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
Maybe this is not true. They go to LA for meetings, the kids go to school and birthday parties, the kids must have doctor appointments, they go shopping, they visit locals when they get invitations, they get some visitors ... Maybe they only get papped when she tips off the agency or when they are at a public event.
She managed to be out and about in New York for that Vanity Fair interview (that is when the restaurant incident happened), at a time when the tabloids were all over her as the live-in girlfriend (she had moved in with him by then). New York is a favourite place for paparazzi to get pics of celebs but there were no photos of her. Why did she not call them, or did she and they were not interested?
I think most photographers are not going to hang around waiting for a sighting unless they are guaranteed that they will get some shots, or unless the celebrity is major news of the day for some reason. If it was otherwise, the media would be flooded with pap photographs of celebrities out and about in Montecito and elsewhere.
I have just assumed that the few celebs that always get papped call the photographers.
The Harkles happened to be in the UK when the Queen died. Photographers ignored TBW but got photographs of those who went to Balmoral and Catherine fetching children from school. All other photographs were taken at occasions when the royal family went to greet and thank the public and at formal events ... except the photo showing the duo walking behind the King at BP when the Queen's coffin arrived. Strange that ...
https://www.cnn.com/style/amp/just-stop-oil-king-charles-iii-waxwork-intl-scli-gbr/index.html
as for the Mrs. today Indianapolis tomorrow The Red Hat Ladies of Beloit. is this a tiara event?
Thanks for that information about a regency and Counsellors of State. Interesting.
@Hikari
It would be a bombshell if she divulged that she used surrogates and then challenged the removal of children from the line of succession. She put on a lot of weight with both pregnancies and struggled to lose the weight both times, so it is possible that she was really pregnant.
With regard to Parliament poised to make changes to eligibility for acting as a regent and a Counsellor of State, I wonder if they will take it further and make a rule that in order to be in the line of succession, a birth must be verified and a birth notice signed by a royal physician and this must be a matter of public record, with all acceptable signatures. It would take a lot of work to go through all royal births and verify them before listing each person in the line of succession but maybe that is 'housekeeping' that needs to be done.
It just seems odd for an event like that to be conducted in secrecy when it is to support organizations that serve a section of the public. One would think that it would be useful for women in central Indiana to know where to go to and who to go to for help, and that publicity would attract more donations to be used to help those in need.
There will be bills for said doctor visits (prenatal and postnatal), visits to hospitals for the births which can be requested from the sources legally (to avoid any photoshopping of said documents). This shows up often on credit cards and also checks (most are not paying cash).
On the place side, somewhere there should be some records about doctor visits which allow a tracking of the charges showing up some where else. All those employees would need to be questioned about the appointments or what might have been said by the duo about the appointments or how the pregnancy was progressing.
One does not conjure up nannies out of the air so any nanny had to come from some cleared agency so those bills can also be requested. That's how they find out who those nannies were (and cross check them against information given to MI people).
I understand the idea that medical information is private and to be protected but IF some kind of deception is being promoted, I doubt the law says that we are in the business of allowing/supporting fraud so that information is still legally protectable. If they got other proof first showing deception, then the shield for medical information could probably be considered pierced.
Trotter dreams of being on the Oscar red carpet, the Met Gala, Cannes, the Kennedy Center awards, the Emmys, the Tonys, All the A-list celebrity events. The only group that will have her is The Women’s Fund of Central Indiana. She’s got no ties to Indiana as a native daughter or from university affiliation or work. Indiana is the very definition of a flyover state (I live in one too). I can’t imagine she’s thrilled with this engagement.
Seriously? The Red Hat Society is rather akin to our British Nutties' Women's Institute, just for reference. Is the Red Hat Society international? I don't know. At any rate, Red Hatters as they call themselves are ladies of a certain age (I think the minimum age to join is 55 but most of them are much older) who take in cultural events, go out to eat and have their little dos for charity. Why is Indiana suddenly gaga for Trotter? This is the best she can do now that Sunshine Sachs is no longer working for her. Indianapolis is as close as I want that crasping gunt to get to me, and that's a good 4 hours from here.
So much for the peons attending - info on tickets goes straight to the tables for sale. This broke 2 hours ago on the IndyStar newspaper.
I know what I would do with $500.......
With regard to Parliament poised to make changes to eligibility for acting as a regent and a Counsellor of State, I wonder if they will take it further and make a rule that in order to be in the line of succession, a birth must be verified and a birth notice signed by a royal physician and this must be a matter of public record, with all acceptable signatures. It would take a lot of work to go through all royal births and verify them before listing each person in the line of succession but maybe that is 'housekeeping' that needs to be done.
I would have thought that this has been and continues to be the way royal births have always been handled, with the one (two) notable exceptions of Harry's wife, hasn't it? The Palace has always verified births as of the body with witnesses--an official witness from the Home Office representing the government, the multiple medical witnesses attesting to a live birth from the mother, duly posted on the gates of BP and published for all to read . . public records. Apart from the 'warming pan baby' incident, everyone has fulfilled these requirements to satisfy the public trust--except for *, and they let her get away with it. Who knows, behind the scenes, maybe the Palace was able to head off her schemes . . but if they have, it's not public knowledge. On the record, the Palace has listed Harry's children as legitimate heirs in the LoS, allowed photographs picturing members of the Royal family with 'Archie' to be released (though not by them--but they didn't put a stop to it either) and the Queen acknowledged two great grandchildren (not by name) in her Christmas speeches. The Palace has ironclad super injunctions against printing delicate information which is *true* that they don't want in the public domain, but when it comes to unadulterated fantasies propagated by an American granddaughter-in-law that are patently *false*, the papers can print those creative fictions ad nauseum it seems.
I put "Archie" and "Lilibet" in the same class of information as: The Queen loves Meghan best; HM baked a birthday cake with her own hands and had a big birthday party for M at Balmoral--a place M has never ever darkened the threshold once . .and yet the Queen threw her a birthday tea there. Most odd. M can present the granddaughter of a gardening staff member as a Royal grandchild . .that child can be identified by name as belonging to some other family . .and there's no retraction. The lies just keep coming. William and Catherine are coming to Montecito via Boston on their next trip to the States. The Harkles are in the market for yet another mansion . . * has always been prized for her brain, etc etc. The list goes on.
She's got no evident maternal qualities whatsoever. If she never wanted to be a mother, but only views popping out some sprogs as a means to the end of getting more money and more attention, then there's no reason to assume that Rachel would wholeheartedly and willingly do things the hard way . . putting her nearly 40 year old body through 2 pregnancies in 3 years, especially with invasive fertility treatments. She's consumed with her looks. I think Rach reverted to form and cheated by simulating doing the work and taking the risks when she outsourced all the messy painful hard parts and just pranced around soaking up the attention for 'being pregnant' and wasting Charles's money on superfluous maternity fashions.
Until * blew into the RF, such an audacious unrepentant persistent con artist had not been seen for centuries. The system worked by expecting Rules to be followed and enforcing such rules by any means necessary. Fear of societal censure mostly but the occasional threat of execution or exile worked too. We got soft in our modern age and the RF aren't allowed to burn witches or execute harlots anymore, not even for the most gross treason. So along comes * who flouts every single rule the Royals ever dreamt up and they just didn't know what to do with her. She's not only still walking around on her own recognizance, she's a podcaster, cover girl, soon to be Netflix star and the star attraction at the Red Hat Socity of Beloit, Illinois. I'd say that the Palace has failed at containment of its nonconformists in a very large way.
I don't see it as the RF `inserting' 2 impostors into the family - * & H did that.
It's that removing them would be impossible without breaking the law - reasons would have to be given and conclusions would be jumped to. It's like the obstetricians/hospitals not being able to say `I didn't supervise the birth' or that there were no births on the day in question. They cannot confirm or deny anything.
It would take a judicial ruling, I imagine, to allow anyone to say anything without being prosecuted. It's yet another double-blind that * has used to trap the family.
I see what you did there. :)
Even if we tacked four more years onto Rachel's age, she'd still be the youngest one in the room by a mile. She's technically not old enough to join the society. (Red Hats are de rigeur as part of the uniform--usually paired with something purple in the ensemble--so when I saw that red and purple number she wore that time when Moonbump slipped to her knees, my first thought was all she needed was a red hat and she'd be a Red Hat member--but we know how Rachel feels about hats: If a hat is required/expected, she will refuse to wear one and if hats are expressly forbidden, like at Wimbledon, she will INSIST on wearing one). I don't know how it is in Indiana, but all of the Red Hat ladies I've seen out and about are quite superannuated. Doria would be among the younger membership because I think the average age is about 75. I can't imagine how Rach is going to be received by a bunch of grandmothers from the heartland, but mazel tov to them. Let's hope the drinks are strong.
We know how kind Rachel is to senior ladies.
Right now, everything is open as usual, except in case where the business failed during lockdown - some precautions remain such as windows being fixed open on public transport (Good job, say I. Our local population used to sit there, stifling, and object violently if someone dared to open a window. They would ask for it to be closed though, just turned nasty. They reminded me of the stories of heating up frogs in cold water...).
It could all change though in an instant, should a new, virulent, variant arise.
Once, third parties not directly involved in the process had to be there; now the signature of the attending doctors is taken as evidence that the birth was witnessed according to the law.
Harry and * have deprived the world of that evidence, even if it does exist - that alone surely means that the children cannot be heirs, unless presumably H&M can produce the evidence. That's the `of the body' rule. That's the reason the rule was made.
We've been banging on about this for yonks - the British people have been credited with the wit to work this out for themselves. Even if the kids are 100% genetically Sussex kids, there is no evidence that they have been born `of the body' - they may have been `smuggled' in within the 21st century equivalent of a warming pan.
Had anyone suggested to me that in the 21st century, about 320 yrs later than the original, probably false, allegations, that I would be arguing that someone had tried it, even when there are scientific ways of positively establishing a child's parentage beyond any reasonable doubt, I would surely have told them not to be so bloody ridiculous - it's mad.
Little did I imagine that an evil lunatic and her familiar really would try it.
So along comes * who flouts every single rule the Royals ever dreamt up and they just didn't know what to do with her.
I agree with you, but I also believe ERII did eventually go to her PM and ask for help from her intelligence agencies. They assuredly know that Archie was not born "of the body," and I can only assume the BRF listed him on the website version of the LOS because they didn't want to start a battle on that hill.
I personally think CRIII intends, on Harry's reconciliation with the family, to have him surrender his dukedom and withdraw both himself and his issue from the LOS. Then, no one has to know that MM really did pull a fast one on the family.
But I can imagine it must be enraging to senior royals that Friar has been unwittingly aiding and abetting Liar in committing treason against the Crown simply because he is so ignorant about the LOS. Truly an example of how ignorance is more expensive than education.
I agree about children of wealthy parents.
In the city in which I live, there are dozens of commercial ventures which were closed down after the parents died and the business was left to the children. There are so many very good pastry shops, restaurants, shops, etc that took decades for the parents to build, and once they passed, the children closed shop and didn't even bother selling the buiding. In one case, the homeless just took over the building.
The parents must be turning in their graves to see what little regard their children have for their life's work.
Xxxx,
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.
