The Valentine Low book will be out in a day or two. The USA release is late January so it will miss the December holiday rush. Too bad.
We have already had a few excerpts from it. Goodness knows what else is there lurking in the pages waiting to confirm the suspecting mind or shock the unprepared mind who hasn't been following this saga.
While we wait, it got me thinking about all the things which we weren't seeing a couple of years ago about the 5's but now are.
This and the Tom Bower books - nope. They are dense, detailed and full of unflattering information about the couple. The early yet critical books really stop short of spilling anything really specific like these do.
Before the Queen's death, people started showing up to events, holding signs and booing the couple. And, it was the news about that event most of the time.
Or that someone declined to have their hand shaken by her. Wow. That's a quantum shift from the picture perfect hug and compliments. The criticism tide is rising.
Even in the DM, there are stories about how unhappy 5 looks and specifically citing a comparison to Edward VIII. Yes, the comparison of the two has been around but now they are talking about how sad they both look/looked. Or the comparisons of her and Wallis. They just seem more pointed now.
The recent pictures? The criticism stops short of calling them propaganda but does mention that the look is quite regal and works in that there is the appearance of trying to set up a rival court. That's a new comment.
I don't know where or how Valentine is getting his information but it does come off as possible Palace tolerated so far. That would not have happened in the past. Perhaps there is truth to the idea of HM was the shield and now that's gone. I don't know but that is worth a thought. The book was in motion before she passed (which probably could not have predicted to come out so closely spaced) but maybe it was a signal of the coming change?
We may still be looking for a big Kraken release but this is still change in that we wouldn't have seen any of this that long ago. Besides, small leaks still create damage. It just takes time. And the crown always plays the long game.
As Joe Kenda would say (as he looks you in the eye and smiles his bemused half smile, shaking his head): "My, my, my."
Comments
trying to look angelic but the “halo” is around her next strangling her. trolling her? and then releasing the photo shoot video she looks even more delusional (with crazy eyes. yes i said it!) than usual.
i’m guessing since this was in the works for a while we are seeing the last of the Sunshine Sachs stuff.
whole focus of pr is her. everyone else is props.
WBBM. ewwwwww why is it always gross with her 😉
since she reads social media:
where are the kids? why not show this interviewer any interaction you have with yours”obviously ours” kids
why was the interview and photoshoot not at the palatial estate with 16 bathrooms and instead at a hotel?
where is harry? did you lock him in the house?
mad at Liz Grabus already? just read her bio. did a documentary several years ago and among other things featured narcs. did she get you pegged?
That cover photo is so weird. The rest of the photos are really bad. I assume Variety does photo shoots all the time, so how did they get it so wrong?
To my knowledge it’s an American take-away burger chain! I think you’re reading too much into the comment, even though it has that obvious double meaning. .😂
I can understand why they didn't want to have a huge controversy to mar the last days of beloved family members if Archie and Lili are either adopted or imaginary. However, KCIII is going to have to address it. I'd like to know your opinion on whether you think that it will hurt him with the citizens of the UK if they are exposed for the mentally-ill frauds that (I think) they are? Will people sympathize with how carefully he may have had to handle mentally-ill family members who are likely issuing threats left and right about self-harm and throwing allegations at his entire family? Will they blame him for not exposing their fraud immediately? Do you have an opinion on whether the royal family even know whether or not there are actual children?
The revelation about the provenance of the children, their actual existence if any, who actually has custody of any children via surrogacy, and finally the RF's level of knowledge/complicity in a cover-up are collectively what I think of as the Kraken. These are very troubling issues that have the potential to damage the RF more than the Harkles, actually. Because how many people are going to be able to accept that the RF didn't know full well what she was doing as she released raftloads of pictures during 'her pregnancy that were highly irregular, to say the least. But the worst was yet to come after the circus of 'the labor/birth', the bizarre documentation or lack of it; the tableaux that were staged for public consumption: the presentation of an alleged baby boy born to M 48 hours previously that never moved; followed by photos purporting to show 'Archie' with his Royal family members at Windsor Castle, a christening conducted in utmost secrecy by an Archbishop who was officially 300 miles away in York at the very same time, witnessed by hundreds . . wonky metadata that shows a photo allegedly from May 8 and one from two months later being taken on the same day, etc, etc.
