’re going to have to deal with the Queen,” he said. The furious monarch, he imagined, would pick up the phone and berate the editor. The editor was bemused. Meghan, Sunshine was told, “didn’t get the cover in her own name . . . but because of who she was likely to marry”.”
So the Palace played the long game right from the start. Diana and Fergie were the blueprints for how to let an “outsider’ destroy themselves. Throughout the 80’s, if you lived in any Commonwealth country, every day there was a headline about Diana and Fergie. Both ended up divorcing out and blaming the Palace even as the Palace tried desperately to explain to them that “Never complain, never explain’ is a survival mechanism to ensure your own sanity against the press. This time, the Palace knew: stay silent and let them hang themselves from their own petard. Shakespeare knew his stuff.
“She was equally furious that her battle with P&G was omitted. Kashner resisted revealing that Vanity Fair’s fact checkers had raised questions about its accuracy and, after consulting P&G and advertising historians, had concluded they could not prove the whole story. They could also find no evidence, as Meghan claimed, that she received a reply from Clinton. Unknown to Kashner, Thomas Markle knew Clinton and P&G had not replied to Meghan. The success of her “campaign” was fictitious, invented by an adoring father. “She complained because she wasn’t presented in the way she wanted,” recalled Kashner. “She demanded that the media do what she expects. I felt manipulated.””
We can finally put to bed the story that P&G changed their ad campaign due to Nutmeg. My guess is two things happened here: She ran home and told daddy about the project, skewing her own role in what was a class project and then Thomas turned it into family lore. Again, exhibit 2 for Samantha Markle’s case against Nutmeg. Family lore exposed as yet another lie. We can also put away the idea that Nutmeg ever received a reply from the first lady. The National archives keeps track of all that stuff, Nutmeg. You are a liar my girl!
“In London, Harry’s family and their advisers were subdued. This was not an issue, as some would later assert, about the Palace’s handling or mismanagement of Meghan. Nothing could be done. The besotted prince ignored the warnings that Meghan spelled trouble for the Palace.”
They really didn’t need to do anything in fact. They ultimately knew that both would fail spectacularly. This has been a long, slow motion car crash. The car is mangled, the gas is leaking, and this book may well be the fallen power line that starts the explosion. They knew Ginger was out of control, refusing to read the writing on the wall and that Nutmeg was a big fat liar. It’s all just a matter of having to watch the disaster and having an ambulance on standby for Ginger and his kids.
I loved OzzieSlim's thoughts, and s/he identified for me deeper (more despicable) meaning to so many of Ginge and Unhinged's selfish actions, which I had originally taken at face value as being the self-absorbed actions of immature, overly privileged repugnant individuals. But they are so much worse. So much worse.
I hope those two, well, scratch that, I think i'll keep my own counsel and not put into print what I hope for those two, and just say I pray they get everything they deserve.
What those two actually deserve bears no resemblance to what they each think they deserve.
Thanks for posting the four part review from Reddit. Very interesting!
"Meghan Markle's excitement at being on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine turned to hysteria and rage after the magazine focused on her relationship with Prince Harry instead of her acting and philanthropy, according to a bombshell new book about the royal couple.
In "Revenge: Meghan, Harry and THE WAR BETWEEN THE WINDSORS," British journalist Tom Bower said Meghan was "ecstatic" when the magazine agreed to do a story about her, and put her on the cover of the September 2017 issue.
But when the magazine used the headline "She's Just Wild About Harry," and did not focus on her work as an activist and philanthropist, Buckingham Palace balked - and Meghan was furious with her US public relations company, Sunshine Sachs, according to excerpts from the book published by The Time of London Saturday.
According to Bower, Meghan had been under strict orders from Harry's public relations team to steer clear of sensitive topics, including Donald Trump, race and her relationship with the prince.
Meghan had convinced Harry the article would focus on the celebration of the 100th episode of "Suits," the TV show that the actress was filming in Toronto, where the interview was conducted.
Markle was originally "ecstatic" about doing the magazine cover, according to a new book.
"Sunshine Sachs had demanded that the magazine satisfy Meghan's requirement that she be presented as a philanthropist and activist, without considering one problem: Vanity Fair's scrupulous researchers could find no evidence of her global philanthropy and activist," writes Bower.
