With people about to receive their copy, it seems a good time to start a new post.
Happy reading.
Not much appears to be going on. Living Legends came and went without fanfare ... what's the next event? Super Bowl - Sunday February 11th? Oscar's - March 10th? In the mean time, some things are still rolling along in various starts and stops like Samantha's law suit. Or tax season is about to begin in the US. The IRS just never goes away. Nor do bills (utility, cable, mortgage, food, cars, security, landscape people, cleaning people, koi person and so on). There's always another one. Elsewhere others just continue to glide forward without a real hint of being disrupted by some news out of California. That would be the new King and Queen or the Prince/Princess of Wales. Yes there are health risks which seemed to come out of nowhere. But. The difference is that these people are calmly living their lives with minimal drama.
Comments
Thank you for the information on Doria. My thought? The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Drug use, multiple partners, flitting from job-to-job. Is this related to not being able to stick to anything and finish it? Not a solid role model for any child . I watched a couple of episodes of Married With Children, the show that * spent a lot of time after school on the set. The descriptive word that comes to mind is raunchy. Many off-color jokes, double-entendres, and sexually suggestive poses and innuendos. IMO Not an appropriate environment for a young girl’s developing mind.
It could be a script for whatever's goes on in the Sussex household.
The entry has since disappeared.
Kindle version available for immediate download at $6.00 on Amazon.com in USA. Includes photographs. Full book.
Hardback and paper back not yet available.
Bowers pulls a lot of disparate info together. The Harkles are much worse than I thought, and I’ve bern disgusted with them since
The Harry Markle blog started.
Mr.Meticulous,
Everywhere and Nowhere, United Kingdom, 1 year ago:
Apparently, the Palace have asked anyone with a substantive complaint about MM to be in Aberdeen tomorrow. The interviews will be in London but the end of the queue is in Aberdeen.
Too soon to go wait by my mailbox?
This was one of the lies my narc told me as I was getting ready to leave him. By that time I knew it was a lie, but I was embarrassed that I had fallen for it in the past so I inherently distrust anyone claiming the same experience.
You are correct about Al Bundy, the father on Married With Children. They treated him very poorly. Early training to dominate disrespect, and discard men?
As a moderator:
With the timing of the book, we can expect to this kind of thing and realistically, should expect to see more.
It goes into the next solar system from the PW is having an affair with Rose.
Just because something is trending on Twitter does not make it true.
If you want to go look for it, there are enough clues for you to find it.
Discussing it here is not a direction for the blog to go in. It doesn't stop the trend and doesn't help unsully Prince William's reputation. At best, it would continue the smear of his reputation.
A friend's mother used to say: The more you kick shit, the more it gets all over your shoes. So ... let's not kick this shit.
Thank you.
Now for the SMH portion of the evening: I am not on Twitter, so I had to do a little research just now to discover the stuff about PW which we are not kicking on our shoes.
Well, merde is what it is, all right. The source of this “anonymous” rumor isn’t hard to guess. All the more reason for us to be confident that Tom Bower has scored a direct hit on the Sussex battleship and it’s going down faster than Diarrhea’s little Flower at a yachting party.
Weak, weak, weak. This is more projection plain and simple. Because we know a certain celeb couple that just loves to show off their urban vocabulary in public every chance they get.
This is just a noise maker, a distraction… Beating the bushes to create a flap loud enough to drown out Bower’s book.
Speaking of “Battleship”, a popular analog board game when I was a kid— In German I class, Herr Mathie had us freshmen practice our numbers early in the first couple weeks by playing this game—auf Deutsch, naturlich. G6 occasioned great hilarity amongst the boys because in German we say “Gay Sechs (sex). None of us ever forgot that. I would wager that G6 is Harry’s favorite Peg on that board, and that’s actually how he met his current wife.
Nothing left in the sad Sussex arsenal but dirty tricks. The allegation is so oddly specific, and they sure weren’t talking about hanging the laundry. William unfortunately is going to have to steel himself for decades more of this abuse and innuendo. Harry is never going to forgive him for being born first, and TBW is never going to forgive him for not leaving Catherine for her, giving Catherine Diana’s ring, and scarfing her in perpetuity.
—————————-
“Married With Children” star Ed O’Neill hails from my hometown of Youngstown, Ohio. So there is my degrees of separation from Harry’s wife. That’s as close to the connection to her as I ever want to have.
Hymn 🎤
Apologies:Mathias Claudius
We plough the fields and scatter
Hoe-down
She fouled the fields
and shat-on
the good folk of England
The prince was felled
and neutered
By meh
and her right hand
She gives him snow to hinder
And grog to swell his brain
Pumps his thirsty ego
With a slash of golden rain
All her grifts astound us
She’s really flunked her game
The flower’s dropped her petals
Revealed her ass
dame shame…
Haz-ing
Supreme Justice Alito
Judged haz of Montecito
Keep your nose out of
US affairs
All that guff at UN
Laughing stock
once again
Be aware haz
you’re being mocked
from upstairs…
Tom Bower has suggested that Ms. 6 has political ambitions, & I agree that she might fit in our Congress, which is a colorful collection of rogues & crazies, & there have been worse people in that governmental body. My guess is that she'd prefer the Senate, or being appointed Secretary of State. Ha! She'll have to cozy up to billionaires with deeper pockets than that Irish hotelier who introduced her to Hillary Clinton, & she'll have learn from the Clintons to never discard potential allies until they pose a potential harm. The Clintons keep friends & allies for decades. They're still trying to regain power, although their star has definitely faded.
Short term endorphins but not good strategic move as he'll be around long after Charles. They need Charles for his money. After he passes, then they face William who won't be nearly as nice about things even if they remember to use the magic words.
Maybe * called a few people, but for all her bridge burning, and loco behavior (lying to Oprah), IMO, most people who have associated with * just want to stay off her radar. When * presents herself as being 90% unhinged, people just don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole, nor do they want to direct attention to themselves. * may have called the Clooneys, JayZ, Beyonce, Serena, etc., but no one personally took her calls. They all went to personal assistants, and people are doing their best to stay off *'s radar.
Dung-ho
Beneath her carapace
Ever changing face
Lies a scold
who’s lacking in grace
Sold her soul early on
To climb up the bum rung
No surprise
she’s now covered in dung…
Then, Lady C continues to criticize Bower for "a glaring error" which shows that "he doesn't do his own research", not "like me", says Lady C. That's when I stopped watching.
She always has to be the top dog and will even give fuel to the twat to stay number 1. Horrible woman!
There has been nothing about the Tom Bower book.
There was also nothing about the appearance at the UN.
On the other hand, Lui is still pushing the story about how horrible Andrew is, and this, the day that the pictures of him riding a horse at Windsor were published.
So their strategy is to keep pushing the Andrew narrative.
Indeed. He might appear to 'forgive' Crazy and Lazy's attacks against him, but against his family? NEVER.
I don't think she personally has carried out a direct attack since the Oprah interview.0
---------
Interesting that for her defence in the case Samantha is bringing against her she is claiming that subjective truth cannot be libel or defamation. Is she basically saying that she lied, her lies did harm to her family, but she cannot be held responsible for those lies? How can someone so smart be so inept in the use of language? There is a great difference between saying she grew up an only child (not true) and that she grew up feeling like an only child for most of her childhood (definitely true if a narcissist).
We never more reveal our motive as when we impute it to another and these two are showing us a very crude and vulgar hand.
Still no word from Serena or Michele or Ellen or Victoria or Sir Elton or Amal or even Jessica? Where or where are her celebrity friends, you know the BFFs who attended her wedding and baby shower? But at least she's got her Mouthpiece and royal lapdog trying soooo hard to keep 'em relevant. Yes, do what you can, my dears.
today's DM:
PRINCE Harry is "sick with worry" about the possibility of "a new war with the royals” when his memoir is finally released after multiple delays.
According to a source Prince Harry is reportedly “worried sick” his memoir “will lead to a new war with the royals” when it is released.
The source told Heat magazine that “Meghan is urging him to tell his truth and not hide what really happened” while he struggles with what to include.
They added: “Every passage is being revised again and again. Harry keeps remembering new things he wants to include, and then suddenly panics about toning down certain anecdotes.”
Harry has kept a lid on the contents and told only the Queen, 96, that he was working on it before it was announced last summer.
Promoting it, Prince Harry said: “I’m writing this not as the prince I was born but as the man I have become.”
So he darn' well should be.
WBBM,
I doubt HazNowt knows what 'irony' means . . but he never spoke a truer statement than that one. The man he's become is a soulless vindictive *cruel* vampire. Maybe H always had those tendencies but within the fold of the RF, they worked with him as much as they were able. He was at least groomed and presentable in photo ops and didn't sh*t on his grandparents in public.
Justice Alito's full speech in which he disses Bozo, HazNowt et al is on YouTube. It's over 30 minutes long and I haven't been able to find the exact spot for those brief quips. I will listen to it at lunch and let people know.
If he's too lazy to read a short document as research for a short speech, is he ever going to put forth any type of effort for a paying position? I would postulate that, no, he's not going to.
Blast from the past - the Fab Four on stage, pre-wedding, talking about the Royal Foundation and especially the Heads Together campaign. What struck me:
* With hindsight you can clearly see her grandiose but actually unsupported claims about herself.
* The hapless husband is so different from how he is now. He actually talks sense and seems to know what he is talking about.
* From the body language of the hapless one I would guess he has ADHD - just a thought.
* TBW is the only one who does not speak with humility.
@Fifi,
The latest 'anonymous' innuendo about PW is, I believe, actually a blueprint for how * entrapped HazNowt. It is a *TEXTBOOK* Narc move to accuse/blame others for their own wrongdoing or mistake or special proclivity legal/non . . or for saying something hurtful, whatever. Anything to deflect blame from themselves or stir the pot generally.
Therefore I am assured in my own mind that any clod of dirt the Sussexes lob at other members of the Royal family is actually something they themselves have done, and are just attributing it to others. Hence . .rumors of affairs . . .rumors of strenuously out-of-the-mainstream sexual practices . . accusations of lying, of making Harry's wife cry, etc. etc.
What Haz & * did the minute *after* they met is, I think, on display all over Twitter, in the guise of William doing it. I'm not surprised. There can be no revelations of foul behavior from the egregious duo which will surprise me any more. The only thing that surprises me still is how they keep managing to get away with all these lies and still get publicity. They should have sunk to the bottom of the pit of Nonentityville two years ago.
To say the Zeitgeist is with them is understating the case . . I feel absolutely sick at the evil continually emanating from Montesh*tshow.
When trying to track down the Twitter storm alluded to here, I was **taken aback** by the tsunami of negative stories about William that had popped up in just one day. Not just That One . . .I must have seen 6 or 8 different negative articles, several of them centering on 'regular rows' William had with Camilla's daughter, Laura. I was so disgusted I didn't condescend to read that sh*te, but it was all over the place.
Now--I ask you--WHO is the most likely to have had blazing rows with a stepsibling who represented the union of a father to a hated second wife? I don't doubt that accepting Camilla's place in his father's life has been an emotional and painful journey for William as well as Harry but William isn't the one who's been pitching wobbly fits in the press for months now over Granny's announcement that Camilla will have the title Queen Consort.
It's a complicated family situation but I never doubt for a minute that whatever bad blood is attributed to *William* actually belongs to Harry. Ergo, H is the one who had screaming matches with Laura.
LORD GEIDT! . . .SOS!!! This is the wartime consigliere William needs. LG got sh*tcanned by Charles and Andrew, who went whinging to Mummy that LG and his staff were not sufficiently deferential (aka arse-kissing) to their Wonderful Selves. He was too effective as a gatekeeper for HM and they didn't like it one bit. Sir Edward Young is a seal amongst Orcas. HM never should have allowed LG to be driven from her service. What is wrong with her, why didn't she box their ears soundly and tell them to mind their own business? It's not like their ears aren't big enough targets, particularly Charles's.