Personally I do not think any of the Royal family ever posed in a photograph with 'Archie' and any images trying to convince us of the contrary were concocted, copyrighted and disseminated by Sussex Royal and now Archewell. But the Queen included that infamous photo of herself inspecting 'Archie' (aka a foal at the Windsor Horse Show some years prior) in her Christmas speech of 2019, and in her Christmas speech of 2021 (her last, sadly), she referenced 'the birth of four great-grandchildren'--ostensibly counting Lili in the mix that included the verifiably real children of August Brooksbank, Lucas Tindall and Sienna Mapelli-Mozzi.
Elizabeth remained sharp as a tack until her very last days, but I'm wondering if the courtiers really and truly told HMTQ about every last sordid detail relating to Harry's wife's past and their reproductive schemes used to grift HM out of additional titles and monies. ERII was all about Christian forgiveness and all, but it seems inconceivable to me that this steadfastly devout and incorruptible lady would have willingly perpetrated such a monstrous fraud upon the world. Falsifying the line of succession is a very grave offense, a treasonous offense, if that's what Harry has done. It's one thing for all other members of the family to ignore with deafening silence the mentally ill machinations of two renegade members by refusing to confirm any of their lies . . but when ER invoked Harry's children by word and picture, she gave her stamp of approval to their existence. How is Charles going to be able to walk that back now?
When Humpty was ostensibly pregnant with Archie, the family couldn't intervene without trampling on all kinds of medical privacy issues. Humpty had declined the Royal doctors, as was her right to do. Courtesy and protocol would have demanded that she keep the Queen posted on the progression of her pregnancy and the health of herself and the baby, but of course she would have flouted that. Once the baby was ostensibly here though, one would have thought the Palace would be able to have been more proactive about ascertaining the veracity of the Duke and Duchess's claims about him. Did Archie meet the Queen and Prince Philip? Did he pose with his extended Royal family for a christening photo? Did an heir to the British throne accompany his parents as a four-month old infant on an official Crown tour of South Africa and meet Archbishop Tutu?
If Desmond Tutu met a hired child actor whom his parents were pretending was the Queen's great grandchild, in pictures and video that beamed 'round the world, and which still routinely turn up on the Internet when one searches in vain for any more up-to-date pictures of a young man who is now purportly 31/2 years of age and enrolled in preschool in Montecito, California--well, the Palace look like a bunch of numpties, don't they? And here I must include the late Queen, who authorized that trip, and then a couple of months later featured 'Archie' in her Christmas address to the nation.
So, yes, indeed--what the actual hell is the story with Harry's kids? The RF is either woefully clueless or systematically complicit in the self-interested ravings of two mentally ill individuals that it continues to call 'beloved family members'.
When Humpty was ostensibly pregnant with Archie, the family couldn't intervene without trampling on all kinds of medical privacy issues. Humpty had declined the Royal doctors, as was her right to do. Courtesy and protocol would have demanded that she keep the Queen posted on the progression of her pregnancy and the health of herself and the baby, but of course she would have flouted that. Once the baby was ostensibly here though, one would have thought the Palace would be able to have been more proactive about ascertaining the veracity of the Duke and Duchess's claims about him. Did Archie meet the Queen and Prince Philip? Did he pose with his extended Royal family for a christening photo? Did an heir to the British throne accompany his parents as a four-month old infant on an official Crown tour of South Africa and meet Archbishop Tutu?
If Desmond Tutu met a hired child actor whom his parents were pretending was the Queen's great grandchild, in pictures and video that beamed 'round the world, and which still routinely turn up on the Internet when one searches in vain for any more up-to-date pictures of a young man who is now purportly 31/2 years of age and enrolled in preschool in Montecito, California--well, the Palace look like a bunch of numpties, don't they? And here I must include the late Queen, who authorized that trip, and then a couple of months later featured 'Archie' in her Christmas address to the nation.
So, yes, indeed--what the actual hell is the story with Harry's kids? The RF is either woefully clueless or systematically complicit in the self-interested ravings of two mentally ill individuals that it continues to call 'beloved family members'.
Oh Lord, it is..
Every syllable out of either of their mouths is trolling the public. They get off on it--this gigantic con they are pulling over on the entire world.
How can anyone accept that those children are real, under the circumstances? Why should a woman who lies about EVERYTHING be completely truthful about oh, just the two most important supposed accomplishments she's done in her life?
I am not sure I see a way out of this quagmire for the RF as long as these two live.
Is `In-N-Out' another double-entendre from the Urban Dictionary?