But when Vanity Fair contributing editor Sam Kashner, who confessed he had never hear of Meghan or "Suits," asked Meghan about her relationship with Harry, she replied, "We're a couple. We're in love."
I'm sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but I hope what people will understand is that this is our time," Markle said in the article.
The interview was "like a thunderclap," writes Bower, 'the interview triggered sensational reactions: Meghan had used her relationship with Harry to promote herself. The Hollywoodisation of the royal family had sealed Meghan's fate as Harry's fiancee."
Yeah here is the link to see comments that are still streaming in >>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11018781/Meghan-Markle-hysterical-Buckingham-Palace-reacted-Vanity-Fair-interview.html#comments
By KATIE FEEHAN and CHRIS JEWERS FOR MAILONLINE
UPDATED: 06:28 EDT, 16 July 2022
Meghan Markle 'rang her PR team and was hysterical' when Vanity Fair cover led on her relationship with Harry and not her 'philanthropy' to anger of Palace, claims bombshell new book
Meghan appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair's September 2017 issue
In her interview, she was instructed not to go into detail about her relationship
However, she told interviewer Sam Kashner that she and Harry were 'in love'
The cover ran with the headline 'Wild About Harry' - to the Palace's dismay
According to a new book by author Tom Bower, Meghan called her PR agency describing Buckingham Palace's fury upon seeing the magazine cover
Meghan Markle called her PR team in hysterics after Buckingham Palace reacted with 'fury' to her Vanity Fair interview about Prince Harry, a bombshell new book has claimed.
A taste of what is in the next excerpt.
She really is a piece of work!
And more.
I’m pretty sure the Harkles are sharing an address on paper, as they’ve always done, But I think marital time at close quarters, is minimal. They’ve been two individuals pursuing separate activities, almost certainly including separate romantic encounters, since they were supposedly dating. In recent months we’ve got all of these rumors about * staying in a luxury spa hotel, seeing various men, Who may or may not include Markus Anderson… Now she’d have a believed that she makes the 3+ hour round-trip from Montecito to downtown LA three times a week… Harry’s doing whatever he does with a royal allowance and no job. Daddy duty? Right-o. Haz up to his elbows in dirty nappies.. sure I believe that. The lazy tosser can’t be bothered to pick up his own dirty underpants from off the floor but he’s up at 5 AM to feed and change an infant because he doesn’t like the nannies to do it? Whatevs.
I wonder if Mr. Bower will spend any time in his book On the various living arrangements of the couple between the time they got engaged and running off to Vancouver Island. Muggsy Dog is Lee parated herself up and down the street in front of the daily male offices and completely unsuitable attire for an entire afternoon to be seen; A similar photo shoot was staged with her allegedly arriving at the gates of KP with a bunch of shopping, ostensibly on her way to NottCott To whip up some more roast chicken. And yet, and yet something makes me disbelieve that she actually lived there. Funny how the rest of the Royals in residence are never patped strolling into the public facing entrance of KP carrying their own shopping bags. They are whisked in discreetly with a Royal driver. One does not see Kate photographed schlepping in the Waitrose bags at that entrance. Allegedly on the day Bugsy arrived in London ostensibly to take up residence with her fiancé at NottCott— The couple having been engaged already according to her, shades of “secret wedding” taking place three days before the fake spectacle put on at St. George’s Chapel— H never returned any of her messages nor sent any car for her and she had to call a taxi. Now I’m thinking when the taxi dropped her off outside the gates of KP, that might have been as far as she ever got. Not the story we’ve been told, but I think mugs had already sealed her fate even before the official engagement announcement with the whole photo gate scandal a year previous, the various global stocking of hairy and the cherry on the sundae, the VF interview. At this point, two months prior to the official engagement, I think Harry and the family were both hoping that she could be fobbed off and paid to go away. So I doubt that she was ever in Scott just in his private home as his beloved fiancé. Not that kind of relationship. At any rate, apart from the sighting she staged herself, stopping short of actually going through the gates in those photos… No independent sighting of Muggsy entering or leaving KP either alone or in the company of Harry has ever been verified. The story about “Catherine was so mean to not offer me a Lift to shopping” Keeps making the rounds to bolster the narrative that the RF was universally racist and mean to her. She wants us to believe that she was literally next-door neighbors with Catherine and William, Making such a snub intentionally unkind. But Catherine’s actions would be natural and understandable if Mugsy did not in fact reside at NottCott and Had only encountered her on the streets of Kensington like a stalker. I think that’s precisely what she was, which is why William went to his grandmother and petitioned that the Sussexes be removed far away to FroggyBog— Harry’s wife was making Catherine’s life untenable. Allegedly.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/19222514/queen-charles-meghan-rift-thomas-markle/
featuring Thomas Markle, and that Vogue issue.
