I was reading some of the parts from the new book and and thinking about all the little flashing yellow lights released so far.
Like the troubles of all the assistants written off as just Americans can just be direct so it is a style of behavior. Well, maybe? But humiliation towards someone is not the same as being direct. Direct can be a little abrupt without a please or thank you but it is more about getting to the heart of solving a problem. Humiliation is just mean.
A polite way would be: I wonder if you tried reversing those two parts to see if that can get them to fit?
A direct way would be: Reverse those two parts and they ought to fit.
A humiliating way would be: I can't believe you are so stupid that you need me to tell you this. Reverse those two and it will work!
It does, however, give some ammunition to the charges of bullying.
Or "control the press or I am leaving you."
Yeah good luck with that one (this isn't still the time of King Henry VIII where the mere comment of life after the king's death was treasonous). There are some press rules in place but it's kind of like trying to control the tide. You can put up some barrier bars but water is a force of nature and nature still follows nature's internal laws and remolds the manmade to its liking. The result may not be as intended. You are far better off allowing X so that you don't have to worry endlessly about the rest of the time. It's like using the magic words to help both sides briefly before moving on. Maintaining some control.
Linked is that one of the long standing issues appears to be that they actually do want press but only positive press and bury any with a whiff of negative (described as being protection). But that's not how life works in a parliamentary democracy or a democratic republic. You risk hearing or seeing things you would rather not but the flip side is that you are allowed your own opinion toward the unwanted. The same cannot be said for a totalitarian state. And control there only works to your favor if you are part of the controlling decision making power team.
Regardless, any statement which is a variation of: "Do this or else" - is by nature, a threat (a bullying remark). When people tell you who they are, listen (or so the phrase goes).
Endless shows of required fealty. Excessive displays of behavior (from loyalty to we are so in love) often tend to actually be counter productive to the goal because they stem from an inner insecurity about the situation. If it worked (to receive that assurance), it would have worked the first time and not needed infusions.
Or needing to display power like I will be your boss. The most powerful people actually rarely need to remind people of the extent of the power. Everyone knows so one doesn't need to threaten or coerce for cooperation. Cooperative people are far less likely to want to stab you in the back but people who feel threatened, scared as how they have no control are more likely to take some kind of action to regain some autonomy. The victim might not feel safe about responding appropriately or inappropriately at that time or even later. So often delayed reaction comes out as a big way instead of a smaller less disruptive one. And to do so at all often means any action will be viewed as a negative.
Comments
Have you seen this? Speculation when Catherine was first pregnant, with one expert stating that the baby was likely to have darker skin because of Catherine's 'working class' background.
I think a statue of Queen Elizabeth in her famous "uniform" of suit, hat, brooch court shoes and handbag, plus two little statues of corgis following in her wake, would be adorable!
Why she conceded and let him go alone is a mystery to me.
She had already achieved her true objective of delaying the others and inconveniencing her husband. Of course she was going to reward herself by staying away from Balmoral, where she never wanted to go anyway.
For the rest of her life, she will gloat that she successfully stole the last moments of their mother's life from Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. In her narc mind, it's just what they deserved for not letting her have everything she wanted.
I can’t remember details so apologies, but there’s long been issues surrounding Prince Joachim. So I’m not in the least bit surprised about Queen Margarethe’s decision at all. 🥴
I don't pay much attention to the Danish court, but I do hear about Prince Joachim, when he raises enough eyebrows again. I wonder if there is an equivalent of the Nutty Flavor Blog about him, written in Danish! (There's definitely stuff written in French, which makes me wish I had continued learning the language after high school. Royal tea is royal tea -- pun not intended!)
My friend also reminded me that Prince Joachim spoke out in support of Prince Harry's exit, calling him brave for following his heart. Second-borns understand each other, I guess.
And well, I do have sympathy for the emotional burden that "spares" or other later-borns have to carry. As much of a cheerleader as I was for "Cambridge Baby #4" (who would be "Wales Baby #4" now), I honestly worried about the possibility of another girl. My friend really wanted Princess Charlotte to have a sister, but all I could think was that Prince George would be King, Princess Charlotte would be Princess Royal, Prince Louis would become Duke of York (an outcome that seemed more likely a few years ago) . . . and a second girl wouldn't get anything special at all.
(Given the way the winds are blowing, I think it's now a toss up whether Prince Louis is bestowed a dukedom at all. And this might be the best thing if the Wales have a second daughter.)
Catherine’s commoner genes might lead to a somewhat darker-skinned baby, Saggar said.
The royals, he explained, are pretty pale. Catherine’s skin has a considerably more olive tone, and the baby will likely be somewhere between the two – but more like Catherine because her genes are dominant over lighter ones.
“The odds are the child will have darker skin color than the royals might be used to,” Saggar said.
Was this considered offensive back in 2013? It's a bit shocking to me now that someone would speak so freely that way -- but my reaction is admittedly colored by how "woke" things have become in the nine years since then.
In the last week or so there has been chatter on Twitter about the Sussex kids and the "of the body" requirement. I haven't thought anything of it until now.
There was also some chatter on Reddit about it, specifically about how a super injunction might play into this whole thing. It's weird that everyone seems to be talking about it.
IIRC Nutty once speculated that someone could circumvent a (British) super injunction by leaking to the overseas press. I'm not sure how that would work. I can only imagine its happening if, by chance, it came out in a Sussex divorce.
Europe's royal revolution: How Queen of Denmark's bombshell decision to strip her grandchildren of their titles is latest in brutal cull of the continent's bloated monarchies... so will King Charles now follow suit?
Denmark's Queen Margrethe removed royal titles from four of her grandchildren, sparking Megxit style row
Queen Margrethe said it will be 'good for them in the future' as Danish royal family is slimmed down
Prince Nikolai, best known as a model, said he is sad, shocked and confused after royal title was stripped
His mother Countess Alexandra 'says there's no good reason' for the move'. Prince Joachim claimed that he was given five days' notice about the change
Change impacts grandchildren Prince Nikolai, Prince Felix, Prince Henrik and Princess Athena of Denmark
It follows plans to slim down monarchy in Britain and follows moves across Scandinavia and Netherlands
A sculptor did a few busts of the Queen. One was placed alongside a bust of Phillip that the artist had done. (I think at Windsor Castle.) The Queen did not want a tiara/crown on that one because she wanted to be depicted alongside Phillip as an equal. It is actually a very sweet story. The other busts the artist did of the Queen did have her wearing a tiara/crown.
I do wonder if TBW had not seen that speculation and then made the story her own. She tends to do that!
-----
I do wonder about the silence from Montecito, because she is surely frantically trying to get interviews and PR out there to promote her podcast, without the assistance of Sunshine Sachs. She had plans in place for a major PR campaign in September, and then the Queen died.
Is her focus now on getting all the demands of her manifesto met? Full-on security, courtesy of the taxpayer, is his ongoing battle. She wants the half-in, half-out, and prince/princess titles for the children.
The genetics of hair, eye and skin colour are complex and, apart from one or two special cases, don't produce simple Mendelian ratios. I doubt if all the genes involved have been identified yet.
What a gaffe about the `working classes'. In the past, yes, those that worked outside would look weatherbeaten, as in farming or street selling, with good tans (or `rust', as we sometimes joke) but for others, working long hours in factories, stayed pale. It was only after the 1st WW that a tan became a status symbol, denoting the luxury of leisure time in the sun.
It's still OK (pc) to poke fun at the Upper Classes, their Adam's Apples, weak chins and generally `inbred' look (ie stereotypes) but one daren't pass such comment on `the salt of the earth'.
For what it's worth, my mother had an olive skin, her mother was as `dark as a gypsy' but I was very pink-and-white but freckled - a real `Winter' before I moved to the South West and spent hours gardening.
As for this report
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/health/royal-baby-boy-girl/index.html,
I recall our lecturer saying that first-borns, certainly in the first years of marriage, are slightly more likely to be male than female, as we saw here among the children in the years immediately after the 2WW, something to do with what he called `the pent-up exuberance of the returning warriors' ie rapid turn-over in sperm production.
There is a line of argument that historic & prehistoric prejudice against female offspring, expressed as female infanticide, may have resulted in evolutionary pressure favouring women who tended to produce boys.
The thing to remember is that `Chance as no memory nor sense of justice' - said by the father of a female friend who had sired 4 daughters before getting a son. Ironically the the daughters were all very bright, the son somewhat dim.
I do like that idea too!
Prince Nikolai, best known as a model, said he is sad, shocked and confused after royal title was stripped
The last time Prince Nikolai was on my radar, it was because he had dropped out of military training. He said that he had decided that it was not the career path for him and that he wanted instead to concentrate on . . . (Are you all ready for this???) . . . modeling. Prince Joachim defended his son's decision, saying: "He should be allowed to become as normal a Danish citizen as possible." (!!!)
It seems that Prince Joachim and his family are the Dollars of the Danish court, wanting to be half-in (with titles and privileges) and half-out (with careers that royals normally aren't allowed to have).
Also: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Nikolai's cousin Prince Christian (Prince Frederick's son and a direct heir to the throne of Denmark) will not have the option of stepping back from military service. With great privilege comes greater restrictions to freedom.
"Sorry I didn't mean to upset about a favorite fish".
I and the guppies didn't need any apology. They can't read and I didn't tell them!
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/beatrice-eugenie-might-not-princesses-113600684.html
Headline: Beatrice and Eugenie might not be “Princesses” for much longer
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/beatrice-eugenie-might-not-princesses-113600684.html
With the stripping of titles in the Danish court, and Charles’ longtime desire to slim down the monarchy, now might be the perfect opportunity to neuter the Sussexes and send them closer to being nothing more than a nasty pair of footnotes in history. No Prince Archieficial and no Princess Lilibucks
The speculation that William and Catherine's children would be born 'darker skinned' is news to me and I'm reeling at the asininity of it. Did Charles realize he was welcoming a 'black' daughter-in-law before * joined the family? Sheesh.
That was quite obviously a jab at Catherine's coal mining ancestry--conjuring up images of her baby coming out with coal smut smeared all over his/her little face. Then out pops George, certainly not a 'dark' baby at all. Just an example of what Catherine has had to put up with for daring to marry 'above her station'. To my knowledge, the men who marry Royal princesses and therefore high above their stations, such as professional bar man/booze peddler Jack Brooksbank or thick-necked rugby jock Mike Tindall don't get this kind of crap. They get slapped on the back and called lucky. The women get called social climbers and have to be 10x more 'Royal' than the blood Royals just to break even. And even if they shine, like Catherine and Sophie have done, there's still the perception that their entire worth is only conferred by their marriage, even if they birth future Kings. As Diana learned the hard way, if a wife gets divorced, she becomes less than nothing, even when her child will sit on the throne one day.
We are not unfamiliar with coal miners here in America and just as across the Pond, it is a profession not held in high esteem, though we need the product of it. The coal mining regions in this country are among the very poorest and most illiterate. But we look at the Middleton parents and don't see uncouth social climbers--we see an admirable success story of coming from relatively modest beginnings and building an entrepreneurial empire from their own initiative. Michael Middleton is a multimillionaire, and seems like a really nice guy into the bargain, having raised a solid family. A true, if not 'rags to riches' story but a 'lifting oneself up from the bootstraps' story, and therefore MM demonstrates the very essence of the American spirit. A self-made tycoon is the very top of the social strata here.
Wonder how he took the news that his daughter was considered worryingly 'dark skinned' before she proved herself capable of producing suitably blond pale babies. I bet William was incandescent with rage over that report. And the irony now of course, is that Catherine is the quintessential English rose constantly pitted against a genuninely darker skinned rival (though not nearly as dark as she cosplays at times. Her arms are paler than mine.)
I don't think Harry and Meghan were responsible for Andrew & Edward arriving after TQ died. H & M are to blame for lots of stuff but not that, at least they aren't to blame IMO based on what we know.
QEII died at 3:10 pm
The plane with Will, Edward and Sophie and Andrew was supposed to leave RAF Northolt, West London at 1:30 but didn't leave until 2:39. Some say the delay was weather related. Others blame Harry for the delay. I personally doubt Harry was supposed to be on the plane given his relationship with Will. But even if Harry DID delay the plane by wanting to bring Meghan, flight time was about 1 1/4 hrs to Aberdeen. So *even leaving London at 1:30* they wouldn't have been on the ground in Scotland until around 2:45 or about 25 minutes before TQ died. And it's an hour's drive to Balmoral from the airport.
They were never going to get there in time. I guess one could argue they should have left England hours before 1:30. But it's hard to blame Harry and Meghan for that, at least it is for me. I don't know when everybody was notified that the end would be soon but Will and Andrew live in Windsor and Edward and Sophie are in Bagshot. They all had to get to West London. Some reports have said the death spiral started the night before but Charles didn't come to Balmoral until later that morning so I don't know when things were known to various family members. But we have no evidence of early morning involvement of Harry/Meghan in the travel plans.
We don't know if TQ was lucid near the end. But it may have been easier for her to slip away with only Charles and Anne (& the corgis) there.
https://biosciences.exeter.ac.uk/news/archive/2012/title_232398_en.html
Profile of Fiona Mathews at Exeter Univ, & Sussex Sussex. She ain't a geneticist but an Environmental scientist. Latest work seems to have been about bats. Should have kept quiet.
Anand Saggar perhaps should have known better - he qualified at Bart's (St Bartholomew's). now at St George's Hospital(both London) - or has he been misquoted?
If the York Princesses lose their titles . . . well, it won't be the end of the world. They've never been working royals and they've built seemingly fulfilling lives for themselves outside of the senior circle. It just seems to me like a churlish thing to do at this stage in the game. This part of the status quo, at least, is not hurting anyone.
