Now is the official time of mourning after Her Majesty was laid to rest beside her husband and near her other beloved family members.
During the lead up the funeral there was a stunning amount of press about certain grandchildren finally receiving their titles, uproars about uniforms and epaulettes (or not), when someone learned of her death, rumors of needing to start claims for the will, rumors of a PR firm no longer at the helm, a book which may or may not be happening any time soon or maybe later, or possible a different book focused on a love story not the deceased though, flowers not handed off to staff or questions raised of Were people placed for a filmed touching moment to be shared on social media? And then, the claims of invitations offered and then rescinded.
And not enough of how people stood in line to show their respects (and some could easily have jumped the line but chose not to). Ordinary people who were focused on the real why they wanted to stand (for hours and hours) in a cold, rainy line for someone they were unlikely to have ever had a chance to meet. That was dedication to the monarchy.
Considering everything listed in the second paragraph, it is not obvious that the reason anyone was around was a funeral of someone who exemplified dignity, decorum, pomp and, most of all, a life of service. No. It comes off more as the description for a Jerry Springer or similar show.
This is the time of mourning until the 26th. I am kind of afraid of what else will happen during the remaining morning period. And after that ends.
I keep thinking "What a comparison of the deceased's life and some actions, some true, some rumors and some may be false, to what went down before her funeral." Here's to hoping more about her than all this brouhaha is what is remembered in history. She earned it.
Comments
"Fairly fruity language" -- can someone give some examples? What about "damn"?
I've seen them on Twitter and DataLounge also : )
The vignettes are delicious. They may just be the long-awaited Kraken. Although it's a bit hard to take joy in them when so many well-meaning and competent people were so poorly treated and not allowed to "complain nor explain" for so long. (As well, I've always read that they are poorly paid.)
There is no need to delete it. If others aren't interested, it would be very easy to scroll past.
Thank you for posting the excerpt of the Low book. Looks to be a fascinating read.
-- MM was the one who caused the news of ERII's death to get to LA before the news embargo. The family was scared she would sell it to someone who would post it on social media. Seemingly this was how Lady C was given permission to post it.
-- Harry missed the royal flight to Scotland because he was fighting with MM. It didn't have anything to do with the PW forbidding him from coming. MM was the one who leaked that lie to make PW look bad.
-- It's true that MM was caught setting up a pap shot outside of Windsor Castle gates where people were waiting for W&C. That's why she was invited on the walkabout to prevent the pap shoot.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/xmd0zv/since_its_around_tea_time_in_montecito/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Did she expect "to hit the ground running" as a working royal and not have to work?
We all roll our eyes at her insistence that she had no idea who Harry and the BRF were before she started dating him, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here. The short clips on the news of royals on walkabout must capture only a tenth of the reality. Sometimes there's no way to prepare oneself without true experience. I can imagine that the reality of it all was a true shock to her. But there's a difference between exclaiming, "I can't believe this is taking so long!" or "I can't believe how many clammy hands there were out there!" (ha), and saying, "I can't believe I'm not getting paid." That was an unguarded moment and it says a lot that she the first place her mind went was money.
This also underlines how wise it was for the Prince and Princess of Wales to have waited for as long as they did. Even then, Catherine was criticized for a very shaky start.
Speaking of our new Princess of Wales, I remember an incident during an engagement when a schoolgirl got to speak to her and revealed that she was writing a book on Catherine for a school project! Then she asked very politely if she could ask a question for the book. Of course Catherine said yes, and the question was (as I recall): "What do you like best about your job as a royal?" Catherine said that what she liked was being able to meet so many different people all over the UK. Even if it was "just" an answer she and her team had brainstormed in advance (having foreseen a question like that), it came across so sincerely. And I think that's the true key to enjoying walkabouts, even if you're not a natural extravert or a fan of small talk. You have to care about the people you're doing it for.
Harry was in a panic. Another source said: “He was freaking out, saying, ‘She’s going to dump me.’ ”
Having that kind of power over a man can be a heady experience for a woman. But it simply doesn't last. Indeed, the other two times that Royal British men were willing to wreck their kingdoms for a woman, it didn't at all end as the woman had hoped. Anne Boleyn got beheaded. Nor did Wallis Simpson get to enjoy outliving her husband for over a decade, as she spent most of that time recovering from a broken hip and then bedridden after surgery.
Scorpiotwentythree's brilliant conclusion: "The Claw is forgetting one very important thing, and she clearly either hasn't researched history or her arrogance leads her to falsely believe she'll be 'different', the glorious exception (although all evidence from day one says otherwise): It was never the male royal who in the end paid the highest price. It was always the woman. That's how it works, always has, always will."
Since I suspect that The Claw is reading here, I wanted to pass on the message directly. Hi, Rachel!
I plan to order this book tonight. Supposedly it will be delivered within a week or so of the Oct 6th date.
Why does a publisher do this since it would seem it would decrease sales in the delayed country? I know some Nutties have been involved in the publishing world and would welcome an explanation.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19902699/meghan-markle-lose-war-royals-jeremy-clarkson/
Thanks for linking to Clarkson's piece. This is my favorite part:
But she should know this.
When she dies, hopefully many years from now, she will not be carried in front of millions by stoic men with good hearts and strong arms.
If it’s a slow news day, the best she’ll get is a small obituary in The Times on Page 27.
Because her whole being is based on nothing at all, and we prefer people with a bit more stuff going on.
What do you expect, after several embarrassing phone conversations were broadcast worldwide?
Thank you Rebecca, I am interested in the whole book now.
And yes, hello Rachel :) Though sometimes I think about her lurking around our happy spot and it gives me the “heebie jeebies” as they say.
As things stand, under English law, nobody can legally say anything definitive about the Harkles children and their conception without breaking the very strict laws protecting their medical records. The evidence for their very existence may seem flakey, or, in the case of Archie, suggest an adopted child.
The gripping account of how the Royal family really operates from the man who has spent years studying them in his role as Royal correspondent for The Times. Valentine Low asks the important questions: who really runs the show and, as Charles III begins his reign, what will happen next?
Throughout history, the British monarchy has relied on its courtiers - the trusted advisers in the King or Queen's inner circle - to ensure its survival as a family, an ancient institution, and a pillar of the constitution. Today, as ever, a vast team of people hidden from view steers the royal family's path between public duty and private life. Queen Elizabeth II, after a remarkable 70 years of service, saw the final seasons of her reign without her husband Philip to guide her. Meanwhile, newly ascended Charles seeks to define what his future as King,and that of his court, will be.
