A big number anniversary with the marking of twenty five years since Diana's untimely death.
It's sad as she missed so many things she would have loved to been a part of with her sons.
They would like to have had her still around too.
You miss something when you lose a parent. You can't call them and ask advise. Or tell them of how you did something successfully so they can share that happy. Birthdays and holidays pass without gifts in either direction. Or you see something and want to share it because you know they'd love/laugh ... but you can't.
Twenty five years is a long enough time to sometimes be able to look back with a more critical eye at the past. And the world has had so many tragedies since then. 9/11. Boxing Day Tsunami. July 2005 bombings in London to name a few. Kids grow up. Go to uni. People get married, have children, get divorced. People die. Life relentlessly moves on whether or not we are ready to move on.
And yet, at what point can we stop reviving the emotions as if this event happened yesterday? Is it helpful? And, to whom is this helpful (if it is) to other than those who count the inches of print?
Notice that the prince sons are not going to doing anything together or supposedly publicly either. Not really a shocker there but maybe, just maybe, this could actually help tamp down the high emotional whiplash for after (of course) all the major players who knew her personally and the rest of us who didn't.
And then, there is that article: all about the wife with the top photo as a Diana look alike. Interesting timing for that release.
Or that the next interview dropped as well. Not a lot of response to that yet.
Definitely a pattern here. Just not sure where it is ultimately headed for but ... it is quite "a" push and right before the headlines of remembrances before the death of Diana (possible short term?). But long term? Hmmmmm.
Comments
A long time ago someone put together famous people's faces; Elizabeth Taylor was the only one who face was perfectly symmetrical.
I agree with Hikari, let * talk all she wants, while the RF remains silent. * can't help it, she's going to sink herself, without anyone's help. In fact, I hope there's lots more interviews when * is allowed to say all she wants. The extent of her lunacy and madness is greater than anyone guessed.
@WBBM: I wish I could see the photos you put together of *'s faces.
A long time ago someone put together famous people's faces; Elizabeth Taylor was the only one who face was perfectly symmetrical.
@Fifi and WBBM: I noticed the heavy Photoshopping of the photo of Meghan on the cover of The Cut. Her jawline is especially noticeable in terms of being altered, plis there isn’t a line or other imperfection on her face, which is a classic narcissistic stare.
Cold and empty.
Harry harvested the last bit of good feeling I had about Diana. Now, I just wish we'd forget about her and move on. I get why Harry feels differently but I think he's trading on public good will that really isn't there anymore.
Harry has cleaved unto his douchass and considers the whole Royal Family the enemy. I do not believe there is anything they can say to Harry to ease his rage or make him see the light.
Harry is self-centered, angry, and thinks he is deserving of and entitled to all that his older brother gets, and more, though he fails to understand that one needs to work in order to receive, and being grateful is also helpful.
I suspect Harry has done and said many hurtful shocking stunning things behind the scens to the Royal Family who loved him. Things we will never know about, because they are adults who understand not to air the family dirty laundry in public. The less the RF react, the more Harry and his douchass lash out. The good part is that their gobsmacking lies are getting so big and unbelievable that even the sugars and sympathetic bystanders can see that they are sick, nothing will ever sate their insatiable greed, and their mis-shapen corroded hearts can't ever be scrubbed clean, because their interior ungliness is innate in them both.
The Royal Fsmily needs to make a 100% clean break, announce it once and for all, and let the chips fall where they may.
The transcript of the Mariah Carey 'chat'. It is very banal with two self-obssessed women competing with each other's word salad.
However the Duchess does not make any outrageous claims nor take a swipe at anyone.
An example of how banal: an extended conversation about hair. They are also both self-obssessed with being biracial and how confusing they found that when growing up. Maybe it is a cultural thing. In Africa, we actually use the term coloured (officially and culturally), which sends Westerners into paroxysmal outrage. It means a person is of mixed race, and such people are very proud of their distinctive identity of coloured. There is no confusion nor stigma.
I wonder if the dozens of people working on the podcasts did some editing to cut out victim stuff or if the Duchess simply behaved herself.
It will be interesting to see how well this podcast does. I found it very boring.
Bravo MC.
The effect of such a loss on William and Harry is apparent: one is empathetic and concerned, and the other acts out for his entire life.
I too, as a Yank across the Pond, am baffled at the lack of response by HMTQ and/ or the PoW and William. The only possiblity that I can arrive at it the self immolation, and/ or Harry comes to his senses.
God save the Queen indeed.
Agree we all know diva is never meant as a compliment, but have you seen the transcript to the latest podcast with Mariah? The diva comment was then turned around and Mariah said it was meant as a compliment, which is a stretch, to the point of being disingenuous! 😅I’m not sure why Mariah did it, why not just call it as it is. 🤨
I'm sure you and I, and every other child who's lost a parent, knows not only the necessity of moving on, but the fact that you DO move on eventually. It seems to me that to remain stationary, to be un-moved on after all these years, would take an effort. That's not even considering the fact of persisting in these delusions of conspiracies, of blaming the paparazzi, etc.
Anyway. I just wanted to let you know that you're not completely unpopular!
For Mariah Carey, being called a diva can be seen as a compliment because she is a singer/songwriter. (a pop diva: a famous female singer of popular music) Her mother was a traditional diva. (a celebrated female opera singer)
For the Duchess, it is not a compliment because she has no talents that relate to that term in a positive way. (a self-important person who is temperamental and difficult to please)
i am hoping the brf is doing things behind the scenes which have shut down opportunities for them/her and we don’t see it. also i think they are completely busy living their life. queen’s health is fading, philip died, citizens facing covid lockdowns and now high fuel prices and shortages. charles is looking to launch his reign. no one wants to look petty dealing with the montecito losers. and i think if they did look for a public tit for tat it would make them look worse. we see it because it’s a great sideshow to the real life problems people are facing. perhaps the family is also acquiescing the queens wish to never explain never complain. if anything the misfits of montecito may have helped to quell little in fighting any family has by uniting them and appreciating each other a little more.
you have to admit. it is a great side show. it would be more fun if she embraced her crazy complained about the emerald tiara, talk about how dumb as a brick her husband turned out to be, embrace the trash megs. people would love it more 😉
some “hate” accounts are run by her team
MM knows people have a low opinion of her and likes the victim hood
Palace is doing stuff behind the scenes
Queens health is unchanged back and hip and mobility issues. doesn’t want to be seen in a wheelchair
Mariah Carey supposedly was interviewed in June (but I am trusting someone who pinned down the date according to what was said in the conversation). Serena was interviewed after she announced her retirement, so much more recent. The interview for The Cut seems to have been done just before the hapless Prince went to Africa. (There is something that does not quite fit about that African visit in terms of timing.)
Diva is subjective and personality I have never heard it used for a compliment for anyone famous or not, talent or no talent. No-one gets a pass. 🥴
It’s is used to describe someone who’s spoilt, makes unfair demands on others time etc and goes into histrionics when they don’t get their way. 🥹
Me, too. I was 15 and the lead-up to the wedding had added some spice to an otherwise dull, hot suburban summer. I had followed the engagement avidly, cutting out articles and pictures of the couple and compiling two scrapbooks of Royal Wedding mementoes. Charles did seem quite a fuddy-duddy who was too old for his bride. Now that I have long ago left my early 30s in the rearview mirror, I realize that 32 is only old to a teenager. Charles had left the finding of a bride to rather late by Royal standards but due to the fact that he always seemed middle-aged before his time, people tend to forget that Harry was older than Charles when he married. Older and more bald. Yet due to his congenital immaturity, he's still marketing himself as a 'young dad' who has been heartlessly cast off from being entirely supported by his relatives . . even though he will be 38 years old in two weeks.
Now when I rewatch clips of the wedding, a few things jump out at me:
1. 1980s television broadcasting was really sh*te. The picture quality is terrible.
2. It was really only after Diana's death, as her boys were becoming young men that I became interested in events of the Royal family predating Diana's entrance en scene. That's when I started watching documentaries and reading books about the earlier years of Elizabeth's reign, and learned about her love story, her tragic rise to the throne at a tender age and how dishy she and her consort were as 20-somethings in love. At the time of Diana's wedding, I only knew the Queen as a rather dowdy and sour-faced matron who looked very intimidating. HM had a face like a slapped bum on Chas's wedding day, I thought. And her toilet bowl cleaner-colored seafoam green suit did her no favors whatsoever. Even at the time, I didn't think she exuded a bit of festivity or happiness at the marriage of her firstborn and heir. Maybe she had an inkling of what was to come. It certainly seemed like the groom did; I'd swallowed the 'Fairytale of the Century' storyline, but it's impossible to look at Charles's demeanor and not think that he looks like he's walking to his execution down that long aisle of St. Paul's--not his wedding. Apparently there'd been a disastrous rehearsal the night or two before, with Diana in tears. Even Charles's critics have to admit that he looked dashing on the day, and he redeemed himself on the balcony, with chivalrous hand-kissing and The Kiss. So . .it might have been playacting, but it made for great TV. Diana never disparaged Chas as a lover, though she had enough opportunities to do so. I think that's what made Charles's attentions to Camilla so hurtful to his wife--I think that part of the Wales marriage was probably good and she didn't have any complaints there. But I think when I watched the wedding the first time, I only thought he looked that way because he was nervous. In the same manner, I chalked up Harry's 'about to be sick or cry' face throughout his nuptials with nerves. Nerves have two sources: joyful anticipation of something very very much wanted . .or all-encompassing feelings of doom. I think Harry and his dad had that in common on their wedding days.
@Snarkey...far be it for me to defend Meghan but I think this podcast dropping when it did was probably a coincidence. What I find a tad surprising was the banality of the podcast with Mariah, if media relative silence, means anything. Of course Mariah has done tons and tons of podcasts and interviews. There's prolly not much craziness to mine anymore for ratings.