Acknowledging! I can see why you like CF. He is probably doing well these days. Back in the UK. Look what we have from the UK now. The very anti-funny James Cordon. Reports say he makes 30 million a year. He claims he is done, and will be retuning home.
New poster but have been on Blogger since 2007.
Sweetpea, you have some very personal information about you which ... not everyone who reads the blog has good intentions. Most do (have the good) but there are some who don't so I don't want to post your comment only because I don't want to give anyone access to finding you.
Can you please create a new google persona, new name and so on. Thanks
If what you say in your above comment is true, then the dimwit son and the grifting hussy who have perpetrated a colossal fraud—twice—by pretending to have legitimate heirs to the succession have more power than the King. You say Harry and Twunt were solely responsible for tampering with the succession… but did not her late Majesty instruct that the official Line of Succession be updated to reflect Harry’s children as additions? In the case of Lilibet in particular, a child allegedly conceived, gestated and born in California, with no official witnesses as required by your constitutional law, whose attending doctor shuttered her practice very suddenly and fled the state—probably to avoid a subpoena or some kind of prosecution—who no one in the United Kingdom has seen, including staff at the airfield—who remains unbaptized in the Anglican faith—whose birth certificate like her brother’s is highly irregular—whose mother of record is a documented habitual liar, having committed perjury in a court proceeding—you say that this woman can simply conjure up 2 babies from a pumpkin patch and the Crown is compelled to list them in the LoS—and it would be illegal to remove said children? Even if it’s proven that they aren’t Royal or perhaps even real?
How would that be more illegal than whatever illegalities were committed to insert the frauds in the first place? If they are listed on the official Royal channels then that was done at the Queen’s command and with her confirmation, wasn’t it? They can’t put any old bucks on the official royal family website without running it by the sovereign first. At some point her Majesty capitulated to the story, even if they were grave reservations or outright proof that these children do not meet the standard of Royal birth applied to all other members in the line. It seems to me that the RF has humored the antics of two mentally ill and vicious individuals right into the soup. This is a nonsensical situation. You’re telling me that if master Archie is a reborn doll, the sovereign of the United Kingdom is prohibited from removing a doll from the line of succession because Harry went on camera and told the world that his wife gave birth? Surely the burden of proof is not that flimsy, Since Harry like his wife is a habitual liar-Just not as practiced at it as his wife, for whom he will say anything.
I am resigned to the fact that we the public will likely never know everything that went down In this debacle. I just pray that the right and just thing will be done in the end.
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.
This has now been posted everywhere. One Twitter account discussing it is "@sweetoleme". What do you guys think it could be? Which paper?
It could be about surrogacy, but I don't think we're going to get that lucky. This Twitter handle says her source says there's been no input from KP or CH, and that the paper's lawyers and the proprietor (singular) have been going back and forth for weeks about the story.
I'm not sure anyone would refer to the ownership of The Times with a singular noun. So that leaves The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and the Daily Mirror? Could a "red top" break a major royal story?
Scots men are in my opinion the sexiest in the world (Aussie men a close second). Craig has had a very interesting life. He grew up on a council estate in Glasgow, where he met and was briefly in a band with Peter Capaldi. After I learned that I realized that Peter, a.k.a. the 12th Doctor— Looks like he could be Craig’s older brother although they are not related. Craig got into a lot of trouble in his teenage years, and ended up dropping out of high school, becoming a drug addict and generally being a trial to his parents. After visiting the United States as a young teen and seeing the world outside of Glasgow where “damp is a color!” According to him, he ended up spending nearly 35 years in Hollywood, where he embraced very non-Scottish things like regular dental visits and Cobb salad. After leaving his late show he spent a few years hosting a game show which was way beneath his capabilities. I guess he finally got La La Land out of his system, but I wonder if he ever misses the sun. I think Scotland must have more rain than anywhere else on earth, but the people by large seem to be all natural storytellers probably through centuries of gathering around the fire to entertain each other as it poured rain outside or snow.
James Corden his successor came highly recommended to the program, but what a tool he turned out to be. I really don’t think that Weight Watchers looks like it’s working out for him, or rather he’s not working out. 8 years of him has been 8 years too long, but I ask you— Who willingly walks away from $30 million a year? I think it’s safe to say he’s probably regarded as an even bigger tool in the UK, Who seemed quite happy to get rid of him. Smells like he’s been Markled to me. The weather in England is not that great and nobody but nobody there is going to give him $30 million. Sayonara, tosser.
I've been out at the grocery store today (nooo! Don't make me go!) and am wondering why my canned cat foods now come with things like rice, carrots, and 'greens' now. Oh, and extra gravy, which is code for "you are getting way less cat food but getting charged for colored water thickened by cornstarch, hahaha sucker". My cats have never dug up any carrots and gnawed them. They're not out stalking rice paddies. When they're eating green stuff, it is because they want to hork up hairballs. I don't really think I need more horking of hairballs in my life or in my shoes.
`They would not ask for it to be closed'
...did not her late Majesty instruct that the official Line of Succession be updated to reflect Harry’s children as additions?
----------
The Act replaced male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture for those in the line of succession born after 28 October 2011, which means the eldest child, regardless of gender, precedes any siblings.
Royal assent: 25 April 2013
Commencement: 26 March 2015 (Wikipedia)
Gov.uk published a press release entitled 'Royal succession rules will be changed' on 4th December 2012.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-succession-rules-will-be-changed
This is well before H clapped eyes on TBW.
Re the invisible children, if there's been some skullduggery - not impossible - I believe the BRF found out late and banished the duo + sprog out of the UK when they decamped rather hurriedly across the pond - not just to another part of England of even the UK. Just my opinion.
@Henrietta
`So along comes * who flouts every single rule the Royals ever dreamt up and they just didn't know what to do with her.'
That's exactly what happen every time a narcissist barges into the life of someone who has not wised up to them.
What does one do when one hasn't heard of Grey Rock or No Contact? When someone refuses to observe the established norms of behaviour? Then, when you've objected, they tell all manner of half-truths and lies to destroy your other relationships.
It happens at an `ordinary' level, so much worse when one is in a public position.
Harriet's right - what would have happened had the RF called her out for her conduct? Stated she & H had perpetrated fraud? There are more than enough politically-motivated individuals in the UK and elsewhere who would have caused big trouble. It's been bad enough here with those who have no idea what's really been going on pleading for her to be given a chance to adapt and seeing her treatment as `unfair'.
Apparently, Bismarck was first to say `politics is the art of the possible' but JK Galbraith modified it to “politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” (at https://politicaldictionary.com/words/art-of-the-possible/). The political stakes were, and still are, far higher than for any of us losing hitherto trusted friends.
It took me nearly 40 years to understand what went on in that previous marriage - not for the want of trying either. We used to wonder about the tyrants of the 20th C - were they mad or bad? We can make a well-informed guess now but then the `literature' didn't exist - the doctors, psychologists and lawyers hadn't a clue, beyond deciding my `persecutors' weren't `wired' properly - or assuming I'd made it up.
Not about the duo, but gosh this is interesting ...
"BENGALURU: The United Kingdom’s Queen Consort Camilla landed in Bengaluru on a private visit for her first overseas tour. She came by a British Airways flight Thursday, travelled by road for nearly 40 km from Kempegowda International Airport to Soukya, a tony (sic) holistic health and wellness centre near Whitefield. She’ll be undergoing rejuvenation therapies during her nearly 10-day visit."
It cannot be a private visit AND an overseas tour! The article goes on to say that she has visited the centre about 10 times, once with Charles. That is serious devotion to holistic wellness! But I admit I am feeling a bit if envy!
and pressures of being a bride, detailing her experiences & the 'stress' of being 'the perfect woman on her #wedding day.
The above posted by an Anon ... the possibilities of all that can go wrong as she talks about her (second or third) wedding day is something to look forward to. Is she 'interviewing' Jennifer Lopez (of course not but that could be fun)?
@Hikari, I've never been a fan of talk shows, but I've always thought Craig Ferguson was charming & funny. He also co-wrote a cute little Brenda Blethyn movie called Saving Grace several years ago. Perhaps he's not hard edge enough for today's media environment. I hope he's doing well wherever he is today.
Will the `Evening with Meghan Markle be a barrel of laughs? Will she dress as a younger Pink Hat Lady, in lavender? Was she invited or self-invited? Will the ladies think they've had their money's worth or will they walk out after the first half hour?
"First Prize: an hour with Meghan Markle'
Second Prize: a whole evening with Meghan Markle"
Funny how the Sussex title has disappeared...
Here is my dilemma (and I doubt that the shallow woman will address this): To deny your needs, wants, thoughts, emotions can be dangerous repression (guaranteed to explode at an inappropriate time); to demand what you want all the time, every time, without regard to others or the situation is childish behaviour. Being a grown up is being able to navigate this fraught terrain in a constructive way. Put this in the context of the BRF and it gets a lot more complicated.
It was up to her to acknowledge that she would have problems fitting in and to ask for time to 'settle in' before jumping in with both feet and creating such drama. The offer was made.
She was never assertive; she was always just rude. She was never mindful of others and context; she was always completely selfish. She was never grateful; she was always petulantly demanding ...
I think the BRF (family and institution) were very accommodating and mindful and kind in making allowances for her and giving her assistance in, supposedly, making a difficult transition. If she had not been so self-absorbed she would have found out that others in the BRF had experienced major difficulties (even those born royal) but they had overcome mistakes, scandals, and various huge adjustments, all in the public eye, and had overcome with the support of the family and the institution.
She threw away the best opportunity to grow and overcome her shortcomings and faults. Instead she dragged her husband down to her level and ran off with all the loot.
I do hope the women of Indiana reap lots of $$$ after they pay off Freak Show to speak.
She is desperate, very desperate.
A narcissist needs to constantly fill their black hole, and appearing in central Indiana is going to temporarily fill that hole? Wow.
What happened to the award she bought from GQ? Was the award rescinded because Freak Show could no longer afford it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Thompson
I do hope the good ladies heckle her if she sticks to her usual theme of `Me, Myself and I'. Doubtless it's all being done for Netflix, hence the banning of the Press - I do hope the ladies can sneak some recordings out and offer them for publication. God willing, it'll be a disaster for her.
If she were genuine in her professed dedication to Feminism, surely she would have contacted the Soroptimists? Yes, I know, a silly question.
Don't they understand that `confidential' means `Keep you trap shut'?
I once worked with an older Swedish woman who would spend her vacations at ayervedic spas in India. She would lose about 20 lbs and 10 years off of her appearance, and then would proceed to put it back on again over the year, and repeat the cycle.
The change in her appearance was startling.
@Neutral,
I've never been a fan of talk shows, but I've always thought Craig Ferguson was charming & funny. He also co-wrote a cute little Brenda Blethyn movie called Saving Grace several years ago. Perhaps he's not hard edge enough for today's media environment. I hope he's doing well wherever he is today.
Craig Ferguson is one of my favorite topics and so much more edifying than Madam and Handbag. Saving Grace is indeed a charming film. Craig didn't have to stretch terribly far to play a gentle cannabis enthusiast. Brenda Blethyn is a jewel of the British screen. There's really nothing that lady can't play. She made her mark playing a lot of mumsy characters until she became the very un-Mumsy DCI Vera Stanhope. Love her to bits.