The question of who is entrusted to guide the royals has never been more vital, and yet the task those courtiers face has never been more challenging. With a cloud hanging over Prince Andrew as well as Harry and Meghan's departure from royal life, the complex relationship between modern courtiers and royal principals has been exposed to global scrutiny. As the new Prince and Princess of Wales, William and Kate - equipped with a very 21st century approach to press and public relations - now hold the responsibility of making an ancient institution relevant for the decades to come.
Courtiers reveals an ever-changing system of complex characters, shifting values and ideas over what the future of the institution should be. This is the story of how the monarchy really works, at a pivotal moment in its history.
Publisher: Headline Publishing Group
ISBN: 9781472290908
Number of pages: 384
Weight: 620 g
Dimensions: 232 x 152 x 36 mm
I’ve been reading some of the 1,000+ comments for the Valentine Low excerpt in the Times. Many believe the book marks the beginning of the end for H and M in the UK. I’ve heard that before, though. Hopefully King Charles will show them no mercy.
/There may be a reason that I usually worked with men and in my own business. That way I could fire customers that abuse my workmen and attempt to tread on me. There really are people that aren't worth our time and effort to deal with and both of the Deep Sixed are prime examples. How many times are people going to try to polish those particular turds and expect them to turn into diamonds?
I did wonder about it at the time - had he jumped the gun?
Perhaps not.
How Meghan and Harry's children's lives could change from next weekFollowing King Charles III's ascension to the British throne, the lives of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's two children could change dramatically from as early as next week.
As it stands, the royal family is observing a royal mourning period out of respect for the late Queen Elizabeth II who died on 8 September.
When this comes to an end on Monday, there is speculation surrounding new titles for Archie, three, and Lilibet, one.
In line with tradition, it is expected that the two youngsters will take on Prince and Princess titles. The royal tradition emerged in 1917 during King George V's reign whereby the King introduced a new rule allowing children and grandchildren of the monarch to claim titles.
Despite this new ruling, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Lili Mountbatten-Windsor may not be granted HRH status owing to Harry and Meghan's bombshell decision to step down as senior members of the royal family in 2020.
Since their shock announcement, the couple have now carved out a new life for themselves in the mountains of California. And while the duo retain their HRH stylings, they are not permitted to use them.
Meghan has allegedly claimed that she wants her children to have royal titles so that the UK can provide Archie and Lilibet with extra security.
Security concerns have long been at the forefront of Harry and Meghan's minds after the couple were themselves denied the right to police protection.
In a tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021, Meghan said: "In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time, so we have in tandem the conversation of 'he won't be given security, he's not going to be given a title' and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born."
She later added: "The idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of color in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be…
"I think even with that convention I'm talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie."
Archie and Lilibet aren't the only members of the royal family poised for potential change. Prince Edward could take on the late Prince Philip's title as the Duke of Edinburgh while his wife Sophie Wessex may subsequently become The Duchess of Edinburgh – a courtesy title which was held by the Queen from her wedding in 1947 until her accession in 1952.
They can't leave it alone, can they?
Blessed are they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed.
She's on Crown Property by Gracious permission of the King. It doesn't count as `Public Property' although the public does have access. Perhaps one of those cases where amateurs may allowed to take snaps for personal reasons without hindrance, a line is drawn where an image is (or is likely to be) used for commercial purposes.
I've just read somewhere that the position re the Coronation is that they will be invited - but will be put in the cheap seats.
As we have seen, the Harkles have abused for commercial purposes the ones they have been given.
In answer to your question about Valentine Lowe's book, it will be available on Amazon UK on 13th June 2023. Waterstones say 06/10/2022 (date obviously in the English format) Coming soon £20.
It's a big book. Further details:
Publisher: Headline Publishing Group
ISBN: 9781472290908
Number of pages: 384
Weight: 620 g
Dimensions: 232 x 152 x 36 mm
Waterstones do deliver to the US.
Overseas Delivery Information
We are experiencing delays with deliveries to many countries, but in most cases local services have now resumed. For more details, please consult the latest information provided by Royal Mail's International Incident Bulletin.
Delivery is £12.50
https://www.waterstones.com/help/delivery-options/19
be prepared for an assault of pr and bots. they will come fast and furious.
No, Jeremy Clarkson never pulls any punches. Will * sue him now?
Thank you for the Times article, it's much appreciated. The book seem more explosive than Tom Bower's. I've only read half of Revenge,then got fed up reading about those two when the Queen died'. It's enough to frazzle your brain after a while!
The public also won't be seeing videos from the funeral on entertainment shows either as another condition was for funeral footage to only be used in news coverage.
When I went to bed last night, hubby had fallen asleep watching Gogglebox. They had clips of the funeral on there (I admit I wasn't actually looking at the screen as I was busy reading, but there was definitely audio of the funeral, as if they were showing clips of what the people are watching as they normally do). Does this not count as an "entertainment" programme, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
🛑I forgot to thank Rebecca for the excerpts of the book! 😃
I did wonder about it at the time - had he jumped the gun?
Perhaps not.
*******************
This is what Lady C alluded to when she said she wasn’t the first to break the news of The Queen’s death. 🫤
While I was waiting for the announcement of her passing, I was watching Royal something live and in the comments, there were frequent mentions that she had passed, had the correct time and so on.
So it was out before officially.
I also stand by my suggestion in a previous thread: Tell them they can have the titles they want, plus the security that they claim is the only thing they akshuwally want, if Fauxrchie and Lilibucks are raised in the UK alongside their Wales cousins and make the same sort of appearances the other titled royal children have to do. If they want the privilege, they had better rise to the occasion!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeHoVdmM_Zo
A palace source also revealed to Valentine Low that Meghan told Harry she would break up with him if he didn't announce publicly they were dating.
According to an extract from the book, a source said she was saying: 'If you don't put out a statement confirming I'm your girlfriend, I'm going to break up with you.'
Another insider said: 'He was freaking out, saying "She's going to dump me."'
Insiders claim Meghan moaned she wasn't getting PAID for royal tours
https://mol.im/a/11244021
i know some of you follow barkjack on twitter. omg. cli in tweets and replies. the account continues to confirm the nastiness of the harkles.
I don't know but there seems to be a certain connection between the clothes one was allowed to purchase for a "event" and attending said event instead of attending said event and having to buy the appropriate outfit for it out of their own pocket.
Besides, even Diana did walkabouts. Part of the popularity was that she could be close and maybe shake your hand if you showed up to something.
HOW did this woman retain a job on a TV series for 7 years? They didn't pay her a wad of cash after every take. Why was the Royal family supposed to be different?
Once a yacht girl, always a yacht girl. They like to get paid up front before they perform. Rachel can't break old habits. She'll always be a cash on the dresser kind of gal.