If LG had had the watch when Megxit kicked off, I think things might be better in Royal land. LG seems able and prepared to take those hard and unpopular decisions for the greater good of the whole. I don't think William is as deferential to his father's tender feelings as the Queen seems to be, since she allowed her children to dictate her staff. William wouldn't stand for that I'm pretty sure. But even if he can only consult with LG in an unofficial capacity .. he needs guidance with a robust testicularity in dealing with this latest skirmish, and he's not gonna get it from Charles or the Queen. This is bad.
If any non-American Nutties need a tutorial in my "Godfather" references, I got you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpztPyZ5TH0
Had his mother remained married to Charles and lived, Harry’s world would be very different now.
IMO Lazy's book is going to sink badly because of world events. People have been eating last year's harvests; this year's wheat harvest in Ukraine and Russia is *not* going to go to hungry people in other countries this year. I think that people are going to be paying more attention to governments falling and millions of people starving than to the histrionics of overly privileged people that do not think that they are privileged enough.
Re the nasty William character character assassinations that y'all say have taken place on Twitter, I just assumed that it is in response to William coming to Boston to award the Earthshot prizes in partnership with the John F. Kennedy library. This is a much bigger deal than any faux speech or 'charity' Crazy and Lazy purport to represent.
I have always been very liberal-minded and now find myself in a world that is confusing and alien. To me, people on the woke movement and championing the obliterating of the identity of women are dangerous fascists.
--------
Aphrodite has done a new tarot reading. I find his interpretation of the cards bizarre at times but he is always interesting and surprisingly accurate.
https://youtu.be/UMHFtqB5tp4
Does anyone else remember when Oprah featured James Frey's "memoir" on her book club, only for fact-checkers to reveal, some time after the show aired, that Frey had flat-out lied about his personal history? It was a really embarrassing moment for Oprah, because so many readers had bought Frey's book on the strength of her recommendation. I think what she did in the aftermath to salvage her reputation was strategic and effective -- but it also depended on a few factors that are no longer in play today.
Now along comes * to threaten Oprah's reputation in much the same way, claiming that what the majority of people took as "a statement of objective fact" was nothing more than "a subjective statement" about her feelings. (I really love the "obviously" that her legal team wrote in.) But this time, Oprah doesn't want to come straight out and say she feels "duped" (her word from the Frey incident) and that she feels responsible for all the millions of people who tuned in and believed *'s lies. This is a situation beyond her control.
The greatest factor in Oprah's favor during the Frey incident was, I believe, her show with a live studio audience. When Frey admitted to lying, gasps of outrage were reportedly heard in the studio -- all the better to be picked up by the microphones and broadcast to TVs all over the world. Oprah made her humiliation and subsequent vindication a collective drama. Frey didn't hurt just her, but all of "us," too. And for the most part, "we" were happy to play along and to make Frey the scapegoat.
Unfortunately, she has no such weapons to use against *. No way to salvage her reputation apart from staying as quiet as possible about the interview and producing something new that will, she must desperately hope, eclipse it forever. (I'm betting it will be something on Roe v. Wade.) We speculate here that * really wants a second interview with Oprah, but even she isn't so whip-dumb that she can't tell how the wind is blowing. The only way Oprah will be in the same room with her again is if * agrees to be the new James Frey, to admit to telling lies, and to share some of the spotlight with Samantha.
so this morning the “twitter storm” on william is gone. curious.
I've been out of the loop again for a while and didn't even notice there was a storm! In any case, I'm glad that the Dollars' latest poo-flinging attack was cleaned up so efficiently.
I had a quick look at the Fab Four on stage on the link you supplied. I would venture to say that it's dangerous to try and diagnose ADHD in someone just by watching them on a video. There has been a lot of assumptions and speculation of all manner about H but we have very little concrete evidence.
That said, * appeared demure in the video - butter wouldn't melt. Little did most people know. I thought that was when she was shooting daggers at Kate, but perhaps that was on another occasion.
What exactly would he do anyway? He isn’t parliament. He isn’t law enforcement. He isn’t a solicitor.
reuters
"One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price," Alito joked, referring to Johnson's plans to step down following criticism of his leadership from within Britain's ruling Conservative Party.
"But what really wounded me - what really wounded me - was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine," Alito added in a sarcastic tone....
Thank you for posting "The Godfather" scene. My favorite movie of all time. Also appropriate is the scene when Michael kisses Fredo on the lips and says "I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart."
I hope the link works for those who have not seen it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcFlp6kl508
He's a thoughtful and strategic thinker from everything I've heard. He isn't someone I'd wish to be on the wrong side of.
The Tom Hagen of the Royal Family. Ok, I will stop with The Godfather references now.
This situation is getting worse by the day. William and his team are at war now--a media war--and the attempted coup/character assassination is being signed off on by his own brother. William very much needs a wartime consigliere as he prepares to assume his place as Prince of Wales in the not terribly distant future. He (and Charles) cannot afford to wait to Deal with Harry until after the Queen passes away.
Lord Geidt has many fine attributes for the role. And, let’s not forget Major Johnny Thompson, another man of many very fine attributes, who, based on his demeanor at the Jubilee Service, is no fan of H and *.
Geidt is a qualified barrister, yes but to dismiss him as ‘just’ that is minimizing a pretty impressive resume. He wasn’t in the Queen’s personal service for 12 years, 10 of those as her closest aide because he was a lawyer; he’s a highly decorated intelligence officer and was one of the chief British diplomatic voices in the prosecution of Bosnian war crimes. HM created him a lifetime peer after removing him from his post, perhaps because she felt badly about it. We can’t really dun him as ‘not caring’ when it was not his choice to give up the post he’d held for a decade. HM relieved him of his duties through pressure from her kids—One might call this the Very Bad Decision that got the whole snowball rolling down the hill. Sir Edward Young was installed because he is more easily pushed around. Lord Geidt was a high level spook—just the person needed to deal with someone like Harry’s wife.
The queen realized this a bit too late And installed him to be *’s babysitter on the Commonwealth Youth Ambassadors’ committee. Unfortunately that was not a position of any authority, but it was sporting of him to answer the Queen’s call after she failed to defend him in his role as her private secretary. I think such a long serving private secretary to a monarch must be a pretty extraordinary man in his own right. Sir Edward Young might be the exception to this, since Charles and Andrew were confident they could push him around. I think of LG as ER II’s Walsingham…or he could have been given the need and the opportunity. I’d say the needful time is here. LG is only 60 and had decades of service left in him. Furthermore, having interrogated war criminals in Bosnia, I think he recognizes a sociopath when he sees one, and he’s not as fazed by them as the rest of the Royal machine. The mistake the RF has continually made with H and his wife is expecting them to adhere to Royal standards of conduct And to care about doing so and the consequences for failure to do so. Normal people would experience feelings of regret, shame, remorse and embarrassment for letting down the side. H & M are Psychosocially maladjusted individuals who do not respond like normal people would. No amount of pleading for them to adhere to duty and decorum befitting Royals is going to do it. The RS needs an individual who is well-versed in the world of morally devoid sadists because that is what we are dealing with. Gentlemanly codes of noblesse oblige do not apply with the Suxxits And from day one, the royal family has been over their heads.
Might * end up putting a horse's head in H's bed?
A horse's a** might be more appropriate.
Twat: vulgar, stupid, easily caught out.
Scobie is writing a new book on the gruesome twosome.
Timing? What the duo will want more than anything is to ruin the Earthshot Prize ceremony in Boston, so that will be a clue as to the date. There will be maximum publicity. Interesting that tarot readers have picked up that Catherine will not accompany William. This may be a clue why. William would want to protect her from the vicious attacks that the duo will unleash.
Maybe I am wrong and the Earthshot Prize ceremony will be a huge success, Catherine will get there, and the memoir will be riddled with errors that the media will enjoy pointing out.
'By then, M's relationship with some Suits actors was troubled. M had asked her merchandising agent Lori Sale to represent Sarah Rafferty, another Suits actor, for merchandising contracts. Sale met with Rafferty, and was enthusiastic. However when M heard the news, she accused Sale of conflict of interest, even though it had been M that had recommended Rafferty to Sale. This type of manipulative behaviour was "a criticism which several Suits actors shared but did not disclose to outsiders"; her behaviour remained a secret among the Suits family.'
Your comment on Lord Geidt was both interesting and informative. “Very Bad Decision” by ER II, indeed.
'By then, M's relationship with some Suits actors was troubled. M had asked her merchandising agent Lori Sale to represent Sarah Rafferty, another Suits actor, for merchandising contracts. Sale met with Rafferty, and was enthusiastic. However when M heard the news, she accused Sale of conflict of interest, even though it had been M that had recommended Rafferty to Sale. This type of manipulative behaviour was "a criticism which several Suits actors shared but did not disclose to outsiders"; her behaviour remained a secret among the Suits family.'
Makes me wonder how much of her being written out of the script was desperation to "ditch the *itch".
@snarkyatherbest
so this morning the “twitter storm” on william is gone. curious.
I've been out of the loop again for a while and didn't even notice there was a storm! In any case, I'm glad that the Dollars' latest poo-flinging attack was cleaned up so efficiently.
@Enbrethiliel:
Harry’s wife’s favorite Canadian sugar and gossip columnist is attempting to do the bidding of Harry’s wife by perpetuating the sleazy rumor about Harry’s brother. I just opened Google and there is a story about it credited to the Canadian gossip.
This is incredibly low. Even the gutter is looking down on the Sussexes.
Lady C said that were some glaring errors, she hasn’t stated to date what they are, there are some minor ones, but also what could be referred to as errors or omissions. 😟
The omissions I noticed were to do with the court cases, particularly the appeal. A chapter called Victory I thought…who for, surely not Maggot and Mole? 🥴It’s to do with the court cases, and I found it a bit of a let down, Tom didn’t mention the part of the court case she lost, it came across as she won the whole case. As I don’t have a printed version of the book I can’t quote specific parts. However, I do wonder whether Tom being a Barrister is the reason why the case and judiciary doesn’t receive the same analysis as the rest of his book. He does mention a brief history about each of the three appeal judges (anti media), but overall I feel he glossed over large parts of the case. 😟
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UuSfHyvn4U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=641zUIUts-w ?
Aubergine used to Redact part of image at the end.
Has anyone else seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=641zUIUts-w ?
Aubergine used to Redact part of image at the end.
I haven't seen this particular image. But I looked at one of her porn films on a site called Celeb Jihad, and I think it was called Random Encounters, a take-off on one of her rom-coms. It was so disgusting that I could only watch the first few minutes. It was S&M. I'm not sure if it's still there.
I always forget that these films are blocked in the UK, and British Nutties have never seen them (if you should be so inclined). Ick!
https://mobile.twitter.com/sabirahlohn/status/1553195388823388162/photo/1
Scobie is writing a new book on the gruesome twosome.
I guess Liar finally found someone to help her "set the story straight."
But I find it hard to believe she'll be able to wait a year for a book to be published. She'll assuredly will be leaking bits of it like she did with her Vogue editorship.
I just went to Google home page on my phone. The top story is horrid and has the imprint of * all over it. It even states that if this story isn’t true, too bad, because Twit and Twat had to put up with lies and Charles and William wouldn’t do anything about it.
Sorry AbbyH. I had to kick the shit, because it’s gone beyond Twitter to Google.
I sincerely hope that the little tramp suffers some serious consequences from her anger driven, vulgar lies.