Craig has a number of other feature films to his credit, all of which I own, naturally. I'm particularly partial to The Big Tease, in which he plays an ambitious (and quite gay) hairdresser from Glasgow who goes to Los Angeles to compete in the International Golden Scissors competition and things go madly awry. The whole thing has a madcap 'Pretty Woman' feel, as Craig gambols in his underwear in a swanky Hollywood hotel to the strains of 'California Dreaming' . . and features a cameo by Larry Miller as the hotel manager. (Larry was of course the shop manager in PW in what's probably my favorite scene. "We're going to need some major sucking up.") Did you catch him in "Born Romantic", in which he channels Dean Martin and both sings and dances salsa? Man of many talents.
Though I enjoy Craig's films, he never disappears into character but remains always resolutely, gloriously himself. He's such an exuberant and distinctive personality that he's at his best just riffing as 'Craig Ferguson'. I was surprised at his abrupt (as far as the public was concerned anyway) departure from L.A. to return to Scotland. Denigrating his home country was a major piece of his stand-up comedy. As far as I know, both of his parents are gone, but he would still have many relatives in Glasgow. His (third) wife is American and 25 years younger than he. It's the Rod Stewart method of staying young. I hope that Craig is happy and busy writing books and enjoying semi-retirement which he's earned. He is a first-rate mind, something of a latter-day Renaissance man--with a giant tattoo of the Join or Die! flag on his arm. He is missed. When the jones gets bad, I watch YouTube videos.
indiana. hmmm do you think she has her eyes set on a pro football player or pro basketball player (prob the latter since she is trying to “keep up with the Kardashians 😉).
* is following in the footsteps of her idol, Michelle Obama, as a featured speaker with Women's Fund.
Finally - please do not "knock" Naptown i.e. Indianapolis. We are not Chicago, but we have a pro football team (who is miserable at the moment) and a pro basketball team (who are rebuilidng) and St. Elmo's Steak House, and our airport is rated among the best in the nation. Plus, it is home to the greatest spectacle in racing, the Indy 500. Born Hoosier here, proud of it. Carry on....
Re the angry black woman podcast, Briefcase 24 'suggests the 'archetype' of the 'angry black woman' who is 'overly emotional' dates back to slavery'. Pur-lease! Not that old chestnut again.
She also revealed 'she's had a genealogy test which identified her as 43 per cent Nigerian'. That's a new one. What's the point anyway when she tries to look white?
Has anyone ever seen her cowering in any way? What we have seen is her shoving past her husband to push herself forward, barge in to talk over him or pull him away mid sentence.
The woman lives in a fantasy of her own making.
I do wish everyone in mainstream media would do the research and show proof that she is making up stuff again.
I must concur with snarky . . any knocking of Naptown was intended to be through The Duckarse of Montesh*tshow's eyes, not ours. I was born in Lansing and raised in a suburb of 'Bombtown, USA'--Youngstown, Ohio, a place that makes Cleveland look like Venice. When my mother learned that my father was relocating us to Bombtown, she cried for days. Indy would be a major upgrade for me. But Rachel is very shallow and if she wasn't impressed by the Queen's castles and Grade II listed buildings absolutely steeped in history, she's not going to find anything up to her standards in the Indianapolis Marriott. She will bare her fake smiles and on the inside sneer at your hometown . . because it's not Hollywood. That's all she thinks is worthwhile.
Supposedly, Diana's sisters were at Archie's christening, if that photo is to be believed - and that's a huge IF . . .
The key word is 'supposedly'. It's said that Harry was close to his Spencer aunts at one time . . I'm sure they looked out for the boy in the wake of their sister's death as best as they could. Based on Lady Sarah's froideur toward Harry at the Diana memorial unveiling, and running interference between him and William to ward off any attempts by H to move in for a photo op bro hug moment--she's not having any of H any more. And Lady Jane's husband Sir Robert Fellowes was equerry to the Queen. I do not think that any of H's Spencer family are in H's corner against the Royal family any more.
Earl Spencer was notably absent but I don't think he's particularly popular at KP for reasons that are separate from HazNowt.
Lady Sarah looked appropriately dressed for church in that photo, but WTF was Lady Jane wearing? A straw Panama hat and casual clothing much more suitable for say, a regatta or maybe the polo. I have a feeling those images were cadged from other photos on other days. Ditto Doria, who looked very nice--but I personally do not believe she was in Windsor that day or any day. I think she visited London twice, when her presence was verified at large scale public events--the wedding and the cookbook launch. Any reports that she's spent extended time at Frogmore Cottage--weeks and weeks--as Archie's nanny--have been fictions. The papps were staking her out in the lead-up to the birth of her first grandchild and absolutely no one captured a single image of Grandma Doria traveling to or fro to London or in Windsor where she allegedly walked in town regularly. Sure. It wouldn't have been difficult for M to insert a picture of her mother into the christening tableau or with the Queen.
No one says it is wrong to ask for what you need. However what matters is
How you ask it? Is it said politely, coherently, in a conversational tone and using the magic words? Sometimes things are said loudly, even screamed and the magic words are used in such a way that the listener doesn't hear it as a request but still as a command even if the "or else" is not said.
When you ask it? Is it a good (right) time to have the conversation? Or is it happening right before something other deadline or activity which makes it more difficult to accommodate? When talking timing of conversations, it's more than just considering if it is convenient for the speaker to discuss it at this moment - the recipient is part of the consideration as well.
Where is this happening? Is is requested in private? Or is it in some public, semi-public to humiliate? If the goal was to fix a problem, exactly how does humiliation fit into solving any problem?
Is it something which can be done? Not everything we want is always possible. (Santa, I'm still waiting for my pony). Seriously, part of life is that we can and do hear a "no" so it's up to us to learn how to respond appropriately to it based on context. If it can be done, should it be done is a different question.
Tyler Perry does angry black woman in such a way so that you cheer because the anger is justified. That person is a jerk on every level and, somehow it seems very fitting.
Humor, kindness go a long way in changing other viewpoints. Way farther and faster than directing anger which is disproportionately greater than the offence to the listener.
That's where this falls apart. She fully expects to get 100% of what she 'needs'.
What if what you 'need' infringes on what someone else 'needs'?
Whose needs trumps whose?
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2022/10/24/its-buy-an-award-season-for-the-sussexes/
@snarky
Re the angry black woman podcast, Briefcase 24 'suggests the 'archetype' of the 'angry black woman' who is 'overly emotional' dates back to slavery'. Pur-lease! Not that old chestnut again.
She also revealed 'she's had a genealogy test which identified her as 43 per cent Nigerian'. That's a new one. What's the point anyway when she tries to look white?
Forty three percent Nigerian? Doesn't that mean she has majority non-African DNA? Hasn't she always identified as Caucasian (see: Choice of husbands, sorority, job applications.) DNA isn't an excuse to act badly.
If DNA IS an excuse to act badly, please let me know. I would be tempted to take advantage of my Mesopotamian heritage and start conquering my neighbors, the uncivilized savages, for Sargon and Glory!
Oh, how common...
https://qz.com/africa/1890291/why-so-many-african-americans-have-nigerian-ancestry/
So today the topic is "the angry black woman". Also out in the universe is a "Karen" which is an angry white woman.
So....if * has been identified as an angry black woman, does her being biracial also qualify her as a "Karen"?
why can't the Universe call it what it turly is - an angry woman, or an upset woman.
I totally agree with what you said about asking. Also the British are very polite and wouldn't ask abruptly. I think *'s American ways were too brusque as in too direct, straight to the point. Not insinuating that the Americans are not not polite but perhaps not in the same way as the British, e.g. I'm sorry, I was wondering if etc. We don't say this all the time but it's a way of softening a question. I bet she went in all guns blazing, demanding not asking. And she would never lower herself to have a brief chat with her staff about themselves (how are you? etc).
Has anyone ever seen her cowering in any way? What we have seen is her shoving past her husband to push herself forward, barge in to talk over him or pull him away mid sentence.
The woman lives in a fantasy of her own making.
I do wish everyone in mainstream media would do the research and show proof that she is making up stuff again.
I read where Earl Spencer attended The Queen's commitment service at Windsor, but I don't remembering any reporting of him speaking with Haz and *. It appears there was a total freezing out of the traitors. And of course I don't remember them mentioning the Spencers at all in their usual storytelling about family; only Diana. I just wonder if Charles Spencer sent an early warning to Harry about even trying to include his brood in their tales of racism and hate that have been directed at the RF and the UK in general.
Just because you clearly state what you need, it doesn't mean you're entitled to get it.
That's where this falls apart. She fully expects to get 100% of what she 'needs'.
What if what you 'need' infringes on what someone else 'needs'?
Whose needs trumps whose?
I think that the problem may be that her needs aren't needs but wants. She seems to think that everything that she wants is a need that must be fulfilled. She seems to have a HUGE empty space inside of her that needs to be filled with material things, provided by others, to make her happy. She doesn't realize that happiness comes from within, not from material things, not from other people.
Do any of you need millions to live a happy life? We don't. We live a happy life now. I may buy (one) lottery ticket, though, even though I am (or maybe because I am) fluent in statistics. We'd *like* to have a fully equipped CNC manufacturing shop and our shop building remodeled, but we can get along fine without it. (Want, not need.) It will take us awhile to do the remodeling because (a) we're older and have some physical limitations and (b) we pay as we go, so it won't all be done at once. OTOH, we will do better work.
Such genes are a tiny proportion of the overall genetic complement, of which we all share something like 98% with the Great Apes and 60% with - wait for it - bananas. Apparently, we're closer to pigs than orang-utans!
https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-other-animals/
How does a woman born to a half-black woman and a white man end up being 43% Nigerian? I'm genuinely curious.
It is curious. I would have expected some ancestry from Senegal, Mali, and Gambia as well. Internecine warfare meant that the defeated, instead of being executed, were sold.
There are a lot of "white" people that have ancestry that they may not be aware of. Most American "black" people are not 100% African heritage except for recent African immigrants (the Gullah/Geechee people probably have the highest proportion of African ancestry).
What she really means, but fails to understand, is that 43% of her genetic markers that are associated with specific geographical areas suggest a Nigerian origin.
Such genes are a tiny proportion of the overall genetic complement, of which we all share something like 98% with the Great Apes and 60% with - wait for it - bananas. Apparently, we're closer to pigs than orang-utans!
https://thednatests.com/how-much-dna-do-humans-share-with-other-animals/
Heh. Also, different DNA companies have wildly varying percentages of ancestry from different regions. My DNA, from two different (leading) companies, is...different. I think it is because of the way they bundle areas together.
"LOL - maybe that's why she's so in love with bananas!"
OFF-Color-Humor Alert!!!
Maybe she LOVES Bananas because they SATISFY her more than Harry does!!
'
****Now I'm going to have to go to Confession again*** :(
A series of tweets from someone supposedly spilling tea about a huge story being developed...very secretly, and that will break a major scandalous story about non-working royals, and is probably about something financial.
People on Reddit are saying that this is about CRIII changing the councilors of state to working royals only.
For the record I don't agree. People have been talking about the councilor issue for a while now; it wouldn't really be a surprise or a "big story." I'll guess we'll just have to wait to find out what it is. I don't think it's going to be a red top that breaks the story.