But, Meghan leads off with two legitimate powerhouse celebrities and the world shrugs. Can't wait to hear from Lady C the real dope on the numbers, cuz we know we can't trust the games Spotify is having to play in a last ditch effort to recoup some money on this dud. In light of the seemingly lackluster response to this lineup, I gotta wonder if Netflix sees the handwriting on the wall here and will give the duo the heave-hoy before the end of the year. At this point, it might be too late to recoup any losses for them.
I'm starting to sus' whether divorce might not be imminent. You know they gotta be cratering from the stress of failed ambitions here. Harry made a colossal mistake in thinking he could force them to capitulate to their demands when they fled to Canada. He's truly not the brightest bulb on the tree.
Can somebody please explain to me what Emails means? I see it all the time and I'm like HUH?
3. Despite Diana's youth, having only turned 20 in the same month as her wedding, and a whirlwind engagement filled with all kinds of sulks, tears and other drama, her self-possession on the day was stunning. Yes, her nerves showed when she bobbled her vows, mixing up Charles's names, but in all other respects, she appeared totally in command of herself amid this overwhelming global circus. Behind the scenes it was very very different, and the RF knew lots of things we did not. It's often said that Harry's engagement was 'very quick' . . Actually, it was just a tad under six months by a week or so, which is the standard length for Royal engagements. Charles and Diana got engaged in February and married in July, some 4.5 months, so theirs was actually the very quick one. Charles had to get cranking on making an heir ASAP.
According to Diana later, this was the absolute very worst day of her life, because she'd spotted Camilla in the pews. But she'd go on to put on a brilliant show of having the absolutely very best day of her, or anyone's life in the history of brides. She should have gone on the stage because she was a born actress, far more natural and accomplished at it than her ersatz daughter-in-law that Harry's married to. The other daughter-in-law c'est impeccable.
I had to hoot when Me-Gain whinged that she felt like 'an actress' during her time in the Royal family. 'Stand here, go there .. '
Well . . .Yes, Me-Gain dear, that is exactly how it works. The Royal family appears in public in support of the Firm and the monarch and they are *all* acting a role, in a sense, for our benefit. This is their *job*. Behind closed doors, they can let their hair down and be their private selves, but while 'at work', they show their professional, public side, and do take direction from the organizers of the events so that everything goes smoothly. Agendas are minutely planned.
Shouldn't a person who made a living as 'an actress' have felt more at ease 'acting' within the Firm, with appropriate costume, lines and set-blocking? We thought her professional background would be a huge asset in her new role. She loves having her picture taken but apparently 'acting' is something she is no longer interested in or capable of doing.
Except that a faker person has never walked the Earth. * 'acts' every breathing moment of her waking life. Only she is under the delusion that she's got any 'authentic' self to show.
Harry harvested the last bit of good feeling I had about Diana. Now, I just wish we'd forget about her and move on. I get why Harry feels differently but I think he's trading on public good will that really isn't there anymore.
The timing of his latest AWOL Adventure from home does feel kind of significant, falling as it does around the anniversary of his Mum's death. Maybe 25 years felt especially significant somehow? Harry was 12 when she died, so she has now been gone twice as long as she was his mother. I've not seen the photos of Harry's new (blonde--reverting to type) shag, but if he did want to have some time away from the ball and chain as he does his annual commemoration of his mother's death and found some willing company to cheer him up meanwhile . . we all grieve in our different ways, so I'm told.
Nobody in Parliament, nor the Royal Family is going to do anything about the Harkles while Her Majesty, The Queen is alive. It is a matter of respect. Once The Queen is gone, I hope everyone throws down their gauntlets.
Please, Twat, give more interviews. Your lunacy is amusing.
My mother was 5 when her father died in 1912, of erysipelas I've been told. Her mother was left with 3 children under 6 and another on the way, plus 3 resentful step-children who couldn't see why their widowed father had remarried.
My father was rendered motherless in 1900, when he was 18 months old; he was the youngest of the 8 children she'd born for my grandfather. She was only 36, died a few days after an op for cervical cancer and suspected uterine ditto, probably from thrombosis according to my GP.
Grandpa then `married the skivvy' who got her feet under the table almost immediately; said woman brought a child with her whom Grandpa insisted was nothing to do with him though I have my doubts. `The trouble was, he drank,' according to one of my aunts (whom gather he `interfered' with) and I do wonder if his sexual conduct contributed to Grandma's `women's troubles' - he was certainly a nasty piece of work, as was the new wife, who produced 2 more children for him, making a grand total of 10. My father was neglected thanks to her favouring her own kids.
None of this was unusual in those days in the London working classes - quite unremarkable in fact. So no point in whinging about it.
@Sandie
The transcript of the Mariah Carey 'chat'. It is very banal with two self-obssessed women competing with each other's word salad.
An example of how banal: an extended conversation about hair.
Thanks for taking one for the team. I bought Mariah's Christmas album back in the '90s. Undeniable pipes, and she was cute back in the day. However her rags-to-riches story has followed the same tired show-biz trajectory as that of Me-Gain--both women are famous today because they were willing to screw much older men to get where they are. Mariah met her first husband, Tommy Mottola when she was just 18. He swiftly became her manager and more besides. They were married 3 years later. Mottola was 21 years her senior. I could have sworn I had read something in an earlier publication about Mariah having dropped out of school after 8th grade to pursue whatever a 14 year old with no education can pursue; Wiki lists a high school on her bio. That can mean she graduated or she only attended the ninth grade; not sure what to believe. Her mother is a trained opera singer and her father from whom she gets the 'black' side of her heritage is listed as an aeronautical engineer. So they might not have been too happy with their daughter dabbling in beauty school after Huntington High, however long her tenure there was before going to a CBS records industry party and hooking up with Tommy Mattola in lieu of continuing her education. Mariah undeniably has a voice but her intellect and conversation might make Chrissy Teigen sound smart. Maybe . .I don't plan to listen to the podcast. As limited as our Smeg is, she may have more going for her upstairs than Mariah.
They are also both self-obssessed with being biracial and how confusing they found that when growing up. Maybe it is a cultural thing. In Africa, we actually use the term coloured (officially and culturally), which sends Westerners into paroxysmal outrage. It means a person is of mixed race, and such people are very proud of their distinctive identity of coloured. There is no confusion nor stigma.
Mariah is another whose heritage surprised me to learn of it. Like Smeg, she can pass effortlessly as a slightly olive-skinned Italian, or I thought perhaps Latina owing to her curly ingenue hair that didn't look Afro. Her father is Afro-American and Venezuelan.
The black community in America has gone through several iterations in their racial identifiers. First they were Negro. Then due to unfortunate bastardization of that racial term, it became too controversial and was dropped. Colored was en vogue 100+ years ago when my grandmother (born 1913) was growing up. She called African Americans colored until the day she died at 91 years of age. "Black" replaced that, or was interchangeable with Colored for a while. Small b. Black with a capital B came into vogue at the dawn of the Black power movement in the 1960s. 'Negro' also enjoyed a renaissance, as a way of taking back community power over a hurtful label. Then 'African-American' held sway for about 30-40 years. That is and always has been quite unwieldy to both say and write. 'Black, capital B' has come back into favor but the pet phrase of du monde seems to be "Person of Color" (color unspecified) . . POC is anything not Caucasian, apparently.
Twunt had worked so tirelessly to obliterate all of her African features, to the point of allowing her school friends to assume she was Italian and her mother was her nanny or a domestic sent to collect her from school. Still now we've yet to see her natural hair and I'd like to know if she has lost count of the number of nose jobs she's had. Thomas chose a younger black woman as his wife and the mother of his child and back in the late 1970s when he and Doria met, an interracial marriage was still a cause for comment. * acts like she's been so downtrodden and marginalized all her life due to her mixed race but what I remember best about her childhood anecdotes is the time Thomas bought multiple sets of dolls in both black and white so his little girl could create a doll family that looked like hers. Her being part black was certainly celebrated at home. Maybe a few kids in M's school might have commented upon her hair or something and to her that was systematic and soul-crushing racism.
Her mixed heritage has become a convenient excuse to blame everyone else in a racist world for her failures instead of looking at her lack of inherent talent, work ethic or shred of likeability as a person.
However the Duchess does not make any outrageous claims nor take a swipe at anyone.
If the Mariah segment was taped in June, maybe whatever caused her to take swipes at South Africa in the last one hadn't happened yet. Tom Bower's book wasn't released until late July. That book is eating at her, mark my words. Mr. Bower's book was out when H addressed the sparse crowd at Mandela Day, as best as I can recollect. Both halves of the couple are feeling the heat.
I saw this elsewhere. Not my idea.
Where should I stand? Behind the Queen
Where should I walk? After Harry, who is after William, who is after Charles, who is after the queen.
What should I say? Long live the queen.
What should I wear? A hat. And nothing with bare shoulders during the day. Hosiery. A bra that isn't visible.
How should I look? Put a pleasant expression on your face. And stop telling Harry what to do.
It occurred to me that the "Missing" U was not a typo for a missing "N"....rather, the entire comment referred to * and not the title of the article. Therefore, she should have been deemed "Monticeto Meghan, the Duchess of "Sssex". Hmmmmm, cuts a bit close, eh? The original poster said "U" not multiple "U's", but that thught didn't occur to me until after I'd typed "Sssex".
Your story is familiar to me, as in the story of my parents (a parent dying when they were very young, lots of siblings, step parent, and so on). I suppose each generation has their tragedies, but it really was not so long ago that an alarming number of children did not make it to adulthood because of accidents or childhood illnesses, young men were killed by the millions in war, and any form of cancer was an instant death sentence.
Sadly, I think if the dastardly duo were more well informed, they would still be entitled whiny brats, without talent or any redeeming virtue.