Even in this situation, her gaze is locked on the camera.
I can't remember the exact wording and cannot find the reference, but Scobie has said that his new hagiography will be filled with royal behind-the-scenes secrets. Unfortunately what he has not taken into account is that TBW cannot be trusted and is all talk and no actual substance. If he does not get the content she has promised him immediately she could very well change her mind. Then, of course, all the content she gives him will be lies, which will be swiftly exposed.
Talk is that some of the sites (Raynair? Telegraph ...) have deleted the content they posted about the vile William story. The SS is still spreading it but if William has acted then I would be very afraid if I were the duo.
Now that we are having confirmed all of our worst suspicions about the past history and character of Harry’s wife, the fact that HMTQ not only assented to this marriage, but gave number six and his twice-divorced “Actress” a lavish televised wedding makes me wonder if she’s not in fact been going dotty for a while. Or if where Hazard is concerned, the entire family hasn’t thrown the towel in over him.
When I think of the crap that Margaret had to endure over Group Captain Townsend when she was #4 to H’s #5….Denied. Or Andrew’s early ‘80s romance with American film actress Koo Stark— Who Andrew Felt serious enough about to introduce her to his parents, and I the Queen Allegedly liked her very much. But Koo has appeared in a soft core adult film and on those grounds the romance could not continue. At the time that didn’t surprise me. How could a Prince marry a porn star?— Except now, to “the late Stephen Sondheim, “… And yet one has.” I never saw Koo’s movie, as I was still in high school when it came out. It’s certainly occasion to some talk, but I’m pretty sure as adult entertainment went, it was fairly tasteful. Compared to whatever Harry’s wife has up on the dark web, and it’s probably like a freaking Merchant Ivory film. In retrospect I wonder, if Koo had had biracial ancestry, which she have been awarded the same “get out of slut jail free card that Harry’s wife has enjoyed? To the best of my recollection, apart from a saucy movie, Koo was beautiful, aced the etiquette, and didn’t have multiple divorces or secret teenage pregnancies in her backstory. I recall her posing for a Portrait with Andrew on a magazine cover, People, probably— So such publicity meant that the romance had gotten quite serious before having the plug pulled on it.
At least Koo’s work was shall we say, legitimately transparent. She never tried to hide it and in fact was quite famous in the industry for a while. Contrast this to *. … Who does all her slimy deeds in the dark, and then lies about them. You can’t tell me that HMTQ's Security services did not have a thick dossier on * Which they shared with the queen and her advisers. All that filth whitewashed away Just so that Harry could have his Wedding Palooza. *’s been White washing herself her entire life, and suddenly she had the whole palace machine behind her in that endeavor. Well I’m afraid the excrement is beginning to poke through and stink.
But with each fresh horrible revelation out of Bower’s book—What WAS Her Majesty thinking??? Comes front of mind. Many people will say, “well Haz is a grown ass man— He can marry who he likes.” Technically Harry is a grown ass man on paper, and after the birth of Louis Harry did not need her constitutional approval anymore. But the notion that Madam deserved a globally televised third White Wedding…or it 6th…or would be a suitable representative of Her Majesty as a working Royal…. It was ludicrous.
I dare say they are paying for that mistake now in spades. (Not a racist expression!)
Now that we are having confirmed all of our worst suspicions about the past history and character of Harry’s wife, the fact that HMTQ not only assented to this marriage, but gave number six and his twice-divorced “Actress” a lavish televised wedding makes me wonder if she’s not in fact been going dotty for a while. Or if where Hazard is concerned, the entire family hasn’t thrown the towel in over him.
When I think of the crap that Margaret had to endure over Group Captain Townsend when she was #4 to H’s #5….Denied. Or Andrew’s early ‘80s romance with American film actress Koo Stark— Who Andrew Felt serious enough about to introduce her to his parents, and I the Queen Allegedly liked her very much. But Koo has appeared in a soft core adult film and on those grounds the romance could not continue. At the time that didn’t surprise me. How could a Prince marry a porn star?— Except now, to “the late Stephen Sondheim, “… And yet one has.” I never saw Koo’s movie, as I was still in high school when it came out. It’s certainly occasion to some talk, but I’m pretty sure as adult entertainment went, it was fairly tasteful. Compared to whatever Harry’s wife has up on the dark web, and it’s probably like a freaking Merchant Ivory film. In retrospect I wonder, if Koo had had biracial ancestry, which she have been awarded the same “get out of slut jail free card that Harry’s wife has enjoyed? To the best of my recollection, apart from a saucy movie, Koo was beautiful, aced the etiquette, and didn’t have multiple divorces or secret teenage pregnancies in her backstory. I recall her posing for a Portrait with Andrew on a magazine cover, People, probably— So such publicity meant that the romance had gotten quite serious before having the plug pulled on it.
At least Koo’s work was shall we say, legitimately transparent. She never tried to hide it and in fact was quite famous in the industry for a while. Contrast this to *. … Who does all her slimy deeds in the dark, and then lies about them. You can’t tell me that HMTQ's Security services did not have a thick dossier on * Which they shared with the queen and her advisers. All that filth whitewashed away Just so that Harry could have his Wedding Palooza. *’s been White washing herself her entire life, and suddenly she had the whole palace machine behind her in that endeavor. Well I’m afraid the excrement is beginning to poke through and stink.
But with each fresh horrible revelation out of Bower’s book—What WAS Her Majesty thinking??? Comes front of mind. Many people will say, “well Haz is a grown ass man— He can marry who he likes.” Technically Harry is a grown ass man on paper, and after the birth of Louis Harry did not need her constitutional approval anymore. But the notion that Madam deserved a globally televised third White Wedding…or it 6th…or would be a suitable representative of Her Majesty as a working Royal…. It was ludicrous.
I dare say they are paying for that mistake now in spades. (Not a racist expression!)
Sorry AbbyH. I had to kick the shit, because it’s gone beyond Twitter to Google.
I sincerely hope that the little tramp suffers some serious consequences from her anger driven, vulgar lies.
Hmmm. Sergey Mikhailovich Brin, cofounder of Google, world's 7th richest man, recently filed for divorce...
a CDAN blind about that rumour about William on twitter that was probably started by Meghan
She’s behind you!
Taking the rear end
of the pantomime horse
Our panto dame Twankie
steered the course of this source
Madam herself
egged on and then pegged
Exposing herself
peg leg has been megged…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11065131/Diana-bumped-dozen-elderly-male-nudists-Bodyguard-KEN-WHARFE-reveals-Princesss-rebellions.html
I disagree with Ken and what he says about Harry and his future.
I also think TBW shrewdly did research Diana and used that information to capture him and manipulate him.
@Sandie
I’m shocked that Diana
deliberately mocked William
at the football game, cruel.
As for haz, “entertaining pest”
aged 3, he’s still a pest
but far from entertaining.
Thanks for the TL;DR. And I love that last bit about the gutter!
I wonder if stuff about Earl Spencer will come out, now that Bower has revealed that he warned Harry about *.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19372846/prince-charles-charity-donation-bin-laden-family/
From the article, which also details how due diligence was done before the donation was accepted:
'There is no suggestion Bakr or Shafiq have been involved in terrorism.'
Now that we are having confirmed all of our worst suspicions about the past history and character of Harry’s wife, the fact that HMTQ not only assented to this marriage, but gave number six and his twice-divorced “Actress” a lavish televised wedding makes me wonder if she’s not in fact been going dotty for a while.
In this case, the Dollars' behavior edges out of mere disrespect and qualifies as elder abuse.
Could it have been pure naivete? * love-bombed the Queen, who was then persuaded the woman before her was different from the woman profiled by her intelligence gatherers? Prince Charles would have been all for it, too.
I'm remembering the early conspiracy theories about * and Marcus Anderson having so much dirt on the BRF (Prince Andrew specifically?) that the only way to keep her quiet was for Harry "to take one for the team" and be the sacrificial lamb. Well, his subsequent behavior has certainly laid those theories to rest! But we remain just as baffled about why someone with *'s history was able to get so far in life.
It's the biggest Cinderella story in the world -- albeit a diabolical version of Cinderella. Other, more talented grifters must have tried and failed before she made her play. Was it just the stars finally aligning? An unforeseen combination of shadow-self seduction, mommy-issue manipulation, cray-cray sex, love-bombing (of the target and his family), outright blackmail, and the race card, which human history will never see the likes of ever again?
@Swampie
Would he put a ring on it?
Sergey’s Adventures with
Ring Sting
Mrs Meghobich Brin Grin 😬
Bit late with ‘Godfather’
Meh to haz
“Leave the bun,
take the guacamole”
I wasn’t aware any existed (of the above) till I read it on this blog, how many others out there like me? 😟
Incase it’s gone unnoticed, Blogger is owned by Google. In a nutshell (no pun intended), Nutties have done the muck raking for Maggots flying monkeys and transferred the rumour to another platform. 😟😔
I’m disappointed that more discretion wasn’t exercised. 😔
By rumors, are you referring to the hobby allegedly attributed to William on Twitter? I think we have successfully ripped that up one side and down the other, haven’t we? Monkeys throw poo, that’s what they do, but unlike the Twittersphere, we are a closed community of anti-monkeyists here. I am not sure what harm is being done by our discussion. Any casual reader of this blog would ascertain within seconds that we give this rumor no credence.
@Embre
If * had lived up to even a fraction of the self-promotion she’d paid for, she could have been an asset to the RF. I am sure * was capable of being superficially charming to the 2 people she needed most to win over—TQ and Charles. In that family being superficially charming gets one far—Diana had them all convinced on the basis of one weekend that she just loved Balmoral, didn’t she? “Loving Balmoral” translates to “One of Us”. Harry’s wife has never set foot there despite no lack of invitations. If HM and Charles were disinclined to believe the damning reports from Six due to some love bombing from *, they have done so at their peril.
It must’ve been during the very same weekend she met Harry’s family that she had to be escorted back to the airport tout suite After Attempting to take unauthorized photos of the Cambridge children for mercenary purposes. So within hours if not days of getting her foot into a Royal palace, she had already demonstrated that she was a security risk. And she was only a short term girlfriend at this point, as this incident happened in a full year prior to their engagement. Other royal girlfriends have been given the bums rush for less, but of course none of them were half black before.
One of the more entertaining rumors swirling around the elusive Rasputin-like figure of Markus Anderson is that he’s the love child of Prince Andrew. It’s true that Randy Andy was popular with the lassies during his brief stay in Peterborough, ONT, and that MA was born in that city within the year after A returned home. But by that logic, Andrew could potentially be the father of all of the children born in the area in 1978. That would be a stretch even for Andrew. Neither does Marcus look anything like a Mountbatten. He looks quite swarthy and almost Mediterranean if I could say that without sounding racist. And, if MA Did in fact have irrefutable proof that he was Andrew’s son, he would certainly have had a more direct route to the RF Without having to resort to a convoluted plan to insert * as his proxy. Right?
Oy, this tragicomedy of errors is nowhere near concluded.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kirbysommers
Meghan is 45 years old?!? If so, we have to ask ourselves why the truth doesn't matter to the media. We are living in Orwellian times.
The objection to both of those relationships you mentioned were because the intendeds had been previously divorced. It was the same reason Mrs. Simpson was not deemed suitable, as she had two husbands still living. Apparently Harry is *’s third living husband. Her Majesty has sadly capitulated to the widespread cultural apathy among her people as regards the church, of which she is the Defender. The other marriages aside, Her Majesty was apprised I believe about *’s ties to Soho House, the numerous other relationships she’s had, the fraudulent business dealings which saw her convicted of tax evasion over revenue from her blog …and that is just the stuff in the public domain.