WRT the children, I think The Firm has plausible deniability here. They were presented with a child that Harry said was his and that said child met all the requirements for the LOS. Now, the family may well have known it was all poppycock and perhaps even have proof of that, but we the public will never know. I think that Charles could at any point announce that "new information" has come to light concerning the legitimacy of Harry's children, who will be removed from the LOS as a result, and then they're pretty effectively off the hook.
I hope that scenario will come to pass, with the minimum amount of damage to the BRF. Perhaps they were just waiting to see how low the Suxxit death spiral would go. It's pretty well fully out there now in the public domain that Princess Henry is not playing with a full deck. Every passing week brings us escalating displays of her grandiose narcissism at work and she's openly mocked by the very publications who are putting her on their covers. Kind of a masochistic and economically dangerous strategy if you ask me, but questions are indeed finally starting to be aired about the grasp on reality of the American Duchess and why her children are never ever seen in public.
But I still have to question why her schemes got this far. In a normal family, extended relatives aren't going to be privy to details of a daughter-in-law's pregnancy and when she shows up at the next family reunion and introduces her baby, that's that. But the Royals aren't a normal family. Medical privacy issues aside . . any fruits of M and H's loins are not *just* their children alone and 100% their personal business to hide away as they like. Harry is the son of the sovereign and his heirs by extension belong to the state as well as to their parents. I don't mean this in a literal communistic sense before anyone flips out--I mean more poetically, the people of the United Kingdom have a vested interest in these children. Even though they will never rule the land, they are part and parcel of the Royal tapestry--part of the collective history of the nation. That's why there are so many protocols attending Royal births/documents. It's a matter of the public trust.
I gather that Prince Andrew did not make a balcony appearance until he was 18 months old, leading to wild speculation among the public that the baby was deformed, had Downs Syndrome or had died. The Queen and Philip regretted that Charles and Anne had been so overexposed in the press when they were very young and had decided to not parade Andrew in front of the public so much. He did eventually appear. And there weren't any issues with his birth certificate.
I just find it hard to believe that everyone at the Palace from the Queen on down just accepted at face value that Harry's wife was having a baby with no verification from a recognized medical professional that it was legitimate. I thought there would be a procedure for Royal women to notify the monarch officially and an expectation that documentation/medical contacts would be provided. For an ordinary woman, having the in-laws expecting updates from her medical team vis the progress of her pregnancy would be an unthinkable breach of privacy. But that begs the question: A Princess of the United Kingdom is a public servant and any children produced by her are going to be presented as part of the Royal family. Is there no duty of care by the Royal family to ascertain that claims of an impending heir to the succession are rigorously checked out for truthfulness? Otherwise anyone could claim to be a Royal baby, like that guy in Australia who insists that he is the true Prince of Wales. He's obviously a crackpot--an adoptee who hasn't been able to come to terms with not knowing who his birth parents are and has fixated on a famous and wealthy couple who didn't meet until 5 years after he was born. But if the Palace didn't ask for any verification at all from the Sussexes to prove that * was indeed incubating an heir . . the man has just as much a claim as 'Archie' to be in the line of succession. If we aren't testing DNA, quizzing doctors or insisting on valid witness testimonies.
Does anyone really think that object she trotted out at the polo ground in July 2019, two weeks after the alleged christening was a real baby? I know the British give a wide latitude to eccentricity and are quite benevolent to social nonconformists but that was a child endangerment issue if it was a real infant and a full-blown display of psychosis if it wasn't. Clock all the faces around her . . ranging from WTF (the Duchess of Cambridge) to quiet horror (the Gilkeses) to rage (the allegedly over-the-moon father) William and Harry had a screaming match that came to blows on the polo ground according to witnesses. Perhaps because * was creeping on William's children like the spectre at the feast with an inert plastic baby trying to get papped with the Cambridge family.
I feel like whatever happened that day, a golden opportunity was lost to force the Duchess into psychiatric treatment. There's no cure for *, but at least they could have contained her, gotten her off whatever drugs she's on and ascertained that no real infant was in danger.
Instead, we had fashion magazines singing her praises as a style icon and nary a mention of the oddity of the whole scene. Probably an injunction--which means to my mind that the RF has been complicit in gaslighting the world over the status of Harry's children for the last 3.5 years.
I'm so worn out with all of this.
There's no rule that says all the chromosomes from the mother/father `travel together' during this division. An ovum might end up with the majority of it's chromosomes from one parent or the other, it might get a more or less even mix or anything in between. It's independent assortment; chance plays a part - `Chance has no memory nor sense of justice.'
Genes on the same chromosome tend to stay together - the closer they are, the less likely they are to separate over time.
Hope this helps.
Myth of blending inheritance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blending_inheritance
Ignore what it says about Darwin here - nothing was known about the mechanism of genetics in his time and his idea may confuse you. This does not invalidate his theory of Natural Selection though.
Where it seems that blending inheritance has occurred are misleading - there's something else at work. Commonly, it means that many genes control a single character - eg for skin colour - or dominance of one gene is incomplete.
It's difficult to explain without diagrams (I was usually scribbling like crazy on the board when teaching this) - I suggest looking it up in a book for students in their mid-teens to start with, say 14-16 yr olds, then go on to something for 16-18s.
Duke of Sussex and Duke of York’s role as counsellors of state questioned in Parliament
Government was asked to consider whether the person who stands in for the monarch should be ‘somebody who actually undertakes royal duties’
The question of whether the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York should remain as counsellors of state has been raised in Parliament for the first time, putting pressure on the King to act.
Labour peer Viscount Stansgate asked the House of Lords if it was now time to amend the Regency Act, which determines who can act as an official stand-in for the sovereign.
He questioned whether ministers should discuss “a sensible amendment” with the King, adding: “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 who has left public life and the other of whom has left the country?”
Lord Addington, a Lib Dem peer, also asked the Government to indicate that they would “at least consider that the person they go to in the first consideration will be somebody who actually undertakes royal duties, or at least some part of them, at present”.
Under the 1937 Regency Act, the spouse of a monarch and the four adults next in line to the throne can be deployed as counsellors of state on official business.
The King is understood to favour an amendment that would see Prince Andrew, Prince Harry and Princess Beatrice all relieved of such duties should he be indisposed.
‘Resilience of our constitutional arrangements’
It raises the prospect that the Earl of Wessex and Princess Royal could be elevated to the position.
If not determined solely by the line of succession, as is currently the case, the Princess of Wales may also be included.
Lord True, the Lord Privy Seal and leader of the House of Lords, acknowledged that the King’s accession could prove “a useful opportunity” to amend the law.
Asked whether there were any plans to do so, he noted that “on occasion”, the Act had been changed in order to better support the sovereign “and ensure the resilience of our constitutional arrangements”.
He added: “The Government will always consider what arrangements are needed to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements, and in the past, we have seen that the point of accession has proved a useful opportunity to consider the arrangements in place.”
He said he could not discuss any private conversations held on the matter with His Majesty or the royal household.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
"
People on Reddit are saying that this is about CRIII changing the councilors of state to working royals only
I already posted this here. It's in today's DM
43% Nigerian?
Nah, 100% Contrarian
`... fruits of M and H's loins are not *just* their children alone and 100% their personal business to hide away as they like...'
It looks to me as if they regard them as property, as financial asset.
-----
I don't think I'm getting through about English law on the subject of surrogacy. If a child, any child, has been born of the body of any woman other than its father's lawful wife, it is illegitimate. It may become `legitimised' by adoption.
Moreover, if it is to be in the line of succession it must be indisputably born of the body of the wedded wife of the heir, if the heir be male, or of an heir herself. This `of the body law' was made to remove any doubt as to that status of a royal child as a potential heir. We'd seen how destabilising the rumours about the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart had proved to be. To remove the children from the Line of Succession at the present juncture would be to make the situation infinity worse. Think how * would scream - and be believed - about it for a start. Think of those who are waiting for a chance to upset the apple cart.
Please do not confuse our different legal systems - we have been making and refining our laws for 1400 years, our first law code was created in the late 7th century. Our laws and their application may not be what others think they should be, that doesn't make them wrong.
I resent allegations that the RF has been `lying', especially from another jurisdiction. British Nutties refrain from passing judgement on your presidents; please return the compliment.
I believe the RF has been placed in an invidious situation in which it is impossible to take what one might consider the morally correct path without risking the kingdom. They may have been forced to be economical with the truth as there was no safe alternative. This is what happens in a war, which in a way, this is.
"I just find it hard to believe that everyone at the Palace from the Queen on down just accepted at face value that Harry's wife was having a baby with no verification from a recognized medical professional that it was legitimate. I thought there would be a procedure for Royal women to notify the monarch officially and an expectation that documentation/medical contacts would be provided."
Honestly I wouldn't have thought women in the royal family would have to send their medical records and pregnancy documentation to the Palace. I would think the Queen should have been notified first about any pregnancy and certainly about any royal birth. But I wouldn't think proof would have to be submitted. Once the Home Secretary was no longer a required observer (1936 was the last time-- Princess Alexandra, I think) I thought things proceeded the usual way they do for most people. It just seems to me no one worries about "warming pan babies" or other tricks. Maybe H&M have pulled a fast one but that's the way it goes. Lucas Tindall is in the LoS (albeit far down) and he was born on a bathroom floor! Had Kate wanted her *first* child to be delivered in pool with some unnamed untested practitioner in attendance, the Queen might have protested. But otherwise, I doubt "the men in grey" spend time pouring over ultrasounds.
* also says she 'makes a choice' to be 'grounded' because 'things are going to be said no matter what' in her latest Archetypes episode. Grounded, her? This is laughable. She also said 'a rising tide lifts all ships'. I checked as I suspected this was originally said by someone else. Sure enough, none other than JFK said 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. Actually, his speechwriter said the phrase came from the regional chamber of commerce, the New England Council, which used it as a thoughtful slogan. Change one word and, hey presto, we have an 'original' saying. We know she's so original.
`... the Duchess spoke of her frustration at 'cowering and tiptoeing into a room' due to the fear she could be perceived negatively...'
To quote Mr McEnroe, `You have GOT to be joking'.
What a miserable human being. Demanding everything gets her nothing really - no respect, no admiration, no consideration and certainly no sympathy.
Thank you for posting the discussion in the House of Lords. I'm asking a different question than how/whether that event occurred.
There's a rumor on Twitter that a huge royal story is about to break, one involving non-working royals. One newspaper has it, and their senior mgmt. has been kicking the story around for some time between their legal dept., the writers, and their proprietor. The question I'm asking is if that big story -- which supposedly has no sources from KP or CH -- is the Counsellor of State story. I don't think it is. I think the big story has yet to break, and I'm asking other Nutties if they agree.
Thanks again for posting the House of Lords debate.
Instead, we had fashion magazines singing her praises as a style icon and nary a mention of the oddity of the whole scene. Probably an injunction--which means to my mind that the RF has been complicit in gaslighting the world over the status of Harry's children for the last 3.5 years.
I'm so worn out with all of this.
Not me. This is light entertainment compared to more serious current events. In terms of importance to our daily lives, she doesn't amount to a pimple on a frog's butt. As long as she stays on this side of the pond and exposes herself to rich men here (Tom Brady is apparently available), I expect that most in the UK don't think of her at all.