I am running out of popcorn.
I'm sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell...
I usually hate this expression, but it seems so apt here: What does this even mean? Come forward where? Present yourselves to whom?What kinds of stories? What kinds of adventures in dating was she expecting to have?
I can only guess that she was hinting at the traditional engagement interview that BRF members typically do, but why bring that up in a get-to-know-Meghan interview? It just seems so melodramatic, especially with the follow-up of: I hope what people will understand is that this is our time.
Again, what "time"?
If she wanted to be taken seriously in the interview as an activist and a philanthropist, she wildly missed the mark. She just sounds like a ditzy, adolescent drama queen dropping big hints about some future "time" that no one else is special enough to participate in or even understand.
I think it's possible that the courtiers read that slop and underestimated what she was capable of. I bet the interviewer did the same. He's probably reading Bower's excerpts as excitedly as we are.
Thank you for the OzzieSlim analysis. I’m not sure who Ozzie is exactly but he has a way with words. I love the ending:
This has been a long, slow motion car crash. The car is mangled, the gas is leaking, and this book may well be the fallen power line that starts the explosion.
Amen.
really?
Many people stay with their original agent but then, something can change and there they go off with someone else. It wasn't as if she was on the same strata as, say Tom Cruise or AJ. That one would hurt on many levels.
So I would wonder what level damage * could really do if she fired them when they have so many existing clients and people wanting to use them.
According to one report, Meghan allegedly threw a cup of tea into the air.
No, she threw it at someone, and they were written a big, fat check by the family. I think some of our social media gossip was more accurate than TB. But it does tell me he couldn't get anyone to spill the beans to him.
so far excerpts are nice and gossipy somewhat of a pseudo psychological profile but more tea and we mean tea about the thrown tea the actual hysterics and the bullying. we know she had her US team working from day one but connect more dots. show the rest of the world her or is planting tons of stories in the press she claims to vilify. talk about calling paps to photograph her outside kensington palace gates. tell us the charlotte story. i want some verification for a lot we have speculated.
I have always thought "our time" meant the time before the Royal engagement was announced. A time when they could somewhat fly "under the radar" before all the hoopla and circuses started after they were a engaged Royal couple with the Lea up to the wedding and all that entails.
A personality disordered narcissist I once was involved with enjoyed being sneakily inappropriate in plain sight, making references that his innocent audience wouldn't get. The same with Twat and Twit, making references to roast chicken, crocodiles, and waffle makers. So nasty, and such ugly, bottomless behavior.
A wise person once told me that when a person claims they are bisexual, they ALWAYS prefer their own kind.
* must be dry-dock yachting.
Thanks to all those posting excerpts.
I'm disappointed Tom Bower didn't make more of Hairy's arm flapping and inappropriate behavior at the Diana statue unveiling.
It's Twat's turn to hide behind the couch with the release of TB's book.
I also haven’t read anything about Mrs * going to spas or partying or seeing other men and I haven’t heard above Harry as a bisexual either. Where is this tea?
Okay, so I heard she's allegedly trying to get David Foster away from Katharine McPhee so she can become wife #6 and be the one to catch all his wealth when he dies, which Meghan reckons will be sooner rather than later. Foster and McPhee have reportedly tried to distance themselves from the Markles ever since Meghan first (allegedly) hit on Foster. Meghan apparently continues to try to get in the same room with him. Regardless, this marriage to Harry is no longer meeting Meghan's needs. I give it a year, maybe 18 months. Then I think Meghan is going to unload more recordings than Amber Heard in an attempt to claim that Harry has been abusive to her, which is why she is leaving the marriage. Therefore, in her mind, it's not her fault that the marriage is ending. I just know she's going to do something when they divorce to make out like she's some kind of victim. She'll begin a smear campaign against Harry. She a narcissist. That's what they do.
I really respect the way the Fosters visited Harry at one of his polo games when they knew Liar wasn't there. I think there are at least some people around them who want to still be friends with Friar after Liar has ridden off into the...courtroom?
