A flitter here - The Cut. Flitter there and it's Variety. It hasn't been People for a while so maybe they're next in rotation.
Oh, and building the playground. Kaboom is actually pretty big and known nationally trying to help increase the activity levels of kids. Great. Uvalde is great, I get it but I cannot help but wonder if there would be some equally deserving places in LA. Closer to home. Closer to local eyes (especially if there could be some sort of political something some time).
Each participation always seems to be something in a new direction from the last one - not settling and doing a deep dive into a single subject but more like skipping stones on a pond - shallow taps which drop. Quietly.
The participation is lauded far and wide. And how much they participated in getting it to happen is not disclosed. Ever. If the financials get released, that would be an interesting read. But numbers? that's boring stuff compared to the fun of trying to find the next project to get involved in - the wheeling and dealing.
But, why does everything seem to be just so complicated about them, around them, what they do and who they do it with? The franticness reminds me kind of a Jackson Pollock piece. Splatters and swirls in all directions.
Meanwhile, the world moves on to the next event which catches the eye. And what ever they just sparkled about is forgotten and only sometimes remembered in a news article by a reporter looking to add inches to their current article to make it appear longer.
Comments
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2022
Blind Item #4
One of the people that quit so many years ago because they hated working for the alliterate one, does, in fact have a recording of the alliterate one talking about the whole plane crash thing.
The article...she is happy, plans to never act again (ROTFL) and speaks like they are normal. And then there is the talk about the elephant in the room -- all the while knowing that Charles is watching their actions.
Forgive me, but which elephant in the room were you trying to direct our attention towards? There are more than one, regrettably.
We are never, ever going to escape Meghan Markle, are we?
Right on the heels of her disastrous profile in New York Magazine's The Cut — in which she compared herself, never forget, to Nelson Mandela — Meghan's back with yet another cover story, this one for Variety.
And guess what? We're in for a rebrand.
The Duchess of Despair and Endless Grievance now wants to be known as FUN! And SILLY! But also very, very smart. Most assuredly not a bimbo — not at all like her most recent podcast guest Paris Hilton, who Meghan said she had judged for being . . . a bimbo.
Hey, we're all just women trying to lift up other women here, am I right?
Our Meghan is nothing if not a phoenix rising from the ashes — even if said ashes result from all those Molotov cocktails she keeps tossing. The Queen's funeral, replete with the sidelining of Harry and Meghan, is firmly in the rearview. And despite Meghan's actions to the contrary — you know, that Oprah interview in which she said a senior royal was racist and that the palace didn't care that she was suicidal and pregnant — Meghan really loved the Queen.
'Certainly, in terms of female leadership, she is the most shining example of what that looks like,' Meghan told Variety. 'I feel deep gratitude to have been able to spend time with her and get to know her . . . And I continue to be proud to have had a nice warmth with the matriarch of the family.'
Hmmm. You'd never know that Harry reportedly rebuffed two invitations from the Queen to visit shortly before her death, or that his brother reportedly remains incensed with Harry and Meghan's repeated betrayals, or that King Charles is holding the titles of prince and princess for H & M's children in abeyance, possibly until the damage from Harry's forthcoming memoir and the couple's Netflix docuseries becomes clearer.
Oh, and about that Netflix deal, one this couple has been trying to defang since Her Majesty's funeral? Wouldn't you know, Meghan Markle — avatar of kindness, authenticity, love, goodness and 'meaningful change' — is already backpedaling.
She and Harry really have no control over their own show, you see. Actually, apart from starring in it, they have almost nothing to do with it.
'It's nice to be able to trust someone with our story,' Meghan says of Liz Garbus, the Oscar-nominated director of her docu-series, ' . . . even if it means it may not be the way we would have told it. But that's not why we're telling it.'
It's not? Netflix gave Harry and Meghan a reported $100 million production deal, yet these two have produced almost nothing since signing back in 2020. Their requisite pound of flesh is long overdue. Meghan's establishing plausible deniability here. She just thinks we're all too stupid to see it.
'We're trusting our story to someone else,' she goes on, 'and that means it will go through their lens.'
I read through the transcript (mostly) from the most recent chat. What a bore! As usual. As others have pointed out, she definitely reads all the critiques here, and elsewhere…thus addressing them in her podcasts. She is so glaringly obvious…how does the world nOt see this? Vain, shallow and desperate. I guess she still has money because surely these pieces aren’t complementary. It’s been years since I’ve spent $ on a magazine, but if VF is an example of modern offerings….no thanks!
The problem with this rebrand is that, like everything Meghan Markle has to say, it's meaningless. We're still left with the same old Meghan and Harry – self-obsessed and completely and totally out-of-touch.
Case in point: While the days of comparing herself to Mandela are long gone, now we're keeping company with Gloria Steinem — whom Meghan cringingly calls 'Glo' — and reminding us that she quoted Eleanor Roosevelt in her high school yearbook.
Meghan, you see, is intelligent. Mensa material. According to her self-report, she's good at 'Jeopardy!' She plays Wordle and Scrabble — with a timer. She was once fluent in French. She doesn't watch TV for mere entertainment, as the rest of us, the great unwashed, do; no, she's in search of 'watching great storytelling.'
In short, Meghan's as insufferable as ever. She speaks of her and Harry's packed workdays — doing exactly what, she cannot say — Zooming and whatnot from their vulgar $14 million, 16-bathroom Montecito mansion while lecturing us on eco-warrior-hood.
Here she is, our bimbo emeritus, frolicking in her garden, barefoot in designer dresses, flicking her Cartier-adorned wrist just so, posing with that typical Markle expression of beatitude, our own latter-day saint parting the clouds and descending to save us.
It's all so unoriginal, so Angelina Jolie circa 2008.
Navel-gazing chattery aside, Meghan's here to promote her poorly-reviewed podcast Archetypes, which is about as fun to listen to as her boardroom pitch: 'It's really about dissecting and unboxing these labels, these tropes that try to hold women back and define women as one-note,' she says. 'It's important and okay and perfectly normal to be a multifaceted human being.'
Heads are surely rolling at Spotify, which paid these two a reported $25 million back in, yes, 2020. Two years on and they have four formless, content-free, dated, hectoring, joyless episodes to show for it.
Meghan Markle is the epitome of failing upward. She has convinced herself that the world cares what she has to say because she's just such an original thinker, a groundbreaker on par with the Elon Musks of the world — not some D-list actress who lucked into marrying a world-famous royal, preaching from a platform that's wholly unearned.
Her lack of self-awareness, after all this time, remains staggering. A true legend in her own mind, Meghan Markle remains our number one try-hard, a woman who burns all the bridges she purports to build, an incessant cheerleader of vagaries that have zero practical applications.
To wit: The purpose of her podcast, she says, is to 'open the door for really meaningful conversation, because I think once you turn meaningful conversation into action — gamechanger.'
Meghan Markle has had a global platform for nearly seven years now. In that time, her accomplishments — best I can tell — are down to writing inspirational words for sex workers on bananas; grossly and callously inserting herself into the Uvalde, Texas tragedy; and successfully isolating her husband from his family while lobbing all kinds of vile accusations, claiming total disgust with the royals while clinging to those titles for dear life.
But, hey — gamechanger.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11332989/Duchess-Despair-Endless-Grievance-rebrands-MAUREEN-CALLAHAN-reviews-new-Meghan-Markle-intv.html
Wild Boar Battle Maid wrote:
Barber's father was probably his owner.
Freed slaves owned other slaves in Dr. Johnson's lifetime?
Sorry to bring this post over from the other thread, but I've just never heard of this before.
https://harrymarkle.substack.com/p/harry-the-overseas-son-tries-to-remember?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=269387&post_id=78914914&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Harry, The Overseas Son, Tries To Remember His Lines
TW poses for Variety magazine in an attempt to distract from the bullying allegations
By Amanda Platell for The Daily Mail
00:22 BST 20 Oct 2022 , updated 02:13 BST 20 Oct 2022
As a former spin doctor, who once coached top politicians in how to craft their image to maximum public effect, I’m simply in awe.
Meghan’s latest video, released yesterday alongside a soul-searching interview in Variety magazine, shows her to be a truly consummate PR professional. What an operator: what a phenomenon!
She tells the world she’s now ‘done’ with acting – swiftly adding ‘never say never’, of course – but don’t you believe it. Meghan is in the midst of performing her finest role ever – and her fans seem to be lapping it up. That said, given that her previous claim to thespian stardom was a leggy role on an unremarkable American legal soap opera, the bar was set pretty low to begin with.
In her new video accompanying the interview, the Duchess of Sussex shows herself to be a mistress of the dewy eye, of winsome empathy, of kindness, of wifely virtues, of sisterhood.
Wow, she looks fabulous in one eye-wateringly expensive designer outfit after another – a Jason Wu dress thought to cost £4,600, a £2,700 Carolina Herrera number and a £1,395 Galvin gown – while reminding us that, in many ways, she’s just an ordinary mom who loves burgers and cookies.
Life is short and we only have this moment, she reveals – but that shouldn’t stop us emancipating all women and destroying the ‘archetypes’ (I think she means stereotypes) that hold us gals back. She claims that love is all that matters: ‘partner love, self-love, love of community and family’.
At which point, I admit I choked. Family! This from a woman who hasn’t seen her own father for years: that now frail, yet still-loving dad who funded her expensive education and has never met her children or her husband.
All of Meghan’s own half-siblings have apparently been sent to Siberia – and Harry has become virtually estranged from his own family since he met her. Note, by the way, that ‘self-love’ comes before ‘family love’... self-love is what counts most for Meghan I suspect.
Yet I digress. The girl is simply beguiling. Having accompanied the late Queen on just one solo public event back in 2018, now she claims to be ‘proud’ of the ‘warmth’ of the deep relationship she shared with Her Majesty and ‘to have been able to spend time with her and get to know her’.
Well, as the Queen herself once famously said, ‘recollections may vary’ on that score. But Meghan has brilliantly sold the narrative to her millions of followers that she and the late Queen were close. And which royal would now dare to publicly contradict her?
With boundless modesty, Meghan even says she’d be happy to coach an actress playing her in the future, hoping this starlet would portray – and here Meghan apparently refers to herself in the third person – ‘the softness and the playfulness and the laughter’. Certainly, all are on display in this latest, brilliantly effective stunt.
I who have been one of Meghan’s fiercest critics salute her for this masterful PR make-over – and its merciless dispatching of her detractors. No one should ever underestimate this woman again. Harry, for his part, is invisible, written out of the script apart from coy references to ‘my husband’.
This interview and video should be pored over in media studies courses at universities around the world. Meghan has a thing or two to teach any spin doctor... even me.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11334303/AMANDA-PLATELL-Say-like-Meghan-Markle-salute-PR-masterclass.html
Blind Item #4
One of the people that quit so many years ago because they hated working for the alliterate one, does, in fact have a recording of the alliterate one talking about the whole plane crash thing.
Oh how I wish this were true. And that the tape would be released simultaneously with the Netflix show.
Whoops, that's not what I meant . The child was what we would now call `mixed race' - his mother was an enslaved African but his father is thought to have been the English plantation owner.
Sorry, I didn't express it vey well.
The best word that occurs to me is `grotesque'.
british nutties. not going to get political but wish you all well. chaos wherever it comes from is no fun.
See-
@https://uk.news.yahoo.com/zara-mike-tindall-royal-family-meghan-harry-105134436.html
Omid Scobie·Royal Executive Editor
Thu, 20 October 2022 at 11:51 am
He doesn't get it, does he?