She was paid, all right. Such a literal minded petty basic childish person.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/prince-harry-permanently-exiled-ruthless-085458905.html
I'm still thinking about possible roles for the Harkles:
H - Baron Hard-Up (Cinderella); King Rat (Dick Whittington); Jack who sold his mother's cow for a few beans
* -Demon Kween; pantomime Bad Fairy; Ugly Sister.#
Doria - Evil Step-Mother
Also Valentine Low - Jack the Giant Killer
Plastic Boy - Pantomime Dame/Widow Twankee;
H & * - Would-be Child-murderers (Babes in the Wood)
That's just a start - I'm sure we can find more suitable parts for our Dramatis Personae, based on type-casting.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime with photo of Her Late Majesty as Principal Boy.
@Maneki Neko
Thank you for your answers about getting the-sure-to-be 'blockbuster book' by Low. Will buy thru Book Depository for sure!
A new claim in this article: hapless found out the Queen had died from the news feed on his phone. So, their latest allegation is that no one informed him (victim of big bad royals).
Of course, Palace officials have denied this. They say they were not able to get hold of him until just before he touched down, with the implication that he was refusing to take calls from Balmoral.
As always with the duo, everything is messy and nasty. I think things are going to get a lot uglier. I do wish tabloids and self-pronounced royal experts would stop pushing the olive branch and reconciliation and having them back as working royals part-time as they wanted - that couple are beyond redemption because the problem is character not understandable human error. Be outraged by who and what they are, not what they say and do (although the latter is a result of the former, in some cases it is not and thus reconciliation and redemption is possible).
Oh, an article in Hello has confirmed that they have parted ways with SS and are now handling their own PR.
I ordered Revenge from the Book Depository. I live in the US. Free shipping worldwide.
Along with other Nutties, after reading the excerpt, I am going to buy the book.So thank you, Rebecca, for posting!
To your question the answer is easy -
There was never any true love to begin with for either couple on one side.
Threatening to break up over press coverage means she was not in it for the long haul. If she truly loved him, she would have put up with H becuase of love and played the long game. * has always shown throughout her life she is inable of playing a long game.
KCIII did not love Di, period. He grew to love her, but not like the Love he felt for Camilla, or like the example we have witnessed in W/C or QEII and Philip. That is the comparison.
Oh I wish. Sadly, not in this day and age. W&E were partially dependent on the Crown for financial support, plus in his capacity as an former King, he was a fixture that had to be protected.
The Harkles are with the family for the long haul, as KCIII stated in his first address - H&M living overseas. While it is not banishment, it does state that H will never be a factor in the Crown affairs. Plus, with global communications - they are only seconds from appearing anywhere.
I hope that because of that very statement, Overseas, H is removed from the CoS position, that his children are not awareded titles, and that he is removing the HRH and the Ducal titles due to their breaking the Sandringham agreement not to merchandize off their titles. H will always be his son - he will always be Prince Henry. but not of Wales -nope. That title now belongs to William. H can be the Prince of Mountbatten-Windsor, in keeping with the fmaily origins.
I really hope KCIII has a spine.
PR goes first. What next?
That photo of Twat with the finger up to her face. The difference is that everyone at the funeral displayed a soul in the photos at the funeral service. Twat does not have a soul. Her eyes are completely empty. That's why the photo will never get any traction. She's a literal vampire, sucking the life out of everyone because she's insatiable. Twat has nothing inside.
Palace aides take revenge on the 'Difficult Duchess': Insiders claim Meghan 'moaned she wasn't getting PAID for royal tours, agreed to Oprah interview SIX months before Megxit and reduced staff to tears with bullying and tantrums' - in bombshell new book.
Explosive extracts of the forthcoming book, Courtiers: the Hidden Power Behind the Crown by Valentine Low, were published by The Times today. The new book tells how during a royal tour of Australia in October 2018 (pictured), Meghan did not understand why she had to shake people's hands or do walkabouts. Staff reportedly heard her say: 'I can't believe I'm not getting paid for this.' It also describes the Duchess of Sussex's attitude towards her staff, describing an alleged meeting where Meghan lambasted a young female member in front of colleagues over a plan she had presented. After the woman told her that it would be difficult to execute a new plan, Meghan said: 'Don't worry. If there was literally anyone else I could ask to do this, I would be asking them instead of you.' Meghan is said to have berated staff repeatedly, including one occasion when an employee fell foul of the duchess over a mix-up involving press at an engagement. They said when they tried to call Meghan: 'She's not picking up. I feel terrified. This is so ridiculous. I can't stop shaking.' An insider said: 'There were a lot of broken people. Young women were broken by their behaviour.' They added that one staff member was 'completely destroyed' by their experience. Palace staff have claimed Meghan agreed to the couple's bombshell Oprah interview (top right) months before they left royal duties and moved to the US.
Maneki Neko said…
Not getting paid for walkabouts illustrates her enormous greed. There was also something in V Low's book about Melissa Touabti, PA to * and reduced to tears by her, who clashed with * because she wanted to keep all the freebies she was sent (jewellery etc) and that royals are not allowed to keep. Nothing is ever enough for that one.
@Mandki Neko: In addition M’s statement that she thought she should be paid to do walkabouts says so much about her.
In addition to displaying the narcissistic trait of greed, the statement also displays the narcissistic traits of entitlement, grandiosity, and a total disconnect from the real world.
I made me want to shout “You stupid bitch, the royal titles, lifestyle, status, fame, and power you receive via this arrangement compensate you far beyond what you truly deserve.”
I have read accounts of people who have had near-death experiences who say they visited heaven. One thing that several people stated is that everyone in heaven has a job. One of the criteria used in deciding your job is your actions during your life on earth.
In the next life, if she enters heaven, she could easily spend eternity scrubbing toilets. And from what I’ve seen of her behavior here on earth, she should count herself lucky if that’s what job she is given. I can’t picture God making her one of the upper echelon who help God manage heaven.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11243561/King-Charles-willing-Archie-Lilibet-prince-princess-titles-says-expert.html
Published yesterday,apparently.
Speculative discussion which seems to assume that king will give the chiden th princely titles but not the HRH, depending on whether he believes they can be trusted. We're darn' sure they can't be.
If the King gives way, my estimation of him will sink; he needs to apply tough love, not appeasement. Perhaps H's memoir will be the decider - they've had too many last chances and are not to be trusted in any shape or form.
What do Nutties think?
Harry, Meghan and the Sussex Survivors’ Club: ‘We were played’
Put-upon Palace aides insist they tried to help the duke and duchess — and handled a string of PR disasters — but the couple ditched them anyway, reveals Valentine Low in our second extract from his book
It is normally a standard part of a royal tour, the moment when the royals venture to the back of the plane, where the media sit, to say hello and have a chat. But the tour of the South Pacific by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in 2018 was different. It had started with a bang, with the announcement that Meghan was pregnant. And the couple had proved extremely popular in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga.