I couldn't believe it when I heard. I had Covid and hadn't spoken with anyone in a few days. Then I got online and saw about her supposed visit with Oprah, made a call, and was told she actually staged the whole thing. She is such a cringe-fest. I mean, imagine loading your family and a couple of staff in a car, calling the paps to essentially say "Meet us at Oprah's in five minutes," driving the equivalent of two city blocks, letting them take pictures, and then turning around and going back home. She is certifiably insane.
Or certifiably desperate. And she even got her friend to come along.
Meghan felt she was the victim. Prince Harry went in to fight for her
A blow-by-blow account charts how repeated clashes with the Palace over family, charity and protocol led, inevitably, to Megxit
At the end of July 2018 Harry and Meghan stayed for a week with Charles and Camilla at the Castle of Mey, the Queen Mother’s former home in Caithness.
The visit was used to brief the media that Charles had become attached to Meghan and admired her interest in history and furniture. Unspoken was Charles’s bewilderment about the American. He had never really understood her or what she wanted. That week, his irritation about Thomas Markle’s TV appearances, especially his criticism of the royal family, came to a head. “Can’t she just go and see him and make this stop?” Charles “berated” Harry.
Charles could not understand Harry’s “explanations”. Harry did not tell his father about Thomas’s fury at being ignored by his daughter. Instead, Harry explained that Meghan refused to telephone Thomas Markle because she suspected that “his phone was [not] in his possession” and “his email account was compromised”.
Meghan’s excuses irritated Charles and perhaps also the Queen. The monarch must have found it hard to believe that Meghan could not resolve her differences with Thomas Markle. She joined Charles in a conference call with Meghan and Harry. At the outset, Charles and his mother urged Meghan to fly to America for a reconciliation.
Meghan rejected the suggestion. “It was completely unrealistic to think I could fly discreetly to Mexico, arrive unannounced at his doorstep (as I had no means of secure communication with my father), to a location and residence I had never visited or known, in a small border town . . . and somehow hope to speak privately to my father without causing a frenzy of media attention and intrusion that could bring more embarrassment to the royal family.”
Her father’s telephone number was unchanged. They could meet discreetly in Los Angeles. The Queen was probably unaware that Meghan had never visited her father in Rosarito.
The conference call ended with both the senior royals perplexed. “I was especially sensitive,” Meghan later admitted, “to this as I had very recently married into the family and was eager to please them.” In turn, Harry fretted that Meghan needed protection. He sympathised with her resentment of the Palace’s keen sense of deference and hierarchy. “They fundamentally don’t understand,” Meghan complained during her visit to Castle Mey. “They” included Camilla, who, with nothing in common with Meghan, was apprehensive about Harry’s future.
Camilla epitomised the best — and probably some of the worst — characteristics of a practical, solid, English upper-middle-class woman. Under-educated, expert as a horsewoman, a poor cook, keen to do good, with lots of old friends, she was grounded and not grand. As a no-nonsense, self-deprecating, plain speaker with a good sense of humour who, when necessary, displayed a stiff upper lip, Camilla was most comfortable sloshing through the mud in a Barbour and gumboots.
Meghan was angry that Palace officials refused to protect her image. She refused to accept that staff were not employed to promote her as an individual, but instead placed her in the grid of the royal family.
Meghan seemed isolated, vulnerable and stifled by convention. Apparently unwilling to accept that, unlike Hollywood, no one was counting the box office receipts of the crowds she attracted, she was waging a struggle for which she was not suited. Scornful of the Palace’s explanation that attacking the media would rebound on her, she adopted Hollywood’s rulebook and took the initiative.
No other member of the royal family had suffered as much embarrassment from their own family as Meghan. There was some equivalence in Meghan’s contempt for her half-siblings, Samantha and Thomas, and now Harry’s for Kate and William, in particular. The Cambridges, she believed, were failing to offer the recognition and generosity she deserved. She hated the comparisons with uncomplaining Kate. Effortlessly, the Cambridges appeared to be perfect. Meghan appeared to be influenced by envy of Kate. In turn, the future queen regarded her neighbour as dismissive.
Kate, complained Meghan, did not have to live with the latest irritating revelation, such as the Urban Dictionary’s newly published definition of “Being Meghan Markled”: a “verb for ghosting or disposing of people once you have no use or benefit from them anymore, without regard to genuine human relationship”.