------
I scanned the transcript of her latest podcast, but have come across and listened to a few excerpts. I think her audience will be small ... she overacts every single breath, never mind about word, in the most annoying way. It is just not interesting, unless she drops clangers and makes outrageous claims. She has nothing interesting to say and is not a natural at making conversation and has no interest in anything but herself. It is like listening to a bad script acted badly - not authentic or organic in any way.
Joe Rogan has interesting guests, has long conversations, and his shows are not scripted or over produced (and he gets the guest to do most of the talking). Lex Friedman is another guy who does interesting podcasts for the same reason ... natural, real, unscripted, long conversations with interesting guests.
-----
Meghan gushes about Maria's glorious silk gown, Mariah says "yeah I wore it yesterday to Black Entertainment Television Awards (27 June 2022)
-----
Can those of you who could stomach listening tell me if the actual podcast happened the way the article described it....after MC called MM a "Diva" did Twat later basically give all sorts of explanations in her "Salad-speak"?! While reading the article all I could think was "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11161527/Meghan-Markle-met-match-meeting-Mariah-Carey-PR-expert-says.html
We will have to see next week if people tuned in to hear how outrageous she can be in her lies.
It would be quite a hoot if her show does get millions of listeners for every podcast and then she is stuck doing weekly podcasts for good! But my guess is the husband would want her to do just that but she will create some kind of victim story so she can stop working.
Frankly, my first reaction was that the comment was another "Diva Zing" from Mariah...
Not only had SHE worn it at the BET Awards, but MM didn't know that since SHE hadn't been in attendance/invited...!!
Hmm. Hoping more of these powerful female guests continue to school our Princess...!!!
EXCLUSIVE -- we've been reporting for ages, some MM "hate" accounts are purposeful & run by her team. YES.
She's aware of low popularity, loves attention, controversy & victimhood. Revels in it!
Stokes flames big time as a strategy.
We won't play into it. Moving on!
and this...
Early this morning a crisis meeting at the Palace was called (again). Shots fired have not gone un-noticed.
and this....
While I realize that is perhaps a bit of a let down for those wanting public recourse;
The truth is this: Harkle follies aren't worth the paper they're printed on!
and this...
HMTQ is well but at the same level of mobility as when we first reported to you on her condition over a year ago (her back & hip is hurting her, it's far easier to sit) she doesn't want to be seen wheeled around, however. She's still tending to red box items & taking calls!
While there likely won't be a public "answer", rest assured, matters are being dealt with privately.
(So private, we aren't privy to the outcome yet)
The Duchess of Sussex’s former staff would be free to talk about their experiences under whistleblowing rules, after she hinted she could make further revelations of her own, The Telegraph understands.
The Duchess, speaking in an interview with a US magazine, this week confirmed she had never had to sign a non-disclosure agreement about her royal life, allowing her to freely share her version of events about her time in Britain.
While she has made a choice not to yet, she said, she takes comfort in “knowing that I can say anything”.
The statement, described by the interviewer as being delivered in a “voice full of meaning”, was interpreted as a warning to the Royal family that the Duchess could be willing to make further revelations of her choosing.
In contrast, those who worked for the Sussexes are known to have had to sign up to confidentiality clauses governing what they can say about their professional lives.
Aides are asked to agree to confidentiality policies, promising to preserve the privacy of the Royal family and institution both while they are there and after they leave.
Most also choose a path of discretion out of loyalty to the members of the Royal family they serve, with negative revelations from ex-staff very rare.
Those said to have been victims of bullying by the Duchess - allegations she denies - have never gone on the record to talk about their experiences, with those who witnessed many of the incidents mentioned in the press also keeping quiet.
But, The Telegraph has learned, those policies can be overruled for good reason, in line with employment law about whistleblowing.
UK law states that whistleblowers must act in the public interest, but are protected while raising concerns about significant incidents occurring in the past.
When the Duchess married into the Royal family, her staff worked for Kensington Palace. Most were shared with Prince Harry, with some - including the press office - originally working on behalf of the Sussexes and Cambridges.
A handful of others were recruited by Buckingham Palace after the households of Princes William and Harry split.
It is understood that more senior staff, such as Private Secretaries, are subject to a higher level of more specific confidentiality.
‘Still healing’
During her interview with The Cut, the Duchess said: “It’s interesting, I’ve never had to sign anything that restricts me from talking.
“I can talk about my whole experience and make a choice not to.”
Asked why she does not talk, she replied: “Still healing.”
On the question of whether she can forgive either the Royal family or her own estranged family following a rift with both, she said: “I think forgiveness is really important. It takes a lot more energy to not forgive.
“But it takes a lot of effort to forgive. I’ve really made an active effort, especially knowing that I can say anything.
“I have a lot to say until I don’t. Do you like that? Sometimes, as they say, the silent part is still part of the song.”
Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace on Tuesday chose not to respond to any elements of the interview.
Among the Duchess’s claims, she said Prince Harry could lose his father just as she had “lost” Thomas Markle.
“It doesn't have to be the same for them as it was for me, but that's his decision,” she said.
A source close to the Prince of Wales said: “He loves both his sons”.
Of the decision to say nothing publicly about the latest round of claims, from the Duchess’s podcast and magazine article, a royal source added they were now so frequent they “diminished every time”.
Since wordsearch let me find 'blue eyes' very quickly, I didn't need to read the entire article, which looked pretty mind numbing, but I did check out the comments, which were pretty harsh, coming from probably liberal New Yorkers. There was one sad soul who was taking it upon herself to refute every comment against *. She must have penned 90% of the pro * comments. She said that * lives in the heads of her detractors. Maybe for some, I mostly enjoy learning what others are saying about her. It's like following the inside baseball stories about politics that the press prints. Who's up, who's down.
A far more interesting tidbit from Lady C's most current youtube drop comes from one of the people who wrote in a question, she had never considered before, nor heard anyone else mention as possibility. The person who wrote in asked whether the SENIOR SOURCE, who they alleged in the Oprah interview, INITIATED THE CONVERSATION about the color of Archie's skin, actually being either Harry or Meghan themselves? Lady C seemed to think this was a brilliant suggestion and one that's not unlikely given Meghan's reputation as Princess Pinocchio, the one title I actually think she's earned. Wouldn't it just take the lemon elderberry wedding cake if the "senior source" they claimed was actually one of them?
It's the things that make you go hmmm.....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11162103/SARAH-VINE-Meghans-latest-interview-Exocet-missile-aimed-heart-monarchy.html
Sssex is right up both 6 and 666’s alley. “Allegedly”
Duchess diary drama: Meghan Markle reveals she was writing a daily journal while a working royal – ‘raising fears from senior royals that it may be published as memoir revealing even MORE palace secrets’
Meghan revealed she picked up her journal from Frogmore Cottage at Jubilee
It dates from before her and Prince Harry stepped down as working Royals
She recently said in bombshell interview she is free to 'talk' if she wants to
But the Duchess of Sussex said she 'is still healing' as she is set to return to UK
**** I figured she was doing this. And so did most Nutties.
**** I figured she was doing this. And so did most Nutties.
@xxxxx:
I recall reading something during the summer of 2018 shortly after the wedding that Meghan had been making notes and sending them back to someone in North America for safekeeping. My recollections tell me it might have been a blind item in Crazy Days and Nights.
She almost certainly knew well before she married Harry that she wanted to monetize her relationship with him. It is most likely these notes will be one of her sources of material for the book deal she got when Harry inked his deal.
Yes, I've found myself questioning the nature of reality after watching Lex Fridman's podcasts!
/I also question the nature of reality after reading an article about *, but not in a good way.
Re the diva, Harry Markle give a link to the transcript of the MC podcast - I certainly didn't listen to it or was going to. Like you, I do think the lady doth protest too much. See what you make of it, I didn't have the heart to analyse that tripe.
Part 1
MARIAH: Yeah, you know, she, she did make her debut at Lincoln Center and she sang
with City Opera. She had gone to Juilliard, on a scholarship. She was actually an opera
diva.
[CLIP: PAT CAREY SINGS OPERA]
MARIAH: If you look it up... the actual definition is a woman with, typically an opera
singer, usually soprano in the coloratura range with a very high voice, very strong,
powerful voice and, you know, a talented woman. Right? And the next definition, right
next to it is like a difficult woman. You know, one who – I'm not reading, this is off the top
of my head.
MEGHAN: No, I know you are. And I'm looking at my notes going, you're exactly right.
Because I'm looking at this saying, in the 17th century, the term originally referred to the
leading female voice in an opera, the prima donna. But by the 19th century, it was used
to refer to leading Sopranos, who became so famous and celebrated that they almost
became goddess-like in the eyes of their adoring public. But then it turned, and this is all
in your, this is all in your brain.
MARIAH: This is in my brain because I grew up with a real diva. Does it, and what does
it say when it turned?
MEGHAN: It says, by the mid 20th century, both terms prima donna and diva, although
still used in operatic terms, had become more generalized and slightly derogatory
remarks referring to any ambitious, demanding woman in show business.
Mariah: Right. So I grew up with that because my mother would be, like, so and so is
very much the diva. People take it as a compliment now. Some people. And then some
people take it as, “oh she’s such a diva.”
MARIAH: Right. So I grew up with that because my mother would be, like, so and so is
very much the diva. People take it as a compliment now. Some people. And then some
people take it as, “oh she’s such a diva.”
MEGHAN: For you, is it a compliment or a criticism?