My very personal opinion remains that royals should get to keep titles that they have had since birth and that the narrowing down should start with the next generation. There is a punitive aspect to removing titles that we've been aware of since the first calls for the Dollars to be "stripped" of theirs -- and that we see very clearly in the new drama coming to us out of Denmark. The relatively drama-free Swedish Royals are taking it rather well; but then again, Princess Madeleine's children are being raised in the US and Prince Carl-Philippe's sons are so young that the eldest just started school last month. It's either that the SRF is a relatively small factor in the shaping of their sense of identity or that they're so small that the changes really don't matter in their minds. All I mean is that if all parties are not on board, it looks as if a hammer is coming down on some people's heads. But King Charles doesn't strike me as a monarch who will make sure his nieces are wholeheartedly on board before making a change like this.
We don't know if TQ was lucid near the end. But it may have been easier for her to slip away with only Charles and Anne (& the corgis) there.
I'm with you. How typical of ERII to not want a fuss. A protracted death watch of weeks or days would have been anathema to her, who always prided herself on her stout constitution. She might have gotten around to more events in her last months if she'd been willing to be seen in a mobility scooter or chair, but if it's true that she was suffering from cancer and not just a bad hip or similar, I imagine it wasn't just vanity keeping her out of the public view. She must have felt ruddy awful. In her last photograph greeting the new PM, she did not look *well* . . shockingly thin and gray, with her bruised hands . . .but neither did she look like a lady who was going to expire within 48 hours of that picture. That smile and upright posture as best as she could manage to the very end.
Having discharged her last duty as Sovereign, it seems that she finally gave herself permission to lay down her scepter and Crown and rejoin her Prince. Her Majesty played everyone a blinder and pipped us all to the post. Surely if her doctors knew she was in the actively dying phase on the Tuesday, they would have urged that meeting the PM not go forward. I think she surprised everyone, including her doctors, or else we might have been eased into her final days with a statement earlier, and her children would have had more than a few hours' notice to get up to Scotland.
After 70+ years of ever-present Duty and keeping a tight clamp on herself, Lilibet decided it was time to let go of the reins. As was her lifelong MO, she just got on with it with minimum drama. We won't see the likes of this admirable and gracious lady again--she was truly one of a kind.
I'm sure * did scream and hurl things and delay H from leaving her but maybe he was always going to take his own ride? Due to the rain in Scotland the helicopter was grounded. So by my reckoning, even if Toerag had boarded with them and the plane had left on time, they still would have missed HM's departure. It would have been even more heartbreaking I imagine to have been only 45 minutes late as opposed to a couple of hours.
Deeply suspicious if the 'could give a rat's arse about proper attire' H emerged from his own private plane in mourning clothes. He must have changed back in London. It's one of those infuriatingly petty matters that crop up to cause discord over trivial things whenever the Sussexes are around. *IF* H's delaying tactics (abetted by *) DID cause the party to miss the Queen's final moments . . he doesn't deserve to be forgiven for that. Ever. Even though he doesn't deserve it, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that while they may have held the plane for 15 minutes on his account, the rest of that 69-minute delay was due to pilot caution/flight checks. If the weather in Scotland was too dire for the helicopter, they had to be sure it was safe for the airplane to land in Aberdeen with the heir to the throne and two of of the Queen's children aboard.
* loves to take credit for things she has not actually done so if she's crowing inside that *SHE* had the power to deprive the Queen's children and the hated heir from saying goodbye to her . . let it be proven that *nothing*, short of everyone arriving in Scotland the previous night, which no one could have known, would have been sufficient time to see Granny off.
*sigh* My stepdad requested that mom not notify the family members because he was afraid that we/they would overrule mom and get medical intervention when he was tired and wanted to die at home. Mom did get his family members in about three days before he passed (she was a retired nurse) and she and Hospice both recognized that the end was near. I went to sit with him once or twice per week while she did her grocery shopping and pharmacy runs, so I had been there frequently. He was bedridden, we did not want to leave him alone when she had to leave the house, and he refused to allow strangers in. (We watched sports, and criticized every single umpire call.)
I do find it rather odd to strip an adult person of a title they have had since birth. That the media is awash with speculation that the York sisters are going to be stripped of their titles is quite alarming to me, and unkind. It feels like appeasement of the ignorant mob, who do not understand that titles are not a measure of a person's power, wealth or character. It seems to me that this reckless move will not appease the mob but make life more difficult for the dwindling few who get to keep their titles.
Charles, so far, as king has been bestowing titles not taking them away. It will be interesting to see if he follows Elizabeth the Great by ignoring this baseless gossip or if he will release a statement.
Same thing happened to me.
And, as others have said, people aren't always lucid in their final moments.
The point is that if you want to say goodbye to your family before you or they die, keep their in your hearts and you will be with them as they leave this world.
This was a One Young World event but TBW used it for her personal PR. Her go-to photographer was there and only he was allowed to take photographs, which were embargoed until she was ready to publish the PR for herself.
Why Meghan Markle's act didn't cut it in Hollywood | Ben Domenech Podcast
An interesting interview with `Karla', ?Royal Correspondent of the Spectator? Well presented and thoughtful.
Why she [TBW] conceded and let him go alone is a mystery to me.
--------
She didn't concede anything. She is not the type to. Charles forbade her to go to Balmoral. She wasn't interested in seeing the Queen while they were in the UK anyway so I don't see why we wanted to rush to her deathbed, other than for her own gains (PR, phots etc).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVfOu2N4mZc
This `short' is an excellent summary although I read on Secondhand Coke that somebpdy has even more shocking dirt of *
You're right. I was seeing things through her narc eyes, so of course they were distorted in such a way to give her the greatest possible sense of significance.
I have always said, the sugars (including the blue ticks) are not true fans of the duo, they only use them as a flag to justify their hatred of the Monarchy. Now they have a new idol.
Embedded in the tweet are four screenshots of other tweets, all criticizing Queen Margrethe for discriminating against her younger son because he married a mixed race woman and had two non-lily-white sons.
https://twitter.com/JCTA22/status/1575563898811346944
Someone tell the idiots that after Prince Joachim and his first wife divorced, Queen Margrethe made her a Countess in her own right. So even when she stopped being Alexandra because she remarried, she remained Countess of Fredericksborg throughout that marriage and even after her second divorce.
(In case you can't tell, I am loving the drama that the Danish Royal Family is serving up this week! It's certainly a nice break from the Dollars.)
speaking of which. do we know that the Wales really moved to Adelaide Cottage because they are using Windsor Castle a bunch. measuring for drapes perhaps 😉.
https://youtu.be/EZ8iz8TxAW0
So, I totally believe that TBW uses weaves, hair extensions whatever.
So odd, because the Prince always came across to me as one who liked a woman who was down-to-earth and natural. What happens if he strokes her hair or if he gets tangled up in those long tresses while sleeping? I am sorry if I am sounding weird, but I find it odd that he would end up with such a fake woman.
In Human Biology and Anatomy & Physiology, we were taught that male births outpaced female births, throughout recorded history. We learned that more male embryos were lost as miscarriages, more men were killed in hunting accidents and in wars. This “natural order” theory made sense to me.
The comment that having HG during pregnancy favors a girl is garbage. The sex of the baby is determined at conception. Catherine had HG with all 3 pregnancies, which resulted in 2 boys, one girl. My MIL had it throughout 9 months with all 4 of her babies - 3 boys, 1 girl.
Everything in the media over the past 30 years has had political undertones. CNN has been promoting Globalist political ideation for decades. This was an backhanded dig at Catherine and her offspring. Someone should throw this misogynistic, racist rhetoric in the network’s face today and call them out on it. Ask them if they were actually following the science or making it up as they went.
Are we even certain that H was slated to be on that flight?
I doubt he was. There wasn't a constitutional reason for him to be there. IMO he was just aping his father's and William's behavior like he's done all his life and probably -- like his family has done all their lives -- no one pointed out to him that his presence really wasn't needed.
My very personal opinion remains that royals should get to keep titles that they have had since birth and that the narrowing down should start with the next generation. There is a punitive aspect to removing titles that we've been aware of since the first calls for the Dollars to be "stripped" of theirs -- and that we see very clearly in the new drama coming to us out of Denmark.
I've not followed the saga of Prince Joachim of Denmark, though I have read up on the love story between Frederick and his Australian bride who has been warmly embraced by the Danes for her sincerity and a credit to the people of her home nation. I knew Frederick had a brother but had no idea that the same interfamily petty jealousies and bitterness that plague the House of Windsor also blight the Danish court. Everyone in Denmark seemed so wholesome and scandal-free.
Ah, the Plight of the Second-borns . . what is to be done about them? For every George V and George VI who stepped up to fulfil their destinies as Royal spares who were needed in a crisis, most of the #2s languish without much of a proper role. (Margaret; Harry) But look at the current generation's #2--not Andrew, but the Princess Royal. Did she ever have any moments of bitterness that she had to be born second, and a girl? It's one thing to accept being secondary to an elder brother, but secondary to two much younger brothers as well? That had to burn, at least a bit, for someone of Anne's capabilities. But I think being born female was her saving grace as well. Competing with her brother for his status as the future Crown holder was futile; it was off the table altogether. Anne seems to have been able to forge her own identity and interests without playing court intrigue games. Worse for Andrew, though the huge gap between him and Charles in age meant that it took longer perhaps for toxic jealousy to develop. The Queen and Philip essentially raised two families, since the older two were grown up and away by the time the younger two started school.
As I see it, the style of Prince or Princess does not in itself alone contribute to a bloated monarchy . . it only does if lavish financial support from the Crown is mandated by that bestowal of title. Andrew's daughters were stripped of their RPOs after university and told they had no place in the Firm as far as being supported by the Sovereign Grant went. So they both obtained degrees and got jobs. Being styled as 'Princess' no doubt lent cachet to their job prospects since neither of them were avid scholars. Being the grandchild of a monarch confers status but being a niece does not? Lady Jane Grey and Victoria are two nieces of the sovereign who came to the Crown because their uncle, the King did not have living heirs.
Joachim and Harry present two case studies of why blood royals who have exhibited conduct unbecoming of the positions they were born into, who have refused a life of service to the monarch in favor of chasing hedonistic lifestyles outside of the country while still expecting to be lavishly supported by the Crown they have rejected deserve to have their titles removed. They are not contributing to either service nor honor for their houses. It is punitive in their cases and should be. But why punish other individuals and generations in perpetuity because Mama Queen or Daddy King is angry at a wayward child? It would be interesting to know if Joachim and Harry had both behaved impeccably, worked hard to serve their sovereigns and married appropriate women who were also impeccable team players if these 'strippings' would be happening now. It's a dangerous precedent if a few bad personalities in one generation can set a policy that will remain in force for their children and their children's children.
Prince Richard, Duke of Glouchester and the Queen's youngest cousin retained his style of Prince despite a decades-long civilian career as an architect. He probably didn't use that title at the office, and apart from being offered a grace-and-favor home (and paying rent for it) he didn't bloat the monarchy, did he? I see no harm in allowing the children of the indirect line of succession be known as Princes and allowed to participate in ceremonial events with the family when they aren't draining the coffers for their yearly support. It really is just a word, but it bestows a sense of belonging within the family. As to who is allowed to join the 'working' ranks and represent the monarchy on a 'supported' basis, I think temperament and character are more valid indicators of merit than strict birth order alone. Harry and his Danish counterpart are cases in point that a second-born who reviles and rejects the role he was born to shouldn't get to keep all the perks with none of the effort.
As for Harry's contested spawn, I think styles of royalty should not be applicable if they are born in/entirely raised away from court. If M and H want titles for those kids, first prove they exist and are unquestioningly legitimate children. Second, agree that they should be raised in the UK primarily until they are 18, at which time they can choose where to live. If they exist (which I do not espouse) they are American citizens by birth, regardless of where they live. But--George can't desert the UK and move to America and become a naturalized American and still expect to rule the UK one day. So, for the sake of argument, let's say Harry and M have kids. In order to be styled Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom with all the privileges and other titles thereunto (Earl of Dumbarton, etc.) . . the children must become full British citizens and renounce their American citizenship. Period. So . .these titles will have to be shelved until they are 18 and that is the decision that would be put to them then.
Frankly this nightmare is just one reason--albeit the most compelling one--why Harry should never have been permitted this marriage unless he abdicated his place in the line of succession and became an American citizen. What we have here is a stalemate.
Has anyone seen Lady C's latest video? Very provocative title. Looking forward to watching it when I have time.
I absolutely agree that it seems tacky to strip titles from those who have had them their entire lives, unless they have done something egregious. None going forward makes more sense than to strip titles from grown-arse adults, however irresistible it must have been to relieve the model of his!
And I certainly hope that C3 will not be so peevish as to take the Yorkies' titles away, merely out of spite. They don't receive public funds, so I'm not sure what the point would be otherwise. Their children will never be titled in their own right, so that isn't an issue either.
I applaud C3's desire to slim down the monetary from a financial aspect, but there need to be enough Royals doing appearances to keep up the glamour of it all, and when 3 of the 7 of them are approaching 80, having 2 beautiful young ladies on hand to help sprinkle the Royal Fairy Dust around would be prudent.
Does anyone have a theory as to why the Harkles would need to be in deep hiding?!
The Harkles first said no to titles, and then double backed playing the R card as the reason no title meant no protection in place. (insert eye roll here).
I applaud KCIII for holding firm on no comment on titles for the Harkle Two.
They continue to use the ducal titles as a part of their platform; I am wondering how long that will continue when they were told not to do so - it was not just the HRH involved.
I do wonder how much traction Prince / Princess Henry of Windsor will carry....
Both young women seem to have wholesome families.
OTH Twit and Twat have never been seen in public with their children. They do not have a wholesome family. They have actors when they can find.