*'s visit to Indy has now made it as a stand along article in the Indianapolis Star newspaper. Spouse and I began to argue that the downtown Marriott was, in fact, a J W Marriott, i.e. the top of the line. I said no, and pulled up the reservation site, etc. He pulls up a different site which does list the hotel as J W Marriott.
I hope * is pleased. I hope her hosts give her a tour of the Speedway complete with w trip around the tack in an Indycar.
@Maneki
Mega yachts version
‘a rising tide lifts her hips
a falling tide shifts her lips’
most affordable places to live in the USA, for the "angry black" twat who will soon have to reconsider her options.
From the Mail article re Angry Women:
`... the Duchess spoke of her frustration at 'cowering and tiptoeing into a room' due to the fear she could be perceived negatively...'
would that be the time she decided to take a shortcut through Buckingham Palace in the hall where there was an investiture ceremony going on and people were achieving their lifelong dream of receiving an MBE, an OBE or even a knighthood (or damehood)? she and her handbag husband decided they were going to disrupt the ceremony by taking a shortcut through the hall. Arschlochs.
As for DNA, it's a mystery to me. I had the Mongolian birthmark from about ages 2 to 5, then it disappeared. The Mongolian ancestry appeared as a tiny part of my DNA profile, while it didn't show up in my siblings' profiles, just me.
BTW, I have been to Indiana, for a sporting event, and saw the raceway. It was a lovely visit, but I did notice a deep level of black poverty that is not apparent where I reside.
There must be royal pressure. I dunno. Ludicrous.
Haven’t read a transcript of the most recent podcast. I’m well versed in her inanities.
Will now return to more reading pleasure!
Is this the rumors coming to light?
There was a comment that I found very interesting that suggested that the twat was fired from Deal or No Deal because she became too friendly with the host, Howie Mandel.
...I think The Firm has plausible deniability here...I think that Charles could at any point announce that "new information" has come to light concerning the legitimacy of Harry's children, who will be removed from the LOS as a result, and then they're pretty effectively off the hook.
I personally think that CRIII could pull this off. But the way that ERII handled this, and CRIII has so far, does suggest that the BRF doesn't want to bank on plausible deniability if, as many of us suspect, Friar's kids were born of a surrogate.
If we're arguing
among ourselves about all the ins and outs of the fraud here online, doesn't it support WBBM's contention that, "There are more than enough politically-motivated individuals in the UK and elsewhere who would have caused big trouble" if the BRF made Liar and Friar's fraud public knowledge?
I guess CRIII doesn't want to take the risk either, and our little royalist community here needs to respect that even if we disagree with it.
The (real) Crown v Tinseltown
The velvet aim
In playing the long game
Is to lessen the pain
to the reign
In the removal of Hazard
and Methane…
Is this the rumors coming to light?
Some people think so, but I disagree. Whatever the story is, it's an incredible secret and so big that only old-timers have seen anything like it before.
Hikari, I very much agree with your latest post. In fact, with them all. But this most latest was so good! The description of the polo match, and onlookers…so on point. But media paid no attention. Media is the problem, in my view. For reasons I don’t understand, she is treated differently. Yes, there is the royal connection, but by this time you’d think they’d become aware.
There must be royal pressure. I dunno. Ludicrous.
Haven’t read a transcript of the most recent podcast. I’m well versed in her inanities.
Will now return to more reading pleasure!
Maybe they don't want to be accused of racism and subjected to a lawsuit?
@Swampie @Henrietta
I agree
Thought we’re all on
the same page
United in sussex umbrage
The Crown at its core
Is about so much more
Than revealing a’parent
lineage…
If we're arguing
among ourselves about all the ins and outs of the fraud here online, doesn't it support WBBM's contention that, "There are more than enough politically-motivated individuals in the UK and elsewhere who would have caused big trouble" if the BRF made Liar and Friar's fraud public knowledge?
Arguing? Nah, debating, bringing in the points of view from people in several different disciplines, plus people bringing up the workings of privacy laws from their respective countries. It educates us all.
Remember Samantha phoned her asking her why she was doing a job acting the bimbo, and that caused a rift between the sisters that never healed? Classic Jungian shadow psychology.
TBW would have earned a lot all together for those 34 episodes so maybe she had enough money to walk out and support herself while she auditioned for acting jobs in Hollywood.
Was she living off Trevor by that stage? Had she even met him?
There is so much evidence that she played the 'come hither sexpot' in photo shoots and in roles/jobs she took, right up to about a year before she seduced and captured the prince. This was very much part of her persona, but she cannot face that so blames others for 'objectifying' her.
The woman is in need of intensive therapy.
What is the hapless prince going to do? Part of his case against the government (which includes the monarchy) for security is that he is COS.
Sometimes writing about the royal family can take an intrepid writer to some strange places, like spending the early morning hours googling four-star hotels in Indianapolis, US.
But then again, who would ever have thought that a one-time senior member of the royal family, King Charles III’s daughter-in-law and a bona fide Duchess to boot, was ever going to end up on the Indiana hotel ballroom stage as some mid-tier accounting manager with a bad PowerPoint?
...
White Oeuf Crepe
Glowering* zip-toeing
so ho house bound
As her hooves left potholes
on moist sodden ground
Particular soleho mission
deceive and then leave
Difficult, not Clear
could her oeuf** still conceive…
*Golden showering
**egg, or oaf 😉
It was as clear as the nose on one's face/as plain as a pike staff to anyone who knows our history and our law, to say nothing of biology and the laws of physics, that the kids cannot possibly be legitimate heirs to the throne and that something very fishy had been going on.
Lady C nailed it in her book where she as good as spelled it out when she was discussing the lack of their title. It was not necessary to announce that `Archie' is an impostor, which is what would have been the effect of removing him and his `sister' from the Line of Succession. Anyway, we know that information on the Internet is often out-of-date and unreliable.
* was said to have been in panic when she discovered, too late, about the `of the body rule'. Don't you think that she would have moved Heaven and Earth to ensure that there was no doubt as to Archie's status had she known?
She would have given birth in front of a large audience (and probably charged them handsomely for the privilege) had she really been pregnant and aware of the rules. She would have lost no opportunity to show off the baby, probably charging appearance fees.
But no, she's a total Know-All-Nothing who has no limits when it comes to being underhand and this is her undoing.
So may we totally drop the `L' word please? The situation is a form of warfare in which certain persons in the US have declared war on our Constitution. In a war, you mustn't let the enemy know everything and you certainly don't give him (in this case, her) ammunition that can be turned on you.
Surely you can imagine the consequences of openly declaring the kids illegitimately-born and actually removing them from the Line of Succession? * would have a field day.
Her bombshells claiming R-ism would be of megaton capacity and would be pounced on with glee by those wishing to destroy our way of doing things.
This post does not call for reply.
That is, of course, assuming that * is still concerned about H's status. The lack of mention of his name, plus her shedding her rings, may mean she has walked away from him.
@Swampie
I’m all for edification
Not so much dam-nation 😉
Thanks for Mega yachts version and The (real) Crown v Tinseltown. Succint and to the point 😉. It is a very long game. As one of the commenters on CDAN wrote, 'Time for MEgraine to be knocked off her perch'. I've been waiting for it from day one...
Talking about her discovery - 2 years ago, by the way - she said 'anybody that I've told, especially Nigerian women, are like "What!"' A very articulate, educated form of speech for such an intelligent, supposedly well educated, woman!!!
'This is huge for our community,' a shocked Ziwe [Nigerian-American comedian], 30, replied. 'No, honestly, you do look like a Nigerian, you look like my Aunt Uzo. So this is great.'' Ha ha ha, she looks nothing like a Nigerian woman.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11355825/Meghan-Prince-Harry-donate-charities-Nigeria-Archetypes-revelation.html
https://archive.ph/2022.10.26-092213/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11355825/Meghan-Prince-Harry-donate-charities-Nigeria-Archetypes-revelation.html
According to the article, she had her genealogy done a couple of years ago. So, for two years she ignored Nigeria ... has the stupid woman suddenly discovered that Nigeria is the wealthiest country in Africa (in terms of GDP)?
That's a really good point about the rule of the body and her behavior. Never thought of it so bluntly on point.
Sometimes the long game may require creative use of language and behavior.** And, I think you have something about not giving people ammo to shoot you with. She was still riding on a we are the shinny new and everyone thinks we are so terrific high. Their shine had not yet started to tarnish and it would have created a monster which no one could control the outcome of.
I think it was thought as the way to allow her/them enough rope to hang themselves in as many other areas as well in addition to what ever validation they have which we don't know of yet.
** George Washington, when he heard of someone who was a suspected spy in the camp, would call them to his tent and ask them questions about potential upcoming attacks. He had no interest in any of them but it allowed him to potentially give disinformation if they really were a spy. (sorry to the UK Nutties - not trying to offend your side but making a point about war)
Was she living off Trevor by that stage? Had she even met him?
…………………
* Filmed Deal or No Deal between 2006 and 2007. She married Trevor in 2011, by which time they'd been together for several years, having met in 2004. I'd say she was probably living with her although I don't know but the woman is a parasite so it's possible if not likely. Remember she couldn't live without him! (in the beginning anyway).
I'm glad that the Counsellor of State question has been raised in Parliament - the Harkles would have screamed the place down had it been initiated by the King.
That is, of course, assuming that * is still concerned about H's status. The lack of mention of his name, plus her shedding her rings, may mean she has walked away from him.
Remember Mexit, when she was ostentatiously showing her fingers without rings? Could be another threat for him to sit down, shut up, hand over the money or he will be taken to the cleaners when she leaves him.
Poor man has already been cleaned of his fortune, family, friends, and reputation. Guess she wants his lifeblood as well.
I did not know that, but then I was 3 when he died. Reagan resurrected it frequently in the late 70s/80s, when I first heard it and thought it was new. You know * would not like to be associated with him.
My parents heard JFK speak in DC exactly a month before Dallas, and my mom commented, "It would be so easy for someone to shoot him."
It states in an article in yesterday’s DM that The King reportedly wants the law amended so his counsellors are all working royals, but it would require a change in legislation. I’m absolutely guessing the King is backing this change…..but who’s to say he didn’t initiate the charge himself?😚😛
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11352869/amp/Prince-Harry-Prince-Andrews-royal-duties-discussed-Parliament-time.html
Another Nutty had made this suggestion earlier...
Perhaps in the eventual divorce, the price of JH's return to the family will be to drop out of the LOS? That would also cancel his offspring from the LOS, without the RF declaring them illegitimate.
/I wouldn't want customers to think that she bought the bubble butt outfit from my establishment. But maybe it explains why nobody told her why she shouldn't wear it.
I need to go unload feed now. I shall search my hats to see if I can find one that makes me look vaguely royal as I'm doing my chores. Perhaps an insouciant little feed store baseball cap will do.
That explains all the spam email in my inbox.
as for the kids. the pressure will be put on harry. we will let it all out or you can renounce titles remove your kids from LoS and live a quiet private life. we will support you ($) for a time and we will support your decision to find peace for your truths away from the family that caused you so much pain. if he accepts (doesn’t matter if she does) then it is all resolved without any revelation about the providence of the “kids”.
and as someone pointed out notice how PR about titles for the kids has been shelved. and i think her self identifying as a colonizee as opposed the the british colonizer is her way of stepping away but not completely away from a royal connection. i don’t want a title for my kids the royal family is evil. she knows. she’s just clinging onto the D of S title like it’s a life raft. kids what kids. perhaps like duchess of windsor they let her keep the title as a consolation prize.