They don't have titles and aren't `senior royals' - they are private citizens who have good reason to be known for their sporting achievements.
* is trying to destroy the momentum of the two, recently published books that ‘shine a light’ on her craziness. She is setting the stage for future unfavorable reveals. Then, we will have to listen to months of denials and blame-shifting. Can someone just shoot me now?
Have I mentioned that I am REALLY ready to see the ‘Overseas Outcasts’ revealed for what they truly are? I certainly hope that the King is building his war chest to expose her/them. Alas, with Liz Truss’s resignation today, he has bigger fish to fry.
The power play that lies behind the Duchess of Sussex’s new feminine dressing
Laura Craik
Thu, 20 October 2022 at 12:49 pm
`She says she is “done with acting”. But the Duchess of Sussex is too clever to believe this is true. She may never grace our small screens again in an episode of Suits, but then, she has no need to. For Meghan, all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely ensemble players.
`The most recent platform to give her a starring role is Variety magazine, on whose cover she features wearing a sleeveless black Giorgio Armani top, her shoulders looking preternaturally narrow in a manner that serves to emphasise her head. Lips parted, eyes skyward, her expression is one of contrived benevolence that was, perhaps, arrived at after moodboarding many pictures of the saints. A direct-to-camera gaze would have looked too fierce and pointed. Instead, Meghan’s gaze is the quintessence of “soft power”.
`Much has been made of the five-figure wardrobe the Duchess is wearing in Variety’s accompanying fashion shoot, which includes a £4,657 dress by the Taiwan-born, New York-based designer Jason Wu – a favourite of Michelle Obama – a $2,990 Carolina Herrera dress and a $1,560 green silk halterneck gown by London-based label, Galvan, one of whose four founders is married to Dhani Harrison, son of the late Beatle, George.
`To say it’s an eclectic mix is an understatement. The sculptural, asymmetric cut of the Carolina Herrera dress looks formal and dramatic, as though it should belong at a ball, rather than in the grassy garden that serves as the shoot’s location. The Jason Wu dress, meanwhile, with its billowing skirts and abstract pink and white print, looks to have been chosen to convey the sort of softness and playfulness which her critics accuse her of lacking. “Find me a print that looks like candyfloss,” you can imagine her saying. Frankly, it’s a wonder Meghan didn’t just wear a fairy costume or a kitten onesie.
`Having recently favoured the sort of corporate, stealth wealth wardrobe that wouldn’t look out of place on Succession – power shoulders, tailored trousers and expensive blouses in emphatic colours such as black, white, navy and red – Meghan is now sending a different message through her clothes, one that suggests the same friendly, unimposing personality that is echoed in her interview. It’s why she mentioned how she and Harry love going for drive thru’ burgers and eating giant chocolate cookies. “I think that what happens, looking in from the outside, when there is this much noise, is that you become dehumanised,” she says, adding that she hopes her Archetypes podcast will help people see her as a “real person”.
`If the shoot is an attempt to appear like the girl next door, Meghan may be underestimating the cynicism of the British public. Alas, it will take more than lying on her stomach with her legs kicking in the air for her detractors to believe that the Duchess is as “soft and playful” as she is at pains to rebrand herself as being in her accompanying interview. Nonetheless, she gets a gold star for effort, and for conveying the same “nice warmth” that she says she enjoyed with the Queen.'
I think the video clip was always there, I don't know why the headline says 'newly resurfaced'.
I bet the BRF are mortified that it's now so public.
@OO - the Maureen Callahan op ed is priceless.
"Meghan Markle has had a global platform for nearly seven years now. In that time, her accomplishments — best I can tell — are down to writing inspirational words for sex workers on bananas; grossly and callously inserting herself into the Uvalde, Texas tragedy; and successfully isolating her husband from his family while lobbing all kinds of vile accusations, claiming total disgust with the royals while clinging to those titles for dear life." Bingo.
and
@Sandie, thank you for posting for us the article entitled “AMANDA PLATELL: Say what you like about Meghan Markle - and I have - but I salute this PR masterclass”
I enjoyed reading the articles, but have come to the point where I refuse to click on any articles about the vile sham of a grifter so as to not encourage media to keep writing about her. Thus I’m glad to read here what my fellow Nutties consider the best — or most revealing — articles about the gruesome twosome, without giving even one valuable click to $ocial media in doing so.
When the whole loathsome Hazbeen and HazHisBalls “love story” started years ago, never in my wildest nightmares could I have believed we would still be assaulted daily hourly minute-by-minute by these two. They sicken me.
When, oh when, will this living nightmare end?
That's an unexpected twist in a couple of ways when you think back to history of her on The View.
'her BJ non-speaking role' - you can't do both... Probably a good scene for her with her 'acting' experience.
last night fox news show which competes with other late night shows did a while segment in her and her objectifying comments. among other things they call her the woke gift that keeps on giving as in giving them fodder for their own show. they just laid into her. Megyn Kelly too on her podcast. Megyn kelly often has dan wooton on her radio show. btw to the wife. this megyn actually does a one hour deep dive. and often asks thoughtful questions. perhaps a tutorial for the mrs and her podcasts 😉
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11333469/Two-years-Meghan-quit-Deal-No-Deal-took-raunchy-90210-cameo-giving-oral-sex-car.html
-----
Oh dear!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11334985/Whoopi-Goldberg-accuses-Meghan-Markle-making-women-feel-bad-trying-make-living.html
-----
And the stupid prince claims growing up he never heard of coaching (because it was not a fad back then stupid lad) and therapy was just not done in his family (but his mother went to therapy, his father spoke to a therapist, Fergie was in therapy and open about it, the Duchess of Kent was in treatment for severe depression, his mother's best friend is a therapist). Oops!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11335333/Prince-Harry-opens-power-therapy-surprise-mental-health-summit-appearance.html
Did *, the silly cow, take the Deal or No Deal job thinking that the script was by a guy called Shakespeare?
EXCLUSIVE: Two years AFTER Meghan quit Deal or No Deal for feeling like a 'bimbo' she took raunchy 90210 cameo giving character Ethan oral sex in a car, newly resurfaced clip shows
Meghan Markle has stated that she left her job as a briefcase babe on Deal or No Deal because it made her feel like a 'bimbo'
'I didn't like feeling forced to be all looks. And little substance,' she said
But less than two years later she took on a tiny cameo on 90210 where she was seen giving oral sex in a car to actor Dustin Milligan who played hunky Ethan Ward
That scene has now resurfaced on social media as Meghan is called out for hypocrisy
‘She must have forgotten she was BJ girl in that show AFTER she left her briefcase girls stint due to being objectified,’ wrote one user
Markle says she didn't want to take on the small role but felt ‘struggling actresses can’t be picky.’
`If the shoot is an attempt to appear like the girl next door, Meghan may be underestimating the cynicism of the British public.
She is also underestimating the cynicism of sane, rational Americans.
OMG, if she wasn't doing fake blowjobs, she would have actually had to use her degree!
/I'm confused as to why people could think of her as a bimbo. /sarc
New Palace Confidential.
The clothes are expensive; the pictures are unsettling. Not 'terrible' as far as being examples of the art of photography, but the subject, glammed up to the max gives the viewer the yips. The vacant robotic stares off into the middle distance . . Harry's wife's idea of 'pensiveness, beneficence and inner depths. But she's got no inner depths. She looks like an automaton. One is reminded of movies where soulless robots or aliens imitate human beings--Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Ex Machina. Surrogates (a Bruce Willis joint).
The writers dutifully transcribe every word that falls like toxic dew from the mouth of Madam. Hence, we are assured that Megdonna is grieving hard and oh so privately for the venerated lady whom she respected and cherished so much during her lifetime, the Queen to whom she was so close, definitely the monarch's favorite, not just granddaughter in law, but favorite, period. More favorite than the Queen's own children or grandchildren, she's just that awesome.
Give it a couple of weeks and I predict this Variety writer will go the way of her Cut colleague in getting thrown under the tires for being TOO fawning.
Is there such a thing in Meg's world as too worshipful and obsequious to her massive perfection?
Which begs the question, as Jesus Enrique Rosas puts it in his latest broadcast . . Is this supposed to be straight veneration of a deity amongst us or is it satire? What benefit to these publications to troll her? Their own bottom line suffers, since magazines with her or Hapless on the cover don't sell and rot in landfills by their millions of copies.
Spotify and Netflix stocks are down like, what, 50% since they got into bed with the Toxic Twunts of Montecito? They can mock the Twunts if they want but it's at the cost of their own reputations. Variety is the show business bible of industry insiders, so I'm pretty sure they are trolling her hardcore, since nobody apparently is returning her calls any more and her celebrity besties are as silent as the grave. But if it's a trolling job, it may be too subtle for its target to get it. She doesn't do satire, especially not herself as the object. To practice and understand satire, one must have a sophisticated enough mastery of language and a sense of humor and the absurd to go with it. The Toxic Twunts have neither. I think of them as both socially and intellectually retarded, to use a word that's gone out of fashion. Such consistent lack of self-awareness or the appropriate tone for any occasion from the pair of them is mind-boggling.
The Variety piece was completed prior to the Queen's sudden passing and the funeral week, with hasty additions made to the text. Still . . just 6 weeks have gone by since we lost the Queen, the now-ex PM's entire premiership . . but even though official mourning has concluded, it's still far too soon for us to be assaulted with photos of a barefoot Megdusa rolling around on a giant military parachute and other fetching poses in garb that collectively runs to 5 figures. But she's just a 'nerdy, down to earth California Mom' she insists. Board games and hamburgers, that's what she's about . .not $10, 000 haute couture gowns and blood diamonds from Saudi sheiks. She says she and Harry like to eat chocolate chip cookies like it's some stellar accomplishment. Would she like her Nobel Peace prize gift wrapped?
Jesus (Rosas) on a bike, I can't take much more. Imagine how Charles feels.
Many have apparently talked of the wisdom of keeping quiet rather than revealing how stupid one is by speaking up:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/
She ought to check out this reference.
speaking about bimbo roles, was the twat's appearance in that grilling video before or after Deal or No Deal?
My bet is grilling is after. Now let me see..... Here is the verdict >>>>
2006 for Deal and 2013 for grilling hamburgers. I no longer see the original Men's Health mag grilling video. M must have gotten it scrubbed
"Meghan Markle made her first appearance as a briefcase girl on Deal or No Deal in April 2006."
"Meghan Markle Gets Grilling With Men's Health - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFKleWOhehs
Jun 12, 2018 · Watch this vintage Men’s Health video of Meghan Markle flipping burgers back in 2013, before she became a member of the royal family.Men's Health Official S..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Q0wd8Uf5U&t=57s Grilling - Mix tape version enhanced
that scoobie do has to post about mike and zara says mrs doesn’t feel like she’s winning and is still trying to answer all criticisms. every post like that says she’s still scrambling. keep it madam and scoobie do we like this new “winning” approach
The only French she knows
comes in a letter…
Has M finally met up with, been getting guidance from mama Kardashian? --- Megs will find out that at DM you must pay now. Unlike at Sunshine Sachs. Where is looks like H/M got as much as two million in arrears. According to reports.
Last I looked, the DM was number three worldwide, for news outlets online.
Manoral Auto
90h210hhhh…
I only mention this because it was pretty apparent to me and my friend who actually knew the family that Howie’s wife was very in charge of the family. Hearing that Terry was a producer of the show it totally makes sense that she would not stand for “bimbos” like * to interfere with the family unit and the show which was the family income. I am pretty sure Terry fired * for inappropriate behavior and Howie probably doesn’t even remember her.