I see we're on the same wavelength - see my post at 6.52pm 😁
... she received the warmth and support from the "thousands of citizens she interacted with during her time in the UK"
strange way to refer to them. once again trying tie up the loose out there. she reads everything.
Well spotted! 😂😂I couldn’t bring myself to read much, but totally agree she’s been reading what’s said about her and deflecting or trying to and trying desperately to back track.😛She can’t undo what she’s said or done, there’s just too much out there already and it shows her up for exactly who and what she is. 🫤
Having played along publicly for the last nearly 4 years that Humpty birthed 2 children who are now being raised in California has the potential to splash back radioactively on KCIII. If outed, she will accuse the Palace machinery of creating the situation by which she had a psychotic break with reality and pretended to be pregnant. Maybe she will invoke grief over another pregnancy loss that affected her mind; she’s already used to the racism card, and the unfriendliness card, and the Kate made me cry card to paint a picture of a palace victim. She’s already said multiple times how suicidal she felt while “Being forced” to carry out royal engagement. So imagine the scenario: she miscarries… maybe she’ll say she was actually pregnant at the wedding and that’s why her dress is so loose fitting around the midsection. She could claim to have had a miscarriage in Australia, or just after because we didn’t see much of her from late October until early December when she turns up with square bump at the retired actors’ home. She could claim that she suffered a miscarriage by having an out to the pregnancy already she continued, either because of her mental fertility or because she was hoping she could conceive again and still have a baby so as to not disappoint the public. She’ll say that she went to the Palace for help and they froze her out. So feeling unable to publicly announce her pregnancy failure she carried on hoping that something would work out… She was depressed and suicidal remember? Not thinking clearly, hormonal stressed out etc. etc. A more sinister plot: she could assert that the Palace Made it known that they were concerned that the baby wouldn’t be “white enough” So she felt pressured to get a surrogate, maybe the Palace even helped to do this… Meaning that they engineered the cover up. At this point I think she would say anything and wouldn’t have any qualms. Anyway you slice it, Charles, Catherine William and the rest of the royal family are being thrown under the bus.
If only if only… When she paraded a plastic baby around the Polo ground looking like an insane mad woman in the green tent dress at the polo— That’s when the lid should’ve been blown off the charade and the duchess is valuated for a mental health commitment. At that point a statement could’ve been crafted emphasizing that she was getting care. And it would’ve been easier to feel compassion for it and forgive the royal families playing along until they could accumulate enough evidence to get her the psychiatric help Then it will be now, now that Archie is nearly 4 years old and ostensibly has a sister.
I'm off to bed now - Night-night folks,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11329199/Harry-Meghans-Archewell-Foundation-builds-playground-Uvalde-4-months-mass-shooting.html
Meghan Kelly tore MegaLiar a new one recently. The tide's turned on the Deceitful Duo. The Telegraph is reporting that King Charles is hiring a top notch constitutional lawyer. I hope he's getting ready to banish Andrew and Harry.
All of her references are so dated, she really is stunted in her younger years.
And as if she's eating fast food all the time and eating "cookies the size of my toddler's head." Again, dated- actresses used to always act like they just eat like "one of the guys" like it was a humble brag. Nowadays it's more about "mindfulness" and "moderation", etc.
https://harrymarkle.substack.com/p/harry-the-overseas-son-tries-to-remember?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=269387&post_id=78914914&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Harry, The Overseas Son, Tries To Remember His Lines
TW poses for Variety magazine in an attempt to distract from the bullying allegations
5 hr ago
In the above clip during a WellChild video chat, is TOS, reading cue cards or having to pause to think and remember what TW had told him to say when asked about the invisible children? He looks to his right as he appears to recite the word salad phrases of ‘he’s busy’ and ‘using her voice’ as coined by his wife when asked about the child known as Archie, and the child with the stolen nickname.
Snarky
"strange way to refer to them. once again trying tie up the loose out there..."
Karla had a good point about asking why is she saying this and why now.
Must remember this - me thinketh she doth (but I could be wrong)
And then there is the talk about the elephant in the room - all the while knowing that Charles is watching their actions.
Forgive me, but there are so many elephants in the room; could you be more specific? TIA.
It's a military parachute. Perhaps the photographer is hinting to H that it's time to bail out.
My college eating house borrowed a huge one in a similar color and we draped it across the ceiling and down the walls of the dining room for an evening party. Very cool with the ceiling lights shining through it.