MARIAH: I think it's both. For me, I think it's both. I do. Because I mean, I know the
origin of the word. But then I know, like, as I was growing up, like I said, my mom was
going, talking about a friend or something, “well so and so is very much the diva.” I didn't
know if that was bad, good, that's how she spoke. Like it's very much the grandeur of it
all is what I envisioned. I was like, Oh, you know…
Part 2
MEGHAN: Glamorized…
MARIAH: …glamorized and fabulous and whatever. And then like, as things evolved,
like you know, the past, I guess whatever, 20 years, I don't know, numbers, but it
became like… A diva for me, they mean you're a successful woman usually, but also,
and I, forgive me if we're not allowed to say the B-word, but a B-I-T-C-H. Like it's not
okay for you to be a boss. It's not okay for you to be a strong woman. You know what I
mean? Like, you have to be, you should be diminutive and here you are. And, you know
what I mean, like?
. . . . .
MARIAH: I bet you don’t remember I had pumas on…
MEGHAN: I don’t remember that you had pumas on but I remember your curly hair. I
remember that. And you're running through a field of sunflowers. I remember that so
well. And there is nothing in that visual that would make me go “diva.”
MARIAH: Diva, no...
MEGHAN: So where did that? Nothing about that feels diva. So that's not how I, I
remember you coming onto the scene. And I wonder if by design you ended up
becoming more of what the nineties idea of diva was? Like is it life imitating art or art
imitating life, you know?
MARIAH: I mean, I understand why you're asking me that. The Dreamlover video…
people were saying, “girl next door, da da da da da.” Because there was also this
ambiguity about me racially that fed into that and those curls. Here's the thing. They
didn't know how to do my hair because if it was a, a, a white hairdresser that had never
dealt with textured hair, they would tend to do a different thing. And my hair would be
like, ‘you're not doing that.’ And then if somebody that had only dealt with ethnic hair, it
would become too much product and too much, you know weight -
MEGHAN: Oh, yeah. Oh, no. Like shellacked. Yeah, I know so much… so much heavy
hair grease. I know. Like, like Murray’s. Murray’s pomade
. . . . .
MEGHAN: Mariah and I could have talked about hair for much, much longer – but eventually, we
did come back to the diva.
MARIAH: The Diva thing yeah, it's, it's interesting. I think everybody has a different
thing, because to me, it's also so overused now that it's become like, she's the cupcake
diva. Like I think they use it as just like a throwaway adjective that's just like whatever.
MEGHAN: You're right. It has definitely become more normalized. And I think in some
ways I, when I think of the word diva outside of Divas Live and I remember that concert
in the nineties and that had a whole different connotation. That was the glamor, that was
the, you know, being over the top, and the indulgence.
------
How could * not understand that she could be called a diva??
she’s smart enough not to write things down.
Perhaps, but if she did write anything down, does she really think we believe she left something like a diary behind when they legged it to Canada? Or else she planted a fake diary to see if anyone would find it and react. I wouldn't put it past her.
EXCLUSIVE -- we've been reporting for ages, some MM "hate" accounts are purposeful & run by her team. YES.
She's aware of low popularity, loves attention, controversy & victimhood. Revels in it!
Stokes flames big time as a strategy.
We won't play into it. Moving on!
Re: Diana, I wish 6 & others would let her rest in peace. 6 is like the execrable butler, Paul Burrell, in his unseemly exploitation of his mother's memory for profit.
As others have pointed out, the side-by-side comparison of Diana & * in their respective black turtlenecks show Diana's sweetness & vulnerability vs. *'s hardness. Diana had her flaws, but she was nothing like *.
https://archive.ph/mRF7L
I think that the RF has realized that since * has no compunctions about making up things from whole cloth, i.e., baldly lying, she might publish her 'diary' with complete, incendiary fabrications. How to stop it? Those knowledgeable about publishing & libel laws might enlighten us. I don't know what measures can be taken. So much of our press & other media is so light on fact checking.
Megs is lying about recently coming across her diary at Frogmore. She kept that diary close to her being. She has been noting all the BRF "crimes" against her since the day she met Hapless. She is keeping a journal these days too/ This is precious material for her. To make into a book. To leak to the media. To threaten the BRF with claims of racism.
Titles should have been revoked long ago. Ideally, when the Queen appoints the next Prime Minister at Balmoral, she should tell (order him/her) him to expedite this process
It is an increasingly loud call across the UK - remove their titles and cast them adrift.
The Telegraph has an article explaining why ex-staff of the duo are not bound by NDAs. When I come across the link I will post it, if someone has not already done so.
I think longtime celeb, & epically talented Mariah has *s number, but is too smart to leave claw marks. Why subject yourself to her deranged followers?
https://archive.ph/9NM26
https://archive.ph/3snSx
An analysis of The Cut interview from a mental health professional.
-----
https://archive.ph/2022.08.30-184511/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/08/30/meghan-duchess-sussexs-staff-could-speak-wanted-whistleblowing/
The article from The Telegraph.
It had reminded me of my French `penfriend' (I use the term very loosely) who kept scribbling away in our presence but crouched over it, nose almost touching the paper, and being very obvious that it was something she wanted to keep from us.
One day when she and I went for a long bike ride & Dad sneaked a look at it. His `First World War `soldiers' French' enabled him to translate such gems as `This evening, Mrs - had a bath'. Mum was indignant 'cos it seemed that this was the only time that she did in the 4 weeks of misery that the little cow was with us. She sulked the entire time and all we could get out of her was `Non!' I now suspect the family of being collaborators during the German occupation.
See, this is why I'm just not worried about Meghan's Dearest Diary Cum Mangum Opus is because it'll be more whining, moaning, accusing but offering no real proof. She creates the problem she purports to diagnose with her premium blend Word Salad. So same sh*t, new day here.
Spotify and Netflix are the last chance saloon for these two, who I think are on the fast track for divorce. Meghan's not sticking with a losing pony and Hapless Harry's no winner. He's just a rung on Meghan's ladder of ambition.
1) Attacked the British press saying that "Royal Rota" called their children the "N" word, I thought: wow! This is big!
She is losing the support of many journalists who previously supported her who found themselves dragged into this statement.
2)When MM said that someone compared her marriage to a white Prince with the release of Nelson Mandela, she can lose the support of the SA and part of the Afro-descendants who defend her (this was absurd)
3) Her Podcast with MC came in falling. In the episode topic, she is not number one anywhere in the world. Spotify ha keeps it at the top of the topic charts. And twitter is calling out Spotify with this lying ploy.
4) Omid denied his statement that Harry lost his father. It wasn't enough, an Archewell spokesperson had to deny it too. So here's the delicious contradiction: not only does the British press take its words out of context, the American magazine does too. 🤣
Spotify and Netflix are the last chance saloon for these two, who I think are on the fast track for divorce. Meghan's not sticking with a losing pony and Hapless Harry's no winner. He's just a rung on Meghan's ladder of ambition.
One of the articles from the LondonTimes that I posted links to mentioned that * brought up leaving a bad marriage with Mariah. A hint of her future plans?
I've been a divorce skeptic, because I think she needs the royal connection too much, but you may be correct.
The podcasts are fluffy and self-indulgent, and will (hopefully) not provide a long term income stream. It’s quite pathetic that it has taken her two years to muster up these petty “chats.” We haven’t heard anything new about Netflix, so the rumors of a breach of contract are likely true. That may be another reason for her raging and Harry’s change in behavior.
It “feels like” something major is going to blow. I think the RF have allowed her to take lots of rope, but they are readying themselves for pushing back. I certainly hope so. The pain and distraction that Princess Poontang (apologies to anyone offended by this term - but I think she deserves the nasty connotation) has caused the Royal Family during the end of ER II’s reign and Philip’s life is unforgivable.
UK law states that whistleblowers must act in the public interest, but are protected while raising concerns about significant incidents occurring in the past.
a) Could this be a response to MM's "supposed" diary?
...
An article was published (Journal The Mirror - Bewildered' Prince Harry demands to know why disgraced Andrew still gets police protection)
But was quickly removed detailing what Harry will argue in his Judicial review. (UK Security Requirement) In the article (which I read myself) it said that Harry, in his defence, had used Prince Andrew on the grounds that he continues to receive security and he (Harry) does not.
a) Why is it not covered by the confidentiality order?
b) Is Harry's team leaking when it shouldn't?
c) or using the case for PR?
d) Why was the article withdrawn?
Twitter saved a copy. Here's a link for anyone who wants to read it.
https://archive.ph/2022.08.30-210612/https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/bewildered-prince-harry-demands-know-27870727
What I do not know is if she deliberately copies with an agenda (convinced that she wears it better) or if she is doing it unconsciously (because she is actually an empty vessel without an identity if her own).
She repeated the standing stance in a white suit that she used for the Time cover. What is that about?
But, there is nothing natural or relaxed or appealing about the look on her face in those photographs ... so false, and some are rather menacing.
What I do not know is if she deliberately copies with an agenda (convinced that she wears it better) or if she is doing it unconsciously (because she is actually an empty vessel without an identity if her own).
She repeated the standing stance in a white suit that she used for the Time cover. What is that about?
But, there is nothing natural or relaxed or appealing about the look on her face in those photographs ... so false, and some are rather menacing.
"Mystery over Meghan Markle's Nelson Mandela claims as actor who says he is the ONLY South African in Lion King live action film insists he has NEVER met Duchess after she said cast member compared her wedding to Madiba's release"
And mainstream media has woken up at last! How the heck is she going to wriggle out of this one? Because she will try ...
It’s time Meghan and Harry lose their titles
The couple is now snubbing the very institution from which they derive their power and celebrity – it’s bizarre and damaging to the monarchy
Allison Pearson
The news that Her Majesty is even contemplating inviting her new Prime Minister to form a government, next week, at Balmoral instead of Buckingham Palace, tells you that our Queen is in frail health. A stranger to self-pity, the national super trouper would always be in the right place at the right time if she possibly could.
The significance should not be lost on anyone. What she needs at this time is the respect, affection and consideration which befits our longest-reigning monarch in the home straight of her life. This novel idea has clearly not penetrated the rosewater-fragranced designer-candled halls of that Palace of Positivity and Nurturing Goodness in Montecito where Duchess Meghan has given yet another interview that could have been calculated to unsettle the Royal family.