This is all my take on the subject.
I don’t think it is due to the type of lens used such as a wide angle lens because it would affect the appearance of her face.
Perhaps it is Variety giving a nod to Halloween and Frankenstein, who, as we all know, was cobbled together from body parts of multiple people.
Please go look and let me know what you think.
The only French she knows
comes in a letter…
_____
That is what originally got her interested in the language 😉
Tom Bower wrote that when * shot the Reitman’s ads in Montreal and made the crew’s life miserable, they spoke in French so that she wouldn’t understand what they were saying about her.
Oh dear, she was fantasizing again!
The only French she knows
comes in a letter…
🤣 I love your wit!
`Invasion of the Body Snatchers'? Yes, it could well be, she projects that zombie/automaton aura.
I'd add that her stare suggests she could also be from a remake of `The Midwich Cuckoos', albeit a version for our times; meanwhile the Sugars would feature as zombies from `The Night of the Living Dead'.
If only it were as funny as Simon Pegg's `Shaun of the Dead' in which zombies invade Muswell Hill (a N.London suburb).
That cover photo is bizarre in every way! The background colour blends in with her skin tone (not the bronzed face) so it looks as if her shoulders are cropped. That gold thing around her neck, which I am sure on another woman would look elegant/classy, looks as if is half strangling her.
This is from Variety - they don't mess up this badly. I scrolled through some back issue features and the one photographer loves the parachute used as a backdrop. But, even those who are actors and not models really look good in the photographs. I admit there is little they can do about the laughably artificial 'modelling' expressions she adopts, but surely a huge team of professionals could have done better?
Is this Hollywood's revenge?!
How the heck does the prince stay sane living with this crazy woman who lies all the time?
I only mention this because it was pretty apparent to me and my friend who actually knew the family that Howie’s wife was very in charge of the family. Hearing that Terry was a producer of the show it totally makes sense that she would not stand for “bimbos” like * to interfere with the family unit and the show which was the family income. I am pretty sure Terry fired * for inappropriate behavior and Howie probably doesn’t even remember her.
Thank you so much for sharing this! There's been a rumor on Reddit that she was fired for her relationship with a married man involved with the show, whose wife somehow got * fired, but no one seemed to have the details, making it hard to believe.
It also shines a lot more light (tee-hee-hee) on how * got ahead in her career. Apparently female sociopaths are known for using sex to either get what they want directly (like Harry) or get male authorities "on side" (like the college professors she babysat for), but neither Bower nor Low really uncovered this strategy of *'s. I personally don't understand how it remains so hidden, even decades later.
Singalong 🎤
Apologies:Elvis
Trouble
(No need to amend the last verse)
Fellatio Hornblower
I’m looking for rouble
Am I in the right place
If you don’t want trouble
Don’t look at my face
I was born on my back
With a Major in the sack
My motto was to lay any Tom or Jack
Because I’m evil
My middle name is misery
Well I’m evil
So don’t you mess around with me…
Her face is strange anyway - I saw someone on another site commenting about how asymmetrical it is, I'd say its was an extraordinary departure from the `canons of beauty' which emphasise symmetry.
I'm sorry that so far I haven't described how to make `symmetrical/mirror image' faces from her photos - I'll have a go now:
1.Find a photo of her staring straight into the camera, copy & paste it twice into a Word doc.
2.Hover over one image & L. click. This will open `picture format' & `picture' tools on the toolbar.
3. Click on `picture tools' then on `crop' (to the R of the toolbar) then L click on `crop'
4. Hover over the black bar that's in the centre of the RHS so you get a tiny T-shape appearing.
5.L click on that and drag across to the centre of her nose/space between her 2 front teeth - the RHS of the photo will now blackout.
6. L click somewhere outside the image and the RHS of the image will disappear. You now have just the RHS of her face looking at you.
7.Copy & paste that half-face next to the original
8. L click on image, then `picture format' & then `rotate'. This opens a short menu, L.click on `flip horizontal'. This rotates the image to orientate it as the other side of the face.
9. Finally, click & drag to close the gap (or `delete' the gap if the pieces are level). Make sure she hasn't got 3 front teeth - a little more cropping may be needed.
10. Now repeat the process in mirror image on the 2nd copy you took at the start, thereby getting a face made of 2 left faces.
I hope I've got these instructions right and they can be followed OK.
The really weird thing is that for most people, the original person is still recognisable as a Left- or Right-face portrait but there's `something just not quite right' about the symmetrical image.
With *. the procedure gives two faces that look OK, nothing `off' about them - but they are completely different people, neither of whom is *.
It's spooky, Possums.
Meghan Markle has given another big interview, but this time it’s what she does not say that’s the most puzzling.
Daniela Elser
Do you know that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, former Suits star and Deal Or No Deal briefcase girl has a husband? You probably do because you are a sentient human being with opposable thumbs and a Wi-Fi connection, but reading the Duchess’s latest interview, I am starting to wonder if she thinks we the public might not quite be fully aware of her marital status.
In the Variety story, appearing on the magazine’s cover as some beatific second coming, Meghan manages to use the word “husband” eight times, energetically and repeatedly seeming intent on reminding readers that she is, in fact, hitched.
If a person didn’t know any better, and did not have those thumbs or that Wi-Fi, they might be forgiven for thinking this “husband” was some intensely private individual who did not want to be sucked into his wife’s PR vortex and to remain out of sight.
Not, that is, the fifth in line to the throne, son of King Charles III and a man whose birth was celebrated with a 41-gun salute – aka Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.
Read the Variety piece and something fascinating comes into view: Harry looks increasingly like an adjunct in his own story.
...
In less than two months, we have had two biggie interviews with Meghan, both with attendant glam photo shoots, both putting her in designer dresses and photographing her twirling about Gwyneth Paltrow-worthy designer gardens and yet in neither does he figure much beyond as an occasional guest star at most.
Where oh where has Harry gone?
So too, while they both, as a couple, inked those whopping deals with Netflix and Spotify (deals that a one-time cable actress and unemployed former army officer would definitely, cough, have gotten if they did not also happen to have royal titles) it is the Duchess who has been first out of the blocks with her Spotify series Archetypes.
It is Meghan who is charging forth, even if her podcast manages to be both boring and deeply self-involved and is currently floundering in the rankings. (Only two of the six episodes are in the top 100 episodes in the US, coming in the 26th and 90th spots.)
And it is Meghan who we have witnessed coming to the media fore, including even when the duo poses together. In early October they released “official” images taken during the One Young World Summit in which Harry, in what has become their go-to pose, peers over his wife’s shoulder, unintentionally recreating their hilariously photoshopped Time cover.
The bottom line is that, as things currently stand in terms of Sussex output, it’s very much the Meghan show.
Perhaps this is all an elaborate performance piece commenting on the fact that for millennia women have been defined by their husbands and yet when the reverse happens we all sit up and take notice?
Or perhaps Harry is happily tucked away inside their $20 million mansion, beavering away on the plans for the next Invictus Games and secretly brewing his own hard seltzer in their spare sauna? Perhaps this is exactly the division of PR labour that Harry wants, given he has not exactly made any secret of his feelings about the press.
Whatever the reason may be why we are getting so much Meghan, that does not change the fact that the Variety interview should come with a warning over eye-roll injuries.
While Queen Elizabeth comes in for plenty of praise by Meghan (“I feel deep gratitude to have been able to spend time with her and get to know her,” “I continue to be proud to have had a nice warmth with the matriarch of the family”), Her Majesty, like Harry, is reduced to the no-name treatment, with the former Suits star referring to her as her husband’s “grandmother”. Nevermind then that Meghan’s title opens the Variety piece and that she staunchly uses her royal appellation.
Then, we get to the meat and potatoes of thing, with her saying: “What’s so beautiful is to look at the legacy that his grandmother was able to leave on so many fronts. Certainly, in terms of female leadership, she is the most shining example of what that looks like. I feel deep gratitude to have been able to spend time with her and get to know her.”
Interesting that despite the history-making 96-year-old being a “shining example” of “female leadership” Meghan did not see fit to include Her Majesty on her 2019 British Vogue cover.
Also, what of this “deep gratitude”? Where exactly was it when the Sussexes put out a statement in 2020 peevishly retorting that “service is universal” or when their explosive Oprah Winfrey interview came out while Prince Philip was in hospital or when during that Cut interview she threw out the line, “I can say anything”?
When asked, in fluent Californian-ese, about the monarch’s death (“How have you processed this loss as a family?”) her answer is worthy of inclusion in the Smithsonian for managing to take one of the biggest news events of the year and make it about … Meghan.
“In big moments in life, you get a lot of perspective,” she said. “It makes you wonder what you want to focus your energy on. Right now, we feel energised and excited about all of the things we’ve been building toward. We’re also focused on our foundation. So much of the work we do includes the philanthropic space.”
Let’s just pause to gawp at the Olympic-level rhetorical long jump that it takes to go from “processing loss” to feeling “energised and excited”. (Bonus points for managing to get a plug in for their foundation too.)
But I think the biggest takeaway from both the Variety and The Cut pieces is this: Meghan really has nothing to say. Take away her royal journey, take away her titled in-laws and those nasty British press who failed to be impressed by her scribbling on bananas and the miserable time she had for 20 months of Palace-dom, take away her rote lines about compassion and change and the Duchess is a meaning-free zone.
There is an unmistakeable irony to the fact that, if she had not married the Queen’s grandson, it is highly doubtful that anyone would be clamouring to hear her point of view.
Also – she’s just not very interesting. In this piece we learn that she likes wine and Wordle and Beyonce. Well, hold the front page! What the Variety and The Cut stories prove is that the Duchess of Sussex might be one of the most famous women in the world but she is also quite boring.
Here’s hoping that her husband, whatever his name is, does not think so.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/bizarre-interview-where-meghan-refuses-to-call-harry-by-his-name/news-story/fec03cd996552154ec51f748b3d0ac1c
“Bimboism says that women can be both pretty and smart,” writes Meredith Clarke.
I get that it’s all about choice, and I’m here for it!
https://archive.ph/QZfJf
thanks for the research
Happy Days. yes she looks downright weird. i was more focusing on her crazy eyes in the video and pics.
what has be thinking she was fired from Deal No Deal. she is settling scores and trying to change the narrative. she walked away (as per her usual) on her terms. it’s opposite day again. makes me think they brf actually kicked them out hence the We are leaving spin. be curious to see how she spins other tales.
Too bad she hasn't gone the horror route. She'd be totally believable as somebody that needs to eat brains for a little artificial intelligence.
Say, has anybody seen Harry or their 'kids' lately?
But what happened is that she is wearing a sleeveless top, and her shoulders have blended color-wise into the background. Makes it look like she has an extremely narrow torso with a gigantic head pasted on top of it.
I think they also elongated her neck.
Take a look at the blue dress photo. They've photoshopped her left foot. She is so weird.
sandie love the article you shared byes the husband is related to the side as a prop. can’t even say his name nor her majesty. says a lot about how she really feels about them. it’s all about the duchass.
actually if harry would just keep his mouth shut (didn’t know about therapy. just stop talking) he could stand in the sidelines and let her crash and burn on her own. keep making it all about her and maybe just maybe he can slinkaway with about one tiny cell of dignity.
lecture promoted by Better Up and says growing up in the royal family & then spending 10 years in the military, he never heard the words “therapy” or “coaching.
https://twitter.com/DoronWeber/status/1582912197377679361?s=20&t=mwrdpvu_4UjgCcHY1zU_Sg
...