I would swear that in the early days, between the engagement and the wedding, I saw a picture of * and another woman sitting in a cafe with none other than Ghislaine Maxwell. Considering how relentlessly * Schemed to get into high society circles, It’s plausible that the two could’ve met. However, after Jeffrey had his unfortunate accident— He had been convicted but was still alive when the Harkles got engaged, which is interesting timing isn’t it, that the Markle Appears in Harry’s life is a precise moment that the Epstein empire was crumbling— But despite hours of sifting the Internet sense, I cannot find that photo, and I wish I had had the presence of mind to screenshot it.
If Harry’s wife was mixed up with Epstein, and there are potential links to Andrew as well, we can be certain the palace knew of it before the engagement. Now whether the wedding went ahead despite what they knew about her, or because of it, we can only speculate. I really do not have to be the body language guy to discern that absolutely nobody in the RF, Including Harry wanted to be at that wedding. If they were witnessing Haz marry the love of his life, They all gave an excellent impression of being at a funeral. Why do I get the feeling that this was a shotgun wedding, and the bride was holding the gun to Harry’s head?
Therefore, especially in the context of these modern times, she likely didn't see any point in refusing to allow Harry to marry his "true love," even if in fact he had no idea what he was talking about.
To double down on what @Hikari has said, there was so much more at play than just * having two other living husbands. There are other people "with a past" who have learned from their mistakes and wouldn't repeat them in a relationship with a new partner. Maybe Peter Townsend would have been one of them. I genuinely believe Camilla, despite not being a virgin (*clutches pearls*) when she and Prince Charles fell in love, would have been a beloved Princess of Wales had she just been given a chance. If the Queen had nothing else to go by but her mistakes in these two cases, then it would make sense that she didn't want history to repeat itself with Harry.
But she had a lot more to go by. Whoever sanitized *'s record before the engagement must have been wearing a hazmat suit. Additionally, her beloved Prince Philip was against the match and "degree wives" in general. That she allowed it shows extraordinarily bad judgment, and with respect to Her Majesty, I can't blame @Hikari for saying it might have been the first big sign of "dottiness."
Another Nutty has speculated that Harry lied about * already being pregnant and the Queen didn't want a royal great-grandchild to be born out of wedlock. I can't help but think of Prince Louis of Luxembourg, who didn't even tell his family he was seeing someone until she was already pregnant. Grand Duke Henri may not be in the Catholic hierarchy the way the Queen is in the Church of England, but I believe he takes his religion just as seriously. And he either already knew or was reminded that a shotgun marriage for the purpose of saving face (and legitimizing a child) would, under Catholic canon law, be invalid. Prince Louis and his girlfriend couldn't have a Catholic wedding until after their child was born. But this would mean that child wouldn't be in the line of succession, while any other children born after the wedding would be. Out of fairness to all his future children, Prince Louis renounced his place in the succession for himself and all his descendants. I guess the Church of England doesn't have such a law, otherwise the Queen could have very easily cited that precedent and called any pregnancy bluff from Harry and *.
As for the multiple marriages, I though it was only one before the current one while the alleged one during college - that may or may not be real but doesn't appear to have surfaced in the TB book. I believe the best hope is that there will be TB 2 book.
Trying to breath life into conspiracies (or at least where it doesn't seem to makes sense).
NOT breath life
https://twitter.com/korellamatters/status/1550901612213932034?s=21&t=SSLt6GcY-KsjTyNbSjKNZg and here’s a screen shot of them confirming it: https://twitter.com/xoxoleigh1/status/1550598842529226752?s=21&t=vU0v2pevNxUP1ynAajgUhA
I bring this up because it’s something I had not seen before.
H made it sound like she just agrees with the last person she spoke to. That she's wishy washy. Or that she trusts people to speak for her without herself knowing the details. Thus his concern about the 'right' people being around her.
Look at the disaster of her dismissing Lord Geidt. That certainly wasn't in *her* best interests.
The PA thing should have been shut down years ago.
Allowing H to marry Mm, and not figuring a way to prevent it until Mm had proven herself to be worthy of entrance into the BRF.
Fast tracking Mm into the BRF when there was no reason to.
I don't know. I'm not convinced that all the info/details actually make their way to her personally.
I think they make the way to her staff, or people she trusts such as PC. She relies on their recommendations without herself knowing all the gory details?
Sometimes it doesn't strike me as a tightly run ship.
OTOH, no one expects a Royal to be a traitor to the firm OR the family, so the business isn't set up with checks and balances for that.
And yet....she (or her staff) come put with some gems. Recollections may vary. The seating at the Thanksgiving Service.
She needs to have more of those, imo.
Gauche (def.): lacking social experience or grace; not tactful; crude; lacking social grace, sensitivity, or acuteness; awkward; behaving in a way that is offensive to other people, esp. because of not knowing what is correct or not caring about the feelings of others ...
Gaudy (def.): extravagantly bright or showy, typically so as to be tasteless; brilliantly or excessively showy; cheaply showy in a tasteless way; flashy; ostentatiously ornamented; garish ...
Queen in a tiara and bedecked in diamonds, pearls, emeralds, rubies? Nope. TBW with itty bitty gold rings on every finger? Yep.
What kind of a maniac is she that she would even think like this?
although i can’t discount an epstein connection may have been at work. hence the york girls half in and half out with her. not protecting the queen or harry but making sure nothing more comes out about dad. as andrew is allegedly the favorite the queen would want to protect him.
ultimately size of the wedding may have been the harry tantrum and courtiers saying how progressive you are to allowed a divorced mixed race american into the family and what could it hurt. he’s 6 in line to the throne so it won’t matter 😉
once an engagement was announced she was gonna make sure they followed through and i agree no one looked like they wanted to be at that wedding. would love to have been a fly on the wall in the few days leading up. something else big happened to make them so joyous about the wedding 😉
The Kirby Summers Twitter account is eye opening and depressing. I'm aware that the USA is keen on regime change but I like living in a constitutional monarchy. It's give Britain and other European countries years of stability and I don't want it changed. On the other hand I'm wary of child sex allegations and conspiracies after the Operation Yewtree disaster. It is however peculiar that only the Brits have been pursued over Epstein.
Finally, thank goodness no one has told Meghan about the flying helmet and wet celery.
I remember the issue at the time with Koo Stark. As you said, she was apparently well liked by the Queen. She starred in a naked lesbian shower scene in a film called Emily and that was deemed unsuitable. I thought at the time that was a shame as she appeared, a decent, extremely discreet, well-mannered person unlike another American actress. I think she could have made a very suitable Royal bride, shower scene notwithstanding, but such were the mores of the time. And that stuff is very lightweight when you think of what *'s been up to.
Rumours... Yes, for the past several days I've been reading the blog at the end of the day and not being on Twitter etc I suppose I've missed things. I thought the rumour about William was the old one started by * or one of her minions but in fact it's worse than that. Obviously, I've led a sheltered life...
https://tinyurl.com/3kt9nt3d
Kate was at the friendly Commonwealth race against New Zealand at the Sail Grand Prix competition in Plymouth, looking carefree and sensational in shorts - *, take note. I don't think she could look so carefree if the rumours were true.
https://tinyurl.com/nhhd9764
'M's opinions raised questions for Samantha Cohen. Would the ambitious, career-minded, outspoken actress understand the Royal Family's immutable heirarchy and rigid protocols? M offered no willingness to compromise. She was unimpressed by their aristocratic manner and mannerisms. She felt their wealth was gauche, and did not want to dress, speak or even think like them.'
Gauche (def.): lacking social experience or grace; not tactful; crude; lacking social grace, sensitivity, or acuteness; awkward; behaving in a way that is offensive to other people, esp. because of not knowing what is correct or not caring about the feelings of others ...
-----
And *that's* how you wear shorts!
Bower was reporting what Tom told him and wrote it as such. I don't think he tried to verify what people told him in interviews but simply wrote the story as what they had told him and referenced it as such.
TBW did not spring from nothing, a monster fully made. She shares traits with each family member. Also, that she treated her family in an appalling way does not make them saints, and finding a fault in a family member (for both in the duo) does not lessen nor excuse the faults of TBW or the hapless prince.
But perhaps the person with the odd name is making up the story that she worked at this fast food place to get publicity.
And *that's* how you wear shorts!
-----
That's exactly what I said when I mentioned Kate in shorts: '*, take note' 😉. And above all, do not wear stilettos with shorts.
So why did she wear Queen Mary's tiara a her wedding?
Some tea from the Jubilee celebrations that Bower got too late to add to the book.
The BRF was likely influenced by the global racial tensions, including the BLM protests and cancel culture. Harry, spurred on by * (pun intended), accused the British media of racism back in 2016 and likely leveraged his family’s fear of that label when discussing the engagement with them. With several countries in the Commonwealth grumbling about Colonialism and the troubles with Andrew simmering on the back burner, it’s very possible that the family felt they couldn’t say no or encourage them to wait. I can see Charles thinking that by agreeing to the marriage, the Monarchy would be given a new life, being viewed as modern, progressive and inclusive.
I agree with other Nutties who feel that a fake pregnancy could have been used somewhere in the timeline and I have often wondered if they actually got married on a whim, as early as their first trip to Botswana. She could have easily manipulated him into this to avoid a prenuptial contract. One thing is certain - she was not going to lose this chance at supreme superstardom and would say or do ANYTHING to close the deal.
Humphrey Yogart (that is how they spell it) has verified on Twitter that she worked for them. She spoke about it in an interview (probably a sugar account but I will link it anyway):
https://twitter.com/korellamatters/status/1550901612213932034?s=21&t=SSLt6GcY-KsjTyNbSjKNZg and here’s a screen shot of them confirming it: https://twitter.com/xoxoleigh1/status/1550598842529226752?s=21&t=vU0v2pevNxUP1ynAajgUhA
Ilya, these are really good finds. I personally think it shows that MM was already pretty skilled in deceiving her father. I wish the other deception he had picked up on was with her first marriage to the attorney.
I have to admit that the second link, criticizing Bower's book on Jeremy Corbyn, makes what I think is a legitimate criticism of Bower: despite all the references, he regularly inserts findings and conclusions alongside of them that aren't supported by them. And his references really seem to fall away towards the end of the book where he's regularly saying things about MM's thoughts and feelings that he could not possibly know -- unless of course there's a "private source."
I found his statement in the notes that he avoided using the reference "private source" a little disingenuous. It essentially lets him state things without any references, and towards the end of the book, there's a lot of stuff without references. I really think he needed a better editor primarily for that reason and also some of the sloppiness in the book (the typos, the lack of a concluding chapter, the confusing timeline, etc.).
I finished the book today, and I'm a little disappointed. There were some things an investigative reporter really should have been able to uncover without a whole lot of effort (e.g., the supposed willingness of the Democratic Party to back her possible political runs) and his personal opinions about the Sussexes were all over the last chapter without any acknowledgement of them whatsoever.
H made it sound like she just agrees with the last person she spoke to. That she's wishy washy. Or that she trusts people to speak for her without herself knowing the details. Thus his concern about the 'right' people being around her.
Harry has so little credibility that everyone just laughed at him for saying that. Had anyone else dropped that bomb, however, it would have been devastating. Not just because of the Queen's age, but also because of some very poor decisions about her family that are marking her last decade. That is, just because he said it to be self-serving doesn't mean that there is no truth in it. Even we Nutties here say that if Lord Geidt had been around, both the Prince Andrew situation and That Bloody Situation would have been nipped in the bud as early as possible. So we acknowledge that the Queen's decision depends very greatly on her having "the right people" around her.