I quoted the phrase 'a rising tide lifts all boats', said by JFK, but I did say his speechwriter saw that "the regional chamber of commerce, the New England Council, had a thoughtful slogan: 'A rising tide lifts all the boats.'" He therefore just borrowed it. As for *, she tries to be original by lifting phrases here and there.
If this move actually happens, it will to a certain extent, further diminish his brand and status as a legitimate member in good standing of the British Royal Family.
It could also impact Charles giving needless titles to Harry’s alleged children. Meghan will be fuming. Too bad neither of them seem to have learned that actions have consequences.
Yay Charles III!
——————
From The Daily Beast website:
Andrew and Harry Won’t Stand in for King Charles Under New Rules
By Tom Sykes
Wed, October 26, 2022, 6:21 AM
Prince Andrew and Prince Harry are to be further sidelined from the royal institution, with King Charles effectively removing them from the roster of royals called on to stand in for him or sign documents on the Crown’s behalf if he is sick or unavailable.
The significant change to the role of so-called “counsellors of state” emerged after seemingly innocuous questions were asked in Britain’s fusty upper chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords.
Aristocrat Viscount Stansgate, one of 92 peers to have inherited a seat in Parliament under archaic laws that successive governments have failed to reform, rose to his feet earlier this week, the Daily Mail reported, and asked: “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?”
The London Times observed that Lord Addington, a Liberal Democrat peer, also weighed in on the matter, asking the government if they would “at least consider that the person they go to in the first consideration will be somebody who actually undertakes royal duties, or at least some part of them, at present.”
Instead of swatting the question aside with a formulaic dismissal, the leader of the House of Lords, Lord True, responded that in 1937 George VI had, shortly after his own accession, indicated the need to do whatever was necessary to, “secure the exercise of the Royal Authority.”
“In that spirit, the government will always consider what arrangements are needed to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements, and in the past we have seen that the point of accession has proved a useful opportunity to consider the arrangements in place,” he said.
As the constitutional expert and filmmaker Robert Hardman wrote in the Daily Mail: “In other words, watch this space.”
Hardman says the plan to overhaul the role will not involve any measures to specifically disqualify Andrew and Harry—under current arrangements, counsellors of state are the first four adults in the line of succession (William, Harry, Andrew and Princess Beatrice) plus Camilla—but will instead expand the pool to include other working royals, such as Anne and Edward.
Intriguingly, Hardman quotes sources as saying this work of “tidying up” the constitutional arrangements to obviate the need to call on Harry or Andrew was initiated by the queen.
Hardman quotes a source as saying: “The queen could see the need for some reforms, while not wishing to exclude the Dukes of Sussex or York…the king is simply following through with that.”
According to a report in the Daily Telegraph last week, Prince Andrew is now effectively a “recluse” following his disastrous Newsnight interview in November 2019 and subsequent expulsion from the royal family.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/andrew-harry-won-t-stand-102110440.html
"Perhaps in the eventual divorce, the price of JH's return to the family will be to drop out of the LOS? That would also cancel his offspring from the LOS, without the RF declaring them illegitimate."
Interesting idea but I don't think it would work. I don't think Harry dropping out removes his children anymore than someone abdicating would remove an heir. I know when Edward abdicated there was a formal agreement put in place that said IF he had kids (because at that point he might have) they would not be in the LoS. So it would not have been automatic.
Absent some terrible tragedy, I think the only way those kids leave the LoS is
1. They choose to remove themselves. I don't know but I'd think the kids would have to reach a certain age to make that official decision.
2. They are removed "for cause"- they are not "of the body" or other legitimacy cause, they convert to Catholicism, or they don't exist.
If you can wade through all the other guff here, the article uses an interesting term about them being led into `an epiphany' on their recent UK visit:
`According to royal expert and author Katie Nicholl, the couple's time in the UK last month led them to an epiphany that "a lot of what would be in this docu-series would be very insensitive", particularly "so soon" after the Queen's death.'
`Epiphany' presumably used in its basic sense of something being `shown forth' or `revealed to them'. Colloquially, I'd have said `the penny dropped'.
The question is, will this have a lasting effect?
----
George Washington? Fair comment - William is said to have used a variant of this tactic.
For disinformation I offer you `Operation Mincemeat', a devious example perpetrated in WW2 with the involvement of none other than Ian Fleming.
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat
Andrew probably has his nose out of joint at this, but Harry has no reason to protest, given what he did of his own volition.
As to the LoS - Parmliment will need to be the "bad guys" in order to remove H and his children, again, based on the premiss of what H has done: his intent was to get away. That H is a blood prince does not matter.
Which brings up Bea and Eugenie - are they living in the UK as their primary residence? if not, then the same goes for them.
As to * being a Nigerian princess, then I am in the line of succession as I am 49% British Isles in my genetic make up. * will do anything, use anyone, any thing for press. The press is negative yet she is happy, as it is press. it boggles this mind.
Execution of Lord Haw Haw for treason 1946? Those in their 80s may recall this.
Margaret & Townsend 1953 onward?
Margaret's wedding 1960 - would Tony A-J's mother be allowed to come to the ceremony as a divorcee? (Quite a fuss at the time)
Profumo Affair 1963?
Diana died in 1997 - one need only be in ones 30's to remember that - or is someone going to run the `Grandpa Killed Mummy' allegations yet again? I sincerely hope not.
Has somebody been accused of bestiality in the Royal Mews?
Has an assassination plot been uncovered?
Or is `Old Timer' defined as anyone over 35?
They have never been granted HRH prince/princess styles and titles, nor have ever automatically had the right to them.
However, Lilli can be called Lady Lilli and Archie can use one of his father's subsidiary titles (Earl of Dumbarton or Baron Kilkeel). After Archie was born, his parents announced that they would not use titles for their children and Archie would simply be Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor (or is it the other way round?). I guess they never thought ahead that they may have a daughter and they may want her to be known as Lady... It subsequently emerged that they were affronted by the subsidiary titles and furious that their children would not be made HRH prince/princess immediately. (The Queen had issued Letters Patent to make all the Cambridge children HRH prince/princess, before George was born.)
The Wessex children did have the right to use HRH prince/princess titles from birth, but their parents chose not to. However, they use the titles/styles Lady and Viscount Severn (in 1999, when Edward married, one of the titles he was given was Viscount Severn). When the children turn 18, they can choose to use the HRH prince/princess and petition the King (I think with Louise this was when the Queen was still alive) to confirm this.
The Sussex children may very well have the right to use the titles they have when they turn 18 (when they can decide for themselves) or petition the monarch to formalize the use of those titles. But, that is not what they said when they threw their tantrum - they 'declined' titles for Archie with no provision for the future, as the Wessexes did.
It is interesting to compare the two couples in terms of what they were entitled to (and still are) and what they chose and why.
So, there is nothing in their lack of titles that indicates that the children were born of a surrogate or are not the biological parents of the hapless prince, nor that the family knew or did not know. Nothing the previous nor present monarch did in terms of titles is unusual. It is the behaviour of the parents that is unusual.
This does not prove that the children were carried and birthed by TBW, nor that the hapless prince is their biological father. But if we want proof that this was not the case, we will need to look elsewhere for clues and evidence.
The BRF do not live in each others' pockets. Charles, William, Camilla, Catherine did not see the 'pregnant' wife often or in circumstances where a 'fake' pregnancy would be impossible to hide. TBW styled and dressed herself so I doubt that any staff were ever in circumstances where a fake pregnancy would be impossible to hide. Medical staff are silenced by NDAs and patient confidentiality. But even so, a lot of people would be involved in a surrogacy and it would be difficult for two such messy and stupid people to keep such a secret. She did have the strangest baby bump for Archie though ... just saying!
Are they looking for a nanny?
Nein - `ein Berliner' is a kind of doughnut.
He should have said `Ich bin Berliner'. To be fair, I don't think he ever claimed to be fluent in German and the audience appreciated the sentiment he was expressing.
I have talked about this person (AA) before, but I don't think I have ever given the big blind space before. Her significant other? Multiple times. What was he in here for? Mostly sexual stuff including sex tapes and the like. I am a little surprised she is doing what she is doing now, because people here in town definitely heard lots of rumors in her last year or two here. They have quieted over the years since as people move on to other things, but the thing is, she is the one who could be accused of bringing in several reality stars from a network reality show, into the world of yachting. In particular, there is one name that was brought in, that really stands out (BB). When AA got married, no one knew who BB was other than someone who was briefly on a show and had some fun with some guys for rent money. By the time BB became world famous, I think most people forgot about the AA and BB connection and how they met. AA is playing with fire, and i am a little surprised BB didn't reach out and tell AA not to do what she is doing
Interesting take in the comments on Crazy Days and Nights - AA is Newsome's wife who is in the news with the Weinstein trial. she claims rape he claims consensual Yeah yeah look at the source. However, it could explain the Mrs Duchass role trying to push about politics. She missed being named for Kamala's senate seat but may have a hope on the Diane Feinstein one. we all thought she was delusional but maybe just maybe she has some goods on someone and could try to leverage it as best she can. Makes the politics rumor more plausible (nauseating but plausible)
That phrase is an absolute gem. Sums up the Palaces approach most concisely. It's war, but not as we know it.
.......
I was under the impression that Lowe had more or less confirmed the suspicion that hot tea had been thrown at an Australian staff member because she had somehow got sight of the false belly, either as * donned it or when it was left out in full view.
I don't think I'd read anything about * hurling projectiles at those who displeased her until then, or that it was her usual MO in such situations, so it was unlikely to have been a made-up episode. * would have reacted like that had anyone else seen it - ergo, she was able to conceal it from prying eyes, although what was revealed through her clothing gave the game away.
TBW styled and dressed herself so I doubt that any staff were ever in circumstances where a fake pregnancy would be impossible to hide...a lot of people would be involved in a surrogacy and it would be difficult for two such messy and stupid people to keep such a secret.
I feel morally obligated to say that I read a DM comment from someone claiming to have direct knowledge of Liar and Friar's antics on their Oceania tour. She said that the tea-throwing incident occurred when a staff member walked in on Liar trying to attach a moonbump to herself using glue. Apparently glue in Australia is made differently than other places because of the heat, and something about that was causing the duchess difficulties.
Maybe Magatha can explain about the glue?
The BRF do not live in each others' pockets. Charles, William, Camilla, Catherine did not see the 'pregnant' wife often or in circumstances where a 'fake' pregnancy would be impossible to hide.
This is true . . but the Palace does have entire teams in all the households whose sole function it is to monitor all the media publications and chatter about various members of the RF and keep tabs on potentially problematic developments. I feel quite certain that Madam had several press officers whose dedicated task it was to keep an eye on all her media appearances and activities and report to their superiors on them. Every instance during which 'Bump' Mountbatten-Windsor behaved in an odd or frankly physically impossible manner would have been documented and stowed in an ever-expanding dossier of material on her. I imagine there were even weekly or even daily staff briefings on the Duke and Duchess of Suxxits' latest exploits amongst those staff.
I think we can be secure in the knowledge that any unauthorized/untoward activities of the Douches of Suxxit were known to HMTQ's courtiers if not TQ herself, because those two aren't nearly as stealth as they think they are. We can also reasonably assume that if Prime Minister Teresa May, who was sat next to the Douchess of Suxxit for an hour or two at an event on one occasion cottoned on to the bizarre qualities of the Douchess's stomach area that other Royal family members recognized it too, even if they didn't see her very often. If they chose to look at the papers or the Web, they'd have had access to all the same pictures we've had, since * was one of the most photographed 'pregnant' women in Christendom . . far more photographed during her elephantine gestation period than Catherine was for all three of her pregnancies. Catherine didn't, to my recollection, undertake two international tours to Zika regions whilst she was pregnant, either.
Andrew and Harry out, Beatrice is not working royalty. The queen's idea was not to exclude but to include. In short, increase the number of advisors so you don't need Harry, Andrew or Beatrice.
Waiting for more details...
I feel morally obligated to say that I read a DM comment from someone claiming to have direct knowledge of Liar and Friar's antics on their Oceania tour. She said that the tea-throwing incident occurred when a staff member walked in on Liar trying to attach a moonbump to herself using glue.
That's always been my suspicion. Melissa Toubti was her chief PA at the time and the unfortunate most likely to have encountered Madam en deshibille, I imagine. It seems to be generally accepted that Melissa is the staff member who got hot tea flung at her and who may have been quite seriously injured by it. That denotes a high level of rage by the tea thrower, I daresay, though Rachel could have easily flipped out over something minor.
Being outed for faking Moonbump just days into her ruse would have been Major. One wonders where was Messica Baloney while this was going on? Messica *had* to be read in on the scam didn't she, if the two were gallivanting off to the spa together? Messica's had three of her own kids so she'd know the score. Especially if they were swimming or doing mud treatments or whatever, hard to imagine how Bump could be accomodated. Especially since pregnant women aren't supposed to use Jacuzzis or have certain chemical treatments or deep massages. So wouldn't it make sense to have Messica and Messica alone with her in her room while changing, in the guise of being 'personal stylist'?
Oh . .the dirt on that tour could fill a book of its own. Does anyone know what Tom Bower said about that tour in his book? I have not gotten to that section yet if it exists. Harry seemed to be unsure/uninformed about his role in the proceeding if he was truly heard to question M at volume "Are you really pregnant?"
“In that spirit, the government will always consider what arrangements are needed to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements, and in the past we have seen that the point of accession has proved a useful opportunity to consider the arrangements in place,” he said.
As the constitutional expert and filmmaker Robert Hardman wrote in the Daily Mail: “In other words, watch this space.”
Hardman says the plan to overhaul the role will not involve any measures to specifically disqualify Andrew and Harry—under current arrangements, counsellors of state are the first four adults in the line of succession (William, Harry, Andrew and Princess Beatrice) plus Camilla—but will instead expand the pool to include other working royals, such as Anne and Edward.
Intriguingly, Hardman quotes sources as saying this work of “tidying up” the constitutional arrangements to obviate the need to call on Harry or Andrew was initiated by the queen.
I think the Sussexes have ample reason to be worried.
House of cards is falling down, oh dear.
Princess Anne handed out investitures in the last week or two from the New Years Honors List, including Bond actor Daniel Craig. The ceremony was no doubt postponed due to HM's health concerns, Covid and most lately, the funeral and mourning period. I was gratified to see that Charles is allowing her to deputize for things like this. His sister is going to be an invaluable support to him.
I just don't see how they could pull off a fake pregnancy, but she was definitely augmenting the bump for photos (and coat flicking). Someone posted pictures of "the product," and it has a navel exactly like the one she displayed several times. It's so weird this is even an issue, and you have to wonder if she sowed doubts intentionally, not just her usual "look at me."
I can't remember any non-staged photos of the Lilli gestation, which is odd, considering how * acted in her first one. She wouldn't let a mere pandemic get in the way of her thirst for attention.
Harry's book will be released January 10th, 2023
Prince Harry’s bombshell memoir will be released on January 10th, publishing industry insiders reveal as Harry ‘battles to water down the content after the death of the Queen’
Memoir was initially signed off ready for an expected autumn release as part of a multi-million pound deal
But its release was delayed following the Queen's death and alterations requested by the Duke of Sussex
Harry had launched last-minute bid to tone it down amid fears his final draft 'might not go down too well'
Memoir has been described as 'an intimate and heartfelt memoir' that will offer ' captivating personal portrait'
By JAMIE PHILLIPS
PUBLISHED: 16:06 EDT, 26 October 2022
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11358337/Prince-Harrys-bombshell-memoir-released-January-10th-industry-insiders-reveal.html
During the speculation about her pregnancy, I paid close attention to the location of her bump. As a very short-waisted woman, her pregnant belly should have been quite high, making it uncomfortable to eat, drink or breathe. Her stomach would have protruded outward, because she had no length in that part of her body. Her center of gravity would have also shifted quite high on her body, compared to a pregnant woman with an average torso length. There is simply no way she could have squatted (in any heel height, let alone 4 inch heels) and sprung up, without assistance. I believe she received some advice from Amal Clooney on how to look like you’re pregnant when you’re not. That would have included deliberate weight gain and facial filler injections that would have been absorbed over 3-4 months.
If Liar had birthed a baby, we would have been subjected to endless articles about her pregnancy and her birth story - think Mariah Carey or Serena Williams. There is no way she would have been outdone by those dramatic stories, (which I believe were actual pregnancies). We have not heard one word about any of it - no Mother Earth, first woman to deliver a baby stories that we all know would have been published in People within 2 weeks.
She wouldn't have needed a moonbump at any stage had she been a normal person. In Australia she wasn't yet outlandish with the bumps, for someone who claimed to be 13-14 weeks. They'd had the 12-week scan, they claimed. She kept things plausible at the very beginning of the trip but by the time she'd arrived in Fuji, in the blue flowing number, she was sporting a bump that looked to be 5 months at the minimum. That's when I began to be doubtful. When her stomach had become square in December, it was indisputable that she was wearing something. That one looked like a sofa pillow.
If she was claiming to be at the start of her fourth month when they left for the tour, then by my calculations, she would have had to gestated Archie for 43, 44 weeks. Not premature; in fact quite medically dangerously late for a geriatric mother insisting that she was going to have a home birth. Then when Arch arrived, he was a petite (for a male baby with a tall father who was 3 weeks overdue) 7 pounds 3 ounces. Makes Harry's "She's got a BIG baby in there some months prior" quizzical. 7 pounds is a nice size for a full term newborn but it is on the small side.
Then with Harry's oopsie remark "They change so much in two weeks" . . well, chances are near 100% that Archie didn't come out of Rachel, late, premature or right on time.
When she flew to NYC in February for her Kardashian style walkabout/shower, she was visibly pregnant arriving and leaving the city but when papped on the pub crawl on the Saturday night, she brought a huge black bag but seemed to have forgotten her fetus back in her hotel suite because her stomach was completely flat. She thinks we are too stupid to see though her but we've got eyes.
@Maneki
“Knocked off her perch”
beak and claws clipped
(w)ring her neck 🐓
@Henrietta
Cadbury chocolate tastes different
in Oz, melting point, and cows.
Not sure about glue,
adhesive or sniffing?
Different breeds of horse over here😜
Catherine, Princess Of Wales - Birthday - 09/01
Glue for adhering the bump to her body. Thanks for the bit about chocolate because the original DM commentator included that as well: that both chocolate and glue are made differently in Australia because of the heat. Does that make sense to you? That Liar would have struggled to use Australian glue?
"Sniffing"! LOL!
How feasible is it, do y' all think?
Heinz 57%*
Beanz Genez Heinz**
This Particular kween
Isn’t Difficult, or mean
Despite Clear signs of hysteria
Been likened to bacteria
hidden motives, ulterior
Her dominant gene is
Lieberia…
*Heinz 57 Varieties
**Mean Bean Gene 😉
Reading
‘A Royal Life’
The Duke of Kent
Great photo of the Queen
and Prince Philip lunching
outdoors at Balmoral,
plastic plates and ‘Tupperware’
Still reading the Prologue.
He mentions Eugenie and family
living in the house just beyond
him in Kensington Palace,
not frog cott?
I still reckon Prince George
looks like Duke of Kent’s father,
Prince George, Duke of Kent.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11358101/Princess-Anne-sports-chic-neutral-toned-ensemble-Uganda.html
Heslops Fables
A prince without realm
With his *flog at the helm
Is releasing a colouring book
Who’s going to buy it
DM will supply it
No-one else will
give a fook…
*Flog- Aus term for pretentious,
stupid twat…
@Henrietta
As for glue, sniffing or otherwise,
don’t know.
I can attest to the melting
point of chocolate.
Brought back selection boxes
and Advent calendars recently,
miserable mess, saved on postage!
My mum sends the above
every Christmas, they melt,
despite the Mistielets
turning 25 and 23.
Love it!
The usual practice would be to subtract the costs of the changes from royalties/advances. (Except added chapters to cover the Queen's death and funeral, which the publisher would want.) Inflammatory content about Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine increases the value of the book, so I doubt the publisher would want such content removed or changed, especially as the delays are costing money. Perhaps at this stage the publisher is just counting on covering costs and making a small profit, rather than risk losing the book or being sued by the couple.
I wonder if the couple will be doing a flurry of talk shows and interviews and a book tour to promote the book. I say the couple as she will insert herself and dominate as she did with the Invictus Games.
A very long article that has some information about the publishing scene at the moment.
If the book was scheduled to be published in December and has been delayed until early January, then it is unlikely that he has made extensive changes other than adding a chapter or two about the Queen's death and funeral.
'For Harry, this is his story at last. With its raw, unflinching honesty, Spare is a landmark publication full of insight, revelation, self-examination, and hard-won wisdom about the eternal power of love over grief.'
Spare as in spare us that load of tosh? As for self- examination, that will be word salad prompted by wifey.
SPARE: How to spoil the Princess of Wales's birthday in one easy step
Not Pygmalion likely - it'll rot in the charity shops along with The Bench and all those Readers' Digest condensed books...
Gosh, he really does have a chip on his shoulder, doesn't he?
He could have chosen a role model like Princess Anne, but instead he nurtured resentment and chose a wife who lives on victimhood.
She has nominated herself for another award.
@WildBoar
Just read a fabulous piece
by Sir John Betjeman.
The Queens Coronation,
Country Life.
And here is the beginning of the publicity:
https://princeharrymemoir.com/
@Maneki
Spare Me!
https://www.countrylife.co.uk/out-and-about/theatre-film-music/the-queens-coronation-in-the-abbey-by-john-betjeman-7586
I was very touched by Sir John's account - especially by his very perceptive comment at the end:
I can understand why materialists, whether they are communists or mere money worshippers, so detest the Coronation, and try to decry it with heavy satire and complaints about expense and pageantry. This ancient rite is something much more important and formidable than anything one can touch and see.
It's worth reading, especially if you are interested in how we do things here.
-----
I'm sure he would have been allowed to back out of That Walk, had he got cold feet. Instead he manned-up. I wonder when he really started to resent having done so?
Some commentators at the time even expressed the view that it was `cruel' for him and William to be taken to church on the Sunday that the news of his mother's death broke. They would have gone anyway - carrying on as planned was presumably deemed better than just staying in the Castle - it took care of the problem of what to do as the news sank in.