But to strip them of it feels like removing them from family ties on some level . . and it's especially punitive if they aren't getting any public monies toward their support. They shouldn't be penalized for the sins of their parents. Allowing them to keep the titles to which they were born isn't going to change the bottom line. Taking away titles doesn't 'slim' something down that's already cut to the bone in terms of the available bodies to fill the slots of 'working royals'.
I fully agree. Taking away their Princess titles now wouldn't make any material changes and would just humiliate them.
It's also interesting to look at this in the light of just how slim the team of working royals is getting. Of the current group of ten working royals (not including the King), four are in their 70s, two are in 80s, two others are in their late 50s, and the youngest ones have recently entered their 40s. The future looked manageable, if tight, when the UK had the "fab four" (I know, I know . . .); but now that it looks as if the Waleses will have no one to depend on but the Wessexes, everything looks stretched out very thinly.
King Charles's "slimmed down" vision doesn't really affect him. He still has the support of his wife, siblings, cousins and one in-law. But it will affect -- and dare I say, handicap -- his successor. Of course it wasn't intentional: There's no way he could have foreseen his younger son going rogue like this. But now that it's increasingly clear that Prince William and Catherine will be the only working royals of their generation, I think he should also be thinking about how to help them.
On a personal level, I find a "stripped down" monarchy cold and antithetical to what we love about families. For families, by nature, tend to expand. And when the members get along, they support each other like no other "team" on earth ever could. Even political parties that trumpet the ideals of democracy and meritocracy are actually riding on the ideal of the large family: People who can build a shared future together because they know they belong together and will always have each other's backs. I think that half the joy of Trooping the Colour is seeing all the faces on the balcony and seeing such a tangible form of love and loyalty to the monarch -- not just in the form of the troops, but especially in the form of an extended family. In a human sense, it's also cheering to think that the monarch has a warm inner circle of people beyond those whose "job" it is to support him or her.
Anyway, I wonder if in the future Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Peter, Zara, and even Mike will be asked to represent the Crown at certain events, as "part-time royals" of a sort. And if so, how much passive-aggressive sniping we're going to get out of California when it happens.
You've read it here - the Jewish Chronicle is adamant that Catherine Wales is not Jewish. Some people just cannot accept that not all workers in gold were Jewish; the name is just a occupational one, like Turner, Taylor or Cook. It's like saying that all people called Cook are French (because the French have a reputation for preparing excellent food or that those called Bull are Spanish, because of bullfighting. (I've just made up those examples).
The critics are saying more about themselves than anyone else when they cling to `one-drop' theories.
Off the top of my head…hiding out from bill collectors? Perhaps Castle Montesh*tshow has been repossessed? In the circles the Harkless have been running in since they quit the royal family, various Russian oligarchs lending them properties, shady ties to Saudi royalty… Very possibly, A gigantic unpaid tab of designer drugs from various cartels? Representatives of their corporate partners legal teams demanding return of advances for unmaterialized work… Netflix, *’s much hyped but big nothingburger of a podcast…? Perhaps lawyers for King Charles are very keen to interview them about God only knows what.
The Twunt’s have gotten in over their heads with some very powerfully bad people who wouldn’t think twice about having them killed, British Prince or no. These type of individuals know how to carry out a hit That is fingerprint free. I think the jig is up on them playing house/faux Royal Court in their Earthquake Castle. For nearly 3 years now they’ve been cashing checks and haven’t ponied up with anything useable. After the Jubilee, followed swiftly by her Majesty’s demise, it’s all too obvious to everyone that their currency is nil. If they’re waiting around for a will reading and more free candy… First of all I doubt they’re getting anything at all and secondly such an event might not occur until after the New Year.
If they are in deep hiding abroad somewhere, what ever shall happened to the poor deserted invisible bairns back in California???! The children, Rach, the children!!
All their schemes are swirling down the commode. Can it be that the final act is commencing?
If we think about the worst possible outcome… I don’t know, I think H might be in grave danger. From himself, his wicked witch or parties unknown.
It would be interesting to know if Joachim and Harry had both behaved impeccably, worked hard to serve their sovereigns and married appropriate women who were also impeccable team players if these 'strippings' would be happening now. It's a dangerous precedent if a few bad personalities in one generation can set a policy that will remain in force for their children and their children's children.
That bears thinking about. Piggybacking on my earlier thoughts about a "slimmed down" monarchy, I think that a skeleton crew of working royals will turn out not to be the wave of the future, but a passing trend. For one thing, it's not how families organically work. For another, it can end up handicapping future monarchs by depriving them of an essential support system. I predict that after it is tried, it will be found wanting and quietly become a historical footnote.
In the BRF's case, I think Prince William would have rejoiced to have had a brother whom he could have truly leaned on. He has no other siblings, so this is an especially big loss to him. (Scorpiotwentythree says that Peter Philips is like a brother to him, so he is not without some form of fraternal support, but she is the only blogger/commentator I know who has ever said it. And Peter isn't a working royal, so there will be some burdens he just can't share.)
I also believe that Queen Margrethe would have loved to have the shoulders of two strong sons sharing the burden of the future. That she virtually had to exile Prince Joachim when he was in his fifties can't have sat well with her. (At least Harry being sent to Afghanistan was a good look for a young man.) I guess she looked at her older son's four children, realized that only they would truly be the future of the Danish court, and acted accordingly.
Then there's the curious case of the Swedes . . . The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it was actually Prince Carl-Philippe and Princess Madeleine's idea to remove their children's titles! Both of them have forged their own non-royal career paths, which would have given them a better perspective on similar futures for their children. It does not at all feel punitive . . . though it might be restrictive for the future Queen Victoria, who will have only her husband and two children to share royal duties with. (Given how amicable this change has been, however, I suspect that if any of Carl-Philippe's three sons, having comported himself well as a youth, wanted to be a working royal in the future, that door would be open to him.)
Joachim's children should not be penalized for their father's errors; let him lose the style but allow them to prove themselves deserving to keep it.
Now that I'm catching up on the Danish court, I am sad to report that at least one of Prince Joachim's children is making severe errors of his own. He used his title to shoulder his way into a modeling career (when he's not even, IMHO, that good looking) and cashed in on it further when he appeared in the Raffles promotional video "Hotel Royalty Since 1887". And now that his father and mother have led the way in complaining about the change, he, too, is moaning to the media about being "shocked and confused." So much for supporting his grandmother the Queen. (Oh, how familiar this feels . . .)
Edward's children were given the option at age 18 to use the titles if they wished - that is huge, given current circumstances.
I always wondered about this. I think it's a given that Lady Louise and Viscount Severn will never choose to be styled Princess and Prince when they come of age. Nomen est omen, as one interesting classical proverb goes: By picking lesser styles for their children, the Wessexes ensured that the latter would have non-royal destinies. Perhaps they did it because they knew it was inevitable (slimmed down monarchy, so on and so forth) and they didn't want the same identity shock for Louise and James that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie got.
Meghan Markle raged at Vanity Fair's cover featuring her when she began dating Harry - claiming it's RACIST to say she's 'wild' about him because Judy Garland song 'I'm Just Wild About Harry' used blackface dancers in 1939, new book claims
And she looked great, didn’t she? But Meghan hated it. And she was furious with Keleigh Thomas Morgan. ‘She was very unhappy with how that had been handled,’ said a source. ‘And she was looking to throw blame in every possible direction, despite it having been a positive piece.
‘She did not like the photographs. She thought the story was negative. She was upset that it was about Harry, not about her.’
And the clincher? It was racist. What upset her was the headline. She and Harry pointed out that the song, ‘I’m Just Wild About Harry’, had been performed by Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney as a blackface number in the 1939 film Babes In Arms.
‘They [Harry and Meghan] tried to get it changed online, because [they thought] it had been racially motivated,’ said the source. ‘[Meghan] was so angry with Keleigh, she wanted to fire her.’
Things eventually settled down. But for a while Keleigh was out in the cold with Meghan.
Taken from V Low's book.
I skimmed the article (DM), it's just a rehash of what's been written recently. Those two are just spoiled brats and is there anyone * can work with? It seems not. And who knew that song and that 1939 film anyway? She is a psychiatric case.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And she's been trying to make everything about her ever since.
Thanks for posting that, @Maneki!
Apparently, the face develops `like walking', one side develops at a tme,then the other. Childhood trauma exaggerates this - this can lead to asymmetry.
I found a remarkable lack of symmetry in *'s face, almost as if the two halves were from different people. What was her early life really like?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/beautiful-face-mysterious-medieval-woman-172433240.html
'Beautiful' face of medieval woman brought back to life after 700 years
Sarah Knapton
Fri, 30 September 2022 at 6:24 pm·3-min read
The beautiful face of a mysterious medieval woman has been revealed for the first time in 700 years, after scientists used 3D digital reconstruction techniques to bring her back from the dead.
The unknown woman, who died in her 20s and was placed on a bed of seashells, was found during vault renovations at the ruined Whithorn Priory site in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, in the 1950s.
Experts from the University of Bradford used facial reconstruction and computer technology to create a lifelike animation of the woman, who may have visited the priory on a pilgrimage.
Dr Christopher Rynn, a craniofacial anthropologist and forensic artist, said her skull was the most symmetrical he had ever seen, suggesting she was extremely beautiful, and probably enjoyed a healthy and trauma-free upbringing.
“When the face is growing throughout childhood, throughout teenage years, it doesn’t grow symmetrically simultaneously. It grows left and right, kind of like walking," he said.
“So if there’s any kind of illness, or even just the kind of emotional trauma that could stop you from sleeping and eating for any length of time, then it’s going to throw the symmetry of the face off.
“The more illness and trauma in childhood, the less symmetrical the adult face will end up.”
The woman was buried in a stone coffin set in front of the high altar, suggesting she was of high status, despite dying so young.
*
Experts are planning to carry out isotope analysis on the women's skeleton in the near future to confirm the food that she ate. If it turns out she had a diet high in fish ... it will confirm that she was from a high-status family.
Dr Curtis-Summers added: “This project is of huge significance, because while we can never tell the full story of the lives of these medieval people, being able to reconstruct their diet, mobility, and now their faces, allows us to delve into their past and come face to face with them.”
https://twitter.com/OhTheLies2/status/1575820469860589568?t=9AKx4CJurQ6n8hmsMEuWxw&s=19
Regrettably, I couldn't find anything on Twitter or Marklenews1 to support the tweet.
Re. The Wild About Harry piece
If memory serves, after that issue appeared, the editor Graydon Carter was forced out at Vanity Fair. He had authorized a piece and run with it despite knowing that it was a huge no-no, as the relationship so called had not been vetted by the Palace. I think we all know that this “relationship“ began as a pay for play deal, and Harry’s prostitute refused to go away quietly but extorted him into marriage. It was news to everyone in the world that Harry of England was dating this unknown American cable TV actress. It’s a testament to her PR firm I guess…Gina Kuger-Cowne… Later egregiously ghosted, that Markle was able to shove this piece through.
Just like the open letter to the press which she forced Harry to issue, about stopping the racist attacks and his girlfriend … The world collectively went, “Huh? Who?” It might’ve even been news to Harry at the time that she was anything so official as ‘his girlfriend”. Not what he hired her by the hour when he happened to be in Toronto… But her schemes worked because now we are here.
Although it burns to say it, I will admit that in the early days, when she was much younger and styled by competent professionals, * took some attractive photos. But neither the cover nor the inner spread for the VF piece qualified as attractive to my eye. That was the first pictures I ever saw of her, and my initial thought was …Woof! Only powerful beer goggles would’ve explained Harry’s attraction to the wild haired, wild eyed hot mess in that magazine.
Even as the Duchess She’s had better looking days than that, so all I can think is she turned up to the photo shoot high out of her mind, and Even with a team of top industry make up artists, stylists and photographers that was the best that they could do with her. As her official unveiling to the world as “Harry’s girlfriend” this is how she turns up? Then at the Invictus games, she turns up once again looking high, unwashed and Wearing scuffed shoes and jeans that look like a wolverine had chewed through them. I have earnestly endeavored to understand the narcissistic mind and her endgame, and why looking like she slept in her camper van would advance her agenda of becoming a Royal bride. The fact that she got everything she was angling for still boggles my mind.
This is the first that I’m hearing that Rachel was unhappy with the high fashion magazine shoot that brought her her to the world attention. I thought she was a dog then, now I think she is an evil bitch that can’t hide the decay on her insides anymore… But that supremely Unflattering series of pictures revealed her true character right out of the gate, and it’s book ended By the chillingly sociopathic glare that radiates from her Cut cover.
* has been outed as pure evil, a delusional scheming sociopath.. But the photographic evidence was there in front of our eyes from day one.
For years, the pianist and composer Eubie Blake would appear on the Tonight Show (U.S.), and was very warmly received. I was going to say he was 100 but just checked and he died at 96 in 1983.
I doubt anyone else here is interested in ragtime, so I'll stop now. However, one might have thought that Miss Hollywood might have done a bit of research before calling that a "Judy Garland song." And she really really knows how to stretch a point to find offense!
If I were a guessing person, I would also guess that, if the H&M Carnival and Sideshow is now parked anonymously somewhere unknown, they're trying to hide from creditors who may not be happy about being stiffed.
I do not remember if the R card was played in his book (too much has happened since I read it) but I do remember * was angry that the article was not about her. She threatened her publicists that the royal family would be angry and the poor person was calling VF telling them they would have to answer to The Queen! LOL.....
I do not understand why this is coming up again now. What does someone know? It is almost to th epoint of piling on.
Wearing extensions, a weave, or a wig does not make one "fake" as someone recently commented. I am not fake. I wear a wig because, like thousands of women, I have alopecia totalis. As a medical writer, I have spent many years educating women, and sometimes men, about wig wearing and how to deal with the hurt and embarrassment caused by those who choose to joke about, belittle, or otherwise disparage people who wear wigs. Most wig-wearers are unfortunate enough to not grow hair, or to have lost theirs due to pregnancy (often resulting in permanent loss), medications or chemotherapy. Even if someone has thin hair, or hair that is not pleasing to them in some way, such as *, it is their right to choose to wear faux hair without being scorned for doing so.
Wearing a wig is a very personal matter, often fraught with fears of others knowing, or "finding out." It is hellish having to tell someone you wish to have a romantic connection with. After 60 years of wearing a wig myself, it still hurts to read comments using wig-wearing to put someone down. For many women, a wig is a prothetic device, and as such, covered by their medical insurer.
@WBBM, one thread back, you asked if a wig "base" could be darker for women of color. The answer is yes. Meghan wears a wig most of the time. This was particularly obvious when she showed up at the meeting where her hair was swept up and back, and she was wearing the pencil maroon leather skirt. The women were sitting in a square a I recall, and H was sitting next to her. You can see the wig has slipped backwards. The reason her hair often looks ratty and unkempt is because wigs do not have follicles like natural hair and the wefts are sewn or machine stitched into a base. This causes the hair to fall forward and looks frightful when the wind blows. Catherine's lovely natural hair has its own follicles so doesn't flop when the wind blows.
The wig most often seen on * is a silk-top. The silk is very pale, almost white. It gives a more natural look to the part. Wig sites for African American women sometimes give the option of darker silk, but most AA ladies still buy the more common pale silk. Michelle O and Oprah wear wigs most of the time and likely have whole suites of them. Wigs from sites catering to AA women are much less expensive than those for whities.
If you watch Fox News, you will observe a lot of woman with wonderful, long, thick hair. To my eye it is obvious that they are wearing wigs. Nowadays, wigs have darker roots and lace fronts, making them practically undetectable.
A question on another matter... Is anyone aware that, when asked prior to meeting/dating * H was asked by someone in the public eye which celebrity he would want to date if he had the choice? His public response was to name *. I ask because it is driving me batty. Maybe someone has mentioned this on the blog but I haven't seen it, nor can I find any reference. I can expand on this tomorrow as I have to go to bed.
A. xo
From the Times:
Sussexes ‘want Netflix show to go softer on royals’
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are attempting to edit their Netflix documentary series to make it kinder to the royal family, it has been claimed.
Prince Harry and Meghan allegedly made the intervention after spending time with The Firm after the death of the Queen.
Last night it also emerged the couple have ditched the New York-based public relations outfit that had been advising Meghan since her days as an actress on the legal drama Suits.
The Netflix series, which had been expected to be released later this year, will now not appear until early 2023, according to reports. Sources told the US news website Page Six the couple were keen to remove or soften much of what they have said about the King and Queen Consort and the Prince and Princess of Wales.
An insider said: “A lot of conversations are happening. I hear that Harry and Meghan want the series to be held until next year, they want to stall. I wonder if the show could even be dead in the water at this point, do Harry and Meghan just want to shelve this thing?”
A Netflix source added: “Netflix has been keen to have the show ready to stream for December. There’s a lot of pressure on [Netflix CEO] Ted Sarandos, who has the relationship with Harry and Meghan, to get this show finished.”
This week it was reported that Harry was trying to change his forthcoming autobiography because of fears it would appear insensitive after the Queen’s death. Although the memoirs have been signed off for an autumn release, it has been claimed that Harry wants significant alterations.
The Daily Mail reported that Sunshine Sachs, the PR company that has advised the couple, has been dropped.
A source told the newspaper: “This is a really big deal for Meghan. She takes the view that she doesn’t need to pay an outside firm a lot of money to do PR for her and Harry anymore.”
Keleigh Thomas Morgan, a partner at the company, helped establish the couple in California, sharing her contacts, network of advisers and famous friends. A long-term friend of Meghan, she also helped produce the strategy for the couple’s tour of southern Africa in 2019 when they were still working members of the royal family.
The 45-year-old was a guest at the royal wedding and has represented the American actor Tyler Perry, whose Los Angeles mansion Prince Harry and Meghan lived in while house-hunting.
The publicity for the couple’s projects is now being handled in-house at their charitable foundation Archewell by former Silicon Valley communications expert Christine Schirmer. Toya Holness, who was made “global press secretary” last year, was said to have parted company with the Sussexes this year.
Camilla, 75, thinks having a smaller number of staff is ‘more with the times’ – and her approach fits in better with the King’s vision for a leaner monarchy.
Instead, her existing staff will take on the traditional duties of the monarch’s official companions in what has been lightheartedly described as a ‘two for the price of one’ deal.
Now I think this is the way towards a 'leaner monarchy'. I think she and Charles seem to have the right idea - so far - about the monarchy. This is one way to modernise the monarchy (*, take note).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11268721/Queen-Consort-Camilla-axes-centuries-old-ladies-waiting-times.html
Anyway, it's no sin! The problem with * as I see it is that it's one more instance of her denying her heritage while continuing to play the race card. Hypocrisy. Oh yes, and also that it's so often ratty and unkempt, okay for an ordinary person caught off guard but for someone in the public eye with unlimited funds, no.
No, the hapless prince had never heard of the actress or the series Suits before he met her. She engineered that blind date, i.e. asked for it to be set up. There is a compelling case to be made that they actually first met in Canada and she then followed him to London and set up the blind date (he did not remember her from that first 'accidental' encounter). The most compelling piece of evidence is that she actually told Vanity Fair that they met in Canada in May when he was there for the Invictus Games, but then got them to change the online article after the print edition was published to the story about the blind date set up by a friend who thought they would be a perfect match.
To say that she was his ideal woman does not make sense when you consider the two long-term relationships he had before he met her. She is the antithesis of those women in every way.
In my country, wig wearing is common. Women change their hairstyle by using different wigs and thus getting different looks. I have disparaged TBW for wearing hair extensions and perhaps that is unkind, but I wonder if she does it because she wants to achieve a certain look or because her natural hair has been ruined by years of cheap hair straightening. The hair straightening options available today are so good that the latter seems to be more likely. However, unlike the women in my country, she bleats on about being authentic when she is phony in every way. She could have been such a great role model for black girls, and others, in the West if she had been honest about hair extensions and wigs and had fun trying different looks, which is what women in my country do.
Many thanks for your informative post. I always thought she wore hair extensions, but never thought she wears wigs. Your expertise is most welcome.
Thank you for your observations on wigs and such like, I feel for you - and what you have written has helped me. Thanks too for answering my query about the colour of the base.
What hair I've got is beautiful - there just isn't much of it. It's gone very fine and I can see it's growing only very weakly and in the same pattern as my father's hair. He ended up with a `tonsure' - I'm already conscious of of an almost-bald spot at the crown and have toyed with the idea of using `augmentation' but the only possible help I've been able to find is miles away. i almost envy the ladies of the past who wore little lace caps indoors (my gt-granny dressed like a Victorian until her death in the 1930s and was still washing and ironing her confections up to her death.
I usually wear a hat when I'm out - I find people who `can't stand hats' always make a point of saying so - like vegans - but why do they do it? Is it to goad me into justifying myself? I just think of all the things I've done and places I've been where not wearing headgear would have prevented me doing so.
Is it another expression of attempted narcissistic control?
Note the clever manipulative game she plays of distraction. Her appalling behaviour is revealed and she turns the focus onto the definition of bullying. Her wild spending is revealed and she turns the focus onto mental health. Her bizarre pregnant and birth behaviour is revealed and she turns the focus onto titles. Rinse and repeat...
September was planned to be her major PR month, but the Queen died, and then she got ditched by SS, so expect October to be dominated by her attempts at PR. Hello magazine has already published a few 'nothing' pieces, simply to get her into the tabloid. She got 4 or 5 American magazines to post the exact same blurb on social media. Expect talk show appearances, magazine interviews, and plenty more placements on social media.
Thank you for your perspective on wig wearing. I have loved ones with alopecia and I appreciate all that you have said.
As for your question about Harry naming * as his dream date … I remember! I am sure others do too. Was it perhaps in that Vanity Fair article? I think it might have been around that time, at any rate. Because when they got engaged, Harry told a different story (“I’d never even heard about her until this friend said, ‘Meghan Markle,’ and I was like, ‘Okay, give me a bit of background”), and it caught my eye because I’d already read that about the dream date.
I didn’t read it originally in The Sun, but I just found it there, reported in 2017 by none other than Katie Nicholl:
[[She also tells how Harry, who has been dating Meghan for 18 months, named the star as his “ideal girl” when asked by a pal.
Katie said: “He had a crush on Rachel Zane two years before he met Meghan and the reason I know is because I was having drinks with one of his friends.
“She told me she’d been on a night out with Prince Harry. He was single at the time, so she said, ‘Harry, who’s your ideal girl?’ And he said ‘Meghan Markle from Suits.’”]]
Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4776680/prince-harry-meghan-markle-relationship-secrets/
I tend to think Will did depend on Harry for some things. I know some view Will as always having to babysit Harry and getting no benefit. But I'm not sure that's true. I do think he likely misses Harry.
Re: Peter being like a brother to William...you are right we can't know. But rarely do we see them even speak much less interact. And too, it was at Peter's wedding to Autumn that Kate apparently met TQ for the first time. BUT despite what he claimed during the engagement interview, Will wasn't there.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018081861360/prince-william-confuses-with-kate-middleton-queen-comment/
He was in Kenya because Jecca Craig's brother was getting married.
So Peter is "like a brother" but Will goes to an old girlfriend's brother's wedding instead of Peter's? Hmmm. Maybe it's Jecca's brother, Batian, who is like a brother.
Re: Louise and James W not being styled as HRHs.
One possibility, I think (besides those mentioned):
When Edward and Sophie married they weren't going to be working royals. Both got into trouble though trying to earn a living while "royal adjacent." They did become working royals before having children but the initial difficulties may have led them to see titles as a possible burden. Also though it's possible they weren't intending to be full-time working royals forever. So why title their kids?
Really interesting video - the princes talking about their father. It is actually very sad that this lovely bond they had with their father and with each other has been shattered for him.
They were unofficially engaged within a year of meeting, officially engaged within 18 months of meeting, and married within 2 years. (She outed the news they were dating within 4 or 5 months of meeting him. They seemed to be unsure during the engagement interview, but she insisted on 6 months, which would mean they met earlier than the June date they concocted.)
The story told by Katie Nichol just does not add up.
My hairdresser told me that anyone over 30 (or was it 40?) with flowing, below-shoulder locks = all fake.
I assume we're only referring to famous women here, because my hair is way below my shoulders, I am way over 40 and every strand is all mine. :)
At 18, George will no longer be a minor/child but legally adult; until then, were anything to happen to CIII and Wm (Heaven forfend!) Harry would expect to reign as Regent and hope in that time to mould G to his (ie Meghan's) will.
Goodness knows what else might happen.
At 18, George will no longer be a minor/child but legally adult; until then, were anything to happen to CIII and Wm (Heaven forfend!) Harry would expect to reign as Regent and hope in that time to mould G to his (ie Meghan's) will.
Goodness knows what else might happen.
I used to lose a lot of hair everyday all of my life, but had plenty!! to replace it, until I started being more careful of eating high histamine foods, or high salicylate foods, and taking a vitamin B complex every day. Now I lose a few hairs everyday, and the amount of hair I have is visibly increasing, since the loss has decreased.
I also recommend using red LED lights (cold laser, some call it) or even infra red lamps (like some people use for keeping their pet reptiles warm) near the scalp (not too close for the IR lamp as it heats up) as they both decreased inflammation and keep cells vigorous. They are very good for general health as well.
I know some view Will as always having to babysit Harry and getting no benefit. But I'm not sure that's true. I do think he likely misses Harry.
I feel the same way. Despite any private feelings either of them might have had, they were clearly a functional team in several engagements that I can remember.
For those who care about astrology: Some time ago, there was an astrologer who said that Prince William and Harry's synastry means that Harry genuinely shines when he lets his older brother take the lead. If he hadn't broken away from the family, not only would we still think highly of him, but he would also deserve it. Everything comes down to the individual's choice, of course, but some people can bring out the best in us (as William to Harry), while others bring out the worst (as * to Harry).
Re: Peter being like a brother to William
Again, we can never know . . . Scorpiotwentythree first made that observation at Prince Philip's funeral. Maybe it's a recent closeness? But you're right that we don't see evidence of it at all. Zara and William look a lot closer.
Titles have never been about being a working royal or not. They are not job titles but reflect your historic family connection. They also are not an indication of if a person has wealth or talent or character. In the old days, a prince in disgrace would simply be shunned by society and sent off to live on a remote family estate and stay out of sight, but would never be stripped of a title.
Thank you for helping me articulate it! Yes, indeed, it is about family -- and insofar as it is about family, it is about identity. That some royals or aristos cash in on their titles is unfortunate, but that doesn't take away from what titles actually are.
We all seem to agree that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie should get to keep their titles, and that taking these now would be pointless, petty and humiliating. But we're also weighing this impression against many years of good behavior from the two. (Were their pap walks truly so scandalous back then? I can barely remember!) So I have to wonder if the Danish people and other Danish royal watchers feel the same way about the children of Prince Joachim. Is there some sympathy for the "pain" of Prince Nikolai? Or has the 23 year old already used up too much of the public's goodwill through his own antics?
There are conflicting accounts.
Katie Nicholl does seem to be the source of the rumor that Harry had a crush on * before they met:
"He had a crush on Rachel Zane two years before he met Meghan and the reason I know is because I was having drinks with one of his friends," Nicolls, who tweeted a link to The Sun's story, reportedly says in the documentary. "She told me she'd been on a night out with Prince Harry. He was single at the time, so she said, 'Harry, who's your ideal girl?' And he said 'Meghan Markle from Suits.'"
Source: https://www.eonline.com/news/889940/prince-harry-had-a-crush-on-meghan-markle-2-years-before-they-met-royal-expert-says-in-documentary
But in Harry's own words at their first-ever joint interview with the BBC, he had never heard of her or of the show until their first date:
“No, I had never even heard about her until this friend said ‘Meghan Markle.’ I was like ‘right, okay, give me a bit of background!'” Harry joked during the on-camera interview. “So no, I’d never watched Suits, I’d never heard of Meghan before, and I was beautifully surprised when I walked into that room and saw her.”
Source: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prince-harry-had-never-seen-174209779.html
I vaguely remember a body language analysis video saying to observe *'s body language when he says that. He meant it as a compliment to her beauty, but she took it as an insult to her career.
Has anyone ever asked Nicholl why she thinks Harry said one thing to her over drinks and another thing to the BBC much later?
`Like Mother Like Daughter! Doria's Dirty Secret Shows Just How Evil Meghan Markle Really Is'
Is this the real analysis of what Doria was up to? What do you think?
Well I will apologise if my description of * having a "yak-haired wig" (which I believe I created the phrase) had an untoward effect on you and others who wear wigs. I have bought a wig but it was relatively too hot to wear and thus have never worn it but once. Finally my hair grew more and better (surprisingly at 70) so I don't need to wear it but occasionaly I wistfully look at wig catalogs to see the tremendous varity.
I poked fun at * for the fact she completely refuses to show her Arican American heritage by her hair but then tries to create an AA image through heavy use of bronzer and darkened skin color. In addition she has been so unkempt in her appearance that many express their surpise and disdain for her messey hair and easily called it ratty looking . Having owned a number of different types of domesticated animals and barnyard critters, I know how tangled and unkempt their hair can get if not brushed often enough.
I have frequently complimented AA on their hair (unique styles & colors)) especially at the big box stores I shop at or in public. Yet * has now branded her look over the years of having this exceptionally long full straight hair that unfortunatelly she may have eliminated the possibility of ever having another style because people may dislike it and she definitely wouldn't be recognizable (and maybe she would be afraid to). I suspect she does what she thinks works but then again her fashion taste never hardly seems to work.
And being a biologist and the daughtwer of a physician I learned aboubt Alopecia and other issues of hair loss when I was a young (in high school) while looking frequently at my Dad's medical books; indeed it was a pastime and encouraged me to learn more and be sympathetic to human suffereing with both physical and mental disorders. So again, I'm sorry I did not mean to offend and will try to do better.
PS. My original post got deleted and I had to recereate this, so I hope it's ok.
thought it was curious to name names
so is the PR her or terming to pressure netflix to let them re-edit?
or is he the mystery rumored new man from about a year ago?
is it both. i will out you to your wife if you don’t do what we want
curious his name keeps popping up and no one else at netflix. and is he about to be markled?
LATE 2023 - QEII would never have been so uncouth as to take back a gift but KC3 won't hesitate.
Remember this tweet.
We are privy to interesting Palace data which enabled me to narrow down a definitive plan of action culminating on or around November 2023
It's a long time away, but you'll likely be delighted with the long game.
guess we are waiting but there appears to be something in motion. i would guess it could be Cof state which would have to be legally changed. movement on titles? movement on lease? video of the witch screaming at people?
Thank you for posting the link to the YT about Doria.interesting.The content seems to match what snippets I have read in other places over the years. And due to that seems like a plausible narrative to me. She also appears devious and a schemer. The Apple does not fall far from the tree.
Katie’s story sounds like a plant. Maybe Harry’s friends have always been looser lipped then Williams friend circle, but how likely is it that a friend of the royal family member is also so chummy With a journalist who happens to cover the Royals that they have drinks with both sides only to spill gossip? This has * fingerprints all over it.
I’m all for diversity in dating, but it’s strange that until he saw * he Really hadn’t practiced it. His preference is always been for blue eyed blondes like his Mum. I guess he was briefly tied to Sarah Macklin, a brunette beauty linked to *’s yachting cohort. Aha. Hazza never dated anyone older than him either by 3 (or 6-7) years. * is in every way conceivable an aberration from H’s type.
I think she picked him up in the bar at Soho House for the night and that was their ‘date’.
Does anyone really think that the hapless one watched Suits? It was not a well-known show at all and there is nothing to indicate that he would want to watch a legal drama series.
If anything God forbid anything happened to William, and we needed a regent till George was old enough. I’m certain a Regent doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the next in line, eg Mole. They’ll pick someone who’s popular wanted and most importantly, able. The powers that be wouldn’t jeopardise the monarchy by bringing in someone like Mole who would instantly undermine it. 🥴
Hair is genuinely the last thing I would ever hold against * -- and I'd like to think it's true even for those who have made disparaging comments about it. (I recall that her ungroomed extensions during certain royal engagements were particularly triggering for some.)
Another Nutty once pointed out that Queen Camilla has very likely been wearing wigs for some time now. If it were true, no one would consider it a point of mockery. Based on Camilla's pattern of behavior, her grooming is less about personal vanity and more about respecting the people who have taken the time to welcome her and representing the Crown with dignity.
But even if a woman didn't meet Camilla's standard, her use of a wig is her own business.
'She has previously been described as one of the 'best and smartest there is'.' She may well be but I'm not sure even someone of her calibre can succeed in achieving such a herculean task. Good luck with that.
Ted Sarandos’ wife is Nicole Avant, her father is Clarence Avant, and mother was Jackie Avant.
Meghan could never compete on any level with Ted Sarandos’ accomplished wife, accomplished father-in-law, and accomplished (unfortunately now deceased, senselessly murdered last year in their chic Trousdale Estates home) mother-in-law. The Avant family is of well-deserved towering status in accomplishments, good will of various communities such entertainment industry and philanthropy, and apparently in genuine generosity and niceness.
Tiny bio cut and pasted about the Avants:
“ Nicole Avant is an activist and the former U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas. Her mother, Jacqueline, is remembered for her work as a philanthropist and for her impact as a matriarch in the Black community. Wife to music mogul Clarence Avant, Jacqueline was killed in December. She was 81.”
None of this would stop Meghan. She might be making a play for Ted, but I hope he realizes already that any more time spent with Meghan and Handbag on this losing Netflix project makes his own status and situation more precarious in Hollywood.
Yes, by very dint of having his name linked with hers via Netflix, I think he is being Markled. Watch out, Ted!
The Vanity Fair cover and Maggot.
Two different books by different authors tis why there’s more stories about the VF article.
In Tom’s book, he quoted a named source who said Maggot said she didn’t like the cover because it mentioned Mole and the story was about him and her, where she thought it was just about her. So yes, whet you quoted is what I read in the book too.
The racist claim (re the title ‘Wild about Harry’) and the blackface thing is in Valentine Low’s new book. For all we know both could be true. The book isn’t released till 6th October so we can’t give full context to the piece yet. 🥴
About three months before he passed away, he came home from somewhere and said "You're going to love this..." he had heard on the car radio that H had been asked which celebrity he would most love to date and he had come back immediately with *. Instead of making tea, I promptly knocked back a stiff gin. The next time Suits was on, he would rag me with comments like, "Oh look, here's Prince Harry's wife." I remember these days very clearly as I knew I was losing him and everything was important to remember. In the intervening years, I have wondered if I dreamt it so thank you again.
@WBBM. Wig advice available any time, lol. Every time I see her, I want to trim those ends off and darken the scalp. Re hair growth, mine suddenly started growing when I was 65! It isn't thick enough to make a public appearance, but somehow those follicles stayed alive. I have been using a spray I make up myself from apocynin - a vanillin-like powder that was shown in a study to cause old mice to dewrinkle and grow hair. The hair is more vellus-like than thick, but it is still hair. You could make up a bathful of this stuff with the teeniest amount of powder. I love hats but on Vancouver Island, they would be regarded as out-of-place. Boring toques are the thing here.
And to answer OKay about what my hairdresser said about extensions - - yes, I do think she meant famous women when she said anyone over 40 with hair past their shoulders., etc.
I don't think anyone cares if anyone wears extensions or wigs. Certainly, for women in the public eye, it's necessary. In a way, I wish I'd seen the original post that started this. But to me it's her sloppiness and hypocrisy that's the issue. Hairpocrisy, that's it.
This story could simply be a distraction ploy, created by the whip-smart Northwestern grads. I don’t think it’s even been confirmed that they returned from the UK, has it? I wouldn’t think they’ve had time to make such a big decision, but considering their pathological impulsiveness, anything is possible.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/king-charles-hired-former-top-161724182.html
This is a surprise hire, but I think there is methodology here. My friends, I think King Charles is 'going to the mattresses'--which is a reference from 'The Godfather': digging in for a protracted fight which he intends to win. Maybe? This is my take on it. The Yahoo commentators, overwhelmingly pro-Sussex but anti-everyone else have another take on it, which I suppose you can imagine.
Charles has just hired Tobyn Andrae, a former Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday editor with 25 years of experience in tabloid journalism as his new communications secretary. This is a controversial choice because Mr Andrae presided over the whole 'Waity Katie' era at the DM, when Catherine was relentlessly mocked for being an on-call Royal girlfriend for a decade with no notable career or opinions or personality of her own except as an appendage to a cagey William. 'Katieclings' was another sobriquet.
Tides turn and now the DM could hardly be more gushing. Mr Andrae moved on as well and as most recently affiliated with Tatler, the tabloid mag most favored by the aristo set.
Incidentally it was the DM that broke the story about Thomas Markle and the staged paparazzi photos. I think we all know that Mr. Markle was set up for those and by whom, to ensure that he would stay away from the wedding.
To quote another line from The Godfather: "It's not personal--it's business." It remains to be seen how this move will work out for Charles--his new comms director has no direct experience with being a communications secretary. But I view this as . . Fighting fire with fire. Charles seems more than ready to ditch the generations-old motto "Never complain; never explain." I foresee the new regime is more than prepared to start explaining. Perhaps "We will bury you" is going to be the new Carolean motto. Since the Harkles are determined to wage war against the Crown in the media, who better to anticipate the best offensive moves than someone from a quarter always considered 'enemy' territory--the tabloid press? It's like when the FBI turns a top hacker into a government operative working FOR them instead of against.
All the former Palace communications secretaries have come from tony backgrounds, Old Etonians with pedigrees from the BBC. Charles is trying something new hopefully to be more effective against the threats posed by his own son and floozy-in-law. No more gentlemen's rules of engagement; this is guerrilla warfare now.
What does everyone think about this development?
"Hairpocrisy!!!" I love it, that's perfect.
@Hikari,
It's beyond time to play dirty, and I love all the Godfather references.
(Adding this aside, since those movies are referenced often here, everyone MUST SEE the new updated version of Godfather III. The original was a cinematic travesty. Coppola has taken a lot of the old footage plus new footage and created an entirely new story arc. It is a masterpiece and a fitting final to the other two. The full title is "Godfather Coda -- the Death of Michael Corleone.")
Charles has just hired Tobyn Andrae, a former Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday editor with 25 years of experience in tabloid journalism...What does everyone think about this development?
I think it's wonderful. And I'd still like to see the point-by-point rebuttal to the Oprah interview.
"If anything God forbid anything happened to William, and we needed a regent till George was old enough. I’m certain a Regent doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the next in line, eg Mole. They’ll pick someone who’s popular wanted and most importantly, able...."
You'd know better than I do how likely the rule of law is to be followed in the UK. But by law, if a regent was needed for George, it would be the next person in the LoS who is at least 21. That's Harry. The domicile thing MIGHT be a stumbling block and that would make it Andrew.
New laws can be passed (although how "popular" will be codified is unclear to me) but right now existing law does say it will be the next in line...Harry.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!"
Although popularized in the film The Godfather, the authorship of this phrase, repeated in several other films and television series, is attributed to Lao-Tse, philosopher and founder of Taoism, who would have lived in China in the 13th century BC.
...
Don't fight with the media, bring it to your side. KCIII👍
A Regent
Ironically I wrote my comment before I listened to Lady C’s latest video. She said Catherine the Princess of Wales could be George’s Regent. Going by that remark, neither the law nor the line of succession comes into it, but who’s most fit and worthy of leading. 🥴
Making Mole a Regent would signal the end of the British monarchy; monarchies want to survive not become obsolete.
Lady C discusses the above at 29.11 minutes into the video.
https://youtu.be/DfFnvsdFuTg
'Counsellors of State
In the event that The Queen cannot undertake her official duties as Sovereign on a "temporary" basis due to illness or absence abroad, two or more.
If something were to happen to Prince William and Prince George were minor and were declared King (on this assumption, the law ( my opinion) to be researched would be the regency law: REGENCY ACT 1953
REGENCY ACT 1953
(2 & 3 Eliz 2 c 1)
An Act to provide that, in the event of a Regency becoming necessary tinder the Regency Act 1937, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, would the Regent.
...
Note: I don't know if the regency law was changed, but according to this one, (I'll research further) the queen (in Catherine's case) would still have the preference before reaching the next in the line of succession.
Speaking of new PR, as Maneki mentioned in her last comment:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/king-charles-hired-former-top-161724182.html
----------
No, it wasn't me! Maybe Wild Boar? She often mentions Yahoo news.
I just mentioned the 5s' new PR, Christine Weil Schirmer. Andrae was recruited as communications secretary as early as 2 or 3 July, although Buzzfeednews only reported it yesterday. Not sure what to make of this appointment. Hopefully the Palace won't put up with any more cr@p from the 5s.
Thank you for Regency Act comment.