In great fairness to the Queen, isn't this true for many of us as well? If a single individual thought he or she always knew best and never listened to advice, that would be an ever bigger problem. The Queen at least seems to be balancing other people's advice with her own principles (putting the Crown first and giving her children and grandchildren as many chances as they need to get it right). But who are those people around her now? And ironically, who were the people around her in 2017 and 2018? Ironically, the first time Harry might have schemed to "make sure she has the right people around her" was when he was trying to get * into the BRF!
OTOH, no one expects a Royal to be a traitor to the firm OR the family, so the business isn't set up with checks and balances for that.
Your description of possible issues in the day-to-day running of the BRF (vs. any long-term decision making) reminds me of family-run businesses. On the one hand, everyone in the family has a vested interest in making it run as well as possible. On the other hand, family members are not necessarily the best people for the job. Bringing in outsiders, whom you trust to be loyal and to care for the family's interests as well as their own, can be a very delicate balance.
And we see two extremes in Lord Geidt and *. The former never officially joined the Firm, but he was probably as loyal to Crown and country as any of them. The second hadn't even been married in when she started her scheming to get out and to milk it for as much money, publicity and attention as possible. Perhaps the Queen could have been forgiven in choosing two of her adult sons over her private secretary. But it truly boggles the mind that she could have read a dossier on * and thought marriage to #6 (and the creation of more family members in the line of succession) could go swimmingly.
It must’ve been during the very same weekend she met Harry’s family that she had to be escorted back to the airport tout suite After Attempting to take unauthorized photos of the Cambridge children for mercenary purposes. So within hours if not days of getting her foot into a Royal palace, she had already demonstrated that she was a security risk. And she was only a short term girlfriend at this point, as this incident happened in a full year prior to their engagement. Other royal girlfriends have been given the bums rush for less, but of course none of them were half black before.
The sneaky attempt at photos was all the information Prince William needed to have *'s number. I find it hard to believe that this didn't factor into other people's decisions at the time . . . unless they didn't know about it. Was it genuinely kept from the Queen? (And presumably, from Prince Philip, who might have, even with his advanced age, cracked down?) Was Prince Charles truly so starry eyed over the love-bombing that he didn't even listen to Camilla about *?
There's also the possibility, still occasionally raised by royal watchers, that Prince Andrew met * on a yacht (ahem) before Harry ever did. Even if he hadn't, his daughters would have had all the Soho House dirt. Was this a standoff, due to both sides having an equal amount of incriminating blackmail?
One of the more entertaining rumors swirling around the elusive Rasputin-like figure of Markus Anderson is that he’s the love child of Prince Andrew.
I'm more inclined to believe that Anderson was a pimp to Andrew!
Which reminds me . . . Where is Anderson these days?
I agree that a good old fashioned copy edit would have made the world of difference to the book. The errors are unacceptably sloppy.
The book is essentially a weaving together of articles in the media, and at times I don't think he made enough effort, if any at all, to investigate.
I keep remembering stuff he missed. Why did Tatler get the supposed date and place they met wrong in the print edition (even though she had been sent copy to approve)? May in Toronto changed to July in London is significant. He skips over that a photograph shows that her and Cory were still happy together in May and went on holiday together that month (Cory still referring to her as his lady on IG).
Is there anything that struck you that he should have investigated and didn't, and what he got wrong?
However, there are some gems in the book. The way she treated people (and stealing the shoes) during the Reitman's shoot is interesting in that it shows she was a deluded, rude out-of-control diva before she set eyes on the prince. That she hustled for that date with him in London and her and her friends had been talking about him as a potential catch in the holiday she had leading up to the hustle (did someone talk to Bower?). That her and Cory were still living together until after the hapless prince visited her in Toronto for the first time. What else?
Her spin ... interesting that she could not find a major 'channel' to use.
Number 5
"That Time She Wore An Off-The-Shoulder Dress
It probably goes without saying, at this point, that the British press believes Meghan Markle is the only one who breaks “royal protocol,” whereas Kate Middleton always follows it to a T.
But it’s interesting that even Buzzfeed noticed how both Duchesses donned off-the-shoulder dresses — and only one got roasted for it.
That said, Meghan Markle remains as popular and beloved as ever — even though she isn’t a working royal.
And to this, we say to her detractors: stay mad."
Nope. She wore an off-the-shoulder dress to Trooping the Colour (ride in a carriage and appear on the balcony). The media did not call her out on this. That was only done in social media sites such as this. In fact, the media keep calling her a global style icon and waxing lyrical about her outfits even when she looks a mess.
That Time Meghan Markle Wore Wedges
Wedges — they’re comfortable, they’re stylish and they’re perfect for the beach.
"And when Meghan Markle wore them on Australia’s Bondi Beach, she “broke royal protocol,” and the press couldn’t pounce fast enough.
This content is not available due to your privacy preferences.
Update your settings here to see it.
Incidentally, Kate Middleton was also seen wearing the same shoes around the same time as this high crime against humanity. How did the press talk about the Duchess of Cambridge’s fashion choices?"
Nope. The media did not criticism her for this. The duchess is obsessed with Catherine.
Number 3
"That Time She Dared To Make Her Own Money
AfroTech previously reported that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are well on their way to becoming billionaires. Together with Prince Harry, the couple’s entrepreneurial spirit has made them a modern-day success story.
But if you hear The Daily Mail tell it, the dynamic duo was just hoping for a “royal cash-in” when they started trademarking their brand. They even tried to imply that Meghan Markle was connected to Harvey Weinstein because the Sussexes had hired Sunshine Sachs — one of the largest public relations firms in the entertainment industry — which once represented the disgraced director.
In case you’re wondering, The Daily Mail had plenty to say about Prince William and Duchess Kate doing the same thing.
“Kensington Palace officials said they were doing the ‘sensible thing’ in protecting the couple’s rights,” they wrote.
I’ll bet they were, guys. I’ll bet they were."
The British Royal Family is not an American entertainment brand. Enough said!
"That Time Meghan Markle Ate An Avocado
When Meghan Markle was pregnant with Archie, she touted avocados as a potential cure-all for her morning sickness.
And it took exactly 6.3 seconds for Express to write headlines all but accusing the Duchess of outright murder.
“The pregnant Duchess of Sussex and so-called ‘avocado on toast whisperer’ is wolfing down a fruit linked to water shortages, illegal deforestation, and all-around general environmental devastation,” blared one particularly obnoxious article.
By the way, Kate Middleton also liked to eat avocados as a cure-all for her morning sickness.
How did that same newspaper report on the Duchess of Cambridge’s preferred fruit of choice?
“Prince William was given one of the green fruit – wrapped up in a bow – by a little boy whose mother is suffering during her pregnancy too… ‘He said he’d take it to [Kate] and see what happens – and said good luck for [the boy’s] mummy,” they wrote.
I guess folks were short on murder, deforestation and “millennial shame” that day."
This complaint is an indication that anything that whiffed of criticism and did not fawn all over her wounded her deeply. The posting by her make up guy was out if line. The media hysteria about the avocado was ridiculous and laughable.
"As Bower recounts, shortly after Meghan Markle and Prince Harry began dating, “the spare” brought his new girlfriend around his “mates,” which is what every normal couple has done since time immemorial. The Duke of Sussex, whose group of friends included his “Eton pals” — basically, a bunch of rich white boys living in a pale, seasoning-free bubble — was thinking that his mates would have a bit of act-right around his new woman.
He thought wrong.
They began telling racist, sexist and transphobic jokes — and they thought they would get away with it.
“Harry was looking forward to endless banter, jokes — and a lot of drinking,” Bower wrote. “He had not anticipated Meghan’s reaction. Their jokes involving sexism, feminism and transgender people ricocheted around the living rooms and dining rooms. Without hesitation, Meghan challenged every guest whose conversation contravened her values. According to some of Harry’s friends, again and again, she reprimanded them about the slightest inappropriate nuance. Nobody was exempt.”
Bower then went on to describe how Meghan Markle became the butt of their jokes because she wouldn’t let these people be racist in peace. And of course, these wonderful “friends” mused that “Harry must be nuts” for marrying a woman who wouldn’t let them act like drunk frat boys at a panty raid party.
How dare she?
It’s not clear how this story was supposed to make the former “Suits” actress look bad, but it actually had the exact opposite effect, as evidenced by the Meghan Markle hashtag currently trending on Twitter."
Note how she slipped in the racist accusation. Any decent person does not find issue with her dislike of the conversation. The problem was twofold. First, she was determined to marry the prince and change him (always a bad idea) because he clearly shared the attitudes, beliefs and sense of humour of his friends. Second, the way she handled the issue was rude and not diplomatic and clearly an indication that she did not have the character and behaviour to be a working royal but they both arrogantly went on to spend tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money and damage the monarchy.
https://willandkate.tumblr.com/post/691367494896746496/this-is-such-a-great-perspective-to-have
I did not remember that Catherine said this in her engagement interview. It says so much about the difference between Catherine and TBW, and some of the reason why TBW made such a mess of being a royal (and still does).
Re Number 5, Yahoo news didn't get their facts right IIRC. * wasn't wearing an off the shoulder dress at Trooping the Colour, unless that was a different occasion. The pale pink outfit she wore at Trooping the colour had a collar that originally covered her shoulders, although it had a very wide neck. She pulled the collar down to reveal her shoulders. That certainly didn't do unnoticed on this blog, although I can't remember, and in the DM comments. You can even see the original fold of the collar.
https://tinyurl.com/3jfawhx2
@Maneki Neko,
I’m sure The Cambridge’s are fine, but over at Montecito the arguments and rage must be absolutely deafening. Maggot has nowhere to hide after being outed as a pathological liar (from an early age) in Tom Bower’s book. 😃
Tom made it pretty clear that Cory was unhappy with his relationship with Maggot and for quite a while before they eventually broke up. 😟So it doesn’t really matter what public show Cory was depicting. Tom also states that Cory and Maggot were living together for practical reasons towards the end. Tom mentions that SS asked Vanity Fair to change the date Maggot and Mole met from May to July.
Tom clearly states at the back of the book how he sourced his info and lists all the publications and people (those who wanted to be named) used and referred to in his book. 🥴
Her spin ... interesting that she could not find a major 'channel' to use.
Yes, very interesting. Is Sunshine Sachs still representing her? Couldn't she have done better than Yahoo!News?
Note how she slipped in the racist accusation. Any decent person does not find issue with her dislike of the conversation. The problem was twofold. First, she was determined to marry the prince and change him (always a bad idea) because he clearly shared the attitudes, beliefs and sense of humour of his friends. Second, the way she handled the issue was rude and not diplomatic and clearly an indication that she did not have the character and behaviour to be a working royal but they both arrogantly went on to spend tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money and damage the monarchy.
I wouldn't have wanted to hear those jokes that were allegedly said either . . . but even as I was reading the story, * came off as a total Karen. Getting reprimands "again and again" for "the slightest inappropriate nuance" sounds exhausting. This part of the article reads like a self-righteous AITA post. ("I met my boyfriends friends for the first time, they told racist jokes, I called them out, and now they don't like me for ruining the party, AITA?")
The tumbler link was such a palate cleanser, after the garbage in Yahoo. I enjoyed it very much. If a picture is worth a thousand words, those pictures are worth a couple of books. There is no further need to explain the differences between the brothers or their spouses.
.
That makes it even worse - that she pulled down the dress to make it off the shoulder!
Was there any time when she wore an off-the-shoulder dress and was criticised by the media? Nope. She made a surprise appearance at a British fashion awards show where an award went to a British designer working at a French fashion house - that made her wedding dress. I do not recall any criticism in the media about how she was dressed that night. Royal ladies often wear off-the-shoulder dresses, and even strapless dresses, for formal evening appearances. It is a classic royal look.