Nevertheless, Harry had looked out of sorts. His relations with the media pack had been prickly and strained. Where Meghan smiled, always putting on her best face whenever she was on show, Harry glowered. On the five-hour flight back from Tonga to Sydney, his press handlers promised that he would come and thank the media for being there. It was only after the plane had landed that the couple finally appeared.
I remember the scene well. Harry looked like a sulky teenager, Meghan stood behind him, smiling benignly. Her only contribution was a comment about how much everyone must be looking forward to Sunday lunch at home. Harry sounded rushed, as if he couldn’t wait to get back into the first-class cabin. “Thanks for coming,” he said, “even though you weren’t invited.”
This was spectacularly rude — and incorrect. The media had been invited to cover the tour. Later, Harry’s staff told him how badly his remarks had gone down. He replied: “Well, you shouldn’t have made me do it.” Harry’s petulant behaviour revealed much about the couple’s deteriorating relationship with their own staff.
So bad did things eventually become that Harry and Meghan’s team would later refer to themselves as the Sussex Survivors’ Club. The core members were Sam Cohen, whom the Queen had personally asked to step in as private secretary and who worked for the couple from after their wedding until the end of their South Africa tour in September 2019; Sara Latham, the former Freuds PR managing partner, hired in 2019 to be in charge of communications; and assistant press secretary Marnie Gaffney. Sources say the team came up with a damning epithet for Meghan: a “narcissistic sociopath”. They also reportedly said on repeated occasions: “We were played.”
Diamond earrings with an ugly provenance
Despite being aware of tension in the air, none of the media on the plane realised quite what was going on behind the scenes on that South Pacific tour. One key incident that sheds light on the relationship between Meghan and her closest aides occurred in Fiji, when Harry and Meghan attended a state dinner hosted by President Jioji Konrote, to which the duchess wore an eye-catching pair of chandelier diamond earrings. Kensington Palace told the press they had been loaned, but refused to say from whom. The reason for this reticence would not become apparent until more than two years later. The earrings had been given to the duchess as a wedding present by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman.
Three weeks later Meghan gave the earrings a second outing at Buckingham Palace at a 70th birthday party for Charles, then Prince of Wales. At that time, Cohen still appeared to be under the impression that they had been loaned by Chopard. However, others knew the truth. When they had first appeared in the media after the Fiji dinner, staff in London responsible for registering details of all royal gifts had recognised them and alerted Kensington Palace. A source said: “We made a decision not to confront Meghan and Harry on it, out of fear for what their reaction would be.”
After the duchess wore the earrings for a second time, an aide decided to take it up with Harry. He is said to have looked “shocked” that people knew where the earrings came from, although the Sussexes’ lawyers deny he was ever questioned about their provenance.
In February 2021, Meghan’s lawyers, Schillings, said: “At no stage did the duchess tell staff that the earrings were ‘borrowed from a jeweller’, as this would have been untrue, and therefore any suggestion that she encouraged them to lie to the media is baseless.” Two days later Schillings said: “The duchess is certain that she never said the earrings were borrowed from a jeweller. It is possible she said the earrings were borrowed, which is correct, as presents from heads of state to the royal family are gifts to Her Majesty the Queen, who can then choose to lend them out to members of the family.” But that is not convincing: if the earrings were loaned by the Queen, staff would have said so. And no one in normal conversation would ever have referred to them as being loaned; they were a wedding gift for Meghan.
Meghan’s lawyers also argued that she had no idea about Sheikh Mohammed’s involvement in Khashoggi’s murder. However, Meghan once told a gathering for International Women’s Day that she read The Economist because she sought out “journalism that’s really covering things that are going to make an impact”. Between mid-October and early November 2018, The Economist ran at least two articles examining the role of Sheikh Mohammed in Khashoggi’s murder.
Insane’ row with a women’s rights group
That was not the only time in Fiji when the public narrative did not match what was going on behind the scenes. While the couple were in the capital, Suva, the duchess paid an official visit to a market to see a project run by UN Women to improve the lot of women working there. She was due to spend 15 minutes meeting women there. However, after just eight minutes, she was rushed out. The Kensington Palace press office was sent into a panic, with sources initially claiming that she had left early because of “security” fears. That was later changed to concerns about “crowd management issues”.
The coverage — including the headline “Pregnant duchess rushed from marketplace as crowds close in” — caused massive consternation within Scotland Yard. The Metropolitan Police suggested flying out an officer to ensure she was being protected properly, despite private assurances from Kensington Palace that the incident had nothing to do with security.
The duchess’s head of security resigned from the Met a few months later. Why did the duchess now appear to want to distance herself from UN Women? The reason is not known. In 2015, when she was an actress in Suits, Meghan had accepted an invitation to be a UN Women advocate for women’s political participation and leadership. But by 2018, she appeared to be less happy to be associated with the group. Her lawyers told The Times in 2021: “This is completely false. The duchess is a keen supporter of UN Women and has never objected to their branding. The only reason the duchess was evacuated from the event was due to safety concerns. This was a decision made by her head of security . . . [she] met with other leaders from UN Women later in the South Pacific tour.”
She shunned the help she was offered
Two years later, Meghan’s narrative would once again be at odds with the memories of those who once worked with her. In her famous interview with Oprah Winfrey in March 2021, Meghan takes pains to highlight the difference between the Queen and those who surrounded her. In Meghan’s account, they were the people who refused to help when she was in her hour of greatest need. They were the ones who “perpetuate falsehoods” about her.
Watching Meghan describe how she considered ending her life in the year after her marriage was an uncomfortable experience. And yet a succession of perfectly decent people, all of whom believed in Meghan and wanted to make it work, came to be so disillusioned that they began to suspect that even her most heartfelt pleas for help were part of a deliberate strategy that had one end in sight: her departure from the royal family. They believe she wanted to be able to say ‘Look how they failed to support me’.
Sam Cohen, who had 17 years’ experience of working at the Palace, would frequently say to Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary, and Clive Alderton, Charles’s private secretary, that if it all went wrong, the Palace needed evidence of the duty of care it had shown to Harry and Meghan. The duty of care was crucial. “[Sam] was a broken record with them on that,” said a source.
Instead, Meghan was able to point out all the times the institution had failed her. One of them was when she says she went to the head of HR, where she was given a sympathetic hearing but sent on her way. This was inevitable: HR is there to deal with employee issues, not members of the royal family. Meghan would presumably have known that, so what was she doing there? Laying a trail of evidence, would be the cynical answer.
Another former staff member goes even further. “Everyone knew that the institution would be judged by her happiness,” they say. “The mistake they made was thinking that she wanted to be happy. She wanted to be rejected, because she was obsessed with that narrative from day one.”
Monetising Megxit and ditching loyal staff
In the view of another insider, one of Meghan’s concerns was whether she was going to be able to earn money for herself given her position in the royal family. Although Meghan was not making money out of the deals her US agents were negotiating at the time — she did the voiceover for a Disney wildlife documentary in return for a charitable donation — some suspected that in the end she wanted to make money. And the only way she could do that was by leaving her royal life behind and going back to America.
Did Young and Alderton grasp the issue that was confronting them before it was too late? It seems not. When Jason Knauf, the Sussexes’ then communications sectary, wrote to Simon Case, Prince William’s private secretary, making an allegation that Meghan had been bullying staff in October 2018, Case passed it on to the head of HR, Samantha Carruthers, who was based at Clarence House. But Clarence House sources have always insisted that it never crossed Alderton’s desk.
Part of the problem, according to one source, was that everyone in the Palace was too genteel and civil: “When someone decides not to be civil, they have no idea what to do. They were run over by her, and then run over by Harry.”
The situation was not helped by Harry and Meghan’s deteriorating relationship with Alderton and Young. “As things started to go wrong,” a source told royal biographer Robert Lacey, “Meghan came to perceive Young as the inflexible, bureaucratic figure who summed up what was [wrong] with the BP [Buckingham Palace] mentality, and the feeling was mutual. Young really came to dislike Meghan’s style.” Harry was just as dismissive of the two senior courtiers as Meghan. An insider said: “He used to send them horrible emails. So rude.”
When Harry and Meghan went to Canada for their six-week break in November 2019, their escape plans were already laid, amid the greatest secrecy. Meghan would not even tell their nanny, Lorren, where they were going. According to one source, she did not know where they were going until the plane — a private jet — was in the air.
This is an edited extract from Courtiers: The Hidden Power Behind the Crown, by Valentine Low, published by Headline on October 6
How can they ever be forgiven? Not of course that they ever would be remorseful or penitent.
"In the next life, if she enters heaven, she could easily spend eternity scrubbing toilets. And from what I’ve seen of her behavior here on earth, she should count herself lucky if that’s what job she is given. I can’t picture God making her one of the upper echelon who help God manage heaven."
_________________________________
You are being so compassionate to think she will get to heaven although I cannot truly judge where she will end up (even if she seems to be demonic). The Catholic Church believes in Purgatory where a person has to be while atoning for their sins. While in Purgatory you will feel the ache of being separated from God in Heaven. However the prayers of living Christians can help to mitigate the time their loved one stays in Purgatory. Hence why we say prayers for "our dearly departed souls". After that one will go to heaven. [Personally my brother and I just hope to get to Purgatory since we are realistic and believe we might die with sins on our souls.]
It has been inferred that Meghan may be Catholic prior to marrying Harry. It was said the the Palace did not say why Meghan had a baptism at age 36 (most Christian faiths you only get baptized once) She recived 2 weeks of religious instructions from the Archbishop of Cantebury before being baptized into the Church of England. She did it for he sake of marrying Harry (although it's not a requirement).
Frankly I can't remember ever seeing the grusome duo Ever attend church unless it was for a royal function. They have not allegedyly baptized Lilibet. though there were rumors that they might do it when they visited for the Jubilee. Guess they didn't care because it would have been a wonderful photo op for Meghan.
I feel sorry for the children as Catholics believe in taking children to church from the time they are babies and start instructing young children about our Triune God. I had three children with only 3 1/2 yrs between them and they went to church every Sunday and learned very easily to be quiet and kneel during the Mass at the right times. So I have always wondered why a big deal is made of seeing Prince George and Princess Charlotte going to the Chrurch of England's services.
If the King gives way, my estimation of him will sink; he needs to apply tough love, not appeasement. Perhaps H's memoir will be the decider - they've had too many last chances and are not to be trusted in any shape or form.
What do Nutties think?
I think we need to consider that the Harkles may have realized that The Freeze is very real, and they are not likely to get anything they want.....and therefore this story is a PR plant of theirs to try to force at least titles for the Darrin Dolls...that is now truly their best case scenario. They may have winkled that they've grossly over-stepped, and are in self-preservation mode. King Charles surely can read the tea-leaves, that his treatment of the pair (calling them by their first names only, Overseas, etc.) means they're out, and that the people would think harshly of King Charles the Spineless (which would be the perception if he caved to their demands).
Apologies in advance for any typos, my keyboard is failing, fast, and skipping key strikes. I'm also a terrible proof reader.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59879079 (Jan 2022)
-about * being awarded `derisory damages' in her case about invasion of privacy - it tells us what the Court thought of her claim.
She was probably so focussed on the win on the copyright issue that she missed what an insult it was - akin to Whistler's farthing.
See http://robertfulford.com/2004-06-14-whistler.html
I did read the article about Charles and the titles. This is according to Katie Nicholls. I saw by chance an article in the Northern Echo which states, however, that 'King Charles could reportedly ban Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s children, Archie and Lilibet, from having Prince and Princess titles over Harry’s book.
. . .
However, reports from Vanity Fair have claimed that King Charles could prevent Harry’s children from receiving their royal titles due to the book and the couple’s upcoming show.
A source told the publication: “It depends a lot on what happens in the coming months, particularly with Harry’s book and their TV show,” reporting that Charles wishes to keep royal titles for “top tier” members of the royal family.' ...
I'd say nothing is set in stone. I hope and pray our new King shows a lot of backbone. So far, he's been adamant that H wasn't allowed to bring wifey to Balmoral when the Queen was dying. It must have been some stand-off as H was late and had to organise his own transport. Please don't back down, Charles!
still have the same thoughts as @barkjack
a) MM's desperate turn to be called a princess by her audience.
b) Desperation to obtain titles for their children.
c) the meeting with Charles that did not occur.
d) KCIII's rush to make PW and Kate PPoW.
e) KCIII's private meeting with Lis Truss, during the funeral period with the queen, makes me believe that he requested something from parliament. But I'm on hold....
'We can elaborate more...
* Recent actions mean swift plans being put in place, post-Coronation.
* The “continue to build their lives overseas,” statement hinted at it"
Potentially PERMANENTLY exiling PH & M from England
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1573424708728545284?s=20&t=s1BhY23LDezXCVAZjF3X-g
Release....the hounds!
All sorts of prognostications, but the Lowe book has allowed those directly trampled on by the 6/5s to have a voice, be it an unnamed voice. It is similar to the Bower book, but the gloves are off.
Failing that, it would have had to have been a `provisional baptism', the same as if a baby had been baptised in an emergency, without a priest ie it didn't count if there had been a valid baptism.
Regarding * I suspect she knows about Roman Catholicism without having been an actual Catholic - sort of RC adjacent. Had she been baptised & confirmed RC, she'd've been `received into the Anglican church' without baptism & confirmation,as we recognise the validity of Roman Catholic orders and sacraments.
It might just be interesting to look into the detail of how Prince Philip became Anglican from being Greek Orthodox, ie the process.
Well spotted. I too must have missed the derisory damages! £1!! She probably expected millions. This is what I call justice.
Jesús Enrique Rosas on Twitter.
He says, "Keep an eye out on the media the next few months" "The Queen's shield no longer exists. Expect a metric fu*k ton will "leak" to the press."
https://twitter.com/Knesix/status/1573614612917919745 (for more)
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/xn0ebj/the_idea_that_camilla_tried_to_go_out_of_her_way/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
the body language guy tweets that in the near future, video and audio footage of the twat misbehaving will be released because the Queen is no longer protecting the Deep Sixed
Low is fairly circumspect, obviously wary of revealing anything that * could sue him for. We discussed the 'HR' thing at length on this blog after the Oprah interview aired.
I can only surmise that *s followers, or whomever she's addressing her allegations to, are so little acquainted with gainful employment that they think this is how companies are actually run.
Asking 'HR' to handle your mental health issues is like asking the office that issues your pay packet, or whoever signs your check to do your taxes.
I realize that in the USA, employees at the moment have a bit more of an advantage vis-a-vis their terms of employment than is usual, but there are few reputable & successful companies that would put up with employees like the 5s, with their constant 'leaves of absence,' their slovenly appearance, their rudeness to colleagues, & customers (because that is what the UK public is), unwillingness to perform duties, constant leaking of private information, & brazenly false claims regarding the
company's operations. They would be out on their ear in a nano second.
In the Samantha Cohen interview I linked to earlier, Cohen talks about how steadfast the Queen was, how she never took time off for illness, or even pregnancy. She welcomed the latest Prime Minister even as she was dying. Words cannot express my disgust with the 5s & their idiot enablers.
Prince Harry has launched a last-minute bid to tone down his bombshell autobiography it has been revealed
It comes amid fears his final draft 'might not go down too well' following the death of Queen Elizabeth II
The memoir, signed off for an expected autumn release, is to be published by Penguin Random House
A source said 'Harry has thrown a spanner in the works keen for refinements in the light of the Queen's death'
Publishers already demanded a rewrite after the first draft was deemed 'too touchy-feely' to publish
By KATE MANSEY AND CAROLINE GRAHAM FOR MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 17:13 EDT, 24 September 2022
Prince Harry has launched a last-minute bid to tone down his bombshell autobiography amid fears his final draft 'might not go down too well' in the wake of the Queen's death, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The memoirs had been signed off ready for an expected autumn release, but the Duke – who is writing the book as part of a near £40 million three-title deal – has asked to make some significant alterations.
His request may be seen as a sign that he is ready to take a more conciliatory approach to the rest of the Royal Family, but could cause problems for his publishers.
'Harry has thrown a spanner in the works,' a source said. 'He is keen for refinements in the light of the Queen's death, her funeral and his father Charles taking the throne.
'There may be things in the book which might not look so good if they come out so soon after these events. He wants sections changed now. It's not a total rewrite by any means. He desperately wants to make changes. But it might be too late.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11246529/Harrys-memoir-u-turn-Duke-requests-11th-hour-rewrite-autobiography-Queens-death.html
Thanks for the Twitter link. video and audio footage of the twat misbehaving will be released because the Queen is no longer protecting the Deep Sixed. This is what we've all long been waiting for. Getting the 🍿 out now might be slightly premature but I hope we'll be able to see a slow drip, drip, drip of negative articles.
-------
If the gruesome twosome are now handling their own PR, we know it won't be a resounding success. They won't be able to do better than professionals but as usual, they know better. TBW certainly does. May this be her undoing.
Any adult disrupting a funeral in church while pandering to the cameras disgusts me. M's antics make her look ignorant and disrespectful.
H sitting behind his father lips pressed together during "God saves the King" resembled a toddler refusing to eat his vegetables. Ridiculous.
Re the candle, I suspect the camera person chose the angel in attempt to capture King Charles while blocking M's antics. Placing the duo directly the King " put them in the frame". I would have preferred them to have been seated in a corner far from the rest of the he family and cameras.
Wouldn't it he a riot if child welfare were called about " abandoned children" in California.
However, we cannot say this is a result of QEII's passing. These books would have been in the pipeline for many months...so they would have been published irrespective of her death.
However, things that are hinted to come out (referencing BLG here) such as videos will be a direct response to HMTQ no longer providing her protection.
From the Daily Mail:
Speculative discussion which seems to assume that king will give the children the princely titles but not the HRH, depending on whether he believes they can be trusted...
What do Nutties think?
I just don't see how he can give the titles knowing the children are not "of the body." He'd really alienate the House of Lords and the rest of the nobility because they've apparently debated updating the rules on titles (e.g., allowing for surrogates) and they've rejected updating them repeatedly. CRIII has to know that eventually the truth will come out about the Sussexes and that everyone will know that he knew (i.e., as if Liar could pull off a warming pan baby and MI5 wouldn't know).
It may seem archaic to caution CRIII about alienating the nobility, but I mean it in all seriousness. Those are old families who still have a lot of financial resources, a legitimate role in the British government, and continue to fill positions in the palace hierarchy. I just don't see how he can ignore their repeated decisions to not update the rules governing titles.
I don't see it having anything to do with personal trust. I think it's much more of a political decision.
One question for others on the board: If he did do this, would he be creating a precedent for the rest of the nobility? The Sussexes' use of surrogates is going to come out eventually; it's really only a matter of time. Would he be changing statutory law by granting titles to their surrogate-born kids? Does he have that authority?
"Prince Harry has launched a last-minute bid to tone down his bombshell autobiography amid fears his final draft 'might not go down too well' in the wake of the Queen's death, The Mail on Sunday can reveal."
Wow and double-wow.
Contractually I'm not even sure he can. If he finished the copy and the draft has been signed off by his publisher's legal dept. (which many sources have said it has), doesn't the book belong to the publisher now?
If this is true, I think Harry's about to learn a real life lesson here.
Wonder who leaked his "last minute bid" announcement to the media 🤔??
IMO there won't be so many "fans" of Twit and Twat because they can no longer afford to buy all those bots.
"Low is fairly circumspect, obviously wary of revealing anything that * could sue him for. We discussed the 'HR' thing at length on this blog after the Oprah interview aired.'
____________________________________________________
Not to be contrary, but Low was extemely bold in stating detailed accounts of * and H's unseemingly behavior and negative actions while naming names and specific events. If he was lying or mistaken in what he recounted Yes he could be sued successfully for defamation IMO. However it is precisely him boldly writing such potentially damaging things about * and H which make me believe he telling the truth and has solid proof.
Truth is the best defense to a defamation suit. Substantial truth. Low is gutsy because he has facts which are true. If such a suit went to court, Low would just have to show the accounts were "substantially true". The Supreme Court once ruled tha in determining whether a statement is a fact, courts will consider whether a plausible method of verification exists. So it seems Low could easily bring these sources as witnesses to verify their accuracy to the facts. This would be a nightmare for the -6's as it could open up even more damaging details regarding proving a specific fact.
An additional frequent defense to defamation is an 'opinion'; and undoubtedly many people had their "opinions" about the nasty duo. Low would have true facts to support his opnion which therefor protects him. I'm sure he was careful to use other's opinions to be based on facts.
A more obscure defense Low could use is the issue of "consent". It is not necessary that the defamed person knew that he consented to publication of a statement that is defamatory in nature, but it is enough that the plantiff's had reason to know it could be defamatory and consented anyway. Her words in public settings I would think could be implied consent. And the awful duo no doubt knew Low was writing a potentially damaging book and they did not sue in advance to review the material and if needed, to ask for the info to be limited or objected to.
I believe Bower, especially since he had a Lawyer*s look over his manuscript, was keeping all these defenses in mind. Hence why Bower has not ever been successfuly sued for his prior books and probably why the Suck*sses have not yet sued.
The above is just my legalistic amature opinion but supported by writings I've read on the subject.
Given there is such suspicion about the births, the historical difficulties getting answers which do not change over time, the past behavior towards family, friends and staff - then waiting a while to make a final decision is plausible. Reasonable. And given all the other governmental work of higher and more timely priority, waiting is justified. Factor in that grief does not end after a couple of days. I just think KC has much more on his mind.
The loss of the Queen shield? maybe there is something to his saying how he had a special bond with her after all.
Regardless, demanding titles comes off as trying to pry rings off the fingers of a dead body which isn't even cold yet. If that doesn't register to anyone (ie KC), then nothing will.
What I wonder about is the conversations between the two about not going to see the Queen. We looked at the situation and thought: She's not going to live forever so go while you still can because there might be a moment when it will be too late. I just wonder how it was discussed between them and who said what over time. Or if there are now regrets "discussing" this missed opportunity.
It never occurred to me, before reading Jeremy Clarkson's Sun article (thanks for the link!), that the flight delay from *'s tantrum might have caused William, Andrew, Edward, and Sophie to miss the Queen's last moments. Absolutely unforgiveable.
As I watched Lady C's video today, she said something along the lines of "although The Queen had bone cancer, that's what she died of" (bad grammar, sorry, I cannot exactly phrase it to make it mean what I want it to mean. My dear mother passed several years ago, just a few years shy of The Queen's age. She was doing very well, but was suddenly taken ill (pre-Covid), and had what the Dr. deemed a "cascade failure of her organs". From what Lady C said, and from the news reports of a critical medical issue, I believe that is what may have happened, that the doctors and likely TQ's oldest children, Charles & Anne, decided she needed to be let go peacefully, so was gently medicated to ease her passing. There was no medical recovery possible at that point. Thus, it really didn't matter who was there or not there. I have no special knowledge of this, but the way Lady C described he chronology of Sept. 8 in today's video just startled me into knowing how it must have happened. Which of course just makes all of the arguing and demands become more awful for the rest of the family who was doing their best to cope with one of the hardest things there is to do in this life. It makes me cry just thinking about it. I cannot imagine and do not want to ponder it further.
'The run-up to the wedding was really very difficult for the Queen. She was very upset by how Harry had behaved and some of his demands and the way he went about things his own way. I remember her being rather upset by how beastly Harry was being. Their relationship was quite badly damaged by it all.'
'The cottage [Frogmore] was a big deal,' she said. 'The Queen's entrance into the gardens is right next to their cottage. It is essentially her back yard, her solitude, and her privacy. She was giving that up in gifting Harry and Meghan Frogmore Cottage. We all thought it was very big of her. She said, 'I hope they'll respect it.' [Clearly they did not.]
__________
I know that we Nutties have long been on to the fact that * is a “narcissistic sociopath”, but to read in the latest excerpt from Valentine Low’s book that the core Sussex aides used the term to describe her is something new, isn’t it? I recall reading something similar before, but only as an unsubstantiated rumor. To have it in Low’s book is significant, right? It’s being re-reported all over the media, along with other juicy bits.
On the subject of the King possibly granting titles to the Sussex children, I refer back to the Narcissistic Sociopath. Assuming all the senior Royals understand how seriously mentally ill * is, and have presumably been told how dangerous narcissistic sociopaths are to other people, wouldn’t KC do whatever is in his power to protect himself, his wife, and the Wales family from her? It may not be fair to punish the Sussex children for the sins of their parents, but to honor them with the titles Prince and Princess would tether them (and therefore, their mother) more firmly to the Monarchy, wouldn’t it? Besides, given their genetics and how they are being raised (and by whom), what are the chances A and L will eventually be an asset to the RF? Please don’t pile on if that comment offends you.
The Queen had bone cancer? Oh dear. That is a very painful form of the disease. The term “mobility issues” has taken on a whole new meaning. HM was heroic to soldier on until the end.
the valentine low pieces are good. we are getting more the sam cohen perspective a sr well established and trusted member of the household. we always wondered what she saw.
Before I proceed, I actually find it somewhat distasteful to dissect what someone may have died of. I’ll proceed nonetheless as it’s been bought up. 🫤
Lady C said and I’m paraphrasing somewhat, she knew The Queen was dying, that she was really ill, it wasn’t her chronic condition what she actually died of.
She said in other videos that it wasn’t the worse disease of the bones that The Queen had, so I ruled out bone cancer. I didn’t think you could die of osteoporosis. Regardless, it does appear the Queen took a turn for the worst very suddenly, so yes it was a sudden catastrophic medical event that she couldn’t recover from. 😞
Had the Quen lived another year, wouldn't the current version have been published…..
According to Lady C The Queen wasn’t expected to live to the end of this year…that’s probably why Mole’s book was due for publication this year. 🫤 Now he’s seen how beloved his Grandmother was….he’s terrified the contents of his book will backfire on him. 🤨
According to a medical friend, it's often down to morphine poisoning.
Also, both the treatments and the knock-on effects of the malignancy can be the immediate cause of death; what can probably be said is that without the cancer in the first place they perhaps they may not have died.
For eg., it's often said that `most men who have a diagnosis of prostate cancer die with it, not of it'. True, in way; a friend developed an aggressive form of it severely damaged his kidney function, such that he had to have regular dialysis. Was it kidney failure that killed him of the cancer? It's like arguing about angels dancing on pins.
------
Proof or otherwise for the Sussex children:
I bet there's not one of us who cannot prove our dates and place of birth with an official certificate that was issued on the basis of evidence provided by reliable personnel.
Yes, there's an adage in many research fields that `absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' - in historical research is possible that critical documents have been destroyed over the centuries and in field biology the animal you assume is absent has not revealed itself to you - pine martens in the New Forest would be a good example:
https://www.forestryengland.uk/blog/the-return-pine-martens-englands-forests
It can take extraordinary circumstances to conceal or destroy birth records - I knew somebody who married a young woman from the Malay peninsula who believed she was in her 20s. He had a shock when the original record of her birth turned up. Apparently, her village records had been hidden for safe keeping as the Japanese advanced, (1941-42) but they were eventually rediscovered and our friend found that his wife was only 15 when they married - easy to lose track of time under the circumstances of the Japanese occupation.
I think an English court of law would not look kindly on the Sussexes' obfuscations and would rapidly conclude that they had not been truthful. FWIW, my opinion is that the most likely explanation is that `Archie' was carried by another woman and was adopted as required by English Law, since we have this quaint notion is that a child's mother is the woman who produced him from her womb. The document we were shown is, I believe, not inconsistent with this.
Whether either or both of the Harkles contributed to his genetics cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt without DNA analysis.
As thing stands, I think there's a prima facie case that they have attempted to interfere with the Line of Succession - Treason!
Does it just show how most `normal' people have a hard job of understanding narcissism and its related psychopathies unless they have been on the receiving end themselves? It's such a shock to have someone turn on you when you love them, and thought they loved you that it's difficult to take in. So difficult that one doubts one's own perception and starts to accept that the standard comments (`Aren't you over-reacting?'; `You must have done something to make them react like that'; `There are always two sides to everything') - yes, we've heard it all.
So rarely does one hear someone independent say `It's not you - it's them.' In fact, you'll only hear it if, as I did, from a paid counsellor. Your nearest and dearest may back you to the hilt but they cannot say so without the retort `You would say that, wouldn't you?', especially as the narc has taken care not to reveal themselves to others.
I imagine that the late queen also found it difficult to accept .
According to Lady C The Queen wasn’t expected to live to the end of this year…that’s probably why Mole’s book was due for publication this year. Now he’s seen how beloved his Grandmother was….he’s terrified the contents of his book will backfire on him.
What shocked Harry might have been how enthusiastically King Charles was embraced by his subjects. Maybe he was counting on his father being an unpopular successor to his grandmother and hoped to ride the wave of negative sentiment all the way to the bank.
I can't remember whether I'd hear of V Low before but this is what I found. Google books says:
'Valentine Low has been reporting on the royal family for over a quarter of a century, and his exclusives for The Times have made front page news and headlines around the world. After graduating from Oxford University, Valentine worked at the Evening Standard for over twenty years, reporting from all around the world. He lives in West London.:
The Times says:
'Valentine Low has covered the royal family — and other stories — for The Times since 2008. He has been to Russia with the Queen, the Galapagos Islands with the Prince of Wales and Bhutan with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. He is also the author of the allotment classic, One Man and His Dig.'
It seems he must know quite a bit about the BRF and possibly had access to some staff.
I agree with you that it is pointless for the children to have titles at all. They are American citizens, being brought up in America, and estranged from the royal family, the UK, and all the history and traditions and expectations associated with such titles. The duo do not need the titles for the children (other than for merching, which I do not think the hapless one will allow).
However, the children do have titles as they are children of a Duke. The girl is a 'Lady' (just as Diana was) ... Lady Lilli Mountbatten-Windsor. The boy is a viscount ... Viscount Archie Dumbarton (am not sure if I have given his full name correctly). For no rational reason, the duo refused titles for their children when the first was born (hence the lack of titles shown on the royal family website) and even released a press briefing saying so.
All the King has to do is remind the public about the above fact.
Interesting point Enbrethiliel
I hadn't thought of it that way. I had been thinking that there was discounting the information about her health as just an attempt to reel him back in so don't fall for it. We have plenty of time to do whatever.
@Rebecca, I think the fact that anyone in the royal household even uttered the words 'sociopathic narcissist' is very telling.
The RF is in effect a diplomatic entity at its heart, & those sorts are very understated in their pronouncements, especially the British. 'Recollections may vary' is more in their line.
* seems to have adopted the worst behavior of Hollywood bigwigs, who have been legend for their boorish & confrontational manners since the very beginnings of the industry. I blame the show business ethos rather than any national, ethnic or class influences. *s big problem in Hollywood isn't her behavior, it's that she just isn't big boxoffice. She doesn't make money for anyone.
She's all outlay,& no income for anyone who becomes involved with her & her appendage. If she made money for anyone, they would be at her feet, bowing down, just as she's always wanted.She only seems to enrich entities like the Daily Mail, which capitalize on the public's dislike for her.
Especially now in the digital age, books can be 'changed' up to a very late stage. There are two compelling reasons for doing so: a major error of fact (e.g. in a medical textbook), or a very recent development that has a major impact on the contents of a book (e.g. someone influential dies just before a biography about them is sent to the printer). In the old days, an errata slip would be pasted somewhere in the front matter. Today, a digital file can be amended quite easily, and an afterword can be added. The latter is a bit more tricky as, depending on the format of the book and the printer being used, a book is printed in a specific number of sections that then get folded bound together and trimmed. So the delay for the former is less than the delay for a latter (and this assumes that the book is not already at the printers ... actually stopping the printing process involves such high costs that you might as well write the book off as a loss).
If he wants to tone down some 'explosive' content, I doubt that the publisher would be happy. The prince has led a life in the public eye so the real 'juice' in the book would be personal anecdotes and stories never told before. It is the private stuff that will make the book a bestseller of note, so the publisher will want that to remain.
Rumours are still swirling ... that the reason or part of the reason for the delay was because the publisher sent the manuscript back to be rewritten as it was too much touchy feely stuff rather than actual content; that the heavy hand of TBW is discernable in at least some of the chapters ...
IMO the duo don't give a fig about offending anyone and fail to see the consequences of their actions. They have always felt entitled to do and say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, and nothing is ever their fault.
PS It seems the hapless one got an outrageously generous deal from the publisher so I doubt this will apply: in traditional publishing contracts, the author must pay for the costs of corrections after a certain stage in the production of a book. This would usually be subtracted from royalties.