Seemingly stung by the criticism, Meghan forgot an actress’s cardinal rule: pose with humility, even if it is false. Despite being raised in Hollywood’s studios to work with others, Meghan became increasingly fragile, demanding that the Palace staff view the world from her perspective. In self-defence she demanded retaliation against her critics.
Seemingly stung by the criticism, Meghan forgot an actress’s cardinal rule: pose with humility, even if it is false. Despite being raised in Hollywood’s studios to work with others, Meghan became increasingly fragile, demanding that the Palace staff view the world from her perspective. In self-defence she demanded retaliation against her critics.
From the outset, the reception for the Sussexes in Australia was ecstatic. Large crowds cheered the couple, delighted by Meghan’s special news. The Commonwealth, everyone agreed, would be enhanced by the birth of the royal family’s first mixed-race child in the contemporary era. Harry and Meghan would be at the forefront of modernising the monarchy.
Throughout those first days, the tour was perfect. Their visit on the second day to a family 500 miles east of Sydney, bringing a banana cake baked by Meghan the previous night, aroused euphoria. In parallel, Harry scored another triumph. He opened the Invictus Games and scaled Sydney’s Harbour Bridge to replace an Australian flag with the flag of Invictus. The couple were loudly praised for arranging free flights from Britain for participants in the games and members of charities, and warmly welcoming them at receptions. Their daily success, recorded by glowing photos, sent Australia’s republicans into retreat.
The mood in the Sussexes’ Sydney headquarters was, by contrast, miserable. Although the couple had arrived with four staff, Meghan had decided that she needed to be surrounded by people she trusted. At her request, her friends Jessica and Ben Mulroney had flown in from Canada to provide round-the-clock support. Mulroney doubled as Meghan’s stylist, as she worked through her “show-stopping” wardrobe.
Every night, Harry trawled social media, searching for snide comments on the internet. Every morning he and Meghan turned on their phones to surf the internet. Thin-skinned, they were inflamed by the slightest criticism. Both bombarded their staff with demands for removal of the criticism.
Amid that turmoil, Harry read that once again the Markle family battle had resurfaced. The American media revealed that Thomas Markle had first heard via the internet of the prospective birth of a grandchild. Other scurrilous stories were dredged up. Harry blamed British newspapers for the reports from America. But the only jibe he could attach to the accompanying British journalists was a report that one of Meghan’s outfits cost £19,960. As a sign of Meghan’s intentions, she also wore a Serena Williams brand jacket. Soon afterwards, it was promoted on Instagram: “Duchess Meghan in Our Boss Blazer. A collection fit for Royalty.” Once again, Meghan was irate. Staff were blamed for not suppressing, Hollywood-style, all those embarrassing media reports. Her mistake, she would lament, was “believing them when they said I would be protected”.
Harry inflamed emotions by repeatedly drawing comparisons between his wife and Diana. Australia’s huge welcome for the Sussexes was comparable to Diana’s tour of Australia with Charles and baby William in 1983. Tens of thousands had flocked every day to glimpse the princess. Australian republicans, and even the prime minister, credited Diana with sabotaging their campaign to remove the Queen as head of state. The more Harry drew parallels with his mother, the more Meghan must have been convinced of her importance to the monarchy.
The only clue to their preoccupation was Meghan’s comment about a pair of jewel-encrusted earrings she was wearing from Diana’s collection: “It’s so important to me to know that she’s a part of this with us.”
Harry, who was 12 when Diana died, perhaps could not fully understand his mother — her work, abilities, priorities and historic significance. She was both a traditionalist and an iconoclast, a mischievous revolutionary and a selfless loyalist to the monarchy. Individual royals, Diana knew, must conform or the institution would lose its legitimacy. Her strength was the public’s recognition of her vulnerability.
Perhaps encouraged by Harry, Meghan appeared to conjure a fantasy that she could provide the leadership the monarchy required. Her activism would enhance the brand. To her staff, she gave the impression that she believed she personified the monarchy’s importance.
Naturally, her American agents and lawyers were encouraging. For years they had struggled to land parts for her. Now they believed she could earn millions from her activism. Of course, she would need an American base and a foundation in which to deposit the proceeds. There was even, she was told, an American billionairess who might provide the start-up sponsorship. Her advisers neither understood that their strategy was incompatible with the monarchy, nor did they care. In their uncluttered scenario, Meghan would earn millions and they would reap commission.