---------
I forgot that the article of the 5 issues included The Book. It was a bestseller, a masterpiece and the media criticised it! The delusion is strong!
Bower does depict the relationship as a failed one, but they did go on holiday together in May and that photograph of them together, also taken in May, did not look like an act and the couple were unaware that the photograph was being taken. (I would even suggest that toxicity/conflict are a part of a relationship with a narcissist and are not necessarily signs of the end of a relationship.)
The duo's attempt to hide the overlap in the relationships (because I am sure he knew) was perhaps not a good idea, but understandable. I think most people would think it is a good idea to get the boyfriend to move out before pursuing a popular and well-known Prince, and there would be some who would hold it against them forever.
Her and Cory were living together when the Prince was in Toronto in May and Cory did the cooking for a private dinner to which the Mulroneys were invited. Too many coincidences? And the date of May and reference to Invictus Games in the Tatler article, which she approved and then had changed on the online version (did the Prince throw a wobbly?) is a niggling detail that does not go away. Cory remains silent as he resolved to right from the start, so unless the Mulroneys speak, we will never know.
So, yes, I am aware of the excuse that although her and Cory were still living together when she got that blind date, and even when the Prince first visited her in Toronto, the relationship was over.
MM on the palace balcony in the Dior dress, navy blue, off-the-shoulder
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2018/07/10/prince-harry-duchess-meghan-join-queen-royal-air-force-celebrations/769006002/
TB claimed in an interview that MM was advised to change the date of her meeting with Harry because everyone would know that she and Harry had betrayed Cory. And that this could be not seen with good eyes. Twitter even speculated about Canada's marriage laws. What if MM and Cory couldn't be considered married in Canada for the time they lived together. I'm trying to find the article, if I find it I'll post it here
What Tatler article are you referring to and when? 🥴Maggot only gave an interview to Vanity Fair, which Tom duly noted. As I stated previously, SS asked the magazine to change the date Maggot and Mole met from May to July and those were the only ones they would change. Again which Tom noted.
I don’t know for what reasons (if any) why Tom didn’t go into more detail about her relationship with Cory, maybe he felt he didn’t need to. For me, as a reader it was made clear that Maggot used Cory, and once the relationship was past its use she started to move on. Any other info. would’ve been seen as more of a content filler.
Tom said he spoke to 80 or so people regarding the book, we can’t assume he didn’t talk to to Cory or Trevor, just because they aren’t named doesn’t mean they didn’t add their input, additionally they could’ve stated what they wanted included or didn’t. It’s purely conjecture, but we don’t know either way. 😟
Yes, that makes it even worse! (baring her shoulders). I checked photos to make sure, compare *'s right shoulder in the 2 photos. The 2nd one is markedly more bare.
https://tinyurl.com/35v6n7u3
https://tinyurl.com/5ex25n25
One side of it certainly was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-wuVk0Dttc
Does anyone else think the denouement of the grifters’ saga could be on the not-too-distant horizon? I foresee Harry’s memoir hammering the final nail in his royal coffin, followed by the Ho filing for divorce after his 40th birthday.
7 November 2016 and the story in the tabloids was that Markus Anderson set up that blind date with Harry fir his friend Meghan. The tabloids also reported about the double date with Eugenie and Jack, which was confirmed in the Oprah interview.
I must move on and stop obsessing about this!
@Karla
It was a salmon pink and white dress in which she 'adjusted the fitting' to make it a 'an off-the-shoulder' dress. The navy blue was a boat neck.
They're gonna publish all the dirt and seedy allegations they think they can get away with and bore us ad nauseam with all the ways Kate made her cry, or that golden chestnut from all our childhoods, "But SHE did it first!" Girl is fixated on Kate. And Bower's book cut deep!
Is she 40 or 45? Did she carry one or both? Questions I didn't care to consider before.
And since I'm wondering....Marcus knew Epstein knew Randy Andy knew Meghan Biblically first? Kirby Sommers traveled with the yacht girls and speculates whether Meghan might be one of Epstein's girls? And Epstein girls, she says, aren't simply used to compromise politicians and tycoons but to implant them (marry) into powerful families to gain more control. Can we say Mata Hari! Just how far does the rabbit travel down this hole? Enquiring Minds wanna know!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixPm6Zi6an4
I only include this article for the lead in picture. Go look at all the pictures of Meghan and Andrew. Randy Andy looks extremely uncomfortable, which could be simply because he knew Meghan was a yacht girl. Or maybe he knew her?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-markle-prince-andrew-comparison-b2098489.html
2017
Sandie here also talks about Markus Anderson and shows how Harry is also a liar.
...
Prince Harry Had A Crush On Meghan Markle For Two Years Before They Met
The royal reportedly told friends the actress was his 'ideal woman'.
https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/news/a39576/prince-harry-meghan-markle-ideal-woman-crush/
....
Who is Markus Anderson? Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s good friend ‘who introduced the couple’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/4540255/markus-anderson-meghan-markle-prince-harry-friend/
article but these two paragraphs are very close to it if not exactly the same. Warning: Cory's mother is very effusive in her praise of *.
His mother certainly left me in little doubt that she would have been thrilled to have Meghan for a daughter-in-law. She was effusive in her praise for Meghan, who spent the Christmas of 2015 with the Vitiello family, staying for several days at their modern home in Brantford, west of Toronto. And when I asked Mrs Vitiello whether Cory and Meghan's relationship had been very serious, her reply was emphatic.
'Absolutely! And we are very fond of her,' declared Mrs Vitiello, very deliberately using the present tense. 'She is a lovely, lovely woman. Very smart, very bright, very caring. She's a warm personality, very sincere. We very much enjoyed the time we spent with her. She fitted very well into our family. The Royal Family, and Britain, is very lucky to have her.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5598927/The-hunky-chef-Meghan-Markle-nearly-married.html
I wonder what she would say today.
note to H. better to wait til she is done with you. could be a brutal break up. in fact find her the next victim i mean husband
I hadn't thought of it before, but this is something British agents could do to pro-actively break up the marriage. Great idea, Snarky!
The House of Saxe-Coburg AND Gotha, later known as Windsor began in 1900.
In the UK there are wealthy families that can trace their lineage and wealth back to points in history well before the Windsors took the Crown. The Duke of Marlborough, the Duke of Somerset and Duke of Northumberland being a few examples. These families may mix with the Windsors and boast about their heritage and established wealth. They could jokingly describe the Windsors as gauche because their Dukedoms were created before the House of Windsor. Perhaps * picked up on this and didn't understand British humour.
I'm not sure what happened to my first post yesterday. I suspect it was the bit about the flying helmet and wet celery that cause my post to be rejected. This was a reference to a long running joke in the Allo Allo TV series that was once very popular in the UK.
Her spin ... interesting that she could not find a major 'channel' to use.
Yes, very interesting. Is Sunshine Sachs still representing her? Couldn't she have done better than Yahoo!News?
Lest we forget, the Royal editor over at Yahoo! is none other than Scoobie.
If Hairy the Twit really cared about the environment, he publish his book digitally.
Lest we forget, the Royal editor over at Yahoo! is none other than Scoobie.
I had forgotten, so thanks for the reminder!
So despite all her supposed marketability and all the public's supposed interest, * can't get any media outfit except one in which she has an inside guy to print her stories? That speaks louder than words indeed!
"Tiara-gate: M was invited to the palace's secure room, where she was to choose a tiara for the wedding. She alighted on a tiara sparkling with emeralds. Angela Kelly suggested that its Russian origin made it unsuitable. H became angry and 'downright rude'. Kelly informed the Queen of the exchange, and H was summoned to a private meeting where 'he was put firmly in his place'. A second tiara dispute happened shortly before the wedding, when M wanted to borrow the approved tiara for a hairdressing rehearsal. Kelly refused; H became irate and accused Kelly of being unhelpful. 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets', he shouted."
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-8.4943382/post-84342937
What I find most intriguing about this story: The Queen has often worn the Vladimir tiara, which can be worn in three ways: with emeralds, with pearls, or without emeralds or pearls. (It is the only tiara with emeralds of Russian origin.) Is it possible that Angela and the Queen had a conversation about which tiaras should be made available and which not? I think in FF the claim was that a few tiaras were laid out for her to choose from, but this does not cancel the story that she wanted the Vladimir, even though it was not included in the selection she was shown. I also wonder which tiaras could be among the selection that was presented to her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewels_of_Elizabeth_II
Does this list all the tiaras? I just do not see any other from the list that could have been presented to her as a choice.
Lady Cs video on Bower book is very good and worth your time. Yes she starts off with criticism of author but then goes into book and things get good. Lots of tea was spilled like Meghan moved out when she could not force her father to use his influence to punish the director of show she desperately wanted to get lead in and wasn't cast in at all; she told Trevor line of bull that he was providing home she never had with Doria and Thomas in the audience; Thomas paid 20K for the wedding and privilege of being ghosted at the wedding he paid for; Meghan refused to let wedding guests take pictures with their cameras; the pictures Meghan had taken were destroyed and the only photographic proof of the wedding are the pictures her father took. And there's more piping hot tea.
Lots and lots of lies have been exposed by Lady C and Bower books. How long will it take for American press to report honestly about any of this and what does this say about the media that they bury so much inconvenient truth to fit a narrative fewer and fewer people are buying?
I think that the twat googled the list of the Queen's tiaras and chose the one that was the most like a crown so she chose the Vladimir tiara.
The tiaras may all be exposed in the vault, although the three tiaras that the twat was offered were probably put on display for her like a jeweller does when presenting the object you want to examine.
the twat wasn't going to be deterred, however. She wanted to be the next Queen of England and this was her first step towards that path.
1. I like this source better than Wikipedia
https://www.thecourtjeweller.com/united-kingdom-main-line
Click on the names for pics.
2. I doubt the tiaras are just scattered about loose in the vault. So I don't see how MM could have simply spied the Vladimir. The story about it being Russian and therefore unsuitable seems odd as the Queen has worn it. (And the Cambridge emerald drops are iffy I believe only because Queen Mary got them away from her brother's mistress under murky circumstances.) While the tiara itself is Russian, I'm not sure the emerald drops are. Here is a link discussing the drops https://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2021/07/the-cambridge-emeralds.html
They were won in a state-sponsored charity lottery in Frankfurt in the early 1800s by the Duchess of Cambridge (a German royal married to one of George III's sons.)
At any rate, it's also my understanding that tiara is only to be worn by queens. It would have looked ridiculous on MM.
3. If MM was rummaging around (although it's my understanding brides are offered a few pre-approved choices-- it's not a rummage sale) she could have wanted the tiara Eugenie wore or she could have wanted Queen Mary’s Russian Bandeau. That one can be worn with a sapphire or an emerald in the center. The provenance is unclear so that would fit the story. It was worn by Queen Mary and Princess Margaret.
I think we still don't know the real wedding tiara story although I don't doubt for a minute they both acted like total jerks.
Re. Tiaragate . . the mystery continues . .!
It would have been helpful if Mr. Bower had been able to include by name exactly which tiara we are talking about but perhaps he was prohibited from doing so.
If * glommed onto the Vladimir and insisted on that for herself, that'd be extremely typical behavior, since it is the largest and most ornate one there. I myself do not care for it; if * wants us to think that *she* thought the Royals were gaudy/gauche with their wealth . .well, objectively speaking, the Vladimir is the gaudiest one there, in terms of sheer size and splendor of the gems. That is why it is reserved exclusively for Queens. No others of the RF have worn it except ER, her mother and Queen Mary, as far as I'm aware.
M is a Kween in her own mind but that does not make it so.
In that vein, it's hard to believe that she'd even have been shown the Vladimir, but being permitted to *look* at it didn't mean she was being offered to use it, even if she thought so. "Misunderstandings" have allowed * vast leeway in what she's been able to get away with because she always relies on the excuse that somebody else got it wrong or told her wrong or etc.
The Queen Mary is lovely, if more understated and was far more suitable for her dress. It is quite similar in style to the one Eugenie wore, with different colored stones. It was a favorite of ER's grandmother, which is why it's her namesake. That wasn't good enough for Harry's bint so that just goes to so how inflated her sense of self is. I don't suppose that Mr. Bower includes any info on whether M actually got the real Queen Mary or the paste copy . . ? Still waiting for my copy, with poor grace, I might add.
Meghan refused to let wedding guests take pictures with their cameras; the pictures Meghan had taken were destroyed and the only photographic proof of the wedding are the pictures her father took.
It's pretty clear now that long before she joined the BRF, she had already made plans to leave it.
Now it's looking plausible that even before her wedding to Trevor, she was anticipating the divorce. Why else would a bride not want any photos of what should be one the happiest days of her life? (Compare her attitude at this wedding to her insistence on a 90s-throwback, black-and-white aesthetic when documenting her days as a royal. It's all about image control.)
Someone thought about the possibility that (perhaps) the tiara fight could be because MM wanted a new tiara made for her.
When the queen presents someone with a jewel, it stays with the person presented.
This happened to Sarah Ferguson. Upon marrying Andrew, the Queen presented him with a tiara that she wore to her wedding and this one stayed with Sarah even after the divorce.
Crown jewels when borrowed must be returned.
There were rumors that M did not want to return the tiara to the queen. And that royal courtiers had to get her out of MM's room.
And that it was this accident that made the queen forbid MM from having access to the crown jewels.
Note: Can anyone tell me if this is in Bower's book?
It's not in the book. I saw the rumor on Twitter about HM's people needing to get the tiara out of her "room" -- it was never specified what room or building was involved -- and no one on the board knew where this had been cited or had a legitimate source for it.
Also, I'm pretty sure Sarah Ferguson lost her tiara after her divorce. Again, pretty sure she had one especially made for her on her wedding day (it was good-sized and pretty nice) and neither of her daughters wore it on their wedding days. That's a pretty sure indication that it's gone.
Her destruction of the Engelson wedding photos tells me that she was erasing as much of her wedding to Trevor as she could. We know that she told two of her husbands that she had no family. I wonder if she neglected to tell H about previous spouses and relationships. Maybe H went into the thing thinking he was her first serious relationship.Then Mr Markle released his photographs from her wedding to Trevor. If so, that might be the real reason she markled her dad.
No, it is not in Bower's book. His account is:
* Her and the prince meet Angela Kelly in the vault. (If I am not mistaken, the tiaras, or at least some of them, are on display in the vault. I am not sure if she was presented with those from which she could choose. As I said in a previous post, the Queen does not seem to have another tiara that would have been suitable, other than the one Eugenie wore.)
* She wants the Vladimir tiara. It is not named in his book, but it is the only one with emeralds that has its origins in Russia.
* Angela says no because of the Russian link. The prince throws a tantrum. (As I said, this was nonsense as the Queen has often worn the Vladimir tiara.)
* She chooses the diamond bandeau she wore.
* Angela tells the Queen what happened. The Queen calls for the prince and gives him a dressing down.
* Hairdresser comes to town and TBW wants the bandeau delivered to her so that they can have a practice session. (Note that no one gets this ... not Catherine, or even the Queen, not even anyone in the aristocracy. Tiaras are only taken out of the vault to be worn.)
* Angela says no. The prince throws a tantrum and shouts that what M wants M gets.
I am not sure that Bower has the sequence right, but this seems to be the general consensus of what happened overall.
I think you are right that she might have wanted a tiara that she could somehow own for keeps.
Thanks for the additional information on the Queen's tiaras.
As I said, I am pretty sure the tiaras are in display in the vault so even if she was not offered the Vladimir, she would have seen it. It is interesting that she is wearing that tiara in that posting that was done of her (or am I wrong and was it another?)
https://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2017/10/queen-marys-sapphire-bandeau.html
Queen Mary's bandeau (central jewel can be interchanged) has not been seen since the 1960s. It was last worn by Margaret. The provenance is not firmly established, but it does have a Russian link through Danish royalty. It could very well be on display in the vault and it is this tiara she wanted and was refused. It is very similar to the bandeau she wore and would have not have been offered to her as a choice. It would be typical of her to want it anyway, just because it was not on offer. How dare the Queen try and stop her from having whatever she wants?!
'Absolutely! And we are very fond of her,' declared Mrs Vitiello, very deliberately using the present tense. 'She is a lovely, lovely woman. Very smart, very bright, very caring. She's a warm personality, very sincere. We very much enjoyed the time we spent with her. She fitted very well into our family. The Royal Family, and Britain, is very lucky to have her.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5598927/The-hunky-chef-Meghan-Markle-nearly-married.html
I wonder what she would say today.
@Maneki
I don't know about anyone else but my BS meter is pinging big time with this quote from Bower by Cory's mum. Around the time of the engagement, I remember reading a piece in which M's former relationship was mentioned and there was a reference to Cory's parents being 'surprised' at the breakup because their son had told them that he planned to propose to * but hadn't done it yet. I don't doubt that * was on her best behavior during Christmas with the Vitiellos and love-bombed the crap out of Cory's parents. Her aim at that time was to become a celebrity lifestyle blogger with her own cooking show and Cory was still a useful tool in that endeavor. It certainly does sound, though, that Christmas 2015 was the only time she visited the Vitiello parents' home. Less than 5 months after that holiday visit she'd already set her sights on Harry. Does Mr. Bower mention that * stole several of Cory's high-end kitchen appliances on the rationale that they were 'joint' housewarming gifts and even though she was abandoning the home and the guy, she valued the blender more than either.
I'm sorry but this sounds like a recitation straight out of Smirkle Primer 101. I submit that the mother of a jilted man, who'd told his parents that he wanted to marry this woman would not be so VERY VERY gushy about the person who dumped him callously and stole his kitchen appliances on her way out the door to go hump a Prince of the United Kingdom. If Mrs. V. opted not to pick sides in the dispute and trash * unnecessarily, giving her the benefit of the doubt and staying out of her son's relationship drama . . well, I commend that. It's not her still thinking well of * that bugs me--It's the extravagant WAY OTT manner in which she expresses that * was the most fabulous person to ever darken her threshold.
No. A normal maternal response would be, in the circumstances, and trying to keep it classy, "We enjoyed M's visit with us and she seemed like a lovely person. Cory was certainly serious about her and we are sorry that it didn't work out."
VERY is the amplifier of the lazy, the immature, the unimaginative or the deceitful in my opinion. Shocked Mrs. V. didn't include how VERY VERY KIND * was . . Why, she bagged up her portion of Christmas dinner and marched to the street corner to give it to a passing homeless person!!! How VERY CARING!!!!! (I am being facetious.)
I think that * or someone from her team of legal monkeys has threatened Cory and his parents unless anything said about * is ABSOLUTELY VERY VERY off the chain laudatory. I wouldn't put it past her at all.
Curious what will pop out of the new scoobie doo book. My favorite theories are:
She was nasty because she was hiding a secret of harry's volatile anger
Sbhe was nasty because she was remembering the sexual abuse she had at the hands of (father, brother, now dead teacher, showrunner on married with children - you fill in the blank) it made her more complicated, less trusting of others
she had to fight her way in a business that requires a casting couch
the rape/incest card hasnt been played the harry anger would be the divorce set up
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11072875/Lady-Louise-Windsor-18-kisses-cousins-Kate-William-arrive-Commonwealth-Games.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11073255/Princess-Charlotte-reveals-favourite-sport-gymnastics-Commonwealth-Games.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11072417/Kate-Middleton-Prince-William-joined-Princess-Charlotte-watch-Commonwealth-Games.html
According to an ancient tradition, only brides and queens can wear a tiara.Kaye wore one at her wedding, the Cartier Halo one.
The kitchen appliance she took was from Trevor. I am not sure when she could have taken it as she did not tell him in person that she was going to divorce him and did not see him again. I assume it was on one of her visits when she was filming a Hallmark movie.
I thought tiaras were reserved for married women and royalty? (With brides thrown in as almost-marrieds-- although Fergie didn't show her tiara until she was fully married) Here is a link with a picture of Anne at age 19 wearing the Cartier Halo tiara Kate wore for her wedding. It shows up better without a veil.
https://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2021/08/princess-annes-cartier-film-premiere-tiara.html
@Sandie,
So you think Queen Mary's bandeau with an emerald is a contender too? I think MM might have liked the sunburst motif. Aren't sun rays in her coat of arms representing California?
I wonder if it's possible she thought she should be able to wear one to the reception?
...
Snarkatherbest. Thank you❤️
Note: If Omid is going to write a new book. I don't think Harry will answer TB in his book memoir. The answer will come from MM using Scoobie.
...
This story that the tiara fight was over possession and not choice was told to me a few months ago. I found the story plausible since MM (maybe) is a narcissist.
Now, after the publication of the book by TB, the DE (newspaper facing the left and with questionable articles) decided to explain why MM had to return her
tiara and Sarah didn't.
Why is DE explaining why MM had to return the tiara, compared to Sarah Fergunson who kept hers?
Kate, the beautiful Duchess of Cambridge, also married a borrowed tiara and returned it.
...
Meghan Markle forced to return tiara after wedding - why Fergie was allowed to keep diadem.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/style/1644494/meghan-markle-returned-wedding-tiara-loan-queen-elizabeth-sarah-ferguson-style-pictures
According to an ancient tradition, only brides and queens can wear a tiara.
In 1971, then First Lady Imelda Marcos tried to wear a tiara to a ball given by the Shah of Iran. She thought herself the equal of the royal ladies who had been invited and didn't see why she shouldn't make the same "fashion statement" as they. Of course, someone told her that it was a breach of protocol and that she couldn't wear it without giving offense. So at the last minute, she and her hairstylist brainstormed a "compromise": They attached the tiara to the underside of her trademark bouffant bun, as if it were a necklace. So she had her way . . . kind of.
I cringe a little at her entitlement, but even she was much classier than *.
Maybe H went into the thing thinking he was her first serious relationship.Then Mr Markle released his photographs from her wedding to Trevor. If so, that might be the real reason she markled her dad.
I think she would have Markled him no matter what he did.
But she certainly hadn't counted on there still being some photos. She must have been so furious when they leaked. Maybe their release was a preemptive strike on whatever spin she was going to put on it.
Her "thinking" on this (if I may audaciously attribute such an activity to her) reminds me of a child who thinks that if he closes his eyes and can see no one, then no one can see him, either. A very literal interpretation of "Pics or it didn't happen."
Harry's whip-smart wife literally tried to erase her first (or second) wedding by destroying the photos and video . . but wouldn't there be public domain court records in two countries of the proceedings? (If in fact she and Trevity Trev Trev tied the knot at a JP prior to the lavish ceremony in Jamaica that Thomas paid for.) When did she do this?--directly after the ceremony? That is cold as ice, and H wasn't even in the picture yet. How very childish of her to assume that the Palace wouldn't find out about a previous marriage
When * is done with you, she's really D-O-N-E. If she ghosts you, in her mind you've never even been born . . even domestic partners of nearly a decade.
Catherine has worn the Cambridge Lovers' Knot tiara a few times, most recently at the state dinner for Trump, I believe. They are definitely meant for special occasion and not every day, even if one is Royal. It's really gonna set off the dastardly duo from Montesh*tshow if Catherine ever turns up in the Vladimir tiara. Before that, we may see Camilla in it. That would be a very showy piece and maybe not advisable under the circumstances but it would certainly make a statement if she did.
Tiaras are to be worn by married women and brides only. Tiaras can be worn by commoners.
Hence, the Spencer family has a tiara that has been worn by many of the women in the family, and which Diana wore at her wedding. The Spencers are not royalty, yet they own and wear their family tiara.
They were very upset that they weren't allowed to enter the vault at a whim.
...
The great value of feelings today, Bridge tells me, “is that no one else can ever deny them … so if you feel offended then someone has genuinely harmed you”.
Take the Duchess of Sussex, she points out, and her litany of “heartfelt” complaints. “Just last week there she was explaining that she didn’t lie to Oprah about growing up an only child, because she felt like one, so it was, as she put it ‘a subjective statement’.” Bridge laughs; shakes her head. “We really are tying ourselves up in knots now, aren’t we? Because it’s all about me, myself and I, and someone like Meghan has made it so much easier for people to follow in her footsteps, when the reality is that feelings are not immutable. They are not fixed, an absolute. They are not fact. And they are certainly not something that must override everything else.”
Yet there is a natural neurological process whereby the brain is able to turn feelings into fact, Bridge explains. “If you revise, rehearse, repeat and reinforce, then you create a fact, and that fact will then be embedded in your memory: ‘your truth’. Going back to Markle, that’s crucially a truth that no amount of counter-evidence can challenge.”
Someone mentioned that the wedding dress was based on a medieval design to match the chapel. This made me wonder if * had wanted the George IV diadem which I think looks a bit medieval.
https://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2015/05/the-george-iv-diamond-diadem.html
This "tiara" always reminds me of the crown that Prince Richard wears in the Disney animated film Robin Hood. https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Prince_John
Well, this has become messy. It seems someone has done some digging and now accuses Jessica Mulroney of being behind that awful stuff about William and his marriage.
Has anyone else come across this story?
Just my sentiments and maybe I'm wrong but after listening to Lady C's excellent and thorough review of Bower's book, I'm formulating an idea about who Meghan is, which makes me definitely want to read both books. So, not knowing what is contained in these books, this is my guesstimation of the creation of Meghan Markle: ultimate and final narcissist of 21st century, so far.
Meghan grew up in unstable household with largely absent mother who battled addiction issues and a father pulled away to work as camera man for a big tv comedy series hit, Married With Children. Tom probably overcompensated with Meghan to make up for absentee mother and father who could only give so much based on work commitments needed to pay for parochial school, the mortgage and all the bills needed to keep her living a nice upper middle class life. But her father also took her to work, enflamed in her a passion for Hollywood glamor early on, probably as a welcome relief to the pain of feeling abandoned by her mother. Meghan took on role as the adult and the therapist and the mediator between parents and learned quickly arts of dealing with two sometimes warring and conflicting parties. She also learned how to play one off the other to get as much as she could as compensation for the time and love that was missing or unreliable at her earliest days. I feel compassion for young Meghan but soon survival became manipulation became infatuation with Hollywood and a relentless desire to make it to the top of that pyramid of social acclaim and power.
She's a quick study, expert operator at converting defeat (early thwarted Hollywood starlet dreams/using and leaving Trevor and Cory) into success that only ever really existed as media hype. But Meghan was an expert and truly "next level" networker and social climber extraordinaire, which landed her at the top. And with every win along the way, so did her demands, her sense of entitlement and her drive to scrabble for as much as she could possibly get. If it was possible, even only in her wildest dreams, it was the target and goal upon which she set her sights and that would realize her naked ambition.
She knew how to present a fortuitous connection to a GOAT into a fabled BFF, one, it has to be admitted the GOAT was willing to co-mine for her own entrance to royal society and brand game. But Meghan's lies, her obvious game to Serena's mom, her counter-productive diva behavior to many who have worked for her, her burning bridges to the no longer useful. of her past, and most importantly her lack of talent/ability to translate her potential for that earliest treasured dream from her days of tagging along with dad on set of being a global star into a reality. Two years into the Netflix contract, no real content produced and Pearl, her vanity project with Sir Elton John's husband got cancelled (wonder what happened there???)
PDina talking to Samantha Markle. It is just over an hour but well worth listening to. Unlike her sister, Samantha is very articulate in speaking clearly and honestly.
TBW was so well protected, but whined on Oprah about not being protected. She had the best protection in the world against what her sister has experienced and the best support system in coping with hurtful criticism.
I suppose to a narc, hurting her feelings is the worst attack possible. So much of what she wanted the palace machinery to respond to was petty and meaningless, but she was protected against having her accounts and phone hacked and her livelihood being affected by lies.
I admit I am only halfway through, so she has not explained why she is suing her sister, but she has said so far that her policy has always been to point out and correct lies.
It’s very late here and I’m tired, so forgive me if my comment is more garbled than normal! 😂
Have you listened to HG Tudor reviewing Tom’s book? His YouTube channel is basically about NPD. I’ve actually found his reviews far better because he points out how the NPD operates. He said that Tom Markle is a narcissist, a lower level one compared to Maggot.😐
https://youtu.be/6WPY66TtQ2o
When it came out that Markle was now with Hazbeen a conversation ensued where Mrs V stated that she did not know what happened between Cory and Markle. She did however comment that Markle had said she had a great time that Christmas and she had said at the Christmas gathering “his family was the family she had never had”.
Well, in addition to Harry, add Trevor to this group of men who have been fed this line of b.s. from Meghan.
In the Bower book, Thomas Markle is quoted as saying that at a dinner in Jamaica before Trevor married Meghan, Trevor got up to give a speech to the dinner guests, telling the group that with their marriage, Meghan “would finally have the family she never had.”
Thomas said he and Doria looked at each other in shocked disbelief as they both wondered how such a statement could come from their daughter because Meghan most certainly had a loving family life.
But Mr. Markle is apparently unaware that his daughter is profoundly narcissistic and lying abd revision of history along with pity plays are common behaviors of narcissists.
So Meghan has used this storyline to portray herself.as an all but orphaned waif just waiting for a big strong Trevor, Cory, Harry or fill-in-the-blank with the next man’s name to come riding in on his trusty steed to rescue the damsel in distress who has no family but is also an independent feminist who disparages men who are “male, stale, and pale” unless they can be used to advance herself and then be tossed aside when no longer useful.
Two years into the Netflix contract, no real content produced...
Some SecondhandCoke theorizing on the Netflix docu-drama:
I think it's most likely that they [Netflix] had Perez [Hilton] run that [trailer for the Harkles' docu-drama] in the wake of this book to see if it generated any excitement or positive talk before they decide what they are going to do. It could be that they are previewing it to select audiences for the same reason. They can't release a show while this shitstorm is happening surrounding Bower's book, that is certain. They will have to wait, regardless, to see if H&M can recover from this, and the thing is A) no one believes they will rebound and B) Netflix has already been waiting almost three years. Many shows are shot and previewed and then never are aired.
Such similar backgrounds: from a parent fluent in the art of taking advantage of others (Doria) who made sure to teach the narc every which way to cop out of normal life, to the narc's own mind bending explanations of deviant behavior and gaslighting techniques. This series is the exploration of his relationship with only one of many women he conned, and we learn that he repeated his untrue statements (e.g. "the family she never had"), his outright lies about his family history and work experience, and his misuse of people in his grandiose delusion of being the smartest person in the world. Sounding familiar?
He was also a monster that people in his past wanted to escape from; like a vampire that would only die if you stabbed him with a silver dagger. People in his past were so relieved when he was gone, as I'm sure Harry will be when she has no further use of him.
I feel the RF (that is no push over) has several silver daggers just waiting for her; maybe she'll take what she has and move onto her next victim. We can only hope.
If anyone watches it, let me know what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rJzvyToxDY
Even if she sticks with the "It was Kate who made me cry" story, that just makes this much worse. You give a three-year-old an evil look because of a conflict you had with her mother? How low and cruel is that?
To add to the title of the video, Charlotte is not just "passing by," but actually looking up at *. So *'s face was twisting not just as an emotional reflex the sight of a little girl (which would have been revealing enough), but as a deliberate non-verbal message to her.
Geez, it was an internationally broadcast wedding to a senior royal who should have been light years out of her grasp, but whom she grabbed anyway. You'd think she could have had some good will for a child . . . or at least been aware of the cameras that would record each subtle nuance.
A commenter reminded me that * didn't want the flower girls to have stockings or socks. She had their feet rubbed raw so that she could punish a three-year-old girl. Amazing.
Yes, I agree with you. She would have markled her father no matter what. I believe she was deeply embarrassed by him from the beginning. But I think the wedding pictures he had and his release of them infuriated her. But who knows. As you have said, she is childish.
HG Tudor is an interesting one. I do wonder whether he is genuinely a diagnosed Narcissist who, as he claims was initially forced into doing his blog as therapy, or whether he has just found himself a nice little earner. If he’s as highly evolved a Narc as he claims to be, it’s very unexpected that he’d want to dissect for the lesser-evolved humans how he operates…generally Narcs aren’t keen to give themselves away And go to great lengths to keep up the facade of normalcy. He does very much enjoy ripping * apart. I have listened to a few snippets of his reading and find that his somnolent voice puts me right to sleep. His snarky digs at the Harkles inserted into his readings are entertaining.
I haven’t heard the bit where he calls Tom Markle a lesser narcissist, And I’m chewing that over. Of the two parents I would say without a shadow of a doubt that Doria is the one with narcissistic traits. When considering her relationship with Thomas and subsequently to her daughter, I see many many parallels in the way that the Harkles’ relationship is playing out. Harry certainly has exhibited Narc traits. He could potentially be Borderline as well— Emotionally volatile with abandonment issues that caused him to be locked in this toxic codependency with a partner from hell. It doesn’t seem to me that Thomas Markle would have showered his little girl with the sun the moon and stars, continually talked her up and intervened so much to smooth her life, to the point of bankrupting himself and helping to create this notion in his kids mind that she was gorgeous and talented and Oscar worthy and fantastic and better than everyone else— if he were a narcissist. If he were a narcissist, could he have worked so successfully for so many years in an industry that was both behind-the-scenes and highly collaborative? I have never read anything disparaging about Thomas from anyone other than his younger daughter. His personal life may be a mess, but professionally Thomas seems to have been highly regarded. A doting father—too doting as we now see. Does not seem that were he a narcissist he would have been so involved in his daughter’s life. He seems to be a man who has twisted himself into knots, ruining his finances, his peace of mind and his health to placate his child and manage the fallout of two divorces on his two families. We all have our selfish moments, and Thomas was decidedly selfish and only thinking of himself when he left his first family for Doria. The apple did not fall far from Doria’s tree. It was she that taught her little flower about transactional relationships and getting as much as you can from other people, didn’t she? A flaky pothead who was both physically and emotionally absent for large chunks of her daughter’s childhood. She seems to be trotted out for Flower’s weddings but where is she the rest of the time?
The whole family is messed up that’s for sure, but I don’t see Thomas as the narcissistic parent. He has given his ingrate kid far too much. It could be said that he’s milking the media attention; For a guy supposedly living in seclusion in Rosarito, he’s always popping up in interviews and newspaper articles. But at his age and precarious state of health, he really hasn’t got any other means of generating any income. If he is compensated for giving interviews about *, I kind of view that as getting some of his own back. He has spent far more on her than he will ever recoup from giving interviews, and the emotional damage is inestimable.
@Blue Dragon
I thought madams wedding
dress was based on
Princess Angela of Liechtenstein😉
Angela looked stunning.
Meh needed a stonking big
emerald tiara to lift her drab look
and steer the camera’s away
from her face, hair and dress 😳