Very little in the way of thoughtfulness is to be expected from a couple who, in March 2021, gave an inflammatory interview to Oprah when Prince Philip was seriously ill in hospital. All that matters to Meghan and Harry is the expansion of their flourishing grievance business in which they amusingly portray themselves as the abused, star-crossed lovers in a tragedy also starring Miser Charles, Wicked Fairy Camilla, Unsupportive William and Bully Kate Who Made Me Cry.
Actually, the interview for New York magazine’s The Cut by Allison P. Davis is not always the helpful hagiography its subject may have counted on.
“Your eye contact is good,” says Meghan unsettlingly to Davis, “You’re, like, looking into my soul.”
The journalist is not convinced it’s a soul. More a carefully managed stage-set in which the Suits star puts on a performance of “effortless, arms-wide-open, relatable affectation”. She smells calculation.
“She has taken a hardship and turned it into content,” observes the interviewer. It’s phrased like a compliment, but it really isn’t. Everything is content to Meghan, the life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex now being a wholly-owned subsidiary of Netflix.
Prince Harry, meanwhile, is increasingly relegated to a sweet bit-part. Think Buttons in Cinderella. Sometimes, Meghan’s husband is glimpsed juggling through a window or he is allowed to say a few lines which burnish the legend of his incredibly modest yet somehow vain and self-obsessed wife.
Meghan also impugns the British media, asking why she would share photos with “the very people who are calling my children the n-word”. When did that happen? Oh. Never.
(Fibs are fine if it’s someone’s “truth”. The Duchess’s half-sister, Samantha, said it was dishonest of her to claim during the Oprah interview that she grew up as an only child. Meghan’s lawyers insisted that it was not meant to be “objective fact”, but a “statement of her feelings”.)
What I would find troubling about this interview if I were Prince Charles or Prince William are the hints of emotional manipulation. Meghan points out, more than once, that nothing constrains her from speaking out – whether on her new, top-rating podcast, Archetypes, or in the wider media – about what she considers her dreadful treatment at the hands of the Windsors. “But it takes a lot of effort to forgive. I’ve really made an active effort, especially knowing that I can say anything,” she says, her voice full of meaning.
Until now, the Palace has confined itself to the exquisitely lethal “recollections may vary” when responding to Meghan and Harry’s hurtful accusations. How much longer can that Keep ‘Em Sweet strategy go on? It isn’t working. For all her mushy yogic musings about forgiveness, the Duchess is a world-class grudge-bearer who has ostracised her own father and now it looks like poor Prince Charles is getting the same treatment.
I have been told by a reliable source that Harry is homesick in LA, but can’t own up to the mistakes he’s made for fear of upsetting his wife.
It looks like the Sussexes won’t see Harry’s father, William and his family or the Queen during their visit to the UK next week. In effect, we have a quasi-Royal tour with the couple now snubbing (or being snubbed by?) the very institution from which they derive their power and celebrity. It’s bizarre. And damaging to the monarchy.
Clearly, it’s time the Sussexes lost their royal titles whose privileges they enjoy without the accompanying responsibilities and restraints. But who in the Firm will have the courage to take on Meghan and her truth?
First: Harry will stick with her because he has already had the experience of being abandoned, so to speak, by the loss of his mother. He cannot deliberately `lose' his wife.
Whether she dumps him is another matter - I doubt if he could cope with it happening again, especially if it's by his `mummy with benefits'.
Second: There's cognitive dissonance over the threats to life that they perceive. On the one hand, he seems to have swallowed the Al Fayed narrative about Diana being assassinated yet, on the other, they seem confident that they can say what they like without fear of being rubbed out and come here on an unofficial visit. They claim to be fearful in the UK, yet lower the windows of a bullet-proof car when here and. They demonstrate no fear elsewhere in the world - Diana died in Paris after all.
They really do have severe learning difficulties.
I agree, although I do believe there’s trouble at home, she needs the royal connection too much to let him go yet. Without him….what is she going to talk about?! No royal connection; nothing to gripe about! 🥹😩
I take a lot of what Diana said as part of her victim narrative with a grain of salt. Did she ignore the guest list beforehand?
Someone should check the tape to see if she was scanning the congregation of several thousand. Not as pathological as her DIL, of course.
Mariah isn't correct about coloraturas. I've heard it from Beverly Sills herself that it isn't a vocal range but an agility at speed.
My late step-monster made huge lists of my father's tiniest transgressions (and everyone else's I imagine) that he had to respond to, and I'll bet Harry gets them, too. This is while he had to wait on her hand and foot and spent a fortune. Alas, she never tried to divorce him, but she wanted evidence.
I think I said here that one of their lawyers made a stack of DVDs of her complaints, when she and her narc sister were trying to get each other arrested when they were fighting over their father's money. I tossed them without looking, which I almost regret now. The DA in Colorado wisely declined to act against either sister or my father, but the sister got the money.
I've been a divorce skeptic, because I think she needs the royal connection too much.
This has been pretty much been my line of thinking too until recently. For me the Jubilee was the wind up to Bower's reputational bomb, followed by a disastrous UN talk and silly podcasts that fail to generate much buzz. It's been one dud after another with these two.
And, let's not forget, they had 2 years to show us their work and seize the crown, Beyonce style to make it such that they would never have had to appear before Harry's lowly relations at the Jubilee had their supposed Diana magic been making bank. No instead, they hit up Harry's dad for the mortgage down payment on a mansion they didn't earn and can't afford. Well, this moment is showing us her work and we're seeing how shoddy the quality is; and that's why she's failing.
This is her way out of this disaster (but how could the smartest person in the royal family, who was an actress for many years, confuse a cast member with a composer, and the DM will track down Lebo M and get a denial from him, or maybe not ...)
"He said the only other South African who was involved was Lebo M, a composer who together with Hans Zimmer was responsible for the music for The Lion King. But Lebo M was not in the cast."
Lebo M was at that premiere.
* is beginning to sound seriously unhinged. I've been trying to think of another celebrity who has melted down so publicly. One that comes to mind is Charlie Sheen, who had different issues, but he just couldn't stop sounding crazy & crazier in public for a while. Don't know what's become of him.
@Neutral Observer
I've been a divorce skeptic, because I think she needs the royal connection too much.
This has been pretty much been my line of thinking too until recently. For me the Jubilee was the wind up to Bower's reputational bomb, followed by a disastrous UN talk and silly podcasts that fail to generate much buzz. It's been one dud after another with these two.
And, let's not forget, they had 2 years to show us their work and seize the crown, Beyonce style to make it such that they would never have had to appear before Harry's lowly relations at the Jubilee had their supposed Diana magic been making bank. No instead, they hit up Harry's dad for the mortgage down payment on a mansion they didn't earn and can't afford. Well, this moment is showing us her work and we're seeing how shoddy the quality is; and that's why she's failing.
A pity she's held back by that royalty thing. Why, she could be making bank as a Desperate Housewife if only she was a divorcee. I'm sure she suspects that her lack of success isn't due to her (lack of) work ethic or (lack of) talent, but because the royal family is somehow stealthily sabotaging her. It's probably because they don't want 6 back. Yeah, that's it. If she threw him back, that would show them!
"South African security confirms Meghan Markle’s story of Archie nursery fire"
Note how this headline is worded, and that wording is repeated in the first paragraph. A bodyguard who was close to the Duchess contacted the media. He was not South African nor hired by anyone in South Africa. The bodyguard is obviously still close to her and was instructed to contact the media on her behalf.
A very badly written article spreading delusions for the Duchess. Catherine has reached out, but the dastardly duo are much to busy to see her
Sure Jan!
Thanks for the link, the article is interesting, don't delete the post.
I love your new avatar 🤣
I am not a fan of the whole 'channeling Diana' that the tabloids use to describe everything Catherine and TBW wear. However, the cover pic and at least two of the photographs are unmistakenly copying Diana, plus the one photograph is copying Catherine. It is so blatant that I cannot pretend it is not what it is.
I definitely agree with the first point. Sometimes a similar look is just a coincidence. And individual women have their own styles, even if some of these happen "to rhyme" with what other women wore a long time ago. There's also an element of deliberate choice here. We don't see the press covering the York Princesses in this manner, showing similarities between their present outfits and clothes their mother wore in the 80s and 90s. I'm sure that someone with a good photo archive could find enough "echoes" to do this, but journalists don't choose to go there. And well, readers probably aren't interested in the Yorks in that way.
But you're right that sometimes blatant copying is being done, and we see that every time * gets within snapping range of a camera. For the CU*T shoot alone, she copied Diana, Catherine, and Steve Jobs.
What honestly baffles me is that she does it even when she knows how obvious it is. If I got the same feedback she does, I would have been embarrassed into hiring a proper stylist a long time ago. But I guess narcissists truly see all feedback as good feedback -- and because she is 100% sure of getting a reaction when she copies Diana and Catherine, she doesn't mind that that reaction is primarily blowback.
My first thought was that the Queen has been quoted as saying that she thinks the most important thing to teach children is good manners.
An emphasis on manners is so out of left field for * that I think she was hoping more people would make this connection.
Mystery over Meghan Markle's Nelson Mandela claims as actor who says he's the ONLY South African in Lion King live action film insists he's NEVER met Duchess after bombshell interview claimed cast member compared her wedding to leader's release….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11164935/Mystery-Meghan-Markles-Nelson-Mandela-claims-actor-insists-NEVER-met-Duchess.html
*'s clumsiness here fairly astounds me. Did she really think she wouldn't be called out by anyone for either of those two stories? The BRF may be sticking to "never complain, never explain," but the rest of the world isn't going to let her off the hook so easily.