I knew Lady C would have to base her comment on something solid, I don’t think I’ve seen the act interpreted like that. So both your comment and Lady C’s comment came to the same conclusion. 🤗
I’m not sure whether to howl in derision or to throw up:
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/prince-harry-meghan-markles-daughter-082021364.html
Hello!
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's daughter Lilibet had the cutest reaction to her dad's dancing
Hannah Hargrave
Sat, 1 October 2022 at 11:20 am
When Prince Harry and Meghan Markle opened the doors to their Montecito mansion for a revealing interview, they gave fans more than a glimpse into their lives with their children, Archie and Lilibet.
The Duchess opened up to journalist Allison P. Davis for The Cut for The New York Times and shared an adorable insight into their parenting.
Meghan took Allison with her on the school run to collect Archie from his preschool and when they returned home, all eyes were on Lilibet.
In a bid to make their sweet little girl laugh, Harry took the lead as the article revealed. "We pull up to the house, and Archie leaps out. Harry is ending a phone call as Archie throws himself around his legs.
"Lilibet, unsmiling with watchful bright-blue eyes, is brought out by her nanny. She is small and also ginger, and when there is a small person in the room not smiling, it is a reflex to do anything to entertain them.
"Harry starts dancing to his own beatboxing, and Meghan bends down and joins in and then I find myself doing it too, until she gives a lopsided smile and we all realize it’s a bit strange to be bonding in this way."
The moment described wasn't the only adorable sneak peek at their bond with their children.
Allison also wrote about the pure joy in Archie's eyes when he was greeted by his mom at the school gates.
"He’s so excited to see her," she wrote. "Repeating 'Momma, Momma, Momma' in his little voice, as he runs toward her that he leaves his lunchbox behind on the ground. She scoops him up in a big hug so full of genuine emotion that both close their eyes."
Their interaction was documented further as it was revealed that Archie and Meghan have a heartwarming ritual on their way back home.
During the car ride, Allison wrote: "If he [Archie] forgets to say please or thank you, Meghan reminds him of the manners that make the man."
She then added: "At a stoplight, she [Meghan] reaches into the trunk and produces a brand-new black backpack and hands it to her security detail to give to an unhoused man on the corner.
"They are teaching Archie that some people live in big houses, some in small, and that some are in between homes. They made kits to pass out with water and peanut-butter crackers and granola bars. 'I ate one!' Archie contributes."
Sorry for the confusion—I was referencing your post about the 5s new PR person as a lead-in to Charles’s appointment of his. I posted the link to the Yahoo story. Presumably if Andre was recruited three months ago that he was always going to be part of Charles’s team but the announcement was withheld in order to not seem to be Preempting the Queen. After the busy Jubilee when , If not before, her family had to be aware of her fragile condition, announcing new staff would have been tacky. Andre has jumped
far sooner into BP than could have been anticipated. Presumably he has been advising Charles as POW since July. He may have had a hand in Charles’s first regal address, with its ‘no reconciliation/no appeasement…but we love you” tone.
Interesting days ahead to be sure. Prayers for the new King and the whole family. I hope chickenshit Alfredos memoir is as crazy as he is. The Two assholes have cooked their own goose… Apparently they thought that TQ would live on indefinitely while they lobbed bombs at Charles and William and Camilla with impunity.
Hoist by their own petard, And it’s delicious. Shakespeare’s scholar KCIII is familiar with that one.
Regarding the history behind *not so favorite song, and how it could bite her.i learned something!!
Pluto (free streaming TV) is now showing Godfather II and then Godfather:Coda ;)
I am glad Godfather III (original version) has been dumped into the bin of cinematic history.
Ok -- now back to your regularly scheduled Harkle programming!
Someone has been plagiarizing again…This time from “Kingsman: The Secret Service” from the sounds of it.
We know how very important impeccable manners are to Rachel. And nothing imparts the awareness of economic disparity to a young man like watching his couture clad “Mum" direct her staff to exit the Cadillac Escalade to hand a bag of snacks from Sam’s Club to an unhoused unfortunate on the street corner.
The homeless man was no doubt a hired actor because otherwise * couldn’t have been certain an undomiciled Unfortunate would be in prime position for her act of charity to be witnessed by the magazine reporter riding in the vehicle. Where is the homeless man suitably grateful and mannerly? Young Archie did not say.
Let’s be real—none of this sh*t happened. No homeless dude, no school run, no Archie, no Lilibet. There might be a backpack with some granola bars and bottles of water because those things are a lot easier to purchase than a kid.
We are being trolled so hard by another of Rach’s flights of fancy. How much did she pay for that Cut article, one wonders.
There is deep concern that the book will contain damaging revelations
The move is part of a strategy focusing on the first 100 days of Charles's reign
Lawyers to the Royal Family are expected to be on standby to read the book
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11270685/Can-Prince-Harrys-memoirs-stopped-Palace-aides-discuss-block-new-book.html
******* KC3 is taking the pro-active approach
What this means. The old time mafia families kept a few spare rented apartments to use for various activities. Use your imagination.
When you had a war between mafia families or gangs, the hoodlums would leave their family homes, to hide out or semi-hide out in an empty apartment. They would throw 4-5 or more mattresses on the floor to sleep on, for the duration.
FromThe Times:
Meet the Danish model formerly known as prince
Grandchildren shocked as Margrethe cuts their royal titles but queen’s move is popular among her subjects, says poll
Early this year Scandinavian Vogue featured an unusual male model on its cover, clad in a bold salmon pink jacket: Prince Nikolai of Denmark. It was another coup for the handsome eldest grandson of Queen Margrethe II, Europe’s longest-serving monarch, who has been a frequent sight on the catwalk since his debut at London Fashion Week in 2018.
In an accompanying article inside the magazine, Nikolai, now 23 and seventh in line to the throne, was praised by his interviewer for his lack of royal airs and graces and laid-back manner — a quality apparently appreciated by fellow students in Paris, where he was spending a term on secondment from his Danish business school.
They “don’t know and don’t care” about my title, said the prince. “It’s relaxing and soothing in a way. I can be even more myself.”
It turns out, however, that one person did care rather a lot about his title.
Danes have been treated to a rather less laid-back view of Nikolai since a surprise announcement by the royal court last week that he and his three younger siblings — Felix, 20, Henrik, 13, and Athena, ten — would no longer be styled prince or princess from next January. Instead the four — the issue of the Queen’s second son, Joachim — will be known merely as the counts and countess of Monpezat and have to make do with being addressed as “your excellency” rather than “your highness”.
The decision had left them all “shocked”, “confused” and “very sad”, Nikolai told Ekstra Bladet, a Danish tabloid, hours after the announcement. Asked how it would affect his relations with the Queen, his grandmother, he replied curtly: “I don’t think I need to elaborate on that.”
Similar sentiments were expressed by Joachim, at present a defence attaché at the Danish embassy in Paris, who in an interview with another tabloid accused his mother of going back on a promise to let his children keep their princely titles until they are 25.
Joachim’s former wife, the Hong-Kong-born Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, the mother of Nikolai and Felix, appeared even angrier — a reflection perhaps of the hurt she felt on losing her status as princess after her divorce in 2005.
“This is a testament to a family in deep crisis,” wrote Peter Thygesen, chief royal correspondent of Politiken, a leading Danish newspaper. Thomas Larsen, another Danish royal-watcher, said it was clear that “Prince Joachim and his part of the family feel neglected and are very unhappy about the decision Queen Margrethe has made”.
What the Queen is doing is very popular,” said Ulla Terkelsen, chief international correspondent of TV2 Denmark, who has covered her share of the country’s royal events. “She is keeping the aura and the magic of the royal family — the big parties and the horses and all that — but she is also saying that she understands the spirit of the time and the need to get rid of unnecessary titles.”
Margrethe, 82, an accomplished artist who decades ago illustrated a Danish edition of The Lord of the Rings under a pseudonym, has presided over a steady increase in the royal family’s standing since coming to the throne in 1972.
Apparently stung by the reaction to the announcement from Joachim’s side of the family, she later told reporters it would be good for the four grandchildren, giving them greater freedom to decide what to do with their lives.
This may actually be the case for Nikolai, who could now pursue more lucrative modelling opportunities — including for underwear — that would be considered inappropriate for a prince, one commentator said.
Mary, Frederik’s popular Australian-born wife, also weighed in. “Change can be difficult and can really hurt. But this does not mean that the decision is not the right one,” she told reporters, adding that the couple would “look at our own children’s titles when the time comes”.
The princess’s suggestion seemed intended to dash any suggestions the move may have been at the behest of the crown prince, whose relations with his younger brother have long been said to be strained.
Margrethe’s decision to lower the status of half of her eight grandchildren (and their future spouses) is part of a broader trend among Europe’s ruling houses — including Britain’s — to prune their family trees, according to Trond Norén Isaksen, a Norwegian historian and expert on Scandinavia’s monarchies.
“It can’t have been a complete shock that this would happen eventually,” he said. “There aren’t enough bridges and hospitals to open or charities to be patrons of in Denmark to need 16 working royals.”
Yet something appears to have gone wrong with the way that the change was handled, which some commentators have described as “brutal”. This was in contrast to Sweden, where King Carl XVI Gustaf in 2019 restricted the number of his family who could be known as “royal highnesses” and considered part of the royal house, but let them still keep their princely titles.
Denmark’s House of Glücksburg is linked to its British counterpart via Margrethe’s great-great-grandfather, Christian IX, known as the “father-in-law of Europe”. His daughter, Alexandra, married Edward VII, King Charles III’s great-great-grandfather. Like the House of Windsor it has also been rocked by its share of crises and scandals over the years.
The Queen’s late French-born consort, Henri de Monpezat, whom she met while he was working at his country’s embassy in London, also proved a frequent cause of embarrassment — and made no secret of his displeasure at having to play second fiddle to his wife. Relations hit a low in 2002 when he fled Denmark after a perceived slight and gave an interview in which he claimed to have been “put on ice” and railed against “constant degradation”.
Nothing, however, matched the drama of the late 18th century when King Christian VII and his queen, Caroline Matilda, the sister of George III of Britain, lived for a few years in a bizarre ménage à trois with Johann Friedrich Struensee, their German doctor, who became minister of state and introduced far-reaching modernising reforms.
Struensee fell foul of powerful member of court, however — chief among them the King’s stepmother — and in 1772 he was arrested and then beheaded in front of thousands of cheering Copenhageners. His body was then cut into parts and his head and hands impaled on a stake.
Peter Conradi is the author of The Great Survivors: How Monarchy made it into the Twenty-First Century
The Duchess of Sussex was pictured looking incredibly emotional following the Queen's state funeral at Westminster Abbey
Incredibly is the right word.
I believe the song and the slogan "I'm just wild about Harry" was part of Truman's reelection campaign in 1948.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11270555/The-new-Fab-Four-Portrait-clear-sign-King-Charles-reign-centred-senior-royals.html
Rather more closely than that. Prince Philip was a prince of Greece and Denmark until 1947.
The Regency Act of 1953 did name Philip to be regent for a minor child if the situation arose.That was so Margaret wouldn't be called on to do it. But the act expired and didn't apply to anyone but Philip. A new law could be passed that applies to Kate. But the act that applied to Philip 1. was supported by Margaret in a letter sent to Parliament 2. obviously wasn't passed when a minor child was already monarch.
Some say the instant Will is king something like the 1953 act will be sent to Parliament. I have no way to judge if it would pass. But I'm pretty sure Harry wouldn't come out in support like Margaret did! And in the past, certain members of Parliament gave been publicly supportive of Harry and Meghan.
Of course, Will isn't king yet and George is already 9. A regent is only needed until a minor monarch is 18. Chances are anyway nothing bad would happen to Will. But right now George's regent would be Harry. If not Harry, Andrew. If not Andrew, Bea.
No need to apologise for the confusion!
@Wild Boar
I did see somewhere the headline you quoted upthread but didn't bothered to read the article until your post. What a lot of sycophantic bovine excrement! And it regurgitates the story about a snack given to a homeless person. As for the rest... You know that when something is described as 'adorable' ('adorable insight' in this case) by a journalist, it's anything but. Of course, Archie has to have good manners, he'll be a prince, won't he? Err... will he? Maybe she wants Charles to know his grandchild is being well brought up, with good manners and a sense of social justice...
Another long extract from Valentine Lowe's book.
https://www.new.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/1NCN1%20(2012)%20Griffith-Manners.pdf
Curiously, there's an ancient wall painting called `The Trusty Servant' at the college, extolling the virtues of the ideal servant, presumably what * expected of her staff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trusty_Servant
https://tinyurl.com/3resxamf
That's more like it. William is even very slightly in front of Charles. I hope they'll send a framed copy to Montecito.
Pepper, sumwhere n d middle of nowhere, United States, 9 hours ago
Charles needs to danish the gruesome twosome.
So now she angling for the Polite and Well mannered angle.
No one is buying the kindness angle any longer. Maybe she's hoping that she can pass off the bullying as her being polite, but very firm. Direct, but extremely well-mannered.
If so, I'd really like to see how this plays out for her . . .
King Charles has 'abandoned plans to attend the Cop27 climate change summit where he was planning to give a speech after Liz Truss advised him to stay away'
**** Good idea from LT! I am 100x more worried about Putin using nukes and energy prices than I am about alleged climate change.
The royal family's own website points out that state councilors act temporarily and emphasizes that these functions are performed by them when there is no need for regency. Total regency is another law and the monarch's wife (Catherine who would be the queen) has full guardianship of the minor, including over all the minor's assets until adulthood.
...
The royal family's own website points out that state councilors act temporarily and emphasizes that these functions are performed by them when there is no need for regency. Total regency is another law and the monarch's wife (Catherine who would be the queen) has full guardianship of the minor, including over all the minor's assets until adulthood.