Yup. roll your eyes
...
MM
1)MM, a polyglot woman. Now, she knew French but is fluent in Spanish. It is even said that she can read the hieroglyphics of the ancient Incas.
"Meghan honed her Spanish skills during her college years, interning at the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during one summer; she speaks fluent Spanish now"
2)I got the impression that MM is setting up her new profile based on Catherine, Princess of Wales.
Catherine has spoken about watching Tv with William once they put the kids to bed and what shows their children like. She’s just one big rip off.
- MM quoted Wordle
QC - june 2022
"The future Queen Consort told British Vogue that she loves texting with her five grandchildren, aged between 12 and 14.
“I do Wordle every day with my granddaughter,” she said, revealing a fondness for the online five-letter word puzzle"
https://www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/20220082.wordle-camilla-reveals-plays-game-every-day-granddaughter-rare-interview/
...
4) Allison P. Davies, journalist for The Cut is marked by MM in Variety. And his spin against Liz Garbus, director of the NF docu-series begins.
5) The new interview, if it continues as it is, will be like the one she did for The Cut. She is getting a lot of criticism against her Podcast (Bimbo) too.
So Meghan’s “candid”, relatable, “nerdy mom” moment was nothing but a #BackScratch for #Netflix⁉️
'Is thing thing on? It's been a while but the StoryBots are back and we're counting down to the premiere of our new show on Nov. 21st! What better way to kick off the countdown than with the Duchess of Sussex rapping along?
https://twitter.com/StoryBots/status/1583462170292932609
...
Media Game
When the MM Podcast was launched, much of the media applauded its top spot on the Top Charts, completely disregarding the Top Episodes listener chart.
How, many point the this bizarre media game.
Bizarre interview where Meghan refuses to call Harry by his name.
"It is Meghan who is charging forth, even if her podcast manages to be both boring and deeply self-involved and is currently floundering in the rankings. (Only two of the six episodes are in the top 100 episodes in the US, coming in the 26th and 90th spots.)"
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/bizarre-interview-where-meghan-refuses-to-call-harry-by-his-name/news-story/fec03cd996552154ec51f748b3d0ac1c
The Duke of Edinburgh was technically a `Prince Consort' (again, another prince in his own right) but this was seldom, if ever, used after 1953 as far as I can remember.
------
@SwampWoman - I hadn't heard of `Pride and Prejudice and Zombies' - so thank you for that. The trailer's hilarious.
Colin Firth, celebrated as Mr Darcy in the TV version of P&P, was regularly to be seen shopping for groceries in our local Sainsbury's, no fuss,no paps.
If the Grasping Douchass tried her typical move of pawing and draping herself “sexily” over ‘Deal or No Deal’ host Howie, wife Terry would be within her rights to protect her husband’s mental health, the show, and their marriage by firing Suitcase Rachel.
As per usual, Suitcase Rachel would spin it that she chose to leave the show, rather than what I suspect is the truth: that she was told to take a hike.
It looks as though the rumors about Sunshine Sachs are true. * isn't being protected by their legions of cyberbullies anymore. More & more people, from Whoopi Goldberg to former DND models, feel free to speak out now.
@Sandie, thank you for your link to the archive version of the Variety article, which allowed me to see it without giving * a click which might indicate drawing power for her. It was hilarious. As in the Cut interview, *'s own words showed what a loon she is.
Her take on the streaming business, oh my, my neighbor's cat would sound more knowledgable. Her sugary mention of the late Queen had me momentarily worried that she was suffering from
some sort of multiple personality disorder. She did a complete 180 from her malevolent Cut interview, but it was just Megs trying to foist her alternate reality on the rest of us.
Variety made a half-hearted stab at making * look as youthful & ethereal as possible, with the gauzy fabrics, removal of all wrinkles in her pastel outfits & skin, & erasure of her unevenly applied makeup, but they did make her sled runner feet quite noticeable, which I thought was a tiny bit mean.
@Hikari, I completely agree with you that * was being trolled in Variety, just as she was in the Cut interview. The gloves seem to be coming off. The Telegraph's fashion writers usually make * sound like a trend setter, but the latest article on her photo shoot mentioned a 'fairy suit.' I had a similar thought when I read the Variety article, * was 'away with the fairies, ' far, far away from reality.
I'm a little bit grateful to * for taking our minds off of all of the worrying things going on in the world right now. She's a hoot.
Let’s give Meghan Markle the applause she deserves
Her performance now verges on the admirable
By Julie Burchill
The late actor Christopher Plummer once likened working with Julie Andrews on The Sound of Music to “being hit over the head with a big Valentine’s Day card.” Reading the latest bulletin from the Duchess of Sussex, the image returned unbidden; having to listen to the ceaseless stream of platitudes that this bad actress expels verbally into the world is like being hit over the head with an inspirational poster — LIVE, LAUGH, LOVE — until one loses the will to live, let alone laugh and love.
But whereas we might once have loathed her, so shameless is the aging starlet in pursuit of income — sorry, insight — that her performance now verges on the admirable. Reading her interview with Variety (such an obvious choice for someone who categorically claims that they are “done” with a showbiz career) it was hard not to feel that one was expiring in one of those grotesque Willy Wonka-esque candy stores — stifled with marshmallows, drowned in caramel and beaten around the head with candy canes for good measure.
Meghan doesn’t “gush” — her level of smarming is far beyond that. She oozes. The “bombshell” interview with Variety is actually a love-bombing. Laughing, apparently kicking her legs with childlike excitement and claiming that her and Harry’s “love story” had inspired the world because “people love love” she resembles nothing more than a traveling salesperson talking up snake oil to a skeptical crowd.
She must know by now how much people dislike her — in particular for making the Queen’s final years so troubled. But even that relationship is now refracted through the lens of Insta-inspo:
Of her friends: “The power of sisterhood and female support can never be underestimated.”
Of herself: “Part of me is just really trusting, really open.”
Of any actress who plays her in a drama: “I hope that in preparing for that role, she finds the softness and the playfulness and the laughter. The silliness.”
I fully expected her to add: “I’m just a hippy at heart.”
And, of course, no modern Marie Antoinette’s crib-sheet is complete without the obligatory reference to how much she enjoys fast food. In this case it’s In-N-Out burgers and “chocolate chip cookies the size of my toddler’s head.”
If Meghan can provide “content” on this level — creating a character we love to hate on a level with an Alan Partridge or a David Brent, or a deluded show-business buffoon comparable with Count Arthur Strong – throughout the coming winter of discontent, maybe we should at last just cave in and award her the applause she craves. Because comedy gold such as this does not come knocking every day.
@Neutral Observer, as much as I love "Came for the Weird Pregnancy, Stayed for the Car Crash", I have to admit that I would probably get all messed up in the CftWP,SftCC acronym. I'd probably have to abbreviate it to Weird Pregnancy Car Crash which sounds like a political press conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzmusQzdqXA
I listened to the 5s video in an Irish accent, it's hilarious! Thanks.
The only French she knows comes in a letter…
Magatha, I'm sorry to say I don't get this joke. Can you explain? TIA.
*’s effort, at the photoshoot, is strictly caricature.
I recall, in the Cut interview, didn’t * come home, complaining of not being a model, after hours of photography?
I believe this shoot could be the reason.
@Henrietta
French Letter aka Condom
low blow- but she brings a
whole new meaning to
‘acting chops’
The megdonna photo
should read ‘Variety Act’
The slipped halo round
her neck, she looks like a
ringed pigeon, much like
the strangled bird on her
coat of arms.
Much like her Spanish
fly…
I just do not understand this constant need to get attention when she is not a great beauty*, talks a load of word salad rubbish, has no exceptional talents, and has achieved nothing worthwhile according to her own shifting standards.
* All that money and she does not take great care of her hair and skin. There are hundreds of people in Los Angeles whose job is to know every trick to make celebrities look fabulous. The foundation is visibly caked on in the cover photo. Her hair looks as if she has done it herself rather than the hairdresser on site. (A colourist was part of the team so I wonder if she got a free colour treatment as part of the gig.)
... During such a break, Meghan went to New York to take a small role in crime drama CSI: NY. Not that she played against type: her character was required to wear a corset and suspenders. She also did modelling work.
In retrospect, such flaunting of her assets was clearly an offence to Meghan's high-brow ambitions. After all, she points out in her latest podcast, she was a woman who had studied international relations at Northwestern University on the outskirts of Chicago, adding: 'There were times when I was on set at Deal Or No Deal and I was thinking back to my time as an intern at the U.S. Embassy in Argentina, in Buenos Aires, and being in the motorcade with the Secretary of the Treasury at the time and being valued specifically for my brain. Here I was being valued for something quite the opposite.'
This account is technically correct but significantly over-eggs her role. She owed her six-week foreign internship at the U.S. State Department to her uncle, Mick Markle, who did communications systems work for the U.S. government. At the embassy in Buenos Aires, however, far from hob-nobbing with the bigwigs, she toiled as a humble junior press officer, answering phones and filing.
According to biographer Andrew Morton, she only got permission to join the motorcade to collect U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill from the airport because it was her 21st birthday and not necessarily 'for [her] brain'. While in Argentina, she sat the entrance exam for the U.S. diplomatic service, but failed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11342391/TV-stars-hit-Meghan-Markle-complains-Deal-No-Deal-role-feel-like-bimbo.html
“Harry didn’t know he had mental health issues till he met me” said Meghan today “and now it’s all he talks about”.
That is pretty scary!
The above article is pure gold.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1686273/Prince-William-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-Victoria-Arbiter-Earthshot-Prize-ont
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/new-royal-rift-kate-middleton-irritated-with-king-charles-wife-camilla-as-101666337438373.html
I wonder who would be targeting the Prince and Princess of Wales, specifically Catherine, in this way?
@Rebecca @Maneki 😉
@Sandie @Snarky
Clearly Cuckoo!!
A freudian slip of her
self styled halo/coronet
choking on her own words
A Freak Tragedy…
Briefcase v Headcase
Number 24
Lasted 34
Episodes on
the briefcase show
She didn’t get much further
Than grilling a burger
And a head shot that
she could have said no…
We've had decades of the foreign press making stuff up about the royals... as here, where they're talking about an `extended tour' of the US for the Waleses. Has anyone here come across a reliable report saying that this has in fact been scheduled? If the answer's `Nope', we can assume that it's a rumour concocted in CA, with a view to claiming later that W & C refused to see them and cancelled their `planned meeting' - like the `invitation' to the Jubilee bash at BP.
As for a possible meet up, surely it's for the Harkles, given their rank, to chase around after the Waleses, not attempt to order them about.
One way around in would be for the Hs to be put to the test. Something like, `California? Sorry no can do - time constraints y'know but we do have a window when we're in Boston/NY ...'
Then see if it's important enough for the Harkles to haul their arses from the Pacific to the Atlantic, even if only by Greyhound.
I see, for example, that the Economy single fare for 2 is a mere $374 - departing Montecito at 07.05 one day and arriving in NY at 02.00 two days (29 hrs 55 mins) later. It's a lovely thought, especially when I recall I felt after travelling overnight once from Glasgow to Exeter by National Express - and that was only about 15 hrs.
It all depends on how desperate they are.
Ménage a Twats
Chimpo and Bimbo
Squatting round a tree
P-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes sex
With extra baggage
Next comes marriage
And lots of damage…
@WildBoar
I feel for your 15 hour bus
journey, bit like my 24+hour
plane trip home.