Sir, — With no disrespect to the Monarch, I wonder if there is an argument for postponing the Coronation (News, 14 October)? We are in the midst of a serious government-inflicted economic crisis. No one, I guess, knows what state the country will be in next May.
Surely we should get the current problems sorted out before we embark on this important new step.
In 1953, we were still in bad shape from the war but the view of the Government was that we needed cheering up.
What do Nutties think?
It’s true things are bad economically, and Charles seems very cognizant of this. Wasn’t he receiving criticism just a couple of weeks ago for taking some austerity measures with the guest list? Now some want it postponed indefinitely? The poor man really can’t win.
His anointing as the King is confirmation of his leadership; he selected May 6 for its significance in his family history and he’s expressed a willingness to scale down the extravagances. He’ll be 74 and is keen to get it done. There aren’t any guarantees that postponing will mean the economy will improve. It’s equally likely that things will only continue to get worse, meaning a coronation held later than planned will end up costing even more.
After the sad passing of her Majesty and what is pretty sure to be a hard winter, I think a spring Coronation would indeed bring cheer to the country. It seems like good value for money, unlike the Suxxit wedding. Shame Charles can’t have some of those funds back.
I would say his Majesty should carry-on and be crowned on May 6, but I am just a foreigner. What is the mood on the street at home? It feels like postponing would be more demoralizing to Charles and to the nation than to go ahead.
Yes, it may well be a Rubicon but he is still family. To cut off now allows all kinds of mischief stories about the need to protect themselves from all kinds of horror stories hence the need to stay in the USA and continue to poke the bear. The BRF doesn't need that leading up to the coronation. But I would not expect to see invites to family events in the UK. More of a drop off a cliff at best. So maybe only on the really important occasions like funerals of family.
Is it perhaps, its own punishment to have him attend at a lesser seat something which he could have had a closer seat at had he stayed? But ... it is interesting that (VL I believe) that said something about how the palace knew he was unhappy but that maybe leaving (not as he did) might be more of a journey towards a different life?
I was just reading something referenced back that at the time QE was growing up, and the generation before her, there were not a lot of extended family members to step in and do royal things. KC desires to have fewer people has precedence.
Currently reading "I Know I am Rude but it is fun (Nigel Cawthorne) about Prince Philip.
In his eighthieth birthday, the prince was in reflective mood. With a string of divorces and the fire at Windsor Castle the previous decade, the royal family had been going through a tough time. 'I imagine there are a few fortunate souls who have managed to get through life without any anxieties,' he said, 'but my experience is that life has its ups and downs." Now there was a guy who just got on with problems and didn't sit around wailing (and, as we know, his childhood was a tough one, lots of pain, loneliness at being shuffled to extended family for holidays and loss for all practical purposes both parents at an early age).
It will be interesting to read the excerpts of upcoming book and see what is known was viewed by him and what is known is omitted.
Yes, H is family. So is / was Andrew and HMTQ stripped him of his titles and gave him nothing at all except a home. H can came home - Charles would welcome his son back - he has already offered a place on one of the "farms" (out of the public eye). It is not what H wants (to be seen and do nothing) but he would be with his family, with a roof over his head. Same as Mom did for Andrew. I said it before on a post: IMHO, this has already been decided. H knows it. * is trying to do everything she can to blackmail Charles into bending. I have my popcorn ready.
I just had a brain wave about what I would find infinitely cheering. It would never fly, but everyone indulge my fantasies for just a moment.
Lt. Col Johnny leading the charge on a "Hunks of the Household Guard" calendar, with proceeds going to charity--perhaps servicemen's widows would be a good one, with a chunk of the proceeds earmarked for a fund to allow some regular folks from military families to attend the Coronation. I envision something entirely dignified, with everyone dressed in full ceremonial uniform. Only smiling, like they aren't allowed to when they are on duty. Maybe some playful shots with the bearskin hats.
As I said, it's just a dream. But I know the sight of Lt. Col. in his kilt always cheers me up no matter how bad a day I've been having.
Given the title and the cover photograph, someone has definitely crossed the Rubicon. It did not end up well for the first man who did that.
After your comment I googled the review in the Spectator, with the book jacket photo.
All I can say is, my God. He's gone fully 'round the bend. So, so much anger. The gimlet staredown above the stark word SPARE is calculated to be a stiletto in the gut of his father.
I note his byline says only Prince Harry. No "Duke of Sussex".
It's not like the son of the King hating his father is even original, but I had pictured something different. I thought he'd go for a "livin' my best life in sunny California now that I'm no longer part of that toxic institution" look.
This isn't that look. This is how Macbeth looked right before he stabbed Duncan in a frenzy a dozen times.
This will be Hawwy's New Year's greeting to his family and then he's going to expect the red carpet treatment at the Coronation?
SMH.
Given the title and the cover photograph, someone has definitely crossed the Rubicon. It did not end up well for the first man who did that.
______
I’ve lost count of the number of times over the past few years I’ve thought Twit and Twat had well and truly “crossed the Rubicon”.
But I don’t think King Charles has it in him to subject his spare son and daughter-in-law to the metaphorical guillotine, unfortunately.
A majority of Brits commenting on the articles regarding KC’s decision to keep the two black sheep as Counsellors of State have voiced the opinion that it is a sign of weakness on his part and does not bode well for the King’s willingness to lower the boom when necessary.
_____
There are already over 1200 comments on the Telegraph article about the latest news on Twat’s book. So many good ones, but here are a few of the best IMO:
Anyone can be a writer if they pay another writer to do their writing for them. Why not also call him a tailor, since he has someone who makes his clothes for him, or a chef, since someone cooks his food for him?
I'm sure the pinched little people who will have to decide between eating and heating this winter will be moved by this touching account of Harry's struggle and will gladly go hungry in order to own a copy of such a splendid volume. 'It could be worse,' they will cry from sink estates up and down the land, 'we may be eating cardboard and using Granny as draught excluder, but at least we aren't royal princes and princesses. Our struggles are nothing compared with Tiaragate and a dad who cuts you off with just a few measly millions to your name.'
Megan's book was called "The Bench".
Harry's book should have been entitled "The Plank".
A warning to parents; this is what you get when nobody says No to a child until he's about 35.
"With its raw, unflinching honesty, SPARE is a landmark publication full of insight, revelation, self- examination, and hard-won wisdom about the eternal power of love over grief."
The truth is rather different.
"With its raw, petulant self-absorption, SPARE is the dullest publication ever, devoid of common-sense reflection or any inspiring thought whatsoever, a sad and saddening story of failure."
I wonder if Harry has read it yet
Apparently he's going to read the audio version himself. I hope there are no big words!
Would it burn well on a multi-fuel stove? Or, would it be too wet?
Oh boy is that title passive aggressive.
Reply: Sorry to say, that title is a threat. Hence the photo. It is a declaration of war.
I think that the theme of the envious half-brother has been exhausted by Mr. Shakespeare in King Lear.
That's like taking flying lessons from a Kamikaze pilot.
But isn't that a great part of his problem? He got into Eton because of who he was, hence the A-level results which are very non-Eton; got into Sandhurst because of who he was, not his brain-power (see A-level results); became a pilot (although there seems to be some question over that), so at every turn he has been cushioned from reality and fed delusion. No wonder he's in the condition he's in. Devoutly to be hoped that the young Waleses are treated very differently and accept that their limitations are by no means failure, that happiness isn't bought with money or position, it's being the best you can be for yourself.
'One of the most searing images of the twentieth century'? Along with the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, the relief of Belsen, Jackie Kennedy in the motorcade with her dress spattered with the brains of her husband - I think not.
H knows.....the pronouncement of Harry and * living their lives overseas was chilling when you think about it. The man is starting his reign and settled all debts and family business with his second son in one sentence. The treatment of his brother and his son (regarding the uniforms) for the funeral was generous, and thinking of the Queen. Otherwise, he carried out HMTQ's wishes, period.
H's book jacket cover speaks for itself - we do not need TBLG to interpret. I was stunned when I looked at it, and then the black pseudo back cover of where to order was even more chilling. If Penguin Books wanted attention, they sure got it.
That's very optimistic, will his book make so much profit?
On another note, I think the 'spare' label was reinforced by Diana and then stuck. She mollycoddled him, I think, as he wasn't going to be king one day. I don't think it's that H necessarily wanted to be a future king but he saw himself as surplus to requirements and resented the fact. Diana didn't help in that respect - my opinion - but then, when possibly he was (mainly) over it, TBW came on the scene and twisted the knife. It is my absolute belief that she reopened old wounds, e.g. by claiming to be pursued by paparazzi like your mom and saying how unfair it was that he'd never be king etc. She helped unleash the old demons again.
Agree the photo is very much in your face and with a label stamped on his throat (like madam's gold necklace from Variety) make its look like a choke collar. Its definitely defiant. Those two are definitely not living their best life in easy breezy so cal. Carefree, happy, none of these have emerged.
Did you notice he donated $1MM to Wellchild from "proceeds from the book" so a big advance this is what he can donate. Guess when you funnel your money through a foundation with high PR expenses, there isnt a lot left to spend on things like charitable giving. Perhaps he just got paid for book delivery (as a graduated schedule of payments - first promise to write, then upon delivery of a publishable book)
The more i think about the leaks on CofS, perhaps the palace is giving out a trial balloon how does Harry and Andrew play with parliment and public as staying but with added members. I think its still possible that they both will be stripped and replaced and the new councilors may be more than 4 but with them not part of the four.
More on coronation, KCIII strikes me as more personable and less reserved (aloof?) than his mom. They need to play this up on and around the coronation. He smiles and people generally smile in his presence, and he seems to have a good touch with the common man. His pics as grandpa with Louis, is genuine smiles, they need to take the solemn occassion and expand the day for him to shine where he does best.
And H is too stupid to realize it? Or believes whatever lie she told him about it?
(Harry's book cover photo here. The title of the book is "Spare" .... so far, and subject to revision, I would think)
The title of Prince Harry’s long-awaited memoir will be enough to make the royal family nervous. Spare, which was originally due out this year, will be released in January. ‘His Words. His Story,’ the tag-line of the book promises.
The Queen’s death this year – and the coming together of the Royals in their shared grief – led to suggestions the book would be toned down. That looks like a faint hope. Spare suggests we will see a presentation of the same old Harry: cast out from a family that had no need for him as he fell down the line of succession.
‘With its raw, unflinching honesty, Spare is a landmark publication full of insight, revelation, self-examination, and hard-won wisdom about the eternal power of love over grief,’ the promotional fluff for the book promises.
A long and rambling post but stick with it as there is some tea near the end. She is described as spoiled, refuses to accept she cannot have everything she wants, and paranoid that he will bond with his family and she will lose him ...
Anything new or confirmed for you?
You can count on me to buy a copy of the Hunks of the Royal Household calendar. Major Johnny Thompson is a looker!
Spare Me
Harry Who?
Prince Louis Said It Better
Prince Louis Wore It Better
You Are the Weakest Link; Goodbye
When You Leave Just Leave
Palace Etiquette: When and How To Stop Talking
A History Of the Tower of London
the Trouble with Harry (btw. good hitchcock flick)
feel free to add other brilliant suggestions