...
*Counsellors of State*
In the event that The Queen cannot undertake her official duties as Sovereign on a *temporary* basis due to illness or absence abroad, *two or more Counsellors of State are appointed by Letters Patent* to act in Her Majesty's place.
Counsellors of State include the Sovereign's spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
....
Counsellors of State are authorised to carry out most of the official duties of the Sovereign, for example, attending Privy Council meetings, signing routine documents and receiving the credentials of new ambassadors to the United Kingdom. However, there are a number of core constitutional functions that may not be delegated:
- Commonwealth matters
- The dissolving of Parliament, except on Her Majesty's express instruction
- The creation of peers
- Appointing a Prime Minister
History of Counsellors of State
The position of Counsellor of State was provided for in 1937 under the terms of the Regency Act. Prior to 1937, Regency Acts were drafted and passed only in necessity. As such, there had been nine separate Regency Acts to cover various eventualities since 1728. Shortly after George VI came to the throne in 1936, a new *Regency Act* was passed which provided a rule for all future reigns. It was at this time that the new office of Counsellor of State was created to cover short term absences where a *regency would be unnecessary*
https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state
...
My opinion
"REGENCY ACT 1953
(2 & 3 Eliz 2 c 1)
An Act to provide that, in the event of a Regency becoming necessary tinder the Regency Act 1937, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh shall in certain circumstances be the Regent, to provide that the heir apparent or heir presumptive to the Throne shall be deemed the purposes of that Act to be of full age if he or she has attained the age of eighteen years, to add Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the persons to whom royal functions may be delegated as Counsellors of State, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid [19 November 1953]"
...
Back to State Councilors
By law, *Counsellors of State" include the *Sovereign's spouse* and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.
...
Catherine, in this case, as the sovereign's wife automatically, ahead of others in the line of succession.
I think some of this has been published before, despite the date:
I’m not sure whether to howl in derision or to throw up:
@WBBM: Regarding Harry’s wife taking the reporter writing for The Cut along on her trip to pick Archie up from preschool, we all know that a situation like this is carefully planned and choreographed by Meghan.
Picking Archie up was likely a performance for the reporter to cultivate the facade of her being a doting mother. It also allows her to mimic the well known fact that the Waleses have been dropping off and picking up their kids from school for years.
The same goes for the stunt she pulled having a one of her security people give a filled backpack to a homeless person.
It was pure performance for the reporter and nothing more.
I believe it was on Reddit where I read that the parents and staff at Archie’s preschool were surprised when Meghan arrived to pick up Archie instead of one of their staff who usually collects Archie from preschool. It’s no wonder Archie was so excited to see his mother picking him up if she rarely or never fetches him from preschool.
This interview provided fuel for her narcissism and was a perfect opportunity for her to assert the control of the immediate situation of the interview. The backpack handout was nothing more than a form of product placement in a movie or tv show, except that in this case, the product was Meghan as Mother Teresa.
Oh dear, I think I just threw up a little bit into my mouth.
DM link
The NYTimes does this when they think they'll get comments they don't like.
Of course, ALL media occasionally disallows comments on articles, for various reasons. All of them. Sometimes it's sensitivity, as when it involves a death and commenters want to blame the victim. Sometimes they limit the amount of time ( = money) to devote to moderating a certain article. Certain commenting software use algorithms meant to flag problematic comments, but machines can only do so much. So they just give up and disable comments altogether. Many reasons for this. But it seems the DM has an unlimited budget for comments! Which is one reason it's so enjoyable to read it (if you can stand scrolling by all the photos .. . )
Which article in the DM are you referring to? 🥴
-----
That photo is a little weird. Notice POW's feet. They're slightly behind KC's feet.
I don't quite see how POW's upper body ended up in front of KC's body.
The shadows are correct for POW being in front of KC...POW arm shadow on KC's jacket.
But the legs and feet don't make sense then to be behind KC.
My eyes must be not seeing that right.
------
That thought crossed my mind. Seemed quite flowery.
Although someone else looked at the author's other writings and said she writes in an overly descriptive way normally. But not quite this bad.
IIRC, the polite and well-mannered Archie BS started making the rounds after HRH Prince Louis’ charming antics during the Jubilee. *’s sycophantic fan club was rumored to be posting statements similar to “Archie is so well behaved, he would never do that.” Then, * saw an opportunity to use the incident to smear HRH The Princess of Wales.
BTW, how did LilyWhite get bright blue eyes?
"Oprah, 68, is among the witnesses Meghan’s sister Samantha Markle wants to call as she sues for £60,000 damages. Samantha, 57, says her reputation was damaged by comments Meghan, 41, made during the 2021 interview with Oprah."
I don't even remember Samantha being a topic in that interview, which I only watched through the interpretation of PDina, as who could stand it otherwise??
Not sure Oprah would have anything to add, anyway, truthful or not.
Catherine is not 'above' or come before the other COS (same with Camilla).
For the last opening of Parliament, Charles and William stood in for the Queen as COS. They happen to be the first two on the list of four, but there is nothing in the law to prevent the King from bypassing the two disgraced princes and using Beatrice when one or more COS are needed. When Charles and Camilla are abroad together, it will be William who steps in for the King as COS (with Beatrice as back up if required).
The Queen could not delegate the appointing of a new Prime Minister two days before her death, unless she created Charles regent. She chose not to and fulfilled her duties that she could not delegate to COS right to the end.
The Montecito duo seem to think that him being a COS makes him very important. It does not. The Queen made use of COS in her last year, when she had lost Phillip so was 'one short', but she managed without ever calling on the disgraced princes. I don't think either of the princes have ever been called upon to act in place of the Queen, even when she was still travelling abroad and before they sank into disgrace. Anne helped the Queen with bestowing honours in her last years, never the disgraced princes.
Does anyone know the source of this rumour?
Interesting ... Oprah promoting TBW. I have always believed that Oprah holds a gigantic grudge against the BRF and wants to bring them down, and that she has always been an ardent backer of TBW.
The YouTuber in the above video hits the bail on the head ... and you don't have to give Oprah clicks to find out what she is putting out there to promote TBW.
My prediction: There will be another Oprah interview. TBW is the only royal she can get hold of to interview who was at the funeral and who will gladly attack the BRF. Oprah does not care if they are lies. She did not care that she was very pally with Harvey Weinstein and put a number of young and vulnerable Hollywood wannabe starlets in his path.
Everything you've reproduced re: Counselors of State (CoS) and the Regency Act of 1953 is true. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rest of your post, but all that doesn't mean Kate would be George's regent. The only way that can happen is for there to be a change in the law or a new law passed as was done specifically for Philip. Once Will is King, that might happen although it's possible Charles will serve for 9 years anyway. So George would not be a minor anymore. And he could be a CoS. (As heir apparent he could serve at 18.)
Having been a CoS wouldn't put Kate at the front of the regency line for George. (Frankly I'm not sure she'd be at the front of the line to be chosen for CoS duties. Philip wasn't. And I doubt Camilla will be.) But if a regency was needed for George as monarch while a minor, by law Kate would no longer be a CoS. The law calls for the monarch's spouse to serve, not his mother. If George was king, Will would be no more. I think there may have been a temporary provision for the QM to serve as a CoS but even that required action. It wasn't automatic. And I'm not sure how often she actually was asked to carry out duties.
Kate being the legal guardian for her minor children is a different matter from being the regent for one of them. But hopefully there won't ever be a need for a regent anyway.
I agree with you about councilors of state, remembering that Catherine is currently not listed as a temporary councilor of state, and cannot act like that in KCIII's reign without him changing that with LP. His name was mentioned in the case of regency for a minor under eighteen years of age.
I believe the song and the slogan "I'm just wild about Harry" was part of Truman's reelection campaign in 1948.
“Just Wild About Harry” was the headline on the front page of a tabloid when Harry was born. The photo is of Princess Diana cradling him while posing for photos outside the hospital.
Merriam Webster gives: to convey as a gift —usually used with on or upon
`The university bestowed an honorary degree upon her'.
Are we to e plagued by another generation of pretenders?
Here's what Wikipedia says about `High Treason':
Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown.
Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession...
Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 became law, the maximum sentence for treason in the UK has been life imprisonment.
Ralph L had said: "The DM isn't allowing comments on its article about 2 spectators, now being charged, who "subdued" a heckler of Andrew during the Edinburgh procession. So much for royal privilege, at least Andrew's."
So I was just pointing out that all media does it, for various reasons, and that DM usually lets the comments run free.
BTW, how did LilyWhite get bright blue eyes?
------
Easy. H has blue eyes and Thomas Markle has blue eyes so * has the gene for blue eyes, therefore the 5s had a 50% chance of having a child with blue eyes, as far as I remember from my biology lessons.
Whoever takes over from the Duke and Duchess’s PR firm (they have just ditched Sunshine Sachs, the New York-based outfit that has been advising the Duchess since her days as an actress on legal drama Suits) is going to have their work cut out.
Especially if recent revelations about how the Duchess treats her employees are anything to go by.
She also has an interesting interview technique, by all accounts. A couple of years ago I heard a story about a woman who applied to work for her at Kensington Palace.
She was ushered into the (then) Royal presence, who allegedly glanced up, took one look, said simply, ‘You can leave’, and went back to her paperwork. That was the end of the interview.
In the circumstances, a lucky escape, I suspect.
I presume that was a no, then... What charming manners. I was reading about Sam Cohen, who worked for the Queen for seventeen years. One can safely assume that the Queen was happy with her work, in fact when S Cohen decided to leave, the Queen asked her to stay on for another 6 months to helps * during and after the wedding. The poor woman was driven demented during the tour of Australia/NZ/Fiji. We can draw our own conclusions.
-----
I think on that new Twitter account that's been spewing garbage.
https://twitter.com/isource_news?t=YaLdevHLMuKHVUm12ZK2Sw&s=09
The discussion around the CofS was in context with a Regent for Prince George if anything happened to William. This is why Catherine was mentioned etc. Karla very kindly found the piece within the regency act which Lady C was more than likely referring to. 🤗
I know, my written English bad! ❤️😂I just Said that when William is king, Kate will be councilor of state, for being his wife (as Camilla is now) Therefore, fit to be regent as provided by law.
Catherine, in this hypothetical case, as Prince William's wife (who by the grace of God will live as long as her grandmother) would automatically be State Councilor.
* By law, Counsellors of State include the *Sovereign's spouse* and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21*
Currently, Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice. By law, as per the royal family's website, we have five councilors of state. Four according to the law of succession and Camilla as the "sovereign's spouse* For Harry to assume the regency, Catherine would have to be disqualified from that role, as per the regency act of 1953.
"3. The Regent
If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent will be the person who, *excluding any persons disqualified under this section*, is next in line to the Crown*.
Remembering that the law defines that the regent must be domiciled in the UK. Although Harry has Frogmore as his home in England, but the world knows he doesn't live in the UK. This could, constitutionally, disqualify him through the act of regency.
I hope I explained it better, if not, I apologize in advance.
This is a blast from the past that looks at the PR strategy of TBW. Unfortunately I cannot copy the text. It was posted by someone supposedly in PR who pitched for her business but did not get it. This snippet of text is most interesting: 'When you get told to make someone approachable, loving, kind, creative, funny and "Diana 2.0", you know that this isn't something based on love.'
do any of you know why Oprah Winfrey would be deposed? is it because of the "interview" with the twats?
Bright blue eyes?
Coloured contact lenses?
If only we'd been able to dismiss * that easily at the engagement interview.
I just think regents and COS should not be a fixed rule but adapted to suit the circumstances of each Monarch's rule. In her reign, Elizabeth the Great issued a few Letters Patent and changed a few laws that changed the way things were done. I am sure she did not intend that to be set in stone but to adapt to the circumstances of each generation.
That was most interesting for several reasons. I did not know that the blood Royal always is named first in PR and that *’s PR was supposed to make her Diana 2.0. I knew she saw herself as that persona but did not know it was part of her formal PR. Thanks for posting the link.
See if this helps clear up the Oprah deposition thingy:
OPRAH Winfrey could be questioned by lawyers over her bombshell TV interview with Prince Harry and wife Meghan.
She may be ordered to submit to a deposition in the US — sparking the potential for fresh royal revelations to emerge.
Oprah, 68, is among the witnesses Meghan’s sister Samantha Markle wants to call as she sues for £60,000 damages.
Samantha, 57, says her reputation was damaged by comments Meghan, 41, made during the 2021 interview with Oprah.
She even wants Harry to undergo a deposition but that appears far less likely, say legal sources.
Samantha also says she was defamed in the book Finding Freedom.
Meghan’s lawyer Michael Kump said Samantha’s legal team had ‘identified a whopping 19 non-party witnesses, including Prince Harry, Meghan’s mother, Oprah Winfrey’ and others that she wants to depose including the authors of Finding Freedom.
Depositions are used as part of what is called the ‘discovery process’ in the US.
Prince Andrew had been due to give one on camera before agreeing a £10m settlement with his sex accuser Virginia Giuffre.
Mr Kump said that discovery should wait until Meghan’s request to dismiss the entire case was decided.
Mr Kump said that in an ‘attempt to rescue her case’ Samantha claims that Meghan is responsible for comments in Finding Freedom.
He wrote: ‘To state the obvious, because Meghan did not write Finding Freedom, she cannot be liable for statements in the book. It really could not be simpler than that’.
On top of that, Meghan’s comments to Oprah were protected by the First Amendment, Mr Kump said.
@ObservantOne:
Bright blue eyes?
Coloured contact lenses?
------------
Hmmm. I sure felt like that author was trying to tell us something with her description of the baby, especially the bright blue eyes. There was something off there; I couldn't tell what it was.
But I got the distinct feeling that the author wanted us to know something that she couldn't just spit out. And it had to do with the blue eyes.
Contact lenses on a baby would be exceedingly weird, no?
Re the job interview, I would have thought * would have been happy enough with someone not too good looking - surely she couldn't bear having some subordinate better looking than her? On the other hand, she might want to surround herself only with beautiful people. Either way, she really thinks she's something.
“* could have been important but she gave it all up to be selfish instead.”
MEGHAN SEEING THERAPIST
"She's going through an especially difficult time right now," said a source close to the situation, "It's only normal to seek out help."
MEGHAN'S THERAPIST DESCRIBED AS THE BEST MONEY CAN BUY
According to sources, Oprah made the referral.
"Meghan was looking and Oprah already had the perfect person in mind," said a source close to the situation.
"She's in max turmoil and pain."
Friends describe Meghan as barely surviving after the Queen's funeral and Charles's snub.
"She needs help and thank God Oprah had someone waiting in the wings. Now she will get all the proper care."
https://twitter.com/isource_news?t=jDwhIulQNHsk8GlPtXZIuA&s=09
The comments under the tweets are brutal.
The funeral must have been horrendous for her - she was not in charge, not the centre of attention. She only got that walkabout because of the invitation from the very popular Prince and Princess of Wales, and the focus of all funeral events was the coffin and the pageantry.
She did not know the Queen, could count on one hand the times she met her in a non-formal event setting, shunned every invitation to Balmoral ...
Blogger Girl with a Hat said...
https://twitter.com/jomilleweb/status/1576515111476338689
do any of you know why Oprah Winfrey would be deposed? is it because of the "interview" with the twats?
That's the only reason I can think of.
On another topic, Oprah is now saying on her Twitter account that Archie and Lilibet have become Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.
https://twitter.com/OprahDaily/status/1576522127620063232?t=CcGtF9vcQ7IcEp9eaDXRTg&s=19
Contact lenses on a baby would be exceedingly weird, no?
It would constitute abuse if you ask me. There is simply no legitimate reason for a 3-year-old to wear contact lenses.
-----
She said in South Africa "it's not enough to just survive something, right? That's not the point of life. " What's this obsession with 'surviving'? Is she in a war zone? In a very poor country with barely enough to eat? Playing the victim again, maybe so that people go easy on her.
We are talking about something hypothetical about the act of regency, minor age, as if this supposed reality happened today, now, in this instant. Only that! As for the future, KCIII started his reign in a few days and I'm sure he will make big changes.
...
OW releases video on twitter claiming A&L received Prince/ss titles
https://twitter.com/OprahDaily/status/1576522127620063232?s=20&t=50kPIaOivSO708DoPTyhiQ
We all know Twat lies about everything. It's doubtful, very doubtful, Oprah made a referral for a mental health therapist for the Twat. Wouldn't that be up Twit's alley? He, the spokesman for Batter Up?
I may just be out of it today :-) but I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying.
1. Yes, Kate will be a CoS while Will is king just as Philip was for QEII and Camilla is now for KC3.
2. There is a debate about the meaning of domicile. But it's not the same thing legally as ordinary "residency."
3. Harry could not serve as regent and live in CA. But I'm not sure if this ever happened (and of course we hope it does not), and Harry was living in CA when Will died and George instantly became king, that would disqualify Harry. I think he could just move back to the UK assuming he was still in the LoS and there's absolutely no reason to think he wouldn't be. But IF it did happen, the next person in line is Andrew, then Bea. Not Kate assuming Kate survived Will. She wouldn't even meet the requirements for CoS then. Because she'd no longer be the monarch's spouse. She'd be the widow of the last monarch.
The law passed in 1953 was never needed-- it was just a precaution. Maybe one like that for Kate will be passed when Will is king (as @Sandie suggested.) But right now, there's no way under the law for Kate to be George's regent. The law naming CoS won't do it. Kate being George's guardian won't do it. And disqualifying Harry won't make Kate the regent. A new law could though. And while there can.be downsides there are advantages to having CoS and regents be set by law. Too much scheming can happen otherwise if everything is on a decide-as-you-go case-by-case basis.
---------
@Sandie
Babies do wear contacts for medical reasons. But I can't imagine they would be prescribed for color changes! They sometimes ARE used with Lazy Eye though, at least one is.
I did not know Thomas Markle has blue eyes. If he does, Lili might be blue-eyed. But Thomas's eyes look brown to me, maybe hazel. https://www.newsnpr.org/meghans-dad-calls-harry-a-fool-makes-a-new-statement-that-makes-the-couple-tremble/
I thought the most striking thing though was that the author described Lili as unsmiling. And everybody went nuts trying to get her to smile. Sounds awful for tons of reasons
In your post at 2:04 am, you quoted the author of the article in “the Cut.” The author was describing the OTT scene after bringing Archie home from school. Her first sentence said: "Lilibet, unsmiling with watchful bright-blue eyes, is brought out by her nanny.”
It’s the first time I had seen her described in print, and I found the description quite unbelievable. Strawberry blonde hair and bright blue eyes? I think that’s impossible, don’t you?
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
Sep 25
Harkle NETFLIX UPDATE
EXCLUSIVE- Liz Garbus, AWProductions & Netflix content, strategy & analysis team are at odds.
Netflix data show low interest in a historical documentary on the duo's love story, high interest in the kids but H not down, entirely.
All CONTENT UP IN AIR! TBA
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
Not one person at Sunshine Sachs will leak info or say anything disparaging. It's a boutique firm and everyone is under strict order to be silent and it's in their best interests to remain tight lipped. We managed to get a little credible insight on the situation but not much:
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
Oct 1
Someone on their team has said SS meant as a stop gap.
Truthfully:
They were a) pissing away plenty pounds
b) still running through staff
Audaciously now keen on using existing 'lines' of comms & contacts pre-established at SS to carry on...
Friends describe Meghan as barely surviving after the Queen's funeral and Charles's snub.
______
Is she going to fake another suicidal ideation scenario?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11273037/RICHARD-KAY-picture-tells-Harry-Meghan-theres-no-way-back.html
I think they know.🤔🤔🤔
...
*Prior to 1937, Regency Acts were drafted and passed only in necessity. As such, there had been nine separate Regency Acts to cover various eventualities since 1728. Shortly after George VI came to the throne in 1936, a new Regency Act was passed which provided a rule for *all future reigns*
https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state
* may well be in crisis but these reports are a last-ditch victim/sympathy effort.
Is she trying to hang on to what shreds of public goodwill she can? Or is this about hanging on to H? Clearly desperate to hang on to something.
My only other thought, and I do not think it’s plausible, is that there has been an intervention of some kind. But I do not really believe that anyone cares that much about her, save the person she has treated the worst, Thomas Markle. And she is one of very few people I can think of who is so devoid of a soul or conscience that I feel no sympathy.
I think something big is going on. Is it possible they were not able to stop the book or they were given unfavorable answers from the King? Maybe their marriage is crumbling, Netflix is canceling them or someone is threatening to spill the beans on the dolls?
Looking back at the photos of their time in the UK, it’s obvious they were frightened and stunned by both the cold reception they received from the family, and the warm reception the King and Queen Consort received from the people. Now, it sure feels like something is building up just before it falls apart.
thank you.
Rachel’s “friends” are constructs…there aren’t any friends. She has screwed over everyone she’s ever known. Now that the tide to sunshine Sachs is cut, nobody on their client list is obligated to do her publicity favors anymore and pose in friendship.
As for unsmiling Lilibet of the bright blue eyes, Brought on stage into “mommy’s” little tableau by “a nanny”— If * Wants to Abe the princess of Wales, why not give at least one name to this faceless anonymous cadre of nannies that allegedly take care of her alleged children? We have known Maria Barallo’s name for the last eight years, since George was a year old. She is awesome picture with the family and it’s right in the thick of the action, walking to thin line between staff And beloved family member.
What the reporter saw could very easily have been a Reborn with bright blue glass eyes. Or it might be an actual little girl that looked very different than the picture we saw as “Lili”. It doesn’t seem like the lively scene which was painted for us would fail to get some emotional response out of a 14 month old. Unless she’s drugged..deaf…on the spectrum…a hire baby who didn’t know anyone present..or plastic. Somethings rotten in Montecito, but it seems that no one can name the source of the stench.
Brilliant!
This immediately reminded me of the objection that they could "barely stand up" in Frogmore Cottage.
I think something big is going on...Maybe their marriage is crumbling, Netflix is canceling them or someone is threatening to spill the beans on the dolls?
I know I've said this before, but there's been a lot of chatter on social media about surrogacy and MM. And SecondhandCoke has said that their marriage is falling apart and Friar is starting to realize he'll need his family in the event of a divorce. She's also said that Netflix is getting to critical mass on their cancellation or litigation of the Markles' contract.
Lots of things could be coming to a head. It's also possible that the new PM may have a different opinion on whatever strategy the royals have been employing vis-a-vis Liar. LT doesn't seem to shy away from big decisions.
One care package for the homeless might be cheap to put together, but the more you make, the smarter you have to be about budgeting. Charities tend to put the items in Ziploc bags (or generic brand zipper bags) or cheap canvas drawstring bags. Backpacks would be great, of course, but they would cost too much money to be practical. (Even if they got them wholesale, at $3 per child-sized backpack, that's nothing next to 150 gallon-sized resealable bags for less than $20.)
Of all the things in the article that were obviously theater, this was the one that stuck out to me the most. Even if the Dollars were rolling in, uh, dollars, giving Archie this sort of daily lesson on looking out for the less fortune would add up after a very short while. I'm sure it was in the "production budget" for the day of the interview, but it's highly unlikely that they do it all the time.
"I did not know Thomas Markle has blue eyes. If he does, Lili might be blue-eyed. But Thomas's eyes look brown to me, maybe hazel.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's late here and I'm tired but I thought someone already discussed the genetics of how a brown eayed person could give birth to a blue eyed child; it happens all the time.
Thomas Markle could be bown-eyed (having been born with one blue eye gene + one brown eye gene). With the brown eye gene being dominant he would have the 'expression' of brown eyes but be able to pass a blue or brown eye gene to *.
So with Meghan inheriting one eye gene from her father she could have a blue eye gene to pass onto her children. And she would have either a brown eye gene or blue eye gene from her mother. We only know Doria has the look of brown eyes but she could actually be carrying a recessive blue gene but it only matter that one of Meghan's parent's has a blue eye gene to pass along.
In any eventuality all Meghan would need is one blue eye gene to pass it one to Lili. Because Harry possess 2 blue eye genes since two are needed for him to have blue eyes (since it takes two recessive genes to make a recessive trait like blue eyes.) When he passed on one of his blue eye genes combined with a blue eye gene from Meghan, Lili would defintely have have blue eyes.
And two brown eyed parents can have a blue eyed child. In fact potentailly the ratio is a 1 in 4 chance that they would have a blue eyed child. And a Blue eyed parent and a brown eyed parent can either a 50/50 chance of having a blue eyed child or a zero chance dependng if the one parent had both a blue eyed gene or both genes being brown to pass on.
I hope I wrote this right as I'm very tired.
I was visualising the `bright blue eyes' sported by some candidates in the British episodes of `The Apprentice'. I don't think I've ever met anyone and been struck by their `bright' blue eyes.
Methinks poetic licence.
Two or three of the few dozens people who are credited for working on the podcast series are employees of Oprah, so Oprah knows what a mess TBW is ... she doesn't care.
I don’t think the book can be cancelled, a contract has been signed. Whether or not King Charles and powerful lawyers could stop it, I have no idea. Again with the content Netflix could use, I think Maggot and Mole only have so much say. How many more stunts can Maggot now pull? They’ve all backfired. 🫣 Awwww.
We are going to get a tiara event!
That's acutely a marketing strategy for data research. It's an audience case study.
You put out the same text and link in different accounts, in different countries.
Depending on which link is clicked the most you get the audience for the theme. That's where you put the money for the next campaign.
------
TBW is fully occupied, always, in promoting herself.
I am sure this, from Valentine Low, has been shared. From my own behaviour and those close to me, I can say with certainty that he did not want to speak to his brother because he did not want to sort out the problem, and he knew he had behaved badly and did not want to have to deal with that truth. Running away and attacking others was just easier for him, and, crucially, pleased his very difficult to please wife. TBW thrives on media attention so not wanting a meeting to be found out by the media is just not true. She was muzzled by the royal family, and that caused her much distress, but she still managed to leak through friends like Scobie.
William must have been aware of all of this and realized that his brother was lost to him.
ooooh we have a state dinner for South Africa in mid November. just 10 days after you know who was threatening to be in London for a rumored “GQ” awards. tiara event for the family? take that montecito 😉
hmmm maybe the wife isn’t so crazy. stories of mental instability makes it less likely to have custody of the “kids” in a divorce. mean brf took my “kids” and makes Harry have to explain where they are (i’m still in the rent a kid camp) brilliant move narc.
oprah back around. heard she had a tweet about the mrs being a humanitarian someone wants an interview post funeral now doesn’t she.
What if H$M got the contracts with Netflix, Spotify etc and asked for advances on their payment because they were broke at the time. Then created damaging (but entertaining) content about the RF, staff,and all other parties. Then waited til it was about to be released and use it as blackmail against the RF.- No intention of ever stopping it. When blackmail didn't work, try to inconvenience Netflix, Spotify by demanding production release not go forward because she wants to SUE the giants instead. She is lawsuit happy and apparently more fluent at it than her fake French and Spanish. Netflix, Spotify release the content anyways and she claims they damaged her mental health, family relationships, reputation etc. USA allows much bigger payout than UK. Win win for her. Still gets to damage the RF and get big award from Netflix, Spotify on top of her contracted payment of course. She's psycho and desperate.