And what is with her tenuous connection to South Africa these days? Is she trying to sell us on her blackness again?
all that being said did i hear correctly the british papers are striking. say it ain’t so the hustlers coming to town and they need PRESS COVERAGE of the PRINCESS and her husband. 😉
do we know who she is interviewing next?
Is America falling out of love with the 'Petulant Princess' of Montecito? Even the 'woke' magazine that interviewed Meghan Markle at her £11.2m California mansion carried an undercurrent of disapproval
Did it ever fall in love with *? Maybe this is the beginning of the end.
One was an actor (not present), the other a composer. Surely a trained actress would know the difference in roles?
'Meghan Markle's Bombshell Interview Was Scheduled To Coincide With The Anniversary Of Princess Diana’s Death'
I am not surprised at all!
https://radaronline.com/p/meghan-markle-interview-scheduled-princess-diana-death-25-years/
'Meghan Markle's Bombshell Interview Was Scheduled To Coincide With The Anniversary Of Princess Diana’s Death'
I am not surprised at all!
I'm surprised. Why does she keep stealing Harry's relatives? She has plenty of her own. Why does she dress up like 6's Mummy all the time, and wear 6's Mummy's perfume? Does she wear Diana's favorite lingerie, too, and make 6 scream out "Mummy!" when they're having sex?
I don't know whether or not 6 is mentally ill. Personally, I'd put him in the "That man ain't right" category. Since his actual relatives are treating him with kid gloves, I'm pretty sure he is and they know it.
The LARPing of Diana and Wallis and Catherine is waaay beyond sick. I just want to scream "GET OVER YOURSELF!" She's embarrassing herself but she is too self-absorbed to see it.
@Fifi - There's something amiss with both of them, I'd say, but what it is would take a professional to disentangle it. My view, FWIW, runs like this:
How much is personality disorder (Hard-wired into them - `just the way they are'- not thought to be curable) and how much mental illness (something that happens to a previously OK mind and may be curable, with appropriate treatment) is beyond me to work out. Put crudely, they're both nuts.
I suppose there's no reason why someone with personality disorder can't also be mentally ill as well?
BTW I've started looking into the connection between jealousy/envy on one hand and mental disorder on the other - these two abstracts may be relevant:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22224975/ Envy divides the two faces of narcissism
Zlatan Krizan 1, Omesh Johar
and
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11520469/
Envy manifestations and personality disorders
E Habimana 1, L Massé
Petulant princess’: How the world’s media reacted to Meghan’s extraordinary interview
Hannah Furness
Tue, 30 August 2022 at 7:37 pm
The Duchess of Sussex’s interview has been received with incredulity in news publications around the world - with one calling her a “petulant princess” and others accusing of trying to monetise royal connections. She has also been accused of overshadowing the 25th anniversary of the death of her mother-in-law.
The New York Post carried a front page headline: “Toddler and tiara,” a play on words about an American television programme, along with a photoshopped image of the Duchess’s pouting head on the body of a child pageant star.
“Spoiled princess Meghan STILL whining about Royal family,” read a subheading.
The Washington Post offered a straightforward report, noting that “Meghan speaks about her efforts 'forgiving' the Royal family”, following an opinion column several days ago that advised: “To succeed in media, Meghan Markle needs to leave royal trauma behind.”
An Australian television host used a profanity to describe the Duchess, calling her a “total tosser” and adding: “I couldn't even stomach getting through the whole article. I think an Australian would say 'she's just full of it'.”
Bild, the German tabloid, pointed out the similarities between the Duchess and the late Diana, Princess of Wales, accusing her of “shamelessly” attempting to “instrumentalise the myth of Diana for her career”.
Another German publication noted the timing of the interview and first Archetypes podcast shortly before the 25th anniversary of the Princess of Wales’s death on Wednesday, asking: “Does Duchess Meghan overshadow the day of remembrance?”
Marie Claire, in France, warned: “She seems to still have things to reveal, a heavy weight on her heart just waiting to get out.”
Other publications in Spain, Italy and France variously describe the Duchess as “posing like a real diva”, displaying “slight reproach to [Harry's] family, if not a bitterness”, and “firing the cannon” about the golden cage of monarchy “from Lady Di's hands”.
People, the biggest-selling celebrity magazine in America, took a more benign approach. It wrote five online reports about the interview, detailing how the Duchess “doesn’t want Prince Harry to lose his father” to her determination to teach her son Archie good manners and her promise to return to Instagram.
The Duchess herself is unlikely to read any of the headlines.
She said in the interview: “I don’t read any press.”
--------
PS There's a link to Australian morning show where host callsMeghan Markle ‘t*sser’ live on air
I think she appropriates anyone and anything she wants but the Throne at least is beyond her - she's reached but it exceeds her grasp it - and we can be sure Heaven won't deliver it.
Meanwhile, she creates Hell for the rest of us.
Why wasn't Meghan cheering on her good friend Serena yesterday? What? Don't tell me the piddly US Open wouldn't clear a row of seats for he Duchess? I'm sure it wasn't becuz they aren't more than business associates or that she was afraid of getting booed by the crowd, who let's face it prolly wouldn't recognize her at this point.
I remember that when * first returned to Hollywood, people were saying that her brand was closer to Kardashian than to Royal -- and there was at least one blatant attempt from her end to engineer a meeting with the Kardashian family.
But after her triumphant homecoming peaked with public squatting on Ellen, * seemed more inclined to pursue political connections. Hence the blatant copying of Michelle Obama in New York. But the best "friendship" she has been able to forge in this area has been with Gloria Steinem, whose political relevance has been over for at least twenty years.
Now her strategy seems to be competing with Kim Kardashian. No, not creating an alliance, but setting herself up as a better version of Kim. These days, Kim is studying Law and has finally passed the "baby bar." Her lobbying has helped in the release of six (?) prisoners and she says she wants to do more for prison reform. It's an odd fit for Kim's brand, which is why most people don't really take it seriously. I think * is hoping that she will look like a classier, more serious version of someone breaking out of entertainment into activism.
@Fifi LaRue: I agree with your comment that * is seriously mentally ill. I once hired and managed a nurse who exhibited similar behavior, but without the narcissism traits. She told fantastical stories, several times each week, like saving someone’s life at the gas station, or nearly losing her own while being chased on the freeway. Things like this may happen to any of us, once or twice in our lives, but not twice weekly! People like this are very unsettling (at best) to those who must associate with them and can become quite terrifying when their lies are questioned. I have often wondered how * behaves behind the scenes. If she is emboldened enough to tell outright lies to a global audience, she is likely horrific to those she sees every day.
After the negatives of two figures in the Lion King cast, MM fans took aim at Lebo M.His name is Lebohang Morake, known as Lebo M, is a South African composer famous for composing music for The Lion King films and theatrical productions. He was recommended to Disney by Hans Zimmer.
He was at the Lion King premiere and spoke with MM and Harry. MM fans circulated the video of him talking to her and claiming he was the one who made the infamous remark between Meghan's wedding and Mandela's release. MM's fans desperately pressured him on twitter to get him to validate MM's Story. Today, he responded to The Telegraph.
....
The South African composer who met the Duchess of Sussex at the Lion King premiere does not recall speaking to her about Nelson Mandela, the Telegraph has confirmed, after the film’s only South African actor says he has never met her.
https://archive.vn/2022.09.01-135543/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/01/meghan-markle-lion-king-composer-lebo-m-nelson-mandela/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter%23Echobox=1662036776-1
if princess diana loses relevance what does that to Harry’s misses?
Maybe this is why * is obviously copying other famous women now. I'd love to see what will happen now that she has come for Kim Kardashian's slice of the pie.
In some fairness, though, * has been angling for comparisons to Michelle Obama for years. But while she'll get a tiny bit of attention for that (see: her copycat outfits from the September 2021 trip to New York), it all usually amounts to nothing. The real source of narc fuel has always been her Diana cosplay. And it doesn't really matter to her that she just gets bad press for it these days, because to a narc, any and all press is good press.
It's an irony that makes me smile ruefully whenever I remember it. If Jesus, Trevor, Taz, PDina, etc. stopped making videos about her, Royal Tumblr completely forgot about her, and we Nutties just stopped talking about her, it would actually hurt her a lot more than if we converted the rest of the world into despising her.
Lebo M has pretty much denied that he made that comment about Mandela at the premiere (does not remember the brief conversation).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1663375/meghan-markle-prince-harry-duchess-duke-sussexes-dog-mamma-mia-vn
Since letting the world know they've rescued a dog from the hard scrabbled streets of Montecito, they've been offered positively mouth watering deals by sundry dog businesses.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11168213/Don-Lemon-says-shocked-Meghan-Markles-race-admission.html
In other news, Don Lemon calls out Meghan's privilege for only just realizing she's Black that magical day When Harry Met Word Salad. I love it when multi-millionaire wokies call out other less oppressed wokies on their privilege, never mind the fact money is the ultimate privilege.
Charmin. Enjoy the go.
From Hello! at https://uk.yahoo.com/style/meghan-markle-ditches-engagement-wedding-111405782.html
Meghan Markle ditches engagement and wedding rings in new photos
Nichola Murphy
Thu, 1 September 2022 at 12:14 pm
`Prince Harry has given his wife Meghan Markle three beautiful rings over the course of their relationship, but she was spotted without all of them in recent photos.
Since the Duke of Sussex proposed back in 2017, Duchess Meghan has rarely been spotted without her gorgeous engagement ring – a trilogy design with a large central diamond from Botswana flanked on either side by two diamonds from his late mother Princess Diana's personal collection.
She normally wears them alongside her Welsh gold wedding ring, which is traditional for royal brides, and her eternity ring, which was thought to be a first wedding anniversary gift from Harry. Sporting a bare left hand, Meghan looked chic in a series of photos for her new interview with journalist Allison P. Davis for The Cut.
The 41-year-old was pictured wearing a variety of pristine, well-cut, classic clothes, including a white power suit, a glamorous black gown with a leg split, and a sparkly strapless dress.
Meghan chose not to accessorise with her royal engagement ring for her photoshoot with The Cut
Meghan's lack of engagement and wedding jewellery may simply be down to the styling of each look and the desire to keep her accessories minimal, or it could be that the Duchess left them at home for safekeeping. She did, however, open up about her relationship with Harry, and even made a revelation about the couple's 2018 wedding day.
"The piece of my life I haven’t been able to share, that people haven’t been able to see, is our love story," she said, revealing that her wedding speech touched upon the "resounding knowing that, above all, love wins."
This is not the first time Meghan has removed her engagement ring – she deliberately chose "low key" jewellery during her royal tour of South Africa, and she had the gold band replaced with a diamond-studded one in 2019.
In the royal biography, Finding Freedom, authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand explained: "On May 19, 2019, Harry also surprised his wife of one year with the gift of a ring that he had created with jeweller-to-the-stars Lorraine Schwartz, a favourite of Meghan's.
"The conflict-free diamond eternity band paid homage to the family of three with Meghan's, Archie's and Harry's birthstones (peridot, emerald, and sapphire, respectively) on the underside of the ring."
Speaking of Harry's thoughtfulness, the jeweller told the authors: "'He's the loveliest person ever. So romantic, so thoughtful.' (So much so that Harry also thought to have Lorraine resize and reset Meghan's engagement ring with a new diamond band.)" '
Pictures with no wedding rings.
Is she trying to tell us that she's a single mom?
And thank you for a reminder of what the BRF did to make * look like a halfway suitable human being.
Doesn't it grate to think that if they hadn't done so well with the PR push at the beginning, they wouldn't be dealing with any of this now? All the evidence of *'s true character, motives and romantic history was floating out there. Had they left well enough alone, she would have disqualified herself.
Rings can be resized very quickly so I doubt that that is the reason. Actually, applying reason to anything she says or does is fruitless as she is crazy. But, perhaps she is trying to brand herself as famous and fabulous in her own right (as she clings to the title and the husband and spends money she stole from the monarchy and the British people). I think she really does believe the lies and false image she peddles, but perhaps the cognitive dissonance of living with the opposite reality is the root cause of the descent into madness.
They really are hyping up this mini tour. I feel sorry for the organizations that have been hijacked for this crazy soap opera.
I think of it as not being able to quit the Nutties. ;-)
As for Tory Burch, she may simply agree that any publicity is good publicity. I'm trying to remember the last time her brand showed up on my radar, and it was back in 2017 or 2018, when someone gave me a sample of her perfume. (It was very ordinary and not worth paying designer-label prices.) This may just be a desperate attempt to seem relevant again. And if social media is trashing her enough to get her trending, then I'm afraid it worked.
In a Good Morning Britain interview today, he added that the move helps attract more readers to the publication.
The future king took on the editorship of the newspaper to mark its milestone, with the edition also including interviews with Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Idris Elba. (DM)
Charles was chosen because of his work with charities and the Prince's Trust. I think TBW, had she stayed in the UK and worked for the BRF, could have guest edited the special issue - did she not edit an issue of Vogue (without much clout, any achievements)? But no, that ship has sailed.
Well, Kim Kardashian is a single mom these days . . .
@WBBM
It's interesting that she said all that guff in the interview about the joined palm trees and the rule about passing salt and pepper together only to shed Harry's rings for the photos. She's showing everyone what she really thinks of him even as she lies through her teeth.
I am just astonished that the duo are proceeding with this mini tour. I suppose he needs the familiarity of home and his past.
Wonder if they're going to make a secret visit? Along with Netflix crews?
It's interesting that she said all that guff in the interview about the joined palm trees and the rule about passing salt and pepper together only to shed Harry's rings for the photos. She's showing everyone what she really thinks of him even as she lies through her teeth.
M dumping on Hapless, Megs is an expert in the passive-aggressive. She must have learned this from the best in Hollywood. When all she got was rejection at auditions. Except for Suits and a few minor roles in Hallmark TV movies.
I chuckled my way through the new post from this blogger. I especially loved the photo of the Queen all dressed up and pulling a face (and to accompany the news that the duo will be far too busy to visit her), which the blogger captioned with: 'Thank fuck for that— I was going to pretend I’d died.”
According to the former Housewife, the unnamed A-lister insisted Meghan and Harry 'could barely stand up in Frogmore Cottage' and 'couldn't afford security'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11170453/Bethenny-Frankel-unleashes-furious-tirade-against-sanctimonious-Meghan-Markle.html
Who do you think the A-lister is? This really is high school behaviour! But I find the comment about Frogmore Cottage interesting, and they really did not think things through and thought everyone would just go along with their plan.
Thanks for the link to the latest Crowns of Britain post.
“ We all saw Gone Girl where that crazy bitch kept a fake diary for over a year to make it seem as though she was in danger with her husband and to frame him for her ‘murder’.”
I bet Gone Girl is one of *’s favorite films.
Free Pedigree Chum and Winalot for life? She's already got H for the former and has already `won' a helluva lot since 2017, but not by fair play.
According to the former Housewife, the unnamed A-lister insisted Meghan and Harry 'could barely stand up in Frogmore Cottage' and 'couldn't afford security'
Who do you think the A-lister is? "
...
A: Gayle King or Oprah Winfrey
Wouldn't a hotel better fit their needs?
I apologize if you had wanted to read the Spectator piece. I decided to delete it because it didn’t really offer any new insights on the miscreants. It was pretty long and I worried it might be an irritant to some.
Where art thou? I miss reading your clever and hilarious verse.
Yes. That is the question. If they “can’t stand up in Frogmore Cottage,,” why did they renew the lease? Only reason I can think of is to keep their UK domicile:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-narcissism-of-meghan-markle#
Media can now finally stop ignoring Serena Williams’ rotten behavior
https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/media-can-now-finally-stop-ignoring-serena-williams-rotten-act/
Don't you love it when the tabloids keep score? It is quite a record!
Perhaps I am completely wrong, but I sense something truly deranged in her latest behaviour. It seems to go far beyond her normal bossy entitled behaviour.
I wish someone would shake the hapless one and say to him: It's not love when your wife/marriage separates you from your family, friends, country, life. Divorce happens, and it is sometimes an ugly battle, but people survive, as do children. You can't save her but you can save yourself...
Seems to me it’s another lie about Frogmore and a reason why they say they left, but funny it’s fine as their rental place! 😂🙄
Perhaps HM was a fan of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade "Only the penitent man shall pass"!
-----
She hated Frogmore Cottage! She is also a liar who makes things up. As we try and work out how a place like Frogmore Cottage could have such low ceilings we forget that she did make this complaint to an A-list friend of hers and there was no truth to it at all.
As for who the friend is ... Oprah was still trying to pin them down on the interview but I just don't think Oprah would make a direct phone call like that. Serena Williams? Amal Clooney was still a friend at that stage, as was George Clooney, but I am sure it is not her. Elton John was also a friend at that stage but he would not have made that call. Is Gayle King regarded as an A-lister?
New Palace Confidential.
I suppose she was expecting something much grander to suit her wonderfulness - the Banqueting House, perhaps? That's got quite a high ceiling, with a painting by Rubens - `The Apotheosis of King James I' to boot.
She'd have probably insisted on having a ceiling painted with `The Apotheosis of Meghan Markle', with her being carried up to Heaven by angels, to push the BVM from her post-Assumption seat on high.
It'd be even better than a mirrored ceiling for her to contemplate while she's being humped. Hope I haven't given her any ideas, she'd have to look up `apotheosis' first - despite being whip-smart, her Greek probably doesn't extend that far.
The 5 anonymous friends who claimed to have all stayed at Nott Cott didn't mention it had low ceilings. They just said it was cozy and MM's decor was great. I do think I've read (long ago) that Harry had to duck for one door but I'm sure he could stand up. I'm sure Kate & Will could too when they lived at Nott Cott.
We know Maggot lies so no reason to believe a word she says, nor her sycophantic friends. 🤨
Please continue to post. It's gratifying to learn that mainstream news sources have finally figured out that there's nothing but crazy, and over-blown egos coming out of a certain house in Montecito.
The thing about Twit fixing the neighbor's sprinkler system doesn't make any sense. Professionals come in to turn them on, and to do blow-outs, and maintenance. Especially in Montecito where the properties are maintained by professional groundskeepers. Anyone believe that Twit knows the difference between a flathead and a Phillips screwdriver? The only screwdriver he knows is made with orange juice and vodka. Twit, when living at home, had a valet lay out his toothbrush every night, and someone to pick up his clothes from the floor. There's no way Twit has any kind of handyman skills. Not a chance. He's as crazy as Twat, with making up sh*t that didn't happen.
It seems Spotify uses a complicated and weird algorithm, but the reality is her shows are not the most popular in terms of listeners (by far).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11169497/How-Meghan-Markle-Spotify.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-frozen-out-by-charles-royal-source-says?source=articles&via=rss
Is THAT what he was (supposedly) doing? When somebody mentioned he was working on the pipes, I assumed he was plunging the toilet.
The thing about Twit fixing the neighbor's sprinkler system doesn't make any sense.
I think The Body Language Guy was the one who joked: "Is that a euphemism?"
While I laughed, I really don't think Harry will be doing anything for any normal, sane, emotionally stable woman's "sprinklers" any time in the next few decades.
@Rebecca
If it is easy for you to to post a whole article then that is great for us, and we are grateful. I am not able to do so easily, depending on which device I am using. I sometimes will post a paragraph that I find of particular interest, but that is very biased.
mel. you maybe right. manchester opening of soho house is suppose to happen sometime in fall.
worried about the queen. we know we will be hearing more alas the months go by. hope she isn’t in too much pain.
as for charles. there is a video of him naming a new baby gorilla. he is always in such imbeccably tailored suits but the one he was wearing while he was sitting was baggy and loose. like he’s lots a bunch of weight. and it didn’t look like those casual jackets that are meant to look that way.
https://twitter.com/kwitaizina/status/1565672356256923648?s=21&t=T0_etqqrI1jwBdWXiW6HhQ
maybe i’m reading too much into it. (like that never happens 😉)
I remember a video of Charles and his sons at a polo match. The boys were still young and Charles was still playing polo. There were Wills and Haz polishing their boots themselves. Charles asked them, with a mix of bewilderment and astonishment, why they were polishing their own boots (and probably at the last minute). His sos teased him, because polishing his own boots is something he would not do. He arrives at a polo match with everything perfectly provided by his staff.
I think Diana had a huge influence on them. With her they went into the kitchen (the Queen and Charles never do) and probably were taught to do a lot of stuff for themselves. Edward anld Sophie seem to know their way around a kitchen but I doubt that Andrew and Anne do.
Actually, I think the hapless prince knows more about cooking than his wife. Someone on a gossip site spilled the beans that her cooking skills were very limited and all the boasting about being a foodie was about eating out at a restaurants, which she did a lot.
Speaking of which ... someone on LSA says she saw TBW in a restaurant in London and would not have noticed her if someone had not pointed her out. No one bothered her at all. No one took photos with their phone. No one called the press.
Also: Upon her retirement in 1948, the house was given for life to Marion Crawford, the former governess of Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. snip Crawford left the cottage in 1950 in the aftermath of her selling stories about the royal family to newspapers, which was revealed publicly by The Sunday Express editor John Gordon in an attempt to pressure her to provide more stories and articles to him.
It's cursed!
Latin for `goddess[' = dea (cf `deus - a god).
Dea became `diva'(f) in Italian, applied to opera stars of amazing voice, range, dramatic power, usually with the starring role - the Prima Donna - literally First Woman. Other instances of similar usage are known, where the subject seems divinely inspired. Thus Michelangelo was known as `Il Divino', the Divine One, for his drawing ability.
Unfortunately, such women ended to overdo it, ready to throw tantrums if they didn't get their own way, hence the derogatory secondary meanings, as in `a bit of a diva/prima donna'.
Joan Sutherland (1926 - 2010) might rightly have once been called a diva, in the first sense but for the avoidance of doubt she was referred to as `La Stupenda'
*displays the behaviour of a diva but her performances fall woefully short of demonstrating divine inspiration.
The mystery of the African trip is solved. He was there as President of African Parks to host people from the Congressional delegation in Mozambique and Rwanda. It seems that the visit was not to garner publicity but to educate and impress the Congressional delegation (why it is in the interests of America to support conservation in Africa).
Thank you all for your posts. I read everyday and have since the wedding I think? Cheers friends :)
All about The Cut interview by Pluto
If you guys don’t know this blogger, be sure to check her out. This was my first video with her and I immediately subscribed because she’s very good. She has already become, next to Taz, My favorite voice on this insane situation.
Anyone had word on Harry’s whereabouts? Isn’t he due to join his wife for their delusional faux royals tour In just a few days? Is he still AWOL? Maybe he’s gone off and search of Methane’s missing diamonds.
https://youtu.be/MM6oJttVUoQ
From Reddit. The poster would like TBW to read her comments.
Apart from a few years here and there when I watched some of the Ladies’ matches at Wimbledon, I do not follow female tennis. During Roger Federer’s heyday for several years I watched the gentlemen’s rounds, particularly his legendary classes with RAFA. Now that the mighty Roger is retiring, there goes my interest in tennis pretty much. But I have tangentially followed the careers of the Williams sisters, not because I’m interested in tennis itself, but having three sisters myself, I am interested in this family dynamic. I am the eldest, and I always rooted for Venus. I think her father did her a grave disservice by putting Serena in tennis also and pitting the two sisters against each other. Venus us a champion But her shine was dimmed prematurely by having to share the spotlight with her brazen younger sister. If Venus has fewer titles, In my opinion it’s not because she is the inferior tennis player, but because she is the superior character. I don’t think she had the stomach for the cutthroat mentality at that echelon especially when she had to face off against her little sister as happened frequently. She might not have played her very best against her little sister out of a subconscious unwillingness to be that ruthless and hurt Serena. By contrast I don’t think the younger Williams would lose an ounce of sleep over throwing her sister under the bus and trampoline over her dead body to get to another trophy or anything else she wanted. That’s why she and methane are so similar. They are both narcissistic Divas. Serena has a legitimate athletic gift and also other artistic and business interests in the fire, So she has earned her accolades. But for every Triumph, there have been 10 or 20 instances of diva antics, tantrums on the court, tantrums in the press room, sanctions for unsportsmanlike behavior, dress code violations, what have you. Serena really exhibit all of the characteristics of Daddys spoiled youngest princess who always gets her way. Thanks to her “friendship “with the delusional Duchess, she’s even more high profile than she was before, and along with me saying I really don’t care to see Serena Williams face ever again. Not bloody likely.
There are rumors that Serena’s marriage is a lavender arrangement— Just like Methane’s, Which has been subject to the same rumors since its inception and Harry’s rumored proclivities. Methane apparently didn’t get that memo since she was trying to flash Alex her crotch at the U.S. Open in 2019. Serena’s husband mate has been one of the few men in those circles that had an already seen that tired sight.
I wish Venus Williams a brilliant fulfilled and happy life post tennis. She was a classy and lady like player on the court and she remains classy in that we never hear any scandals of any sort about her. As for her little sister, may she get what she deserves, and whether that’s good or bad, karma can decide. If she’s throwing her lot in with Smeg, I know which side I fall on.
__________________
Joan Sutherland, Superstar Diva, Dies, 83: Manuela Hoelterhoff
Manuela Hoelterhoff
October 11, 2010 at 9:59 PM EDT
Share this article
Joan Sutherland, a large-boned, helmet-haired, high-singing Australian soprano with a perfect trill, died at age 83 in Switzerland, her refuge after decades of singing unhinged maidens, enraged priestesses, and happy-go-lucky waifs.
Her passing -- confirmed by her record company, Decca -- empties the world of one of the last divas of an era dominated by grand personalities.
I recall an early afternoon in 1985 when I visited her in Chicago where she was singing “Anna Bolena,” a melodious opera by Donizetti, a favorite composer, who also wrote “Lucia di Lammermoor.” Mad Lucy made Sutherland a world star at Covent Garden in 1959.
The door opened on a mansion borrowed for the run and large enough to accommodate the Tudor court and Henry VIII who spends most of the opera trying to cut off Anne’s head. A retainer led me to the living room where I awaited the diva who entered dressed in a burgundy drape with a little bow underneath her huge chin. MORE>>>>
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-11/dame-joan-sutherland-diva-who-sang-mad-lucia-dies-in-switzerland-at-83
You are very welcome. I knew about some of Serena’s rude behavior on and off the court but was shocked by some of the revelations in the NY Post piece. It is an indictment of our culture that character no longer seems to matter in championing certain individuals.
@Sandie
@OKay
It’s very easy for me to copy and paste articles on my iPad. Maybe too easy because I tend to get carried away sometimes and post stuff here that isn’t necessarily worthy. That is why I encourage letting me know if I have erred.
@DesignDoctor
Thank you for the Spectator commentary you posted above. It is much better than the one I posted and then deleted.
Prince Charles welcomed Meghan with love, now he must do it again, says ANGELA EPSTEIN
Ah, NO to that. It baffles me that so many in the media still do not grasp the fact that * is constitutionally incapable of ever metamorphosing into a decent human being. It has to be willful ignorance, right?
Thanks for the link to Lost Beyond Pluto. She is spot on with her comments!
Also @Rebecca
I want to add my voice to those who appreciate your posting of articles. I always read them and enjoy them.
From the Sun:
NO FRILLS AND KATE William & Kate spend first weekend in new home after ‘no-frills’ switch to Windsor – in contrast to Harry & Meg saga
spectator.co.uk/article/drama-queens-the-return-of-meghan-and-harry
Fifi. could you imagine living with someone who has everything laid out for them.
I think stories of valets doing everything for Charles (I don't know about H), short of wiping his bottom, are vastly exaggerated. Some years ago, in the 90s IIRC, Charles broke his arm badly when playing polo. As it was his right arm, he had help from his valet, famously putting toothpaste on his toothbrush but that stopped once his arm was fine.
Thanks for the link to the Lost Beyond Pluto video. Her analysis is very good.
Frogmore Cottages were scheduled for a major renovation (plumbing, rewiring, fixing floors, etc.) and the budget for the work had been approved for that year. The Harkles eventually paid back the additional cost of redoing plans, knocking through some walls to make it one house again (which it was originally), put in a heating system, landscaping, etc. (but no copper bath). Well, they were reported to have paid back the money but I don't remember that being reflected in the annual financial reports. It is also not clear if they paid for all the renovations or just the 'additional' work. If it is the latter, whatever work they had done was hellish expensive.
But The Sun is being inflammatory in their article by repeating a story that has been debunked (copper bath) and being economical with the truth about renovations to Frogmore Cottage/s .
-----
For Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex’s marriage, which also took place in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle, 14.8 million tuned in.
When Prince William and Kate Middleton were married, a whopping 17.6 million watched.
Meanwhile, only 11.5 million switched their TVs on for Harry and Markle.
Charles and Diana? 26 million.
The Express like the Guardian is a Maggot and Mole mouthpiece, take nothing seriously they are anti-establishment and anti-monarchists. 😞
I too thank you for all that you post, it doesn’t go unappreciated. 🤗
I'm Jesus, The Body Language Guy, please hit that like, share and subscribe button!