In 30 years it’s never got quicker,
or easier.
30 hours from ‘ Cito to NY
extreme economy, hahaha!
Maybe quicker if Bimbho
put her lips together
and blew….
Ménage à Twats 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks for the laugh 😉
I found the above post rather intriguing. The claims is that TBW copied the idea for The Working Actress blog from someone else.
https://www.nowtolove.com.au/amp/royals/british-royal-family/meghan-markle-secret-blog-the-working-actress-45291
The above article makes a convincing case that she did indeed write the Working Actress blog. I did manage to read it before it became impossible to find and I remember being sceptical because the actress writing the blog said she was British (but based in and trying to get work in Hollywood). Or was that the crazy woman pretending to be British?
http://workingactress.weebly.com/
The above is the link to the blog that is not the one that TBW supposedly wrote but was written by a British actress working in the UK.
This report (below) was all over the news here in the US this week from the National Institutes of Health, which is a highly-regarded research health branch of the federal government here in the US has bad news for fans of chemical hair straighteners, which are also called relaxers or keratin treatments.
From looking at photos of Harry First Wife during her middle school and high school days in Los Angeles, it looks like Meghan has been straightening her hair since she was probably about 14 or 15 years old. At that time, salon straightening, which are often called keratin treatments, were not well known. She may have used a home use chemical straightener kit such as Dark & Lovely.
After using various chemical relaxers to banish her ethnic curls, plus the damage that weaves and extensions do to your hair, it’s amazing that Meghan has any of her own hair on her head.
Now comes the news that frequent chemical hair straightening at least four times a year significantly increases a woman’s risk of developing uterine cancer.
This article is from NBC News.
NBCBLK
HEADLINE:
Chemical hair straighteners linked to higher risk of uterine cancer for Black women, study shows
Subhead:
“If you care about Black women’s health, you have to care about our hair,” said professor Wendy Greene, a leading voice in the movement against Black hair discrimination.
Subhead:
How often chemical straighteners are used is key to cancer link.
Oct. 17, 2022, 5:41 PM EDT
By Char Adams
Women using chemical hair-straightening products are at a higher risk of uterine cancer than women who reported not using them, a new study by the National Institutes of Health found. Researchers noted that Black women may have a higher risk because they are more likely to use such products more frequently.
A group of researchers with the NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences looked at the hair care habits of more than 33,000 women and found that those who used chemical hair straightening products at least four times a year were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer.
Researchers said chemicals like parabens, phthalates and fragrances in hair care products disrupt the endocrine system, which helps regulate hormones. That could, in turn, raise the risk of uterine cancer, the most common cancer of the female reproductive system.
“Sixty percent of the participants who reported using straighteners were Black women. The bottom line is that the exposure burden appears to be higher among Black women,” said Chandra Jackson, a participant in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Earl Stadtman Investigators program, who co-authored the study.
The study’s lead author, Alexandra White, the head of the agency's Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group, said: “We see a doubling of risk for frequent users, and that’s a very alarming figure. For non-users, the absolute risk is about 1.64%, and then when you look at frequent users, the risk goes up to 4.05%. It’s a notable increase in risk.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKr8wWSN6RQ
I wonder why she didn’t call out ALL of the roles/jobs that didn’t require her brain? If she was so uncomfortable with that perception, why not create an Archetype episode about all the jobs she was hired to do because she was the “smart one?”
Glad you appreciated it.
Sorry for the Franglaise! 😘
Nutties, forgot the difference
between UK/US
and the rest of the world.
Will try to put ‘explainers’ in future
13 hrs to Singapore is my limit, then 8hrs to NZ - at least I've seen Australia!
Keratin is a natural hair product. Used alone, it does not make your hair straight but reduces the frizz and makes it shiny. However, salon keratin treatments usually have formaldehyde (or/and other hectic chemicals) added to the product, and to make the hair dead straight, some kind of ironing process is used. It's a minor technical issue, but if a salon offers a keratin treatment, check what they are really offering because applying keratin (usually in the form of an oil) alone is actually good for the hair. The newest keratin treatments take much less time (about a minute to absorb followed by the usual blow dry), but I do not know how natural these products are.
Here is a good article that explains the different methods of hair straightening, and how the chemicals used in hair straighteners have now been linked to an increased risk for cancer (not the keratin but the other chemicals, like formaldehyde):
https://www.healthline.com/health/keratin-treatment-pros-and-cons#pros
The editors at Variety were trolling Twat, IMO. The cover photo says it all. Her shoulders disappear and all we see is an extremely narrow freak-show body with a ringed neck and head atop.
I'm now calling Twat "Freak Show" to honor her appearance in Variety.
It seems that as soon as Harry got woke to the extent of his mental health problems, far from healing him, it’s been the sole factor propelling his life into the toilet. Of course, we’ve come to find out just how much of a white wash job has been done on the second son of the King starting from his time at Eton. The attributes which made Harry so very popular in the years before meeting his now wife were as it turns out, largely fictitious.
Mental health therapy, like any industry, has it good practitioners and its bad. Analyzing the hurts of the past And talking them over with a therapist can be a helpful steppingstone to healing, but only if it’s used as an impetus for rewiring harmful patterns of thought and behavior. Simply hashing and rehashing the hurts of the past And framing oneself as a helpless victim of that past actually ends up doing more damage. The person gets stuck in the loop of being angry and feeling cheated over things that happened years or decades ago and cannot be changed. What one does have control over is how one acts and responds to present situations. Psychoanalysis overdone tends to hamstring the patient Keeping them trapped in the past. Being proactive and finding a purpose outside oneself is what leads to emotional healing, that and having good friends to confide in. If everyone had these things, the need for mental health industry would largely dry up. The code of “maintain a stiff upper lip and just get on with things“ is being disparaged by hairy as the reason he’s messed up, but in actuality, although it sounds cut and dried on the surface, such an ethos prescribes the avenue to true mental health: Take the focus off yourself and your problems. Do not be overindulgent with yourself and your suffering because everyone suffers. You are not special because you suffer. Look outward beyond yourself and resolve yourself to action.
I don’t deny that hairy should have received more mental health support as a young teen in the week of his mother’s death, But sadly I think the fact is that he’s too far gone now 25 years later for ridiculous panacea is like mental health apps to have any positive affect. Meanwhile his wife is keeping him malleable by keeping him constantly aware of how depressed he is. It’s quite diabolical and effective.
She's only smart in a too-damned-clever-by-half unpleasant sort of way.
'She is dating Prince Harry and about to be a duchess': Maître d' reveals Meghan Markle stood silent as her handler aggressively demanded a private dining area - and tells how Naomi Campbell and Anna Wintour were some of his worst customers…
https://mol.im/a/11343473
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11343473/Former-maitre-d-claims-Meghan-Markle-stood-silent-irate-handler-demanded-private-table.html
The Narcissist, aka “the smart one” was uncomfortable about her bimbo role on Deal or No Deal in 2006, yet was able to set that aside to be guest on Craig Ferguson in August, 2013. She wore a backless mini dress, flipping the bottom of the dress even shorter when she sat down and crossed her legs. She was either coked up or having a manic episode. She perfectly executed her sex kitten imitation and discussed wearing her Catholic school uniform on the set of Married With Children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKr8wWSN6RQ
Coked up, while Craig Ferguson was a heavy drinker back then. (so they say) Same as the few true Scotsmen I have encountered. The three of them were Flying!
This was her first interview that made me notice her. The infamous engagement interview did not make an impression. My thoughts were, great, she looks like finally a wife for Harry. She said she knew her royal duties and could not wait to participate. Megs looked 100% legitimate to me.
They are empty shells.
@HappyDays, I read that study. I assume that the formaldehyde was considered safer than lye but it all sounds like torture to me.
For those who want to learn how to spot other "snakey" women, she has provided this checklist:
a. They're always portraying themselves as victims.
b. They're chronic complainers.
c. They're constantly searching for an audience to throw a pity party for them.
d. They're usually partnered up with emasculated, whipped men.
It was the cherry on top when she called Harry out, too!
* wanted the podcast to promote her personal narrative to "regular" people, but what it seems to be doing is exposing her BS to them.
(Apologies if this ends up as a double post!)
I must join @SwampWoman in doffing my hat to you for "ménage a twats"!
found the link
https://www.tmz.com/2022/10/22/meghan-markle-shopping-montecito-deal-or-no-deal-drama/
@Fifi - Yes, I noticed that Craig Ferguson was a bit frightened of her and tried to keep clear of her flailing praying mantis limbs.
@xxxx - I was curious about the timing of the Craig Ferguson show, in relation to her stint as a suitcase girl. When I discovered that it happened in 2013, I just had to call it out here, in case she happens to drop into our Nutty world to read what we think.
@WBBM said: “She's only smart in a too-damned-clever-by-half unpleasant sort of way.” That sums her up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344189/Meghan-Markle-enjoys-day-shopping-pal-amid-recent-criticism-Deal-No-Deal-days.html
I apologise for those Nutties going to be soon, the pix might trigger nightmares.
Photos by Backgrid her favourite paparazzi agency.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344189/Meghan-Markle-enjoys-day-shopping-pal-amid-recent-criticism-Deal-No-Deal-days.html
Once again, no family is in evidence. Guess the Duke of Mental Illness is at home banging the nanny. I mean, uh, babysitting. Yeah, that's it.
Silly me for thinking that a Russian ship cutting communications cables should be more important than some publicity photos for the Duchess of Victimology after the Bimbo interview. Vlad, you need a new publicist and some photographers to randomly catch you while you are shopping while wearing something ugly but probably horrendously expensive.
/I'd advise Vlad that both the US and the UK would probably be amenable to backing a peace deal with Ukraine if Duchess Bimbo somehow ended up with a palace in Moscow and starring roles in ALL Russian movies. That would probably be interpreted as too much cruel and unusual punishment for the people of Russia though. He might threaten to send her back without large reparations.
Craig Ferguson almost single-handedly got me through a year of unemployment circa 2009/10. He has been very frank, both on his program and in his life comedy show and a number of memoirs about his past substance-abuse issues. Craig first came to America at the age of 13 to visit relative in the New York area. He returned as a young man in the 80s, to work as a bartender and with deep into the party scene. He used a lot of drugs, chiefly cocaine and alcohol. These addictions cost him his first marriage. He went to rehab circa 1992 and Has been sober ever since. He became a star on American television by playing Drew Carey’s boss on the Drew Carey show where he lampooned an English Toff. That was in 1994. He became host of the late late show about 10 years later. He left the show in 2014, so by the time he met Markle, he had been sober for over 20 years. I highly recommend his autobiography “American on Purpose.” Craig is a naturalized American citizen, but around the time does the Harkles moved to the US, Craig relocated his family back to his hometown of Glasgow, having been fed up with Hollywood. His former home, a relatively modest mansion in the Hollywood Hills was on the market when Ginge and cringe Were househunting. The price tag was relatively modest 2.4 million or something like that, a fraction of the Montecito monstrosity, and despite being in Hollywood, would have made a nice family home for a family that was actually concerned with privacy. I’m sure Craig recognized the signs of cocaine high with his guest. As someone who watched him obsessively for over a year, I can say confidently that he found her repellent, and Craig is a gregarious guy who likes everyone, especially attractive girls. Markle would have never been invited back to his program. Personalities he likes are invited back all the time, or I should say were, like Kristen Bell who seemed to be on at least once a month. Craig had her number. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, but Craig was definitely not actively drinking when he hosted her.
to whoever brought up the hair straightening "scientific study".
Women of colour tend to have their hair straightened more than white women.
Women of colour have more melanin in their skin which does not allow the body to manufacture as much vitamin D as someone with less melanin (melanin gives skin its colour). People of colour not only make less vitamin D for the same amount of sun exposure, but they tend to stay out of the sun because they mistakenly believe it isn't good for them.
Vitamin D levels are inversely correlated to incidence of cancer of all types. Sun exposure is only known to cause skin cancer but vitamin D can be taken in the form of supplements.
So, this study is useless. They may as well have said that women who braid their hair, or women who have hair weaves are more prone to uterine cancer, and they would be right because on the whole, women and people of colour are more prone to all sorts of diseases, which, by the way, have mostly been linked to vitamin D.
You can find all of the research on the topic collected here: https://vitamindwiki.com/
Freak Show's hair: She must be at the salon at least once a week. One week her hair is thick, and half-way down her back; out shopping, and she's got a medium to thin braid that's noticeably shorter.
Also, Freak Show did not quit being a suitcase girl because of her ethics. Freak Show has no ethics at all. She was FIRED. No actor quits a regular, paying gig. The BJ scene in the movie proves the point. Something happened: she showed up coked up, and/or got handsy/suggestive with the host, or nasty to the other models on the show. Pick one or all.
I know someone who lives nearby the Harkles, and says there is never any movement on the grounds by Twit and Twat, and that they are never seen in town. Never, while other celebrities are walking around town with their dogs, and out shopping/dining. I'm starting to go with Hikari's theory that the two do not live together, and they do not live in the mansion.
The Variety photo shoot was at the San Ysidro Ranch, And Word on the street, which I think I first read in this space was that Bimbo has been staying there, with male companionship since at least 2021. Maybe not straight through but she is a frequent guest, either there or at a Soho house property. Harry is off doing whatever he does. Marcus Anderson is gay, a former lover of Edward Enninful at British vogue. Marcus gets all around the world. Remember the reports that Marcus was staying with a Harkles at Tyler Perry’s place. Throw in Doria and it was a cozy little ménage. Unless Marcus is bi, I don’t think that he and Marco are sexual. He was most likely there as a threat to Harry to keep him in line, and helping Madam with her schemes. Why Should she have to roll around on a parachute on some random piece of land in San Ysidro If she was the doyenne of that grand estate in Montecito? Lots of private green space there for lovely photo shoots and a lot more convenient for a mother of two very young children.
I haven’t been following the papers today, but there must’ve been some royal event going on across the pond for her to trot out Some big ass photos of her shopping. No doubt she ran out to get some more board games for the collection, or maybe it was a book of sudoku for Harry. Or more chocolate chip cookies or some thing. She’s really scraping the bottom of the barrel for attention.
TW follows the Narcissist’s Prayer.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Finally, the article quotes another briefcase girl. Alike Boggan was another contemporary of Meghan who said she enjoyed working on Deal Or No Deal and had no problem with what she was asked to do on the show.
'I was there from the very first episode and I loved every minute of it. It was a great job and a great opportunity,' she told the Mail.
'I never felt uncomfortable and never felt there was anything undignified about it. I was grateful for the good salary and the good working conditions. I look back on it fondly.
Someone who is grateful for the opportunities it gave her instead of moaning.
I'm too young to remember the 2ndWW but I know `blackout cloth' when I see it. My mother used some to black-out the window of my childhood bedroom (in the 1950s, lined curtains were only for people with money to spare). The other instance was when we moved into pre-war Army quarters in the 1970s and my then-husband found all the screens from 1939 stowed in the loft.
Black sateen is not a good look.
-------
With ref to sun exposure, the occasional `naked and unashamed' close-up photos of *'s face, free of Pan-Stik & without filters, reveals the extent to which her skin is sun-damaged.
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/1016758053348494934/ and
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/52917364358306135/
It wouldn't matter if we weren't so often informed what good skin she has - mostly self-inflicted?
@Magatha, Delighted that you've returned in such fine form.
What is * doing in her latest self display? Advertising for a new husband? (Her crazy Variety article had me imagining some ancient billionaire with a pixie fetish.) Desperately trying to drum up audiences for her Spotify & Netflix productions? I think all of the phony pr about them wanting to re-edit/re-tape is just to make people think they've dropped some real bombshells to draw interest. They don't have anything new. If Harry's made up stuff for the book, he may be facing his own lawsuits.
Some unverified gossip ... locals don't like her as she is haughty and they regard her as having no class.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/15-seconds-of-fame
Can you imagine it?
Our friends at Reddit, Secondhand Coke and Saint Meghan Markle, are rife with speculation that Twit and Twat have split.
I recall sugars saying they wanted to know *'s skincare routine as early as 2018. As someone who considers good skincare a hobby, I wondered what those sugars were on. It was like a dermatological retelling of The Emperor's New Clothes.
As you say, there's nothing wrong with aging and with our natural imperfections. (I think Queen Camilla looks gorgeous.) But there is something insane about sugars not just failing to see what is right in front of them, but also claiming the opposite to be true.
A summing up of an interesting video from Lady C - what the Queen really thought of TBW, and the hapless prince.
About five hours later...
Regarding the Toxic Twins, I can only imagine the royal consternation about what to do about them. If they (she) are (is) demanding Royal Child Support for Harry, I would advise that they live a quiet life on the U.S. median income. This means that they would have to cut their own grass and clean their own toilets in a lower-cost state such as Kansas or Nebraska. No expensive clothing budget. No Range Rovers. I don't know how much it costs to pay for pictures to appear in Daily Mail but, if pictures start popping up, their allowance should be immediately cut. No expensive rides or security. To ensure compliance, allowance should be deposited in their accounts monthly or even bi-weekly. None of this paid a year in advance stuff should be used because they are too unreliable.
If they are in debt to the tune of millions, oh, well. Good luck in the bankruptcy courts.
If Harry elects to return to the bosom of his family, he could live in, say, a remote part of the UK on the median UK income (with regular drug tests) and put her on a no-fly list.
However, he did stand by as his wife was telling huge whoppers about his family on Oprah. His brother and sister-in-law have been slandered and he has not made any attempt to make corrections to his wife's tales. His grandfather and father are (reportedly) being slandered on Netflix, yet he is still affiliated with them. I wouldn't think that, if he did return, relations would be anything except frosty for years, maybe forever.
I saw them taking different paths but not a divorce or separation in the tarot months ago. A couple can stay married even though the relationship has become toxic. He has stepped back from Spotify and no longer does joint photo ops for magazine features with her. So, they indeed are no longer joined at the hip in terms of work and appearances.
But, what I did not pick up on in readings is that she has become a stalker on his turf. She has completely inserted herself in the IG in every way, and has been stalking him round the country (polo, UN ...) to get footage for a documentary about their love story. Now that the documentary is done, is she going to stop stalking him?
He won't leave because he probably thinks there is nothing to go back to. Being isolated from everyone except the few chosen who toe the line with her is one way she stops him bolting. The children are the other.
Fate has a way of messing with those two, so he may just find himself in the UK without her for a while. Perhaps he could end up having some confidential conversations with family and realise that if he does bolt, they will not only take care of him but will do everything they can to help him get his children. Maybe they can sweeten the pot for her by providing her with an apartment in London so that she can more easily see the children. His father and brother have pots of money and a lot of that is personal money.
Surely he must be tired of the craziness and the lies? I think her pathology reminds him of his mother - the mother he thinks he remembers. But I think his ideal woman is a much more uncomplicated woman ... one who loves camping in the African bush, fishing, horse riding, weekends on a country estate larking around with a group of friends ... and who would never call the paps give an interview, pose for magazine features.
For now, is she doing pap walks because she has no more publicity lined up before the awards show?
Of herself: “Part of me is just really trusting, really open.”
Yes, her legs are open a mile wide. Or was it mile long legs open wide, or mile long boats for feet.... Her "truth" changes so rapidly I can't keep track.
But I think his ideal woman is a much more uncomplicated woman ... one who loves camping in the African bush, fishing, horse riding, weekends on a country estate larking around with a group of friends ... and who would never call the paps give an interview, pose for magazine features.
__________
Sadly, Harry is not worthy of such a woman.
Someone is deleting stuff from the Sussex Royal website very recently.
I read somewhere that Marcus Anderson and Omit Scooby were/are partners.
Yes, it's been generally accepted that Omid is Markus's ex, but Omid denies it.
If Harry elects to return to the bosom of his family, he could live in, say, a remote part of the UK...
I think ultimately some version of this will be how Harry ends up, if he doesn't off himself getting through the divorce and off the (alleged) cocaine.
I can't even imagine being offered a huge, self-paying country estate and turning it down.
In olden days, a family member who displeased the sovereign so greatly, fermenting sedition against the Crown, Would If lucky enough to keep his head attached to his shoulders, be sent to a remote castle somewhere to be kept under house arrest by armed guard until the sovereign decided their fate. Out of sight, out of mind, and constantly under watch to make sure they didn’t escape and try to raise an army against the monarch.
Charles could keep Harry at Castle Mey where he’d earn his room and board by mucking out stalls and doing scut work in the kitchen. Since he’s been bragging for the last two years about having 16 bathrooms, he could clean the ones in the castle with a toothbrush. And since he’s been winding about needing RPO protection, by all means give him his own RPO who will stick to him like glue 24 hours a day. No drugs, no booze, no video games. When he’s not doing house work, he can have remedial reading instruction and Bible study. He should not be allowed back in London or around any of the family. Maybe once a year at Christmas.
This should be Harry’s medicine. When king William ascends he can decide whether or not to let him out.
Harry needs to learn respect for others as well as himself. If he had a skill that he could master, it would go a long way towards him developing some self respect. Maybe he could stop being so resentful of his family if he could experience the work that goes into developing his talents.
I think that everybody benefits from having a schedule and a purpose, even if it is just to get out of bed, brush teeth and comb hair, and put on clothes that are not pajamas. (Remind me to put that on my List of Things to Do so that I will feel a sense of accomplishment on those days that are not going my way.)
https://at.tumblr.com/ladykinrannoch/non-working-royals-could-be-sussexes-duke-of/7m5rnmoykidlp
I found the above at this Tumblr site:
https://www.tumblr.com/ladykinrannoch
Please do have a look. A series of tweets from someone supposedly spilling tea about a huge story being developed (I think in the UK), very secretly, and that will break a major scandalous story about non-working royals, and is probably about something financial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bybYOPZyIw
It's essential viewing although I suggest speeding it up to 1.5x original speed and focus on the second half, starting at about 42mins when she gets on to what she has been reliably informed.
Apparently, * was rumbled form the word `Go'.
Memorable quotations:
-`she made Princess Michael look reticent (!)
- `her tactics were those of the street'
- `a common or garden blackmailer'
- `HM could not understand how anyone could be so ruthless, self-centred and materialistic'
Lady C also emphasised that the family had a good awareness of psychological therapy and both Her Majesty and Princess Margaret had, in the past, support in that area.
Some more posts from that Tumblr account: dilemmas facing the hapless one. Note that it is the person's opinion. Although the person is an astrologer, the opinions are not based on a reading of a chart.
* The memoir will not be a runaway success (unless it is filled with scandalous stuff much like The Crown).
* Why the royals won't sue, e.g. if he elaborates on the William-Rose slander they started in Amsterdam years ago, neither William nor Rose are going to embark on a trial in America. (But could they sue in a British court?)
* Why the hapless one has probably kept his trust fund protected from the greedy wife (I doubt this) and why he may be contemplating divorce (I can be persuaded this is true).
* Why the King will go scorched earth with them. The stupid wife does not believe this and is reckless; the traitor son is afraid of this.
* Why the wife will get custody of the children and how this will secure her a large payout from an American divorce court.
They are already experiencing an exile worse than the Windsors. David still got an allowance and he did a stint in the Bahamas as governor. The couple were buried at Windsor, and the Queen, Prince Phillip and Prince Charles visited him in Paris shortly before his death. The only thing they might get is a private burial at Windsor, but in an obscure corner underneath a tree, like the Windsors. A total visit would require the hapless prince be on his deathbed.
We can no longer say, "Off with their heads!"
The modern version is "Take away their PR! Take away their Drugs! Take away their Video Games! Take away their Plastic Surgeries!"
Lady C’s recent anecdotes about the late Queen’s quips and comments about Maggot had me in hysterics. Again Lady C repeated that Prince Philip had Maggot pegged at the start and the Queen said after his death…Philip was right
I have found it interesting that the couple are still floundering in the wake of the Queen's death. Do they focus on William and Catherine (there has been a heavy push about a get together in America and about Catherine reaching out) or the King and Queen (interesting that they are relatively quiet on that front - favourite son, daughter-in-law, grandchildren stories seem to be lacking although I do remember rumours about how Charles will need them back in the fold).
They are frozen out. I am sure the King has his staff running interference for him to screen phone calls (so very busy). He is probably also very good at being charming but maintaining a distance at the same time. TBW would misinterpret the latter so I doubt she has any contact at all, despite the ridiculous letter she supposedly sent him.
The pearl earrings that TBW wore during mourning were supposedly a gift from the Queen. Did the Queen get them from the royal gift shop?
Commoners were hanged - not by the swift-long-drop-break-the-neck of later years but by slow strangulation.
Worse, commoner traitors often `qualified' for hanging, drawing & quartering - taken down whilst still alive, then still conscious be disembowelled (might even see their innards being chucked on a fire, along with their external genitalia) then beheaded. Finally, the torso was chopped into 4 pieces.
Some years ago, a Warder at the Tower was filmed giving his black-humour version of such events, including a critique of the film `Braveheart'. William Wallace underwent execution in this manner - and the Warder reckoned he wouldn't have cried `Freedom!' in his final moments as he would have had `other things on his mind at the time'.
Princess Diana's friend reveals fears for Princes William and Harry over controversial decision
Gemma Strong
Mon, 24 October 2022 at 11:00 am
"A close friend of the late Princess Diana has expressed renewed concerns for her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.
"Simone Simmons became a trusted confidante of Diana after they met at an alternative medicine centre, The Hale Clinic. A psychic and alternative healer, Simone used to consult Diana until her untimely death, and the pair would talk on the phone for up to 10 hours.
She has now joined the ranks of people spoking out against Netflix's decision to depict Diana's final hours in the latest series of The Crown.
"Highly critical of the controversial move, Simone told The Sun: "These are cruel, sadistic and wicked people to recreate these moments. They are the lowest of the low.
"They are rewriting history as they go along and that's what makes me very angry."
She went on to slam the flagship show as "disgusting and sick" and questioned if they were "setting out" to hurt the feelings of Prince William and Prince Harry.
"It's forcing them to relive the pain, agony, and psychological torment they suffered when their mother died," she added.
She is by no means the only person to take issue with the decision.
In a recent letter to the Times, Dame Judi Dench described the upcoming series of The Crown as "crude sensationalism" and "cruelly unjust" to the royal family.
"No one is a greater believer in artistic freedom than I, but this cannot go unchallenged," she wrote.
"The programme makers have resisted all calls for them to carry a disclaimer at the start of each episode. The time has come for Netflix to reconsider – for the sake of a family and a nation so recently bereaved, as a mark of respect to a sovereign who served her people so dutifully for 70 years, and to preserve their own reputation in the eyes of their British subscribers."
"A number of viewers have joined calls for Netflix to include a disclaimer stating the show is fiction ahead of every episode.
A spokesman for the streaming giant said the show has always been a fictional dramatisation of the royal family's inner workings.
"Series five is... imagining what could have happened behind closed doors during a significant decade for the royal family - one that has already been scrutinised and well-documented by journalists, biographers and historians," they said."
Well said, Simone.
at https://spectatorworld.com/topic/royal-sibling-affair-chapter-cockburn-notes-10-14-22/
Blind item: royal attempts to pull sibling affair chapter from memoir
Little birds have been whispering in Cockburn’s ear.
Rumor has it, a well-known member of a royal family is set to release a memoir. But the book’s publication has been pushed back.
Some commentators claim that the legal process could be the cause of the back-up — or the fact that the author is scrambling to pull some information out which could be damning for the rest of their family.
Sources allege that the book will detail a supposed affair that the author’s sibling had. The chapter, which goes in depth on the sordid fling, contains lines similar to “I can’t believe my sibling would treat their spouse like this, after what our father did to our mother.”
After the sibling found out about the bombshell, it has been alleged that they are unable to look the troublesome scribe in the eye.
Will the author be able to get the chapter pulled? Only time will tell…
I saw body language guy showing the Variety picture of Harry's First Wife beatifically looking skyward (for lightning bolts?) while wearing a coil of gold-colored metal around her neck. BLG had a picture of Princess Diana wearing a nearly identical necklace. Cosplaying or coincidence? There is not much new about fashion, just recycled ideas from previous generations.
Most of us that were of working age in the 90s have necklaces just like that in the back of our jewelry boxes. (We may also hypothetically have a skirted suit with huge padded shoulders hidden in a spare closet, too, because it might come back, along with our Laura Ashley prints.) Of course I don't have anything like that. Daughter found them and took them to the thrift store.
She *may* get a large payout. Whether she can actually collect it is another story. I look forward to hearing all the previous nannies testify as to her fitness as a mother.
Just Stop Oil just three custard pies at the wax figure of KCIII at Madame Tussaud’s. other than the inevitable, (how did they smuggle them in the rest of us get flagged for the smallest of bags; why no security guards taken them out as well as the ones filming) i am sensing that someone in Montecito was upset that they did it first. she was thinking banana bread and it was suppose to be at the Kate figure. now she’s gonna have to plot something else.
Just Stop Oil are such poseurs. Do they use cell phones? Oil! Do they use transportation other than an ox cart or horseback? Oil! Do they drive electric cars? Where does the electricity come from? They need components made from oil to manufacture electric cars. I just wish that they would glue themselves to a street near me and complain about no food so that I can feed them some fresh mealworms that I raise for the chickens.
One of my most cherished memories was seeing the picture of the hapless and medusa figurines from the Tussauds museum Unceremoniously dumped headfirst into a dumpster the day or two after the Pompous appearance at Canada House announcing their manifesto. Or maybe it was right after the Sandringham Summit but it was delicious. It’s long past time that everyone everywhere dumped the renegade ersatz Royals into the trash. They are worthless, meaningless, and they reek.
So much discussion of 'the divorce' on social media sites ... this one is based on the theory that the claw cos-plays Gwyneth Paltrow and will sprout a lot of word salad about the separation, divorce and fate of the children.
In the event of a Sussex divorce, I look forward to seeing if there will be any witness testimony of Nannies willing to swear that there are actually children needing care.
It may have pleaded the RF to play along with M’s reproductive games…but if she’s gonna sue for $100 million a year in “child support”— She is going to have to present those children before the judge, along with their birth documentation in order before he would award any judgment. And if King Charles is fed up with going along with the charade, don’t we think that the Palace counsel is Going to demand discovery on these kids? Papers, witness statements DNA… Her doctors will be subpoenaed etc. Because if the children can be proven to be fraudulent or lack either Harry’s DNA or appropriate adoption documents, the RF is not liable for their support. * Herself will be deposed as to her own fitness as a mother and the family routines. I’m sure the royal family is already in possession of knowledge as to The existence of any children she may have given birth to prior to 2018, and where those children are now, but this would definitely come up again in a court proceeding to determine custody of current children and she claims to have.
The royal family may be complicit in lying to the public about how these children came to be or if they in fact exist. Until now they have been a family matter. But if the custody hearing goes to court, they won’t be able to continue to lie for her. The judge will demand to see the children and he won’t be fobbed off with actors, fraudulent photos, fudged birth certificates, tears or excuses. Any lawyers representing her and promulgating lies about these children would be eligible for disbarment.
I really don’t think Megsie wants to wind up in a divorce court. If the couple does split, and she awards full custody of both children to Harry with no contest… I think we will have our answer.
Entirely predictable - `banana bread' is in the Urban Dictionary, with `banana' meaning what one might expect. A relatively innocuous meaning for once.
I know our extradition treaty with the US is very one-sided but I do hope that *'ll be obliged to face British charges of treason - after all, the person who killed one of our lads in a dangerous driving incident, and then scarpered back to the US, has had to face up to what she did.
The thought that a significant proportion of US folk can see * for what she is may help.
I am put in mind of the alleged story of a lame play about Anne Frank. It was so awful that when the German soldiers burst onto stage, the audience start shouting `She's in the cupboard!'. (I've no idea if this is true but made me laugh...)
https://twitter.com/Cosmopolitan/status/1584531793742544896?t=mjLrd_iHviLlVtbpALAeow&s=19
Never going to happen but she really wants that castle!
I don't think `lying' is the right word for the RF's (non)utterances about the children/non-children, whatever they are or aren't. The law forbids the release of confidential medical information about surrogacy to protect the child(ren), the surrogate and the parents, but mainly the offspring.
The Queen had a lifetime of experience of being diplomatic and courteous
Yes, and also meeting dictators etc so she was well able to mask her true feelings while being courteous and welcoming. I agree with everything you said. The Queen wasn't some doddery old granny as * probably thought but was a lot more shrewd and 'whip smart' than * and probably had her number from the off. * was too thick and ignorant to understand, as you said.
@Hikari
I thought you might be on to something with banana bread so I checked. Yes, bread is slang for money but this is what I found in the urban dictionary: banana bread is a phrase for the wealth you get from being a prostitute/hooker/escort. The rest of the definition is Banana represents the male genitalia and bread represents the money made. Make of that what you will...
https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/royals/prince-harry-meghan-markle-edit-book-docuseries/
Now who would refuse to use the titles Prince and Princess of Wales and call Catherine Kate Middleton?
"Banana bread is a phrase for the wealth you get from being a prostitute/hooker/escort. Banana represents the male genitalia and bread represents the money made."
"How was the advice received? About as well as a vegan scotch egg at a shooting lunch it sounds like. 'Harry was not very receptive to the idea,' Low has said."
"The real kicker here for Charles is the timing. Only months into his reign, the king simply does not have the public capital to easily withstand a full-frontal offensive by his own son, if that is what the book ends up being."
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/king-charles-should-be-very-very-worried-about-prince-harrys-new-book/news-story/d844c5b18e6597f899500f334f8a7c22
-----
My amateur psychological analysis: the hapless one is projecting his anger at anyone and everyone but the wife, who is the actual cause of all his misery. There is nothing anyone can do or give him that will alleviate the anger and misery because he is not addressing the root cause.
Kind of like an alcoholic suing his ex-employee for firing him, without providing an ongoing benefits package, but refusing to give up the excessive drinking (which makes him belligerent, destructive and fail to perform in his job)?
TBW has become an object of ridicule, but serious reporters and journalists and royal experts seem to think that he still has credibility.
I do not think he is making changes to his memoirs, other than adding a chapter or two about the Queen's death, mourning, funeral and internment - an insider's perspective. I think these are lies being spread by TBW, because they make no sense.
I also think Low is wrong and the King will get more sympathy than Low thinks. The King is not only someone who rehabilitated his image but also got the British public to accept Camilla as his wife and then Queen - after tampongate, the Bashir interview and the tragic death of Diana, hysterical mourning and huge funeral. Do not underestimate the King!
That speculation got the critical response it richly deserved.
she doesn’t want custody of the alleged kids she wants the problem foisted at the hubby and make him have to deal with the fall out. she will use the “the monarch has custody” crap that the brf took them from her leaving harry to explain why there are no kids
That scenario would be, to me, the best possible outcome vis a vis 'the children'. I hope with every fiber of my being that the children are (best case) complete figments of her imagination that she's forced Harry to go along with. It's impossible not to notice that Hazza is always visibly uncomfortable when 'the kids' come up and if pressed for comment, he provides only vague/patently ridiculous answers that stink of subterfuge. Even if he doesn't spend gobs of time with the 'children' he always yammered on about wanting very much before he was married, if he spent any time holding, playing with or observing a real baby/toddler in his house, he'd know that his answers weren't passing muster. Archie's coming out with language like, "Grandmother, may I please have a waffle maker for Christmas? Especially if it's shaped like a well-hydrated crocodile"? at 18 months of age while Lili at the same age has been absolutely mute and 'chilled' since birth?
These 'parents' haven't a clue what they are on about, the way they talk about these children.
Second-best scenario for me is that one or both children are real but the Sussexes have been denied custody and one or both children are being raised by their birth mothers, and will grow up normally, never knowing who they were 'supposed' to be.
For what it's worth, Tarot by Andie did a reading on "Has CPS been called to the home?/Is * ever there with Archie?" (Lili was not part of this reading--she focused on the Sussex child *more* likely to be real). The answers were Yes and No. That doesn't rule out the non-existence of any children . . if CPS were on a wild goose chase, and if Archie's not a real boy then, no, he's never in the same room with his alleged mother.
I do not put stock in tarot cards for divination of either past or future events, as the cards always seem to confirm what is suspected about the couple. The cards never say, for example, that * is an excellent mom and H an engaged and enthusiastic dad. But recently I've been tuning into a few tarot personalities for entertainment purposes because whatever the cards may have to say, these ladies are on our same page. Lilly, our reader from Dublin did a recent reading on the future there in Montesh*tshow and when she threw down the 9 of wands, I think it was, followed immediately by the 10 of wands . it took her aback for several seconds of silence. Then she said she'd not had those two cards come up in succession for 20 years, and that in combination with the other cards on the table, they were the very worst cards she'd ever thrown out in her entire career. Very, very dark energy she said. The worst possible outcome for H. It's notable to me how many SM channels of all types are devoted exclusively to the very dark and twisted situation that is the Harkle union and all its subterfuges. I don't think we've seen anything like it before. Some of these channels have been going strong on this cesspit of deceit and dysfunctionality and hubris since 2017.
If Harry ends up holding the bag re. the figment kids . . the Palace will help him deal with it as at least it will mean that he's disentangled himself from her. They will take a hit as to their credibility, but if there aren't any children and she can be proven to be the engineer of a number of criminal frauds, that would certainly impact any spousal support she'd be entitled to, and the Palace could initiate criminal proceedings against her. IF there are truly children in their custody embroiled in this sad, sick mess, she's not ever going to let those little cash cows go. As long as she's got them, they are her meal tickets at least until they are 18.
So I pray daily that this is all just an academic question.
A blind gossip item posted by ENT on the CDAN site ... not difficult to make up a blind like this and be accurate.
The Queen had a lifetime of experience of being diplomatic and courteous
Yes, and also meeting dictators etc so she was well able to mask her true feelings while being courteous and welcoming. I agree with everything you said. The Queen wasn't some doddery old granny as * probably thought but was a lot more shrewd and 'whip smart' than * and probably had her number from the off. * was too thick and ignorant to understand, as you said.
@Hikari
I thought you might be on to something with banana bread so I checked. Yes, bread is slang for money but this is what I found in the urban dictionary: banana bread is a phrase for the wealth you get from being a prostitute/hooker/escort.. The banana, you can guess Make of that what you will...
I don't think `lying' is the right word for the RF's (non)utterances about the children/non-children, whatever they are or aren't. The law forbids the release of confidential medical information about surrogacy to protect the child(ren), the surrogate and the parents, but mainly the offspring.
Perhaps lying is a bit too aggressive, though it certainly feels like some form of high level omission has occurred to encourage one set of assumptions amongst the public which might not be strictly true. Is that not by definition, a lie? For example, if a surrogate child does not contain H's DNA. Or *'s for that matter. Or if an attempted surrogacy bid by the couple was thwarted in an early stage by the Palace finding out about it. Or if all the attempted IVF procedures failed. Or if a live child was born but the couple were ultimately denied custody by the birth mother. I do wonder if 'Arch' wasn't obtained in the U.S., which favors genetic donors, rather than in the UK. A British surrogate would have had 6 weeks to decide that she was not handing over the child and the law is on her side.
I realize that confidential medical information is private, but is the BRF not guilty of propagating untruths if it inserts a child(ren) with murky origins, who might not even be authentic, into the succession of the Crown of Great Britain as legitimate children sired by Harry? That's the impression they are giving even if they release no official denial. We all know that the birth announcement, birth certificates and absence of the normally expected photographs are problematic. What if the family members pictured in the alleged christening photo of Archie on a summer day in Windsor were never there at all? Would that be considered lying? The Queen removed herself to another country about a month earlier than her usual custom to avoid that blessed event, which was quite irregular for a lady of such set habits. Being in Scotland, she had impeccable deniability. That photo has absolutely been deconstructed to be false in every frame, so we have to also question if the individuals pictured were actually there. If they were, then the picture we have been shown, which was released worldwide with the tacit cooperation of the Palace who gave their tacit permission by never denying its veracity, is not a true record of the events of the day. If there was a christening that day, anyone involved must have refused to pose for an official photograph, forcing Madam to concoct one. That's why Catherine was wearing her dress from the Christmas luncheon in 2018.
Are these non-denial denials? It wouldn't be divulging any confidential medical information about the children or surrogates to simply leave Harry's children off the official line of succession and let people come to their own conclusions about that. Or to release a bland statement to the effect that apologies for the confusion in the press but reports of the Archbishop of Canterbury performing a Royal baptism on 8 July 2019 were released in error; the Archbishop's diary shows him unequivocally in York during the same time frame. No need to stipulate *whose error*, just than an error was made.
Because if these two children are the legitimate heirs of Harry with every right to be in the LOS, why deny them titles? Their father is still a Prince and a Duke of the United Kingdom despite not being a working Royal, so if the kids are legit, they should get the titles. Yet Charles has not granted them and there must be a compelling reason why not. The official Palace word is 'We are waiting for information.' But the Palace put the children into the LOS since their births--that is published record. So that would indicate that the legitimacy of both children was established beyond a doubt for them to be assigned their places. Right? But now there's not sufficient certainty with the available information they already possess to bestow the Prince and Princess titles, though there was enough certainty three-and-a-half and 16 months ago respectively to make them potential successors to ERII's Crown? This may have just been a paper tiger in their minds--we know these kids are ultra-dodgy but to buy ourselves time, we will just put their names down to avoid the firestorm of press leaving them off would whip up and figure out what to do about it later--but with the death of Her Majesty, "later" is here. She's agitating for those titles and concocting all kinds of tales about 'healing rifts' and taking over Windsor Castle--after her children receive their titles, of course.
This is why I'm concerned that if the Palace has played along with two mentally unstable and vindictive, blackmailing people in their midst by pretending that everything is normal with that these children, this could devastate the monarchy. * is not done doing her damage by a long shot.
...
"In the House of Lords today, there was a question about reforming the Regency Acts. Government didn’t rule out making changes, but really rule it in. I think this was the first time the issue of Princes Harry & Andrew being Counsellors of State has been raised in Parliament"
...
The debate took place over the regency law, act 1937, clause 6.
Part of the text.
...
Regency Act 1937
Debated on Monday 24 October 2022
My Lords, the Regency Act sets out the arrangements by which a regency is triggered, as well as provisions for the appointment of Counsellors of State. On occasion, the Regency Act 1937 has been amended so that its provisions effectively support the sovereign in the discharge of their duties and ensure the resilience of our constitutional arrangements. The Government will continue to consider their legislative programme for the remainder of the Session.
Viscount Stansgate
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for that reply. The House knows that the Regency Act is still very relevant: it is the only reason why it was possible to open the current Session of this Parliament. Indeed, when you look at the final year of Her late Majesty’s reign, there were elements of a regency about it. Does the Minister not think it time to approach the King to discuss the potential amendment of this Act, and in particular Clause 6, which at the moment defines regents in relation to their line of succession to the Crown? Otherwise, are the Government happy to continue with a situation where the counsels of state and regency powers may be exercised by the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, one of whom has left public life and the other of whom has left the country? Is it not time for the Government to approach the King to see whether a sensible amendment can be made to this Act?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-10-24/debates/AD3AEDE1-B3AE-4492-91B6-6A61D1C793E0/RegencyAct1937?highlight=%22regency%20act%22#contribution-B204D117-DE7C-4E21-B146-039CC02941B1
On Nov. 29, Markle will host “The power of Women: An Evening with Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex” at the Indianapolis Marriot hotel.
The Women’s Fund of Central Indiana is leading the event.
“The proceeds from this event allow Women’s Fund to further its mission that began in 1996 to create equitable and sustainable change for all women and girls no matter of their race, place or identity,” the organization said in a statement Monday.
Rabbi Sandy Sasso, the first rabbi ordained by the Reconstructionist movement, will serve as a moderator for the evening.
Tables at the event are available for purchase here.
https://www.wishtv.com/news/local-news/meghan-markle-the-duchess-of-sussex-coming-to-indianapolis/
https://www.womensfund.org/2021-grant-recipients/
How does she find these organization?
Combined, the organization donated just over 100 000 dollars last year to various organizations/places operating in central Indiana.
Maybe they are hoping to attract more donors by giving her a platform to get attention.
Blogger snarkyatherbest said...
Just Stop Oil just three custard pies at the wax figure of KCIII at Madame Tussaud’s.
I thought Madame Tussaud's closed during the pandemic.
???
Meghan Markle to appear at 'special' US event costing £4,430 to attend with media banned
The Duchess of Sussex is set to appear at a $5,000 (£4,430) table event for the Women's Fund of Central Indiana on November 29.
The event which has been billed as "The Power of Women: An Evening with Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" is raising money to invest in the lives of women and girls in central Indiana. Advisory board chair Tavonna Harris Askew said: "Women’s Fund of Central Indiana believes in the force of women’s voices, women’s experiences and women’s work. We know that Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex does, too. We are honoured that she will join us on this special evening to celebrate our common cause—the power of women." The event is "closed to the media" and guests must confirm they are not part of the media to attend.
Blogger Sandie said...
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/ychezb/cdan_blindfalls_in_the_believable_category/
A blind gossip item posted by ENT on the CDAN site ... not difficult to make up a blind like this and be accurate.
I'm glad my fellow Americans being asked to put up with her entitled, princess-y behavior aren't remaining silent. She's really an idiot for thinking they would.