On October 23, one week into the tour, the die was cast. Harry and Meghan seemed to have convinced themselves that William was jealous of their success in Australia. The time was right for “change”. They needed to break out of Kensington Palace’s claustrophobic fishbowl. Harry proposed that the Palace should rewrite the rulebook. Rather than Meghan being a dutiful member of the supporting cast she should star as a campaigner, independent of the Cambridges and even of the Queen.
At Archie’s christening in Windsor in July 2019, Meghan banned the Palace’s accredited photographer and confirmed that his godparents’ names would remain secret. In explanation, she would tell Oprah Winfrey: “The same people who have been abusing me want me to serve my child on a silver platter.”
The media characterised Meghan’s demands as a poseur’s petulance. The tabloids she had hungrily sought until 2017 were now the enemy.
“She doesn’t deserve all this negative press,” said Daniel Martin, Meghan’s make-up artist. The outrageous transformation of “Meghan Markle, the perfect royal” into “Duchess Difficult” was malicious, he said. “In the years I’ve worked with her, she’s never had a diva fit. Never. Harry and Meghan are very philanthropic.”
Martin had good reason to be grateful to Meghan. “That wedding,” he recalled, “put me in a whole other stratosphere on social media that I can’t understand.” Among many new lucrative appointments, Martin had become a brand consultant for Dior. Capitalising on Meghan’s wedding and New York baby shower had transformed others into celebrities. By associating her designs with Meghan, Misha Nonoo had opened a pop-up fashion boutique in central London and an “intimate workshop” for “group sound healing using crystal bowls”.
Jessica Mulroney, described by Harper’s Bazaar as “the fairy godmother of Canadian fashion”, had finally secured a contract on ABC’s Good Morning America. Flaunting her relationship with Meghan, Mulroney modelled new clothes on Instagram alongside her three children. Abigail Spencer, an actress from Suits, was delighted that her friendship with Meghan had increased her Instagram following from 100,000 in 2016 to half a million. Contrary to some expectations, her NBC TV show Timeless was not axed.
Meghan, in turn, believed she had good reason to be suspicious. All her requests were now referred to the Palace, and regularly the Queen’s officials directed her staff to prioritise its interests over Meghan’s. More importantly, without consultation a legal constraint had been imposed on Sussex Royal, their foundation.
A solicitor regularly employed by the Palace had been asked to create “The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”. The couple believed that the lawyer had been tasked to reproduce their own foundation.
Under the law, a foundation is private, the patrons have no legal obligations and there is no requirement to publish detailed accounts. However, a foundation is complicated to establish and is usually financed before its creation. The couple’s foundation was registered as a charity, leaving the Sussexes’ future wide open to the financial scrutiny that goes with charity regulation. The difference was considerable.
Easy to establish and without the need for original money, a charity is obliged to publish detailed accounts and is subject to scrutiny by independent officials employed by the Charity Commission. All the donations the Sussexes expected to receive, including from America, would be itemised and published, as would the salaries of their staff. As an officer of the charity, Meghan would be subject to fiduciary laws. The charity was incorporated on July 1, 2019.
At their first meeting at Kensington Palace, the Sussexes welcomed the foundation’s four trustees. All were personally unknown to them. Steven Martin Cooper was the chief executive of Hoare’s bank; Kirsty Jackson Jones and Karen Blackett, a British businesswoman, had significant commercial and legal experience; and the chairman, Stefan Allesch-Taylor, was a businessman and philanthropist. In a solemn atmosphere they discussed their objectives for the foundation’s success.
By the end of the meeting the Sussexes were shocked. The trustees, they discovered, were “neither mates nor servants”. They were independents who would have control of the charity’s operations. Under the law, the Sussexes would be denied any privacy over the foundation’s management. For Meghan this was unexpected. The foundation’s legal structure, she believed, was a deliberate attempt to undermine her.
As her former agent (and former friend) Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne had realised, Meghan was “a businesswoman first and foremost”.
In early November 2019, Hillary Clinton visited Meghan at the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage at Windsor. As Meghan unloaded her anxiety, not least about the tabloid press, Clinton offered unqualified understanding. Meghan’s treatment, the politician believed, was “heartbreaking and wrong”.
Two weeks later, the next stage of the Sussexes’ departure from Britain was announced. They would not spend Christmas after all at Sandringham. They would stay instead for six weeks at Mille Fleurs, a newly fortified five-bedroomed waterfront mansion on Vancouver Island, guarded by six protection officers. Their stay as guests of a then unnamed American-Russian billionaire had been arranged by the 71-year-old Canadian music producer David Foster. Five times married, Foster was a friend and neighbour in Santa Barbara of Oprah Winfrey, and occasionally appeared on her programme.
Meghan consulted her Los Angeles team about the best terms for their departure from Britain.
This coincided with Prince Andrew’s BBC TV Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The curtain was rising on another royal crisis.
The Queen, after consulting Charles and William, took control. Convinced that Harry and Meghan would never resume normal life in Britain, the trio agreed that the monarchy’s future should be focused on reinvigorating Brand Cambridge. That was made easier by Charles and William becoming reconciled over the previous months. Without any formal announcement, the monarchy would be “slimmed down”. The irritants, especially Andrew and Harry, would be removed earlier than planned.
Their agreement was conveyed by the Queen during her 2019 Christmas Day television broadcast. As Harry watched his grandmother from Vancouver, he was staggered. Four silver-framed family photographs had been carefully placed behind her. They showed the Queen’s father George VI, Prince Philip, Charles and Camilla, and finally William and his family. To Harry’s fury, there was no photograph of himself, Meghan and Archie. The Windsors were airbrushing the Sussexes from history.
Isolation on Vancouver Island increased the Sussexes’ sense of outrage. Listening to Harry’s discussions with his family and officials in Britain, Meghan was furious that they were not accepted on their own terms.
The encouragement from her Los Angeles advisers was intoxicating. The Sussex brand, Meghan was assured, offered the same global opportunities as those reaped by the Obamas. They could exploit their royal status in films, books, finance and the digital world. By endorsing a big consumer corporation, the Sussexes could earn tens of millions of dollars. Their first step should be a major interview. Oprah Winfrey was waiting.
As a stockholder ( pre Viagra, yeah me) I am annoyed that these two faux humanitarians ( borderline humans) who monitize every photo and public appearance including " charity" appearances want Pfizer to forgo their vaccine royalties. ( speaking of the couple's hypocrisy, hopefully without opening a tedious discussion of drug companies and covid.) You know the couple won't forgo royalties or appearances for any reason. Whores done give freebies ( at least I don't think they do).
All the mention of the saga of how they overwhelmed people on the Down Under tour in numbers, the glitter that implied she was Diana 2.0 came out very strongly in FF (I remember reading it).
Surrounded by yes people (who as TB mentions in the book) did not understand the monarchy but could remember Dianamania and wanted to benefit financially from her as much as she wanted to benefit from being the brand would lead to problems none of them could foresee even before covid threw a spanner.
How interesting that they really both thought that all criticism should be eliminated for them.
Impatiently waiting for the bombshell.
`He was rich and old and she
was thirty-two or thirty-three.
She gave him fifteen years to live,
the only thing she meant to give.'
It's in `Verse and Worse' by Arnold Silcock, which British Nutties of my generation may recall from the early '60s.
In the past, Charles dumped the Spencer girl he was dating at the time (I don't recall which of Diana's sisters it was) for giving a press interview? When I saw that cover, I thought that * had sabotaged whatever relationship she had with H.
Alas, it was not so.
Behind a paywall. Has the article been posted here? I think I did find the full article posted elsewhere and scanned it (it was embedded in a SM post so I had difficulty in copying and pasting here).
Note that what is appearing in the Times are excerpts, not the whole book. I also find that you have to read carefully to find the nuggets. She love bombs people but she also annoys the hell out of them. Many of her fallouts are not public and spectacular, and especially in the UK people put on a mask of friendliness which I think TBW completely misunderstands on a conscious level. That could be the main reason for their delusions of grandeur and everything else, but another reason could be the measuring stick they use for success in everything.
Harry is the best thing that ever could or did happen to Meghan. Meghan is the worst thing that ever could or did happen to Harry... In my opinion!
Ouch! Her son Tom, a food author and critic, is famous for sharing his mother's (genuine) roast chicken recipe.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/cuisine/20210410110085/duchess-of-cornwall-son-shares-roast-chicken-recipe/
Scobie put out this story, but Bower reveals that they begged to be on the balcony. That is why they stopped off to see the Queen on the way to the Invictus Games. They did not give up though and put out stories of a second balcony appearance. Remember that photo of her standing alone in BP while other royals were standing in groups chatting, and the photo of them chatting to the Duke of Kent? I wonder if they turned up at BP that day and hung around, instead of going with the cousins to watch TTC from St James Palace, in the hope they could still get onto the balcony. Remember the screen? (Were they being restrained behind the screen? LOL!) They then did not join the cousins for lunch (reported by Mike to have been long and boozy) but flounced off. It is actually all rather tragic.
-------
The sleazy Andrew story is about to blow up. Some guy connected to the BBC claims to have a very compromising and embarrassing photo of Andrew. No doubt it will be revealed. Why say you have a photo, implying all sorts of threatening things (if it is published it will damage/destroy the monarchy) and then not publish it? This story has been published just in time before the duo make their appearance for Mandela day (in person or another ghastly Zoom appearance?). The silence so far from Montecito is probably because they are examining every word published from the Bower book, furiously making notes and sending instructions to lawyers to sue, sue, sue, while furiously briefing staff and SS to bombard us with a deluge of PR. Get money, spend money, use anything and everything to get positive media attention, sue anyone who dares to offend me ... this seems to be the business model of the duchess.
Oh dear! The UN General Assembly is not in session that day. The hapless one is not giving a keynote speech.
I am surprised that The Guardian is publishing PR lies. Because the article is filled with lies, I do not know if I can trust its assertion (at least directly implied) that the duo will actually be at the UN in person.
@KnitWit
Impatiently waiting for the bombshell.
My opinion --- Most of the good stuff has been released in the newspaper chapters, to get people to buy Bowers book. Excerpts in the Times and elsewhere. The rest of the Bower book will have no bombshells. It will be a rehash of what we already know here in Nutty Land. A rehash with some slight enhancements, some more slight details.
Revenge will be good for those who have not been reading and keeping up for the last five years. So this will still greatly damage the cause of the D&D of Montecito, or is it Bel Aire now? So good on Tom Bower for uncovering the D&D shenanigans for wider audiences. This book is still an expose, but not for Nutties.
https://archive.ph/RRkl4 ------- is the archive version of https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-and-vogue-editor-philosophised-over-tea-then-it-went-sour-bfrsm9s30
EXCLUSIVE EXTRACT (UK Times)
Meghan and Vogue editor philosophised over tea. Then it went sour
Edward Enninful scored a publicity coup by having the duchess as guest editor but it resulted in a row with the Palace
Inspired by her Los Angeles publicists Meghan had emailed British Vogue magazine’s new editor, Edward Enninful. He had worked in magazines since he was 17. The 45-year-old’s dramatic appointment as editor in 2017 confirmed his skills.
Enninful had developed a narrative about his ambition to be a positive force for change. As the son of immigrant Ghanaians, his passion was to promote black women to embrace similar ambitions to white women. What followed during their conversation is inevitably disputed.
Meghan claimed that after consulting her “two dogs nestled across me”, she suggested to Enninful that she guest-edit Vogue’s next issue. According to the editor’s staff, Enninful, rather than Meghan they insist, decided that the duchess would be a perfect money-making vehicle for the magazine. In his version, Enninful suggested that Meghan guest-edit the critically important September issue. She would be the first guest editor at British Vogue.
The woman who rarely stepped out of Kensington Palace in clothes costing less than £5,000 saw no reason to inform Palace officials about her decision.
Enninful classed the project top-secret. With unprecedented disguise, Enninful assigned one team to produce the normal September issue unaware that it would never be published. In parallel, Enninful and a team of 13 produced the special issue. The focus would be on 15 women nominated by Meghan as her heroes, or “forces for change”.
The rest is here>>>>> https://archive.ph/RRkl4
I’ll be the first one to admit that I am on my way to becoming a board certified conspiracy theorist, but I don’t wear a tinfoil hat (yet). I think the goal for the globalists was to bring down the Monarchy, thus throwing the UK into an identity crisis and anarchy, like the one that was systematically created in the US. Why else would key players in this specific group be interested in these two childish narcissists? I think they later dropped them like a hot potato when they realized how toxic the duo had become. I am looking forward to more details related to their move to the US.
Bower says there is a lot that did not make it into the book because he was meticulous in having verified sources.
The surprising revealtion for me in this interview is that Bower is a royalist!