Well now. Megyn Kelly has publicly called someone else a liar.
Wow.
Just wow. And, the internet is talking about it.
Recently there was (yet another) post somewhere out in the world about how they will soon divorce. And my first thought was: Haven't I heard this before? which moved quickly to: how many times have I heard this (through the years)? There were a number of questions raised which ... I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. One of the points which has been raised is that KC would somehow be shelling out beaucoup money to get her to go "away". That he has all this money stashed away and can pull it out at a moment's notice. But does he? He inherited a lot of "stuff" from his mother but ... isn't it a lot of tangible stuff like properties? and with that staff to maintain it and insurance. Inside said properties is art, antique furniture and other "old stuff" which may be valuable" but ... that kind of thing is subject to the whims and bank accounts of the rarified people who may be interested in it (which is not most of us in terms of bei
Comments
Guidelines for this blog is as follows:
-Keep discussions on the Sussexes. Politics must be strictly related to their involvement. Off topic subjects are permissible but should be limited and are subject to the discretion of Mods.
-Be civil and courteous in discussions.
-Anonymous or unknown posts are not allowed.
-Please try to keep the conspiracy theories down.
-Do not discuss the blog, blog history, or other posters.
-No personal attacks both direct and indirect.
-Please de-escalate "fights" by dropping the subject.
-Please remember that the focus of the blog is on others, not any individuals posting here. So if your name is not attached to something posted, please begin with the idea that what is written is not likely to be directed at you if it upsets you.
-Posts which may be deemed too many flat statements/too provocative may not posted on the blog.
-And, thank you posts are nice.
Mods do their best to ensure the guidelines are met. However, lapses happen because moderating this blog is a 24/7 responsibility and we all have jobs and families (and laundry) to care for. If you see overlooked issues, please feel free to message us so we can address them.
Thank you again for all your patience and support. Moderation still on.
Wow.
Just wow. And, the internet is talking about it.
...............
Think I may have missed this.
Not news in my neck of the woods.
...Gossip is that Charles showed him some dirt that he finally believed, then Netflix outlined a list of discrepancies between quoted on-the-record shit in Meghan's story in Spare and her quoted on-the-record shit in the docuseries. Like showed the clips compared to the quotes in the book. Again, it's gossip, but supposedly Meghan blew it off as "perceptions at the time" or some shit, but Harry actually had the hamster running his brain wake up even more and start running -- not walking, like it sometimes does when he plays Call of Duty, but actually running -- and now he supposedly sees what we all have seen since Eugenie's wedding at the latest and that's that Meghan is a lying liar.
I loved this and thought it was hysterical … “We get it. You bagged the gorilla,” Kelly said. “Congratulations! You got the big bear. You want us to know.” 😂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsStKBiPkm8&t=387s
I just hope it's really over for him, and she's not able to "Hoover" him up again. Maybe, with the support of his family, he'll get out of this alive.
a) If the RF has not read the book and does not know the content as many claim why would the RF help him now without knowing the damage it can cause to KCIII, the queen and to PPoW.
b) Most importantly: If H is really sorry, why didn't he cancel the book since RF could pay the fine?
c) King Charles was announced as the ceremonial head of the Royal Marines the day after the announcement of the publication of H's book (the media reported that it would be Princess Anne) What if H was separated/separating from MM, on good terms with RF. because KCIII pulled him out of the Royal Marines and wants to distance him from the role of State Councilor.
I *think*
We should review information given by third parties with raised eyebrows. RF doesn't speculate anything. We only learned about the changes in the regency act when they were mentioned in parliament, not even the press knew before.
~ "that's who he is..." plus a few shots at racism (white woman speaking ill of black woman).
i have to admit - hearing * refer to H constantly as "her husband" is off putting. NOW she will not mention him during interviews, when years earlier - she jumped on the chance? That is what I am refering to...
and think of all the women who get the kids up, bathed, dressed and fed by preparing a meal themselves beofre they all leave for work, daycare, preschool etc. Seriously. Did ya'll have help like *? I didn't - and ahem, my husband.. and I both worked outside the home. Oh lord help us....
b) Most importantly: If H is really sorry, why didn't he cancel the book since RF could pay the fine?
I think the book has gone too far to be stopped. When you think of it, two months isn't a lot of time to have it translated into 12 or whatever languages. It's also possible that the fine was higher than CRIII was willing to pay. Friar was reportedly paid a $20 million advance, and OTTOMH, I would imagine the publisher wanted all of that and more to compensate them for lost proceeds. Even for the king of England, that's a lot of money!
I don't know if the H&M split is real, but if it is, I I don't see RF involved in it!
1. Hazmat has stood by TBW for 5 years’ worth of lies and promoting things that never happened. He stood up before God, man and the archbishop of Canterbury and swore that there were no impediments to this marriage, and that he would honor God in his vows. Lies.
2. He has stood by and actively participated in her pregnancy shenanigans and schemes to defraud his family… And along with her hatched these various schemes even prior to the wedding.
3. He sat next to her during the Oprah interview and both overtly and covertly lied while his grandfather was dying.
4. What can king Charles reveal which Harry would not himself already know, and when was this meeting supposed to take place? I think king Charles had more things on his plate during the funeral week for his mother then calling in his spare for a dirt shoveling session on his wife. The king didn’t have time for that kind of nonsense and I think the last time he spoke to his trader kid face-to-face is when Harry shouted at him on the fly by on the way to Düsseldorf. Little did Henry realize that that was his very last meeting with his grandmother, and he left it on bad terms. Shades of his mother all over again.
5. Random House are Netflix are not sister companies. They’ve got a competing deals with the Harkles,
So I don’t see why Netflix would be concerned with what’s in Harry’s book. They can call their program a “docuseries” but isn’t it just going to be infotainment, in the end? TBW will have achieved her ultimate dream of being a Kardashian. If Netflix is supposed to be about Invictus and their daily life in California, and Harry’s book is about his past, and the events leading up to Megxit, How much overlap is there going to be? And if Netflix films him or his wife slagging off the royal family, they haven’t got any control over whether he/she slagged them off in different ways in the book. The Netflix series will be in the same vein as “The Crown.” I just think the real actionable stuff would be what’s in print, so RH should be the ones who are worried.
Both companies are vile for doing business with the Twunts so if they both suffer huge losses, I say it serves them right.
Yep, he has lived with her lies for years now. Why should it suddenly bother him. Nope, it doesn't!
Agreed that it is absurd to think that the King took time out during the mourning and funeral to chat to his son, without the wife present, about the lies the wife tells. It did not happen.
As I finally realized, there is a way that Netflix could have seen the Memoirs. Netflix may have bought the rights to produce a docuseries based on them. They would want to capitalize on the launch of the book and thus would have negotiated to have access to the manuscript as early as possible. Would it be a secret though? It does seem odd that Netflix is supposedly producing a documentary on Invictus and on the couple but no announcements, no advertising. It all seems rather messy and fraught with drama and problems.
-----
The podcast is obviously not about archetypes, but also seems to not really be about stereotypes either. The one consistent theme do far is that she has black women as guests. This seems to be her target market and may be what she ends up doing ... podcasts talking about herself with black women as guests. Her following will end up in the thousands but they will be die hard fans who don't care about the lies and hypocrisy and shallow dumbness of their goddess.
Meghan Markle's bid to trademark her lifestyle blog's name is under examination
The Duchess of Sussex used The Tig to reflect on the full spectrum of experience
Meghan launched the blog in 2014 when she was an actress in the drama Suits
More than five-and-a-half years ago she posted a 'final' entry, announcing: 'It's time to say goodbye' before she and Prince Harry announced their engagement
https://archive.ph/2022.11.02-224501/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11383475/Meghan-Markles-bid-trademark-blog-Tig-examination.html
They can call their program a “docuseries” but isn’t it just going to be infotainment, in the end?
You don't hire an award-winning documentary director to make a drama series like The Crown. If they wanted a dramatic series starring the Sussexes, then they would have hired a different director.
What can king Charles reveal which Harry would not himself already know, and when was this meeting supposed to take place?
Apparently some of the information Charles showed Harry had to do with things Meghan did before they met to purposefully mimic Diana. There's really no way Harry could have known about those things unless Meghan herself told them to him, and why would she do that? It would jeopardize her control over him.
...if Netflix films him or his wife slagging off the royal family, they haven’t got any control over whether he/she slagged them off in different ways in the book.
They may not be able to control it, but they will have to deal with it if the "slagging off" is significantly different between the two precisely because they're making a documentary, not a dramatic series. At some point they're going to need either a narrator or the Sussexes themselves discussing their first-hand accounts of Invictus, polo, their love story, etc. That won't work if the viewers have read (or read about) the book and can see the contradictions. Neither's account will be credible enough to engage viewers.
Hikari, I'm a little surprised that you don't see the parallels between the Oprah interview and the docu-series. In the former Harry admitted on-screen that he had only watched portions of Meghan's interview with Oprah and he then went on to contradict her account of the "racist" conversation. We're now hearing that the same thing has happened a significant number of times in the docu-series project and that, reportedly, Harry has confronted Meghan about it. Isn't this what you had wanted him to do in the Oprah interview? To challenge her lies and/or her varying recollections? This time he not only had an opportunity to do so, but possibly also a legal obligation as well.
I'm tempted to say, "we'll see when it comes out." But I'm starting to think we may not see the docu-series at all. For Netflix to sit Harry down and go through Meghan's contradictions in a systematic manner -- I'm starting to think they must be very serious, and if the separation is true, that this may have affected Netflix's legal plans for the documentary. Harry may be willing to negotiate away his rights to the footage leaving Meghan to take on Netflix herself. But I'm not sure how Netflix could sue her without Harry's help to some degree.
Our favorite Redditor talked about how she didn't quite understand the silence that has settled upon the whole project after Harry's meeting with Netflix. But I can easily see it as being the calm before the litigation storm.
I agree.
To my mind, the only way their marriage will break up is if Mrs. 43% mentally abuses her Prince to such a shocking extent that it is obvious to the Royal Family that, in order to actually save his pathetic self-indulgent life, they must break down and pay her whatever she demands (at least $100 million?) and then whisk him and the kids, if they exist, back to U.K. where the kids could be raised lovingly and Haznoballs could be discreetly institutionalized.
However, i believe the loser Prince has zero intention of leaving on his own volition, and that he is fully invested in destroying the RF and thus encourages all the lies and damage his energetic grifter bride inflicts. It wouldn't even occur to him to leave her because he thinks they make a winning team-of-destructiveness. He just doesn't realize that he, too, is being destroyed in this mess.
If he is destroyed, he has only himself and his blushing bride to blame.
As i have written before, i pray - literally - that they have no children. The thought of two innocent little children in the "care" of those two supposed adults makes me ill.
Sorry! I can't analyze MM without this personality disorder. So MM would never leak that his house of cards had collapsed. That H abandoned her. No! No! She always has to have the last word and will always be the one to discard H and never the other way around, but if the H&M breakup leak is coming from MM, I believe she already has something big in store for her.
a) Like, appearing next to H at a big event, where their love will be exposed to the world!
b) Or PR for her Love Story docu-series, where she has already said that isn't told as she wished. Another lie! If there is such a docu-series, it is being told exactly as MM wants: Harry Romeo Montague and Meghan Juliet Capulet - the archetype of youthful love😂
...
Now, if the rumors aren't coming from MN, then it will be interesting!
She would have had to have been resident here for 3 years - and would have had to have been careful about the amount of globe-trotting she did in that time.
For ordinary folks:
`To be eligible, you should not have:
`spent more than 270 days outside the UK during the 3 years before your application
`spent more than 90 days outside the UK in the last 12 months
`You may be exempt from the residency requirements if your partner works abroad either for the UK government or an organisation closely linked to government.'
I don't imagine that she's have been penalised for the trips to Ireland, Morocco or S Africa as it was on Official Business but I do wonder if she'd have been deemed to be `of good character'.
As the rule stands, she'd have had bags of time to mug up on `Life in Britain' for the test.
Cheesy and Whine
Plodcast bland, bleh, vanilla
Bestest mom, gorgonzola Godzilla
Managed to deliver
hand on husband’s tiller
A conscious uncoupling
from her debagged gorilla…
I think it is telling that she claims the mockumentary is about their love story because there is already so much controversy about that account. How did they meet, did he know that she was still living with Cory when they met?
I reckon there is a lot of footage that cannot be used in the mockumentary. The couple are probably executive producers so it is entirely possible that they have been in meetings when the debacle was discussed. Not so much a confronting of the Prince but conversations about 'we can't use that footage because ...'.
I can't remember the exact wording reported, but she is hiding her head in the sand with language such as 'my personal account', 'my truth', 'my story', 'my recollections'.
I do not believe he never knew about her lies. He has lived with her for years now. But the glamour of adoration might have worn off and he might be at stage where he just finds her annoying. However, exposure of one of her major flaws may put him in the position of control in the relationship and he has no intention of leaving. Surely he is not still blindly and foolishly defending her (accusations of racism, claims that her life is in danger, pronouncements about how exceptional she is and everyone is jealous of her ...)?
Desparerate Measures
After a baby sham marriage
He picked up her baggage
Betterup over the ocean
Grass not always greener
Shown in his demeanour
Their devotion
more vocal vowel motion…
tig tacky ho
I don’t give a fig
If she renews toe rag tig
Flogging her wares
not new to this gig
Setting her site on
Gwyneth Paltrow
I just hope there’s no candle
Tigsmello…
Sophie Trudeau taking to the podium to sing. How weird!
A new tarot reading from:
https://mysteriouslytransparentwitch.tumblr.com/post/699897252633870336/meghans-energy-she-tries-a-lot-of-things-and-a
The Queen Consort, who for the first time has had her own wreath designed, has opted not to lay it at the Cenotaph herself on Remembrance Sunday.
Instead, she will take up her usual place on the balcony of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building and her wreath, which will incorporate her own family’s racing colours, will be laid by an equerry.
The Prince and Princess of Wales have opted for a ribbon in “Wales red” for their own joint wreath.
In recent weeks, all four senior royals have been involved in the design of their new wreaths, which represent their elevated positions within the Royal family.
The final designs, created in collaboration with the Poppy Factory, are currently with Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace awaiting final approval.
They will be seen for the first time at the Cenotaph on November 13.
The King’s will feature far fewer poppies than that of his mother, Queen Elizbeth II, but they will be bigger.
It is thought the late Queen’s wreath bore around 93 poppies while the new monarch’s will have around 50.
The design, including a “lovely bow” in the sovereign’s racing colours of purple, red and gold, is an amalgamation of those created for the late Queen and her father, King George VI.
It is understood that both King George V and King George VI incorporated a ribbon in the family racing colours into their own wreaths.
The late Queen opted not to follow suit but palace sources said that it was simply personal choice.
The decision by the Queen Consort not to lay her own wreath will see her follow in the footsteps of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who also opted to watch the ceremony from the balcony during her husband King George VI’s reign.
Meanwhile, it is understood that wreaths belonging to the Duke of York and Duke of Sussex are no longer in storage at the Poppy Factory in Richmond, south west London, which had previously kept copies for every royal.
Sources declined to reveal what had happened to them.
The last time Prince Harry and Prince Andrew took part in the annual wreath laying ceremony at the Cenotaph was in 2019, before the former stepped back from official duties and the latter was effectively sacked as a working royal over his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/11/02/how-king-charless-remembrance-sunday-wreath-will-different-queen/
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
18h
Our followers knew all along. H memoir almost went to full production for 2022 target but plans changed. Re-write ordered. Now, a new bound galley & 2023 release date.
As we obtained version 1 we're the only outlet able to compare differences. & We'll tell you what was added.
https://twitter.com/BarkJack_/status/1587861291334606848?s=20&t=FgghwZi8DmtliT_g5PC9rg
These are old-fashioned guys who still talk about bound galleys!
Keep an eye out as they may have some interesting information to divulge in the near future (with the emphasis on 'may').
My guess still is: material added for 'insider' account of the Queen's death and funeral; attempts to do a massive rewrite so as not to get on the wrong side of the new monarch, but request refused by the publisher.
Jordan Peterson has ignored the swipe TBW took at him by using a clip of his saying 'I don't think men can control crazy women', or something like that. The video linked above is of what he said in context - far too complex for a shallow stupid woman not only to understand but also to engage with.
There are plenty of stupid people in the world, so she will always have supporters.
Blind item #9
Unless both of them are using lawyers outside of Southern California, the alliterate one and her husband are not splitting.
-----------
Would H need a California lawyer? Why not a UK one?
A second nanny? Scroll down to see the actual ad?
Is Christian Andersen an idiot? None of the senior Royals have ever or will ever publically criticize either of the duo. None of Catherine's friends would talk to Christian Andersen, ever.
This guy should get together with TBW - they are both fantasists who never stop talking!
I wonder if they also might have ditched the chapter that is reportedly all about William’s “affair” with Rose Hanbury.
‘It took a long time to realise I felt manipulated and used by Diana’
As controversy reigns over The Crown, the author of Princess in Love looks back at the frenzied furore that surrounded her book
By
Anna Pasternak
It has become an annual event: the nation whips itself into a frenzy over The Crown, then binge-watches the series (of which season five is on Netflix from Wednesday, November 9). So contentious has its portrayal of the Windsors become that Netflix has added a disclaimer to the trailer for season five, which starts next Wednesday, stating that it is a “fictional dramatisation… inspired by real events”.
In particular, writer Peter Morgan is being attacked for his sympathetic portrayal of Princess Diana. I know how he feels. When I published my book, Princess in Love, in 1994, detailing Diana’s five-year affair with James Hewitt, I was met with a tsunami of censure from people saying it was a load of overwritten, sensationalist rubbish.
I suspect Morgan regards the current criticism as water off a duck’s back. But, when I was the target I was completely unprepared and emotionally unsuited to the astonishing fervour of sentiment any depiction of the wronged princess created.
Three decades ago, everyone had passionate opinions about Diana, so to challenge them provoked an excoriating backlash. As well as becoming the lightning rod for the public’s fury that Hewitt had “kissed and told”, people projected their profound dismay that the royal marriage was not the fairytale we had believed it to be on to me. The experience after writing Princess in Love was so eviscerating, it took me 20 years to recover.
I had met Hewitt socially in 1993, when I was 26 and a journalist.At the time, he was reeling, adrift, as he had been reportedly discharged from the Army after 17 years in the Household Cavalry due to rumours of his close correspondence with Diana. It had been reported in the gossip columns that he had taught William and Harry to ride and that Diana had written to him when he served as a tank commander in the Gulf War.
They had met at a drinks party in 1986. At Hewitt’s behest, I wrote an anodyne series of articles for The Daily Express about his friendship with Diana, detailing how she did the washing-up at Hewitt’s mother’s cottage. Hewitt told me that he was only speaking to me because Diana had asked him to – although the series never hinted at an affair, it just showed them as good friends. Diana was in constant contact with him during this time. He said that she thanked him on the phone for “talking, as you know I can’t. At least people will know the truth.”
When I interviewed Hewitt for the Express series, I made it clear that if my notepad was shut, everything he said was off the record. I sat in Devon pubs, stunned, as he told me the full jaw-dropping truth about his relationship; how he helped support her through her rampant bulimia, her frenzied anger over Camilla’s affair with Charles and how snubbed she felt by the Palace.
When Hewitt asked me if I wanted to read all of Diana’s letters to him, I declined. Ironically, it seemed too voyeuristic. What sort of journalist was I? Clearly not a hardened hack as I would discover to my cost, painfully lacking the “skin of rhino hide” that Morton later told me was essential to survive this game.
Naturally, I was completely unaware at this time of how manipulative Diana needed to become in order to survive. Oblivious to her guile, when Charles admitted in his June 1994 television interview that his marriage had “irretrievably broken down”, Hewitt rang me in the ad break. He said Diana was worried Andrew Morton’s second book, due out that autumn, with which she had not cooperated, would expose their affair in unflattering terms. She insisted to Hewitt that if the world could see that their love was genuine, and could understand why she had turned to him in the face of Charles’s rejection, they would not condemn her.
The brief I got from Hewitt was that the book had to be written in under five weeks, to be published ahead of Morton’s offering. I look back now in incredulity. If I hadn’t achieved it, I wouldn’t think it possible to write 85,000 words in a month. As research, I then read the 64 airmail “blueys” that Diana sent him at the height of their affair when he was serving in the Gulf War, signed from “Julia.”
I wrote Princess in Love for two reasons. The first, which I was ashamed of then, was that my parents had divorced and lost all their money in a failed property development. I needed the money as I wanted to support my mother financially. Secondly, burning with injustice for our adored, lonely princess, I genuinely thought that I was helping her. However, the greater injustice remains that Hewitt, whose life was ruined by his confession, would never have spoken out in the first place without Diana’s encouragement and consent. And nor would I.
Yes, I used too many adjectives. As Fay Weldon wrote: “Why is everyone being so mean about this book? There is nothing wrong with it apart from a few soapy adjectives.”
In 1994, no one believed that the royal marriage was as bad as The Crown details, even after Morton’s book. So I was flayed alive in the press.
At a party that autumn, fashion designer Ben de Lisi raged: “Thanks to you, Princess Diana cancelled her appointment with me on the day your book was published because she was so shocked and hurt.” “How strange,” I retorted. “Because she was the third person to know the publication date.” A year later, in 1995, Diana confessed to the affair in the ill-fated Panorama interview and suddenly everything I had written was confirmed to be true. Charles and Diana divorced the following year.
People always ask if I regret writing the book. I regret the toll it took on my family and my reputation. I regret any hurt caused to the Royal family, as that was never my intention. But I don’t regret writing the truth of a relationship that played a significant part in Royal history – Hewitt was a crucial ballast for Diana when she was at her most unstable.
It took me ages to realise that I felt manipulated and used by Diana. Now, firmly Team Camilla, I feel sorry for Diana, Charles and Camilla. Each of them suffered at the hands of an unrelenting monarchy.
As did Hewitt, in the end. He was discarded by Diana when she moved into a faster, flashier social set. But he and his family stood by her when she was at her most unstable. “I would have died for Diana,” Hewitt told me. “Instead, I’ve died a million times inside.” I know the feeling.
From the Mirror:
EXCLUSIVE: King Charles 'prepared to strip Harry and Meghan's titles over Netflix and book deal'
The monarch would also extend such a ban to the couple’s children Archie, three, and Lilibet, one, despite the late Queen refusing to take such a drastic step while alive
King Charles is unafraid to strip Harry and Meghan of their titles should their Netflix show and memoir be too damaging to the Firm, a royal expert has claimed.
The monarch would also consider extending such a ban to the couple’s children Archie, three, and Lilibet, one, despite his mother - the late Queen - refusing to take such a drastic step while alive, claims royal author Tom Bower.
The author, who spoke to dozens of courtiers and family associates in the last two years, says he believes Hollywood actress Meghan, 41, will not back down should the Sussex’s royal titles be removed.
Mr Bower spelt out the hostilities and fragile relations between senior royals following their reunion at the Queen’s funeral service in London in September.
He revealed Charles has made efforts to “diffuse” the problem rather than simply strip them of their titles.
The author said: “He has made various threats to Meghan and Harry and warned that them if they go ahead they will find themselves ostracised in a way they cannot believe. And so they are worried.
“First of all, I do not think their children will get titles if they go ahead and slander the Royal Family.
“But they have also got to consider their own titles, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, could be taken away by Charles if they misbehave.
"That is something Meghan and Harry are very worried about because after all although she pours dirt on the royal family the whole time, whenever she introduces herself she says: ‘I am Meghan, Duchess Of Sussex.’”
“Because they had been excluded from various events especially a reception for the heads of states, (Harry) not been allowed to wear his uniform and there was no reconciliation between them and Kate and William.
“The Sussexes released a photo of themselves to media, hours after The King unveiled his snaps with William and Kate.
“This was the resumption of hostilities from Montecito to the Royal Family.”
Bower, speaking on Sirius XM, called the photo clash “absolutely a middle finger” to the new King.
“It was a photo to say we can exist and flourish without you lot.
”Meghan is a fighter, and she is fighting again now.
“Harry is brainwashed, would be the politest way of saying it, into going along with it. He thinks he has been badly treated.
“But there is no doubt they are a great threat to the Royal family.
“Harry is a very complicated, depressed, unintelligent man who is seeking a role and has really has nobody on whom he could rely, which in the end is where Meghan stepped in. A needy man met a woman who helped him with his needs.”
Bower says that the Sussexes will always see themselves as targets.
“They are so hyper-sensitive and aggressive to those who criticise them. It is all part of the business for Meghan.
She always wanted celebrity but wants to control the narrative.
"Anyone that gets in her way with her is ghosted and attacked. Harry has become hypersensitive, and hates the media but seeks approval from the media by going on Netflix, Spotify or Apple TV. The contradiction is enormous.
“They needed money, fame and to be able to tell their story on their terms.
And what has changed is that in their trips to Britain they suddenly realized that they are going to lose their reputations. They have been given an ultimatum.
“Netflix is a great problem because Netflix reflects what is in Harry’s autobiography which has been ghosted (ghostwritten) for him.
“I am sure it contains a lot of very damaging material about Charles, William, Kate and of course against Camilla.”
I have not watched yet, but supposedly River has contacts in Montecito who says the couple are deleriously happy.
Thanks for posting the articles for us lazy folk! It is nice to have all the material in one place.
Is that from CDAN site? It’s not at all reliable. Lady C says Mole is using a UK lawyer because when there’s a potential spilt with children involved, the UK courts are bound by law to keep the details of the case private, unlike Californian law where the details of the case can be made public. 🫤We all know there’d be a lot of speculation over the children….🫣
...when there’s a potential spilt with children involved, the UK courts are bound by law to keep the details of the case private...
Does this mean no one can confirm if someone has filed for a legal separation? At what point does the court docket become public information?
Here is the link to the CDAN website. I would have thought H would hire a UK lawyer if there is a separation looming. California laws would be advantageous to * but not him. As always, it's wait and see.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/11/blind-item 9_2.html#disqus_thread
-----
Supporters of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan think commentators are quite wrong to conclude that the title of his forthcoming memoir — Spare — indicates that the book will be a score-settling Exocet aimed at the Royal Family.
Most people here believe that ‘spare’ is a reference to the phrase ‘an heir and a spare’; and that Prince Harry will pour out feelings of rejection and isolation which will reflect badly on the rest of the royals.
The Spanish-language version is subtitled ‘En La Sombra’ meaning ‘in the shadows’, which tends to suggest the same.
However, Team Sussex say that Spare will be all about what Meghan would call ‘compassion in action’.
Columnist Elaine Lui, a Canadian TV personality who has worked with Meghan’s friend Ben Mulroney and is also close to Meghan’s bestie, the Soho House executive Markus Anderson, says we should look at how the word spare is used as a verb. She said: ‘It is actually a really kind verb. It involves effort. When you spare time or money or thought for someone, you’re making an effort and more often than not it’s a helpful effort.’
She adds: ‘In some cases, to spare is also to save. You can spare someone the trouble of having to do something that isn’t pleasant, something potentially harmful. Spare and save are interchangeable in that context.
‘There can also be benevolence associated with sparing someone. “I didn’t want to ask her about that because I wanted to spare her feelings.”
‘And all of those ideas also apply to Prince Harry, given his personal evolution and the mission he and Meghan Markle have set for themselves and their work.’
We shall see, come January 10, who has the right end of the stick.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11388173/ALISON-BOSHOFF-Prince-Harry-spare-royal-feelings-book-title-double-meaning.html
Cosmopolitan is referring to a report by Neal Sean that says Harry’s wife made it known while she was in tge UK for the Queen’s funeral that she would like Catherine to appear on an episode of her podcast.
The inhabitants of hell will be eating ice cream cones before this happens.
But then, it would be fantastic if the Princess of Wales appeared on the podcast to tell Harry’s wife in person that King Charles wants to convey the message that their titles are bring removed and there will be no titles of any sort for their alleged children because the King realizes that the titles and association with the monarchy are a needless burden to Harry, his wife, and their alleged children. In addition. the King wants Harry to renounce his birth title of prince, which will allow him and his wife to live the private life they crave. Of course, they will always be much loved overseas members of the family.
“Enty’s out here breaking the NuttyFlavor blog’s heart.”
“Never upset the deranged.”
Wonder who this could be?
Quickie 🎤
Apologies: Janis Joplin
Me and Bobby McGee
Bobbitt*
Freedom’s just another word
for dishing out abuse
Nothing, about nothing
money’s their shared mentality
And feeling good was easy as
when he served the Blues**
But feeling good
is not enough for me-me
Nothing’s good enough
for him and Gobby Meggie…
*John Bobbitt, wife chopped off
his penis
**Blues and Royals, haz old regiment
If Catherine was to appear in an episode of *'s podcast (what a joke!, the theme might be royal weddings, or bringing up young children/living in a huge mansion etc and TBW would just talk about her own wedding/children etc. Catherine wouldn't be able to get a word in edgeways and anyway, TBW's wedding/children/mansion would be so much better!
Well I’m going on what Lady C said about UK law and (English court) privacy laws.
At this moment in time it would appear no-one can confirm whether Mole has filed for a legal separation in the UK so there could be our answer, because no-one can physically check, there are no public accessible records . However, there’s been many public UK figures which have divorced and the news made the press. So therefore we can assume their PR teams inform the press and any details they wish to share. Unless the former occurs,, and as the UK law stands, no-one has public access to the divorce settlement etc unless the couple release details. 🫤
So we’ll only know when something is released by Maggot and Mole’s PR people . I think it’s a ruse like Lady C does. Lady C’s listeners had some great ideas as to why the duo would do such a thing. 😏
Because he’s a greedy thick headed Muppet with a chip the size of Gibraltar on his shoulder. It simply wasn’t enough for him, and now he’s left the RF he’s still whinging and whining about his lot in life. 😫
Judging by Harry's 2017 stint as guest editor of Radio 4's Today programme, it could be an uphill battle to get it right. Presenter Sarah Montague, struggling to get him to say anything insightful, asked him to sum up his message to the nation. 'Er, I dunno,' he mumbled. And then, blessedly, the rescuing pips resounded.
I saw that rumour and did not believe it, but the detail in your post gave me an aha moment ... Of course, when they had that family dinner at Buckingham Palace (when the Queen's coffin arrived in London), she was breezily chatting away ... about herself. Of course she was going on about her podcast and condescendingly said she would love to have Catherine appear. What 'archetypes' do you think she suggested for Catherine? I am sure it was something making a dig at Catherine. I am also sure that Catherine was polite in declining but everyone who heard the exchange was giggling behind her back at her obvious stupidity. (I am sure they know that TBW has no idea what an archetype is). Did William rescue his wife, or Camilla, or one of the cousins, or Sophie? Does the hapless prince realize what an unpleasant and stupid and shallow woman he married, or does he still insist that everyone in the entire world gives her everything she demands and believes everything she says without question?
Some nice small servings of royal tea at the link ... with lashings of sarcasm.
Please could someone explain to me what Megxit has to do with a plan he has been working on for years? Genuinely, why and how would Megxit have 'forced' him to find a new way to work?
Basically not all but for some engagements they will raise funds for a community project before the visit and then hand over the donation during the visit. It seems like an excellent plan to me, and I can see why the King is so supportive of it. But I fail to see any connection to Megxit whatsoever, especially the way it is mentioned in the text.
Why do the failed Royals have to insert themselves into everything?
The media has got it all wrong about Prince Harry's memoir - here's the real truth about 'Spare'
Omid Scobie
·Royal Executive Editor
Fri, 4 November 2022 at 11:25 am
For a word frequently used to describe Prince Harry by the Royal Family and British media since his birth 38 years ago, it’s ironic that the same two groups had the most outrage about the Duke of Sussex’s decision to name his forthcoming memoir SPARE.
“Royal sources” (aka anonymous palace aides), media pundits and newspapers wasted no time sharing breathless outrage after publisher Penguin Random House revealed the tome’s title, steely-faced cover and January 10 release date. “Malevolent”, “cruel”, “playing the victim once again”, and, quelle surprise, “all Meghan’s doing”, were just some of the angered reactions.
Of course, calling the book SPARE - a decision made by Prince Harry early on in the process - shouldn’t have come as a huge surprise. It’s a punchy choice, but for a word that has trailed the prince like a shadow, being the spare was one of the most defining aspects of his royal existence. Leaning on the derogatory moniker for a title is Harry finally owning the term after a lifetime of being called it.
For the family business, Harry’s position as the heir’s spare saw him take on the compulsory role of royal support act at an early age. With no real defined job, The Firm mostly needed one thing from him: to support his more important older brother, Prince William. It’s a bizarre and somewhat cruel existence — the outcome of a system built on hereditary privilege. And in many cases it’s also a curse. Princess Margaret’s life as the Queen’s spare was riddled with drug abuse and alcoholism, and Prince Andrew’s life… well, the less said about that, the better.
A spare also carries a purpose rarely acknowledged by any royal or palace official — the resident scapegoat to protect the Crown and higher ranking family members. Collateral damage when blame or distraction is needed. To those who have followed the royal beat closely enough, the coincidental timing of certain revelations or stories about Harry have already highlighted this. It’ll be interesting to see how SPARE — which doesn’t shy away from this specific burden — describes these moments.
So far, only the smallest official details about the book’s 416 pages have been released by the publisher. They describe SPARE as a title written with “raw, unflinching honestly”, a book that is filled with “insight, revelation, self-examination, and hard-won wisdom”. I’d expect nothing less from prolific ghostwriter JR Moehringer, who is famous for encouraging his subjects to switch on the lights in the darkest parts of their story.
Among those who have already had sight of the book’s manuscript, Harry’s journey of being the spare, plus that difficult decision to change his destiny and start a new life elsewhere, serve as significant parts of the book. Filled with the prince’s trademark cheekiness, this memoir also tells a surprisingly relatable life story. Sure, its opulent royal backdrop is far beyond a world any of us will ever know, but themes explored in SPARE should resonate with readers from all backgrounds.
Coping with grief and the tragic loss of a parent, the struggles of accepting oneself, sibling rivalry, and falling in love with a person your family doesn’t accept are all part of the duke’s very human story.
continued...
Although overlooked in coverage, SPARE dedicates its largest sections to other key elements of the duke’s life. Readers will hear moving anecdotes from the frontlines of Afghanistan and his time in the military, plus honest insights into Harry’s quest to find purpose and why he chose to commit to a lifetime of service. A spokesperson for the book—which will be released one month after the Sussexes’ forthcoming Netflix docuseries drops—adds that the intimate memoir will also “share the joy he has found in being a husband and father”.
For all the tabloid reports about Harry supposedly “trashing” his family (spoiler alert: he doesn’t), the book actually offers a more sympathetic look at the realities of their near-impossible existence. There were also no last-minute rewrites or edits after the Queen’s death. SPARE’s manuscript was completed almost five months before the monarch’s passing, a detail that will be acknowledged in a note at the start of the book.
No matter how carefully Harry shares the parts of his story involving others, there is still the very real risk of serious blowback from the institution and family. Palace aides recently told me about the “genuine fear” amongst senior members that this book will cause irrevocable damage to reputations and relations. But, for Harry, SPARE’s larger intention appears to make that risk worth taking. “My hope is that in telling my story — the highs and lows, the mistakes, the lessons learned — I can help show that no matter where we come from, we have more in common than we think,” he has said.
Hundreds of journalists, including myself, have written versions and fragments of the duke’s story over the years. It’s a story that, as a working member of the Royal Family, he has long been unable to tell himself. Now, having created an independent life away from the confines of the royal institution, Harry finally has the chance to set often-inaccurately reported records straight. The freedom of speech. And no matter how you may feel about the man, it’s hard not to agree he should have the right to that.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/prince-harry-memoir-real-truth-spare-112529421.html
The answer is absolutely nothing. Remember the DM is full of puff pieces via the Duo. 🫤Any article that gives a nod to Maggot and Mole, you can be sure it’s not via any royal, reliable or truthful source.
And everyone ... sorry for the overlap. I will delete when the posts of Scobie's message from his master and mistress appears.
An astrologer looks at his next few months (date 28 October). Some excerpts l, to be digested with a generous sprinkling of salt:
His own chart has this week’s Solar Eclipse in Scorpio conjunct his Pluto for a transform or stagnate choice; with his Solar Arc Sun also conjunct his Pluto now for a frozen-to-the-spot few months. The November Lunar Eclipse is also catching his Midheaven and Saturn in Scorpio for a sharp reality check and a crisis of direction.
Late this October to early January tr Neptune will oppose his Sun for a discontented and discouraging run; with a separated-from-family and feeling under-supported tr Saturn square his Taurus Moon across this Christmas. Nothing that looks like a singing and dancing success.
-----
And it seems the King and Queen are going to be most effected by the Memoirs:
His father Charles is downbeat across the New Year with tr Saturn square his Sun and feeling devastated from January 12th onwards till mid February with tr Pluto square his Mars/Saturn midpoint. His relationship chart with Harry also looks highly stressed in the second half of January.
His relationship with Camilla is also under a cloud over the January 10th publication date, worsening through 2023 and more so in 2024.
I saw the comments from Gorbachev's Birthmark too, although not the one you quoted. The poster is just unhinged - has to be - or else a troll.
" falling in love with a person your family doesn’t accept are all part of the duke’s very human story"
Here, we see important information. Spare will point out that one of the reasons for Megxit was to protect MM from H's own family that didn't accept her. Will it point out racism or want readers to understand that. And, perhaps, make an analogy about RF's feelings for MM have to be identical to RF's feelings for Diana.
He will use the book to place himself as a victim with the clear intention of regaining his lost prestige in the UK.
...
"Although overlooked in coverage"
I didn't quite understand this comment. Omid is implying that the media didn't cover the book's release as it should have.
If so, is that why he wrote this article? To put the book back in the media. What reason? Poor sales, did not arouse interest as
they wished or RF has shown no interest in or fear of this publication
My opinion
a) RF has a copy of the book.
b) H knows that KCIII is not like the queen and will refute the book if necessary
c)) I believe that H know that the time for the release of the book and the docuseries (although always commented on, I haven't seen anything official from Netflix so far) is not a good time for him. First: because it will come out after the queen's death. God knows how I loved her, but she was too condescending to H and KCIII will not be.Second: NF is experiencing a wave of rage in the UK with the season of The Crown. Many are speaking out against the series and accusing H of colluding with NF who is exploiting Diana's death and her infamous interview with Bashir who was recently discovered to have lied to Diana.
...
A little naivety here. If he wants to settle accounts with the media and have his freedom of expression. The British media also want to settle accounts with H in the face of so many lawsuits he has opened/opened against them. And it's already starting when using The Crown to attack H.
..
Magatha I love you❤️❤️
...
For example:
* she wanted Windsor Castle and the Queen said no. To the couple, that was not accepting her.
* she wanted access to the vault when she turned up unannounced, and was denied as Angela Kelly was in Windsor at the time. (Neither the Queen nor Catherine git access to the vault to have a trial with their chosen tiara.) To the couple, that was not accepting her.
* she wanted the patronages she chose and the royal appearances she chose, plus millions in funding from Charles, while they lived in America, free to make money and say and do what they want. The Queen said no. To the couple, that was not accepting her.
The wedding, the biggest clothing allowance among all European royals, the free housing, staff, office, transport, security; the royal christening; the invitations (turned down) to family gatherings at Sandringham and Balmoral ... To the couple, that was not accepting her.
Could it be that Scooby and Hairy are an item? Because that kind of adulation on Scoobie's part is coming from somewhere.
personally the snub prob means the madam will go after that “type” in a future podcast.
Lainey’s comments, (posted by Sandie at 1:38 AM) stating that SPARE is also a verb, are really a stretch, to say the least. Does * really expect anyone to believe that gobbledygook? If so, she is crazier than she looks.
Scooby Doo’s comment that “a spare is a bizarre and somewhat cruel existence” is a real knee slapper. Then, we move along to the ridiculous statement about the poor spare’s family not accepting his wife, you know - the American divorcee who was welcomed into the British Royal Family with a £30 million wedding? These two entitled and demented drama queens were allowed to step over Royal protocol before the wedding and avoid facing the historical RF marriage requirements. I want to know whose arse they pulled those accusations from!
This little strumpet is gifted at making excuses and shifting all blame. I don’t believe I’ve seen anything like her. She is relentless with her lies and scheming. Typically people who are this sick are unable to remain in the spotlight as long as she has. I think that the Royal Family deserves praise and adulation for putting up with her grossly abnormal behavior since 2016. I honestly don’t know how they faced them at the Queen’s funeral. I bet barbiturates were involved. They would be mandatory for me.
Rumour that Reese Witherspoon declined an invitation to be a guest on the podcast.
____
Reese Witherspoon was also reportedly invited to Twit and Twat’s wedding but she declined because she said she didn’t know either of them.
ARSEWIPES #13: Steel Magnolias… or Ball Breakers?
Good for Reese—who if memory serves rather publicly declined an invitation to the Suxxit Wedding Circus for the eminently sensible reason that she’d never met either half of the bridal couple.
Reese is everything TBW wants to be: Self made very successful, Oscar winner. Proven box office. Blond and beautiful. 100% white. Small feet. Undeniable influencer across platforms. TBW badly wants Reese to be her friend….in the way she understands friendship—Reese could open a lot of doors for her friends. But she’s not playing.
It would be fantastic if the Princess of Wales would get to know Reese. They have a lot in common. Plus it would really grind someone’s gears.
I couldn't agree more!👏
..
Reese met Duchess Kate years ago. And in her 2018 autobiography, she talks about the meeting and gives high praise to the Princess of Wales.
"In her 2018 autobiography and cookbook, Whiskey in a Teacup, Reese recalls the moment she received an invitation to see the Duchess of Cambridge in Los Angeles in 2011 and shares what it was really like to meet her"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kate-middleton-told-jokes-reese-23803900
Scobie & H as an item? Interesting thought - one wife-swapping pairing we haven't seen yet.
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2022/10/blind-items-revealed-4_24.html
I wasn’t aware that Reese Witherspoon had met Catherine before, but now we see where her loyalties lie. She had no need to suck up to Harry’s bride, a complete stranger, to get to an in m with the Royal Family, unlike some attention wh*res we could mention (Oprah cough…Serena..cough). Reese would have adorned the gathering but she had Smegma’s number.
I think if Reese produced a podcast and invited Catherine to participate during her American tour that would be SUBLIME. Also another Royal she could cultivate—Queen Camilla, who heads up her version of Reese’s book club at home. KCIII would approve. Everyone especially nice to his Queen gets an honor. Imagine how that would make Harry’s wife go ballistic. I hope it happens, therefore.
As for the invite to the wedding, she was born in like New Orleans, raised the first couple of years in Germany and then in Tennessee - I looked at it (thanks but no) and thought: maybe she was thinking of her Southern/social norms of early childhood roots of if you get a dish of food from someone in community then you gotta return it with something? Perhaps it was more of a don't want to be asked for a (what I fear might be) favor because I invited you to my wedding call when I least expect it?
saw this
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11392149/Prince-William-King-Charles-exploded-torrents-profanity-following-comments-Trump.html
And thought: why now? Who really gains from this "outburst" which supposedly happened long ago? It's not like Trump was president or thinking of running in 2012.
So really why would they have felt such strong responses when HM, from whom presumably they would want to be learning from how to respond to world events they may/may not feel a strong response about, would be thinking (and calmly) how to "practice how to" respond as prep for the future?
why now? and who benefits at this point in time? odd at best
"I wasn’t aware that Reese Witherspoon had met Catherine before" Neither do I.😂 But since everyone was talking about MM's obsession with Reese and you cite the Princess of Wales, I raised an eyebrow and thought what if Reese prefers PoW...I found the PoW link and Reese's
....
Here is the HQ article - November 16 -UK with the names of the honorees.
I did not find the name of MM. Now I don't know if she won't be honored or if it will be a surprise appearance of hers.
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/men-of-the-year/article/gq-men-of-the-year-2022-honourees
Hmm...
As you point out, this surfaced in Newsweek back in March this year - Andersen's book is to be available here on 8th December. So far, a quick Google search gives one review - in Vanity Fair. That tells us something.
I suspect that, in the UK at least, one's attitude towards strong language depends on where one stands with regard to social class and experience of HM Forces - there's that story of when an apprentice at one of the late Queen's industrial visits who uttered something inappropriate in her hearing. Poor lad was mortified but HM put him at ease with -
`I'm married to a sailor and I've heard it all before.'
And of course, there's the story about what she said on parade when an officer apologised for his charger's prolonged, noisy and presumably very smelly, flatulence...
The `Upper Classes' traditionally were very direct in their speech. I think it's to be those who try desperately to be `nice', (the `Jen Teales' of this world, as dubbed by Jilly Cooper), who get most upset. Not liking Billy Connelly used to be a good indicator - and I once worked with a woman who crooked her little finger as she took potato crisps (US:chips) from the packet.
I imagine that she'd be prepared to pay a couple of people (one to nominate, the other to second) to put her name forward. No sneakiness too low for her.
Trump was wrong - she was topless, not nude.
Although I doubt Andersen's sources, in this case he states his source as a butler. There is a butler who worked for Charles who now has a YouTube channel. He is a firm royalist, and he would have been around the family to hear the reaction. (Harry still had his home with his father at Clarence House; William and Catherine were often at Clarence House.)
Catherine was not in a public space but on a balcony of a private house on a secluded estate. (The photographer climbed a tall tree and used a zoom lens.) There was no value to the photograph other than tacky voyeurism.
I would be as critical if such a photograph was taken and published of the Montecito duchess, who has had topless photos of her published, but they were photographs she posed for and which were published on social media by her and a friend.
In addition, every time the Montecito duchess has been papped in public, she has looked directly into the lens and smiled, even if the photographer was some distance away and using a zoom lens.
Another shot via Scobie, written by a freelancer called Ellen Manning. Her website makes it clear she's a `gun-for-hire':
Copywriting & blogs
Not everyone likes writing, I get that. So if you’re struggling to get your message across on your website, packaging or anywhere else, I can help you do that. I can produce concise, web-friendly copy for your site, snappy text for your packaging and can help you with the wording on your social media or any other business literature.
at http://ellenmanning.co.uk/author/ellenmanning/
Are we to be subjected to a daily bulletin(g?) from OS?
* The prince playing with the dog by the pool.
* Doria playing with Archie (who was in a toy car thing) on a driveway.
https://www.tumblr.com/charlotte-of-wales/699996567213686784/the-prince-and-princess-of-wales-chatting-with#notes
The young aide 'moving along' the chatty Princess of Wales!
https://jennysexposes.quora.com/HARRY-THE-TRAITOR-Buckingham-Palace-can-not-be-looking-forward-to-the-new-10-part-series-of-The-Crown-on-Netflix-K?ch=18&oid=87447986&share=7d52590f&srid=ut6Tok&target_type=post
This person claims that the dastardly duo were paid to be secret advisers for 'The Crown', specifically for the latest series. The only proof offered is that the duo are treated very lightly and favourably in the latest series.
Imagine if this were true and it was revealed! However, the most shocking parts in the new series involve conversations where the hapless prince was not present and cannot know what was said in those fictional conversations. The hapless prince claims to not remember his childhood when his mother was still alive, thus he ends up saying ridiculous things about never riding bikes and so on, when there is photographic evidence that his 'implanted memories' are not the truth.
However, if there is another series, it will cover a time when the duo did participate in events and could give information to the writers for the series.
...This is a tiny drop of tea I just heard. They are really broke and she is getting ready to debut these kids somehow. I don't know if she's having portraits done to release to the media (who apparently call her kid the n-word)-- or if she's going whole hog showbiz attempt, but Harry is vehemently against it to the point where it causes them arguments and has put HIS foot down, but we know Meghan won't let that stop her. Just saying there are rumors that portrait are coming out and that Merchie and Lillibucks may trickle more and more into the public eye to finance Meghan's life.
* really gets off on having us all on like this…why would anyone rent out her kid for this sick con is beyond me. More SohobHouse shenanigans, no doubt. Note that there have been no further sightings of Lilibucks in the 5 months since she was swiftly named as the grandchild of a Windsor gardener.
In the scant handful of staged photo ops with ‘his kids’ over the years, there is utterly ZERO sense of engagement from Harry with the kids and the feeling is mutual. He doesn’t have the stomach for the con that she does. Keeping up the pretense has aged him 15 years in 5. Let’s just see how much of SPARE he devotes to “The Children.”
Wasn't she supposed to be getting an award, and be a special guest? Both stories were widely reported but she is not on the list of people being honoured.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/mr-de-spare-and-no-24/
Or was it just me who missed it?
Wasn't she supposed to be getting an award, and be a special guest?
Indeed she was, supposedly. Is this in the same vein as all her transparent PR lies? Such as the Queen was baking her a cake etc. Wasn't she also supposed to be at/present the Oscars - supposedly - a few years ago?
The latest Harry Markle blog was mentioned in the previous post. I had a look in case I'd missed it too and realised I'd missed a sentence - I did read it quickly the first time - although it's in bold and italics.
With amount of ‘help’ from unqualified bodies TOS has received including that from his puppet master, TOS may have false memory syndrome which has formed the basis of his memoirs.
That's what I have always believed, i.e. unqualified bodies and false memories syndrome. H has so deteriorated psychologically that the above makes perfect sense. I wouldn't put it past * to have worked in a nefarious and pernicious manner behind the scenes.
The above sentence from the HM blog should be quoted as a warning to readers of the book. Too late for it to be printed.
Ever since Hairy bounced/kicked that child off his leg in New York, that was the biggest clue Hairy has no children. A parent, a teacher, anyone in regular contact with children would never have treated a child that way.
If there were children, Trotter would have dressed them adorably, and put them on parade at the Jubilee. And she would have used the children, if they were real, to infiltrate the other royal families who were gathered.
Hairy not allowing photos of the "children" is a load of BS.
If Harry has daddy issues, his trendy Spare ghostwriter JR Moehringer wrote the book on them
The American behind the prince’s long-awaited tome has previously laid bare his troubled relationship with his own father
It does not bode well for King Charles. The Duke of Sussex’s ghost writer, JR Moehringer, is an expert in fraught father-son relationships.
His 2005 memoir, The Tender Bar, is the story of an absent father, who was an “unstable mix of charm and rage” and left Moehringer in need of “men as mentors, heroes [and] role models”.
His best-known and successful work, as ghost writer for Andre Agassi’s autobiography Open, revealed how domineering and tunnel-visioned the sportsman’s father was. Emmanuel Agassi hung a tennis ball mobile above his infant son’s crib and taped a ping-pong paddle to his hand to encourage him to bat them away.
It is no wonder the palace is said to be particularly concerned about the revelations in Prince Harry’s memoir, Spare, about his relationship with his father.
Ghost writers are usually one of publishing’s dirty secrets, and Moehringer’s name was left off the announcement from Penguin Random House that it was publishing the book.
But Moehringer, 57, who lives in California, is one of the most high-profile ghost writers of his generation, and will be integral to the book’s success. He is believed to have been introduced to the couple by their friends, George and Amal Clooney. George directed last year’s film adaptation of The Tender Bar, which starred Ben Affleck as Moehringer’s Uncle Charlie, who owns the titular bar.
Publishing insiders have been impressed by the choice of ghost writer for Spare, which will be released on January 10. “The Tender Bar is extraordinary. JR is the real deal,” said Patrick Janson-Smith, who published Moehringer’s 2012 novel Sutton when he ran Blue Door, a former HarperCollins imprint. “He showed that with Open too — that wasn’t just any old hack job, it was a good few cuts above the average sporting memoir.
“He lends a weight and a sincerity to everything he writes, which I think will play very well with the Harry memoir, where he will go deep into the emotions, especially of losing his mother so young.”
The historian Robert Lacey added: “I’m struck by the focus of his psychological analysis and by the power of his narrative imagery . . . And I’ve also been struck by how some of Harry’s [recent] statements about himself and his feelings have tended to sound more Moehringer than Windsor.”
When Harry and Meghan decided to quit the royal family in January 2020, a summit was held at Sandringham with the Queen, Harry, Charles and William, where the tensions between the duke and his father and brother were clear. In March 2021, the couple gave their tell-all interview to Oprah Winfrey in which Harry said that Charles had stopped taking his calls, and that he felt “really let down” by his father, adding: “There is a lot of hurt that’s happened.”
Moehringer and Harry come from different worlds, but there are some parallels in their lives. Moehringer’s parents had an unhappy marriage, and he dedicated The Tender Bar to his mother, Dorothy, who died in 2019. There are echoes of Diana: Dorothy was a beautiful woman whose most frequent facial expression was self-command, like “a young aristocrat posing for her coming-out portrait”. She “could be gentle and fragile, but would assuredly be fierce when protecting those she loved”.
Here, though, the similarities end. Moehringer grew up in poverty, with a father — the disc jockey Johnny Michaels — who shirked his financial obligations and whose “one true genius was disappearing”. Michaels was violent repeatedly towards Dorothy, until she was forced to leave when her son was only seven months old. As a young child, Moehringer never saw his father, so only knew him from his voice on the radio, which “was so deep, so ominous, it made my ribs vibrate and the utensils tremble”.
His mother, who had been denied a college education by her own father, wanted Moehringer to study at Harvard or Yale and become a lawyer, so he could sue his father for child support.
Moehringer, who is married to the book editor Shannon Welch, with whom he has two children, went to Yale but instead became a writer. He started as a news assistant at The New York Times, and in 2000 at the Los Angeles Times he won the Pulitzer prize for a feature about the descendants of slaves living beside a stretch of the Alabama river.
It was the Agassi book, published in 2009, that made Moehringer’s career, though. No blushes were spared — the book reveals that Agassi’s mother once walked in on her mother-in-law breastfeeding the infant Agassi — but it is considered an exceptional piece of writing too.
“It was a game-changer,” said the managing director of a rival publishing house. “It made people realise that celebrity memoirs could be of that calibre. We then had Keith Richards’s brilliant memoir, which [the journalist] James Fox co-wrote. It showed what a ghostwriter can do — what happens when you throw a literary talent into the mix. Open was honest, beautifully written and full of surprises — on the first page Agassi reveals he hates tennis.”
“We know Moehringer will thoroughly plumb the negative, but I’d hope he’ll also illuminate the positive — how Diana’s brother and sisters parented both boys after her death, perhaps,” said Lacey. “I’d also hope to discover more about the personal trust and intimacy that Harry clearly established with his grandmother — which took some by surprise during the unrolling of Megxit. Then there are the resentments Harry must have developed towards both his father and his brother in those years, but is not known to have voiced until the arrival of Meghan. He was such a happy and loyal ‘spare’ until she arrived and got him thinking.”
Obviously I've got no way to know how involved the Spencers were with "the boys." I do hope they were involved as loving aunts and a loving uncle. And it appears Harry may have remained closer to them than Will. But while we have heard alot about what happened with W&H after Diana died, so far as I know, we've not ever heard from anyone that the Spencer siblings were surrogate parents to Diana's teenage sons. And so far as I know, *neither* of Diana's sons has spoken of Diana's sibs as stand-in parents.
From an outsider's perspective, it seems Charles Spencer gave a public eulogy at Diana's funeral that was designed to wound the royal family. And then he disappeared. At least he disappeared until it was time to drag his sister's corpse out to raise money to support his estate and perhaps to support his 7 children, 2 ex-wives, and current wife.
I know it's been discussed to death but the outfit Lady Jane Fellowes supposedly wore to Archie's christening (per the Sussex photo) was unreal. As someone who moves in society and royal circles (Jane is married to the a former private secretary of the Queen's) no way she would have shown up for *any* kind of religious service at Windsor Castle in that casual "out for a country walk" outfit and hat.
@WildBoar
Reminds me of a ‘lady’
my mum knew.
Resembled ‘Mrs Slocombe’
always referred to house
as hoyse.
She lived in a council flat.
@Karla 😘
@Maneki
I agree, false memory syndrome
along with false sense of reality 😉
Grease Slithersloon
Reese and Fleece
never gonna work
One multi-talented
t’other berserk
Meh’s Big Little Lies
sparking Little Fires Everywhere
Legally Blonde
has extinguished the mare…
Grease Slithersloon
Reese and Fleece
never gonna work
One multi-talented
t’other berserk
Meh’s Big Little Lies
sparking Little Fires Everywhere
Legally Blonde
has extinguished the mare…
Re the Harkles at Jackson Hole, the child may well have been borrowed but I've examined the pix and it is definitely H and also *.
Never mind, we'll probably be treated to a charming little family scene (with the children's faces hidden) on Thanksgiving Day.
Thank you for posting the Times article. The last sentence sums up the whole thing: He was such a happy and loyal ‘spare’ until she arrived and got him thinking. Precisely, although I wouldn't say she got him thinking, I'd say she deviously poisoned his mind so that he now believes everything his master instilled into him.
The thought of `false-memory syndrome' had crossed my mind.
If/when * had got him to the point of doubting his own perception of reality, it'd be quite easy to do. Even if he said he had absolutely not experienced parental abuse, for example, he could have been open to the suggestion that he had but the memory was `repressed'.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/thousands-gather-liz-truss-effigy-010655736.html
Charles Spencer has apparently become a novelist…quite successfully, with a series of books. Apart from his grandstanding turn at Diana’s funeral with his eulogistic equivalent of napalm, he is best remembered for refusing Diana sanctuary at her childhood home after the divorce. She asked if she could have a cottage on the estate and he said absolutely not.
To be fair, he feared the media frenzy and attendant security issues that would’ve descended upon Althorp if he’d agreed, and he had a young family. But he made no overtures to support his sister in a crisis…and imagine what it cost Diana in her pride to have to go begging to her little brother for the privilege of even visiting her childhood home. Harry thinks he has reasons for grievances over being the spare; imagine how Earl Spencer’s sisters felt, having to defer to their kid brother who received all the goodies. Echoing the Queen’s own family, the Spencer’s also had two sets of children separated by a large age gap. Diana and Charles would have grown up together as “the little kids” in the family. Charles is the same age as Edward. So his failure to extend a helping hand to Diana in her hour of need must have felt like a huge betrayal. As his eulogy must have felt to the Royals. The Queen was his godmother. His grandmother Lady Fermoy was lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mum and helped to push Diana forward for Prince Charles. Sir Robert Fellowes was also equerry in the Queen’s household. So Earl Spencer’s laying of blame so publicly was extraordinarily outspoken and caustic. In another century such a brazen display against the monarch might have resulted in dire consequences. In any event, despite his pointed words about raising William and Harry ‘better’…the boys seem to have given their Spencer side a fairly wide berth, at least their uncle. By that showboating move, Charles sent himself to Coventry and it turned out to be little more than words.
This photo of a young and handsome Johnnie Spencer shows that Charles and especially Lady Sarah look just like him. I’m not sure I ever realized before that Diana’s mother had another baby boy, John, before Diana who died. Had he lived, how different history might look. Perhaps Diana and Charles would never have been born at all if the male heir had been secured with the third child. God’s ways are mysterious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spencer,_8th_Earl_Spencer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spencer,_8th_Earl_Spencer
Her weight does fluctuate dramatically in a short period. Pharmaceuticals for dramatic weight loss and bad eating habits for rapid weight gain could be the explanation. (Her skin is not that of someone who has healthy eating, drinking and exercise habits.) The swimming pool seems to be used for lounging poolside or on a float with drink in hand. I doubt that she has the sort of gym exercise regime that Catherine has, and she never seems to have been a fan of jogging/running.
I think it’s Maneki who suggested false memories, but I concur that H has been brainwashed by a number of methods. The control his wife exhibits over him resembles what hypnotists do to subjects under their mind control. Watching her control him in public via tapping and clutching and clawing, it’s not a far stretch to imagine her undermining his memories. This is why it was so critical to start isolating him immediately from friends and family Who could counteract her concocted narrative of them both being victims. She couldn’t allow him to experience affirmation of his wholesome memories or having him creating new memories of good times with familiar people who care about him. Hers Hass to be the sole voice he is listening to.
I have never volunteered for hypnosis but doubt I would be susceptible to suggestion. H is a perfect subject: childhood trauma, weak personal boundaries, substance dependency, very immature coping skills. He reminds me of a poorly trained dog that snarks and snaps at everyone, spoiling for a fight because of never having been disciplined properly who cones across a handler who knows how to dominate him and he turns very subservient to the Alpha. Harry is not capable of self-leadership and was prime target for coercive control. I know that practitioners of Hipnosis and other forms of mind control, whether they be psychologists, professional interrogators for law-enforcement and the military or stage entertainers in Vegas Spend years of study and practice and honing these techniques. So I would be quite surprised if Harry’s wife for applying these in a conscious systematic way. This woman cannot pass a basic civil service exam, so do I think that she is a high-level mentalist? No… I don’t think she comes to her methods of controlling Harry via assiduous study of psychology textbooks. I think she’s just learned how to physically and verbally bully people to get her way and has hit upon a particularly malleable target.
Reese and Fleece! 😂
Mrs Slocombe! And Mr Humphries. I loved Are You Being Served? and all the double entendres😉
@Wild Boar
Markle's effigy, very good idea. Actually, Lewes* is in Sussex, this would be most fitting for the Duchess of Sussex.
* For non UK Nutties, Lewes has the biggest bonfire in the UK. Bonfire night is on 5th November, Guy Fawkes night (he of the gunpowder plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament).
Reese and Fleece! 😂
Mrs Slocombe! And Mr Humphries. I loved Are You Being Served? and all the double entendres😉
@Wild Boar
Markle's effigy, very good idea. Actually, Lewes* is in Sussex, this would be most fitting for the Duchess of Sussex.
* For non UK Nutties, Lewes has the biggest bonfire in the UK. Bonfire night is on 5th November, Guy Fawkes night (he of the gunpowder plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament).
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
37m
Exclusive -- our tech team did a massive incognito investigation, uncovering:
There is an orchestrated campaign to make Prince Harry seem 'more lustworthy'.
In desperate attempt to make him sexually desirable we saw:
-Misleading (false) accts sexually charged speak
-Photoshop
Theresa Longo Fans
@BarkJack_
·
34m
ASIDE from technical findings, we wanted confirmation from someone working on their team. Yesterday, We posed as someone else and made calls.
It's absolutely confirmed, a part of their social strategy to try to make this guy seem "lustworthy". WHY do you think this is?
So, has anybody figured out where Harry's Hideout is (or pied-a-terre if you wanna get all fancy about it)? I'm not going to be allowed to waste my time on the internet this morning doing amateur sleuthing (sigh), so I might as well get to work.
While a lot of people think he's hiding out with Eugenie in Lisbon, don't some of the royal castles still have dungeons? Useful things, dungeons. They could put some furniture down there, lock the doors for his 'safety' in case his wife comes looking for him, and a cell phone signal would never get through to give his location away.
I may be way off the mark or the two guys running the Barkjack account might have had far more than their usual bottles of wine for Sunday lunch, but it is fun to have some gossip to enjoy.
Recent reporting and court cases say that he'd said no to a particular home, but offered other homes on the estate, including the ancestral home. He sued more than once re: misreporting and won all times.
Court proceedings showed that while the Earl had refused his sister's request to use The Garden House cottage on his Althorp estate in Northamptonshire (around 75 miles north of London), this was primarily because the home was needed by a member of staff.
The Earl then offered Diana the use of other homes on the Althorp estate, including the large, 16th century mansion Wormleighton Manor, but she ultimately decided against staying in any of the properties.
https://people.com/royals/princess-dianas-brother-charles-spencer-wins-new-legal-victory-over-lie-that-he-deprived-diana-of-a-home/
IIRC, I expressed my hope, at this time of year in 2019, that Lewes would burn her effigy but they probably chose whoever was PM at the time. I watched the BBC4 programme on the Gunpowder Plot last night - it was excellent. Moreover, Diarmaid McCulloch, an Anglican, expressed the view that it was high time to stop celebrating Guy Fawkes - we should be past that. I rather agree with him but Lewes presumably still celebrates religious bigotry but daren't risk accusations of racism.
BTW, anyone interested in the effects of the Reformation on the ordinary folk of England should look at Mculloch's book `The Stripping of the Altars' - even without the ghastly things that each side did to the other. It brings home what it must have been like to have the certainties that had underlain everyday life suddenly removed - traumatic.
For anyone interested in other things that go on here on 5th November, try a search for `Ottery St Mary Tar Barrels' - there's one professional video (the one with an image worthy of Rembrandt) which made my husband exclaim `Bloo-dy He-ll!'
No bigotry, just lunacy!
Not at all, please don't apologise. I didn't remember you mentioned burning *'s effigy at the Lewes bonfire in 2019. Maybe in Lewes they'll think of it for next year. She's not popular in the county.
Booksellers putting a positive spin on the January publication date, but independent booksellers can't afford to match the discounted price.
Our favorite Redditor source thinks Harry's probably staying in some BetterUp-provided housing in the San Francisco Bay area.
From the Epress:
Desperate Democrats put Meghan Markle as top choice for 2024 White House run against Trump
🤣🤣🤣
/If only I had enough money to be able to afford two weeks of silence, privacy, no cooking, and good books.
Whether the person on the phone, who was saying this, wanted it to be overheard is anyone's guess. But these two sentences were troubling:
"They (Harry and his wife) are going to great lengths to ensure we know nothing about those two children, and furthermore, they are spreading misinformation about them."
"The Queen never once saw Archie or Lilibet."
This is what I was told by somebody on Quora who works for the Royal Household. I have messaged them many times about conversations that are overheard within the Palace walls. If this is factual, and I have no reason to believe it isn't true, I think we can expect something to happen before too long.
No one has been banned from school runs. We can absolutely refute that with firsthand knowledge.
A targeted smear campaign with collusion appears to continue. Rest assured every aspect of it is well documented; such that their only option will be to concede, bitterly.
Apparently a rumor was going around on Twitter that PWoW was banned from doing school runs because he was flirting with other mothers.
Theresa Longo has now talked a couple of times about how BP is documenting online attacks on the BRF and that they're keeping their powder dry, so to speak, and do intend to take action at some future point in time.
...the Palace is aware of it too and not keen on it.
In fact, the TEA is there is quiet, careful documentation going on about social trends related to that fan group in relation to Royal Tours and targeted harassment of members of the RF.
I would LOVE for Liar to be tied to some of this cyber warfare.
He even posted his resignation on twitter and Elon Musk responded. Although, he deleted this twitter, many took screenshots of his post.
So some members of the squad were employees of Twitter, and they were fired.
Now we understand all those Hashtags against RF and why the Sugars migrated heavily to Twitter.
Elon Musk bought Twitter. Well, everyone knows that, but....He fired many employees and many of them were from Sussex Squad. I went to check, the information is true. One of them use the name @innanoshe Richard Akuson and he attacked BRF and promoted H&M on his twitter.
He even posted his resignation on twitter and Elon Musk responded. Although, he deleted this twitter, many took screenshots of his post.
So some members of the squad were employees of Twitter, and they were fired.
Now we understand all those Hashtags against RF and why the Sugars migrated heavily to Twitter.
With the information coming out that Twitter employees were rejecting people's application for the blue check status and then offering to 'expedite' the process for $5,000 to $15,000, it seems that there was a lot of criminal activity going on there.
"With the information coming out that Twitter employees were rejecting people's application for the blue check status and then offering to 'expedite' the process for $5,000 to $15,000, it seems that there was a lot of criminal activity going on there"👏👏
...
Exactly! Thank you for posting this addition to my info!
Thank you for the news from the Express that * was a 'top choice for 2024 White House run against Trump'. This has brightened up my morning! I had a look at the article and here are a few choice paragraphs. Apparently the Democrats want a female candidate, not a white heterosexual male.
And the Duchess of Sussex, who is living in California with Prince Harry after quitting royal duties, came first in a list of potential runners with 27 percent from the 525 Democrats in the poll of 1,500 likely voters.
Vice President Kamala Harris was second with 25 percent.
Hillary Clinton - who lost to Donald Trump in 2016 - and left-wing Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were in joint third with 20 percent.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a favourite of the liberal left who made a bid to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, trailed behind on eight percent.
If true - it's hard to think she came first in the poll - it would be gratifying to see her standing against Trump. But she wouldn't be able to stand as Duchess of Sussex. It's one or the other. Finally, here is a good comment from a reader:
'There is Spare, Despair and now Desparate' (sic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zb99Pov9-A
If there is any truth to this and Twunt is considered a legitimate candidate for the office occupied by the likes of the gentlemen whose busts are on Mount Rushmore…then we truly are in the last days of the United States of America. Took us only 241 years to fall apart. Upstart crow indeed.
Even five years ago that would’ve been inconceivable to me, but now the fact that it scares the crap out of me that she might actually achieve her ultimate aim just goes to show how far into hell in a handbasket we’ve fallen. It’s the worlds most poorly kept secret that our current chief executive suffers from dementia and needs to be steered by minders so that he doesn’t wander away on his way to the toilet. After events commencing in 2016, confidence and government is at an all time low. It looks like it’s just about cocktail hour in Britain so pour yourself a good stiff drink and Google “Dylan Mulvaney”. Biden recently met or is as I write meeting with this person to discuss transgender rights and this person’s feelings on “American women”. There might be a new cabinet post created for this person: secretary for transgender rights. Because this person uses the pronouns she/they, she/they are all over social media And she/they has just become a spokes person… Or a spokespeople if feeling particularly theysie on a given day for Ulta Beauty. Potential running mate for Megatron perhaps. They can bond over their love for wigs ha ha.
`Lost beyond Pluto''s latest - some appropriate graphics.
Of course, we don't know just who the `1,500 likely voters' were. Did they think `Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer'? Were they bots, perhaps?
Reading about the "Democracy Institute" in Washington, DC, it seems to be a very small non-profit centered around a former reporter named Patrick Basham, someone I've never heard of.
This isn't how either major party in the U.S. conducts its electoral polls -- something both parties take very seriously. I really wouldn't let this article or this study worry you.
Tessa Dunlop is interesting when she is not talking about the duo. She is a historian, and here she talks passionately about the Queen and Prince Phillip (her latest book).
-----
Are Democrats in Washington DC seriously keen on having the Duchess as their presidential candidate? Quite frightening isn't it?
But, I think she is going to strut into that appearance at the Robert Kennedy gig all puffed up with her own importance, and she gets careless when she is in that state. Expected entertainment value should be high.
A mix of gossip about the children.
The gossip does not add up to me.
In the photographs and videos we have seen of Archie he is never interacting with either parent and is usually turned away from or running away from them. How did he now become a clingy child with severe separation anxiety? So severe that he has to be removed from school and get special care?
If this is a rumour spread by her, why does she want to push the narrative that the one or both children have separation issues? Is she just blabbing gormlessly as usual, or is she trying to manipulate the husband in some way?
No way was TBW ever going to live on Africa but I think she played along until she got the ring on her finger.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11399087/King-Charles-III-didnt-realise-Meghan-Markle-biracial-new-book-claims.html
I think Andersen is a bit of a fantasists, claiming to have sources that he never names. But I do think the person who had a major issue about race was the Duchess herself, and her husband. Classical Jungian shadow psychology.
Surely she will have to settle for that lesser position first before she makes it to the white house. BO and HC had to do this before either ran for the Presidency. The King has top global wealth so maybe between him and her backers she can sidestep all that.
Interesting times indeed. I must say, she and Henry would be much more entertaining than JB or KH.
" this isn't how either major party in the U.S. conducts its electoral polls -- something both parties take very seriously. I really wouldn't let this article or this study worry you. "
Lol. Polls taken seriously. In our country? Who still thinks that?
Sorry. I just can't. No offense meant.
...I also heard that Archie has been removed from nursery over severe anxiety around socializing with others and that official people are working with the family and ostensibly telling Harry and Meghan they have to interact with the kids and can't just desert them for three weeks at a time.
"Official people"? I guess a manager at his daycare (a mandated reporter) can be considered an "official person." So can a child psychologist. Does anyone see Child Protection Services being called over this?
Polls taken seriously. In our country? Who still thinks that?
I don't think I understand. Do you not think our two major parties conduct polling? Or that they conduct the polls, but don't act on the results?
We're talking big money.
Im so sorry you still believe. I wish I could.
Re the survey, I would doubt that most of the people that were asked about * even knew who she is. They were just hoping that she wasn't as awful as the rest of the choices. It would be amusing to listen to KH and MM argue about who is the most authentically black woman.
From our favorite Redditor:
...I also heard that Archie has been removed from nursery over severe anxiety around socializing with others and that official people are working with the family and ostensibly telling Harry and Meghan they have to interact with the kids and can't just desert them for three weeks at a time.
"Official people"? I guess a manager at his daycare (a mandated reporter) can be considered an "official person." So can a child psychologist. Does anyone see Child Protection Services being called over this?
Interesting. I'm going to go waaaay out on a limb here, little further, further still...yep, this is about right. It sounds to me as though the child, if he is real, doesn't want to leave the school and teachers to interact with the (alleged) parents. How many nannies do you suppose he has been through in his three years? I could easily believe that if she were displeased by something that a small child does, she would fire a nanny that he is very fond of to punish him.
But, I can also see her starting this rumor in order to explain the missing pieces.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2022
Blind Item #13
The alliterate one finally found someone who will come to the house to give her Botox, rather than having to risk getting caught doing it out in the wild.
What I heard is that a state official is working with and watching Archie. It makes me wonder if...
From our favorite Redditor:
...I also heard that Archie has been removed from nursery over severe anxiety around socializing with others and that official people are working with the family and ostensibly telling Harry and Meghan they have to interact with the kids and can't just desert them for three weeks at a time.
@Henrietta: When a child has problems socializing, it can also be a sign of a child being on the autism spectrum. They are often overwhelmed by new people, new experiences and social situations.
Also: studies are showing a link between maternal age and a noticeable increase in the babies of older mothers having autism.
I have a family member who had her children late. The first child was born when she was 40 and has no problems. The second was born 15 months later and is mildly autistic. You don’t notice it right away, but it is apparent in social situations and conversations with her.
I'm not saying that [that CPS is involved]. But I am wondering. He is supposedly highly anxious to the point that he is not socially thriving and seems stunted in what he is able to learn to do just because he is so beset by anxiety. This person supposedly told the Harkles that he is not attached to his parents and is working with the family to help them form attachments, but he seems anxious about even trying to learn to attach to Meghan. I did not hear but assume the same is true for Harry.
From what I hear the school initiated this [withdrawing Archie from nursery] when they realized they were not equipped to keep him at the school. I have no idea who this individual working with them is or where they are from. And again this is gossip.
This is so sad, but hardly surprising given *'s personality disorder. Is Harry AWOL? Or could this have been what triggered him to leave her?
Getting a protest so let's back away and let that topic be.
If there is something real about them and politics, it will make itself known sooner or later.
I don't see how a delay in that as a discussion topic would make a bit of difference in some final outcome but if you can think of a way it might, let us know your thoughts and it would be considered.
thanks Moderators
Little people with autism have a hard time with overpowering sensory stimuli. They have a tendency to shut down to block it all out. They may hide under tables or in other small spaces, cover their ears, avoid direct eye contact, or just curl up and scream. They truly don't understand subjectivity. If a test question about a paragraph in the text where a person says "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade" then are asked about the meaning of the sentence, their answer will not be making something good out of bad situation, but that the protagonists were thirsty.
Small autists need intensive early intervention in things like facial expressions in order to understand the emotions that are being expressed. Otherwise, they are clueless.
Remember in the past that we've heard rumors of Archie in a school for children with special needs in the context of him being so advanced? It doesn't appear that he has received or is receiving the services that he needs.
And here I am babbling about a child that I am not sure even exists.
While she may not be abusive to the kid, I wonder if she is a abusing the nannies, other household staff, and Harry in front of him.
Which could cause extreme anxiety I would imagine. It causes me anxiety and I'm old.
Also, I could see her as far less than nurturing with her kid(s).
From theNew York Post:
Inside Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s ‘lovely’ low-key date night
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were finally able to sneak away from their two tots for a low-key date night.
The pair dined at the duly named restaurant “The Dutchess” recently and an insider told Page Six they were “incredibly pleasant” and “really polite to the staff” throughout the evening.
Harry, 38, and Markle, 41, chose to stay under the radar with our source saying “you would never have noticed” the royal couple were even at the Ojai, Calif. hotspot.
“No one approached them and if people recognized them no one showed it,” the insider told us, emphasizing that the pair were “lovely guests.”
Although the Duke and Duchess of Sussex didn’t have a reservation and it was the “first time they’ve been there,” they were quickly seated. They went on to share half a tandoori chicken before heading home to son Archie, 3, and daughter Lilibet, 1.
Earlier this month, the former “Suits” actress gushed about the Prince’s “great” parenting amid their “chaotic” mornings on an episode of her “Archetypes” podcast.
“For me, it’s both monitors on for the kids to hear them. Always up with Lili, get her downstairs. Then a half hour later, Archie’s up. Start doing his lunch box right before he’s up while I have her, getting her a little nibble. My husband helps me get him downstairs,” she described.
Markle went on to explain that she prepares food for her family of four and their three dogs.
“I make breakfast for all three of them,” she said. “It’s very important to me. I love doing it.”
“To me, it just feels like the greatest way to start the morning, and then it’s like, feed all three of the dogs — because we just got another dog — and then get Archie out the door to school. … It feels like a whirlwind,” she continued.
While their mornings may be a bit hectic, the pair have put their children at the forefront even since infamously leaving the royal family in January 2020.
Harry has since opened up about his own “traumatic” childhood in his new memoir, “Spare,” which is expected to be “highly destructive.”
Although the Duke of Sussex has reportedly written about his life in a way that will “minimize the fallout,” he is trying to stay “true to his principles,” a royal insider told Us Weekly.
However, Harry has made it clear that the book will focus on his life outside of just being a prince.
“I’ve worn many hats over the years, both literally and figuratively, and my hope is that in telling my story — the highs and lows, the mistakes, the lessons learned — I can help show that no matter where we come from, we have more in common than we think,” he said in a statement.
I doubt that there are real children, but in case there are, that child is doomed.
A very interesting Twitter account of an American PR person ... I had forgotten about it but stumbled across it yesterday. The following is fascinating (I gave done a copy and paste of several tweets):
@UKRoyalTea
A thread about why the Sussexes are not paying for social and online content:
1️⃣ H&M can’t afford it. The minimum buy in for one of those outlets for sponsored content starts around $30-50K.
2️⃣ H&M don’t have to. Whether you like them or not, they drive online traffic.
3️⃣ While this does align with a big Sussex PR push, because of the Queen passing away, interest in the royals is at an all time high. We are seeing the whole family get written about daily in outlets that usually only cover the big highlights. It’s not just the Sussexes.
4️⃣ Hearst owns all of the publications I keep seeing mentioned and run them as a giant network.
5️⃣ The publishing industry is running on incredibly tight margins and lean staffing. This is their version of syndicating to fill out around more tailored stories on their websites.
6️⃣ The social teams are the same. One team creating content across the wider brand, and then custom content for each specific outlet. These websites and magazine require a massive volume of social posts and moderation, so batching this content alleviates their workload.
7️⃣ The regulations & enforcement around disclosing when content is paid for are insane. Kim Kardashian just got fined $1.26 million for messing up. These major media companies cannot risk not disclosing (it’s different than, for example, paying for an award).
(I now can't find points 8 and 9!)
Trapped Wind
Let’s start at the bottom
guffed haz to Moehringer
I’ll give you the dirt
just pull my ringfinger
Bound together
through dollars and s-cents
Soon to release
his protracted flatulence…
@Maneki
“Flowery Twats”*
Meh is a special kind of hamster,
Californian 😉
@HappyDays
All that botox, she’s probably
suffering Mad Cow disease…
No disrespect to hamsters,
cows, or Californians 😜
*Fawlty Towers
@Sandie
She markled her territory
in Africa, rained supreme
on the golden pain 😉
Step in Stone
Spare harry
bridge too far
Burned all his boats
door shut, not ajar
Sold his soul
for a petrified* wife
Time to realise
this is his life…
*stony substance
I could easily believe that if she were displeased by something that a small child does, she would fire a nanny that he is very fond of to punish him.
Didn't Diana do something similar, over Tiggy? Also, she made Charles get rid of a dog he was fond of because it was connected with his life before marriage.
See https://www.history.com/news/explosive-new-book-details-paranoia-and-instability-that-rocked-a-royal-marriage
The first is that Harry is an Adonis and he keeps Meghan awake all night with his sexual healing because her body is a wonderland; to the point that he makes himself a temporary cripple from all his chitty chitty bang bang.
The second is their love life is a tundra. Their palm fronds haven’t touched in months. They’re prepared to divorce and they’ve been separated for a while but they have been keeping up appearances.
One of the rumors is true? Neither? And if only one, which was started by Meghan? Or did she start both? Why? Just drama?
Because I think that date night in a tandoori oven story may have pointed to option two being the truth and option one being her teen vogue way of dealing with it…
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/ypf46o/so_two_realities_are_being_proposed_married_bliss/
Too good not to share!
I don't think they are for heading for a separation followed by a divorce. They are a couple who will remain locked in a toxic, at times bordering on abusive, relationship. It has become their normal.
I do think she would dump him if she could bag an influential billionaire. What would it take for him to go through the trauma of dumping her? If he did, she would make Angelina Jolie in her feud against Brad Pitt look like amateur hour. Even if she did dump him, she would attack him and prevent him from seeing and having a relationship with his children.
SecondhandCoke
8m
Disclaimer: All I say is just H'wood Gossip and shouldn't be considered fact until confirmed.
Netflix is allegedly holding firm on a December release or no release. They currently have nothing to release. If they did, they would already be promoting.
My opinion is that this is Meghan trying to make something happen by running it in the press.
SecondhandCoke
3m
Pretty sure that (Invictus Games documentary) was axed when Meghan made the games all about her and H. But mostly her.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/ypiov1/harry_wants_netflix_docuseries_delayed_until/
----------
The publication of the memoirs is set. I think Netflix would want to capitalize on the attention it would generate and thus would hold back on the supposed docuseries about their love story and IG. Start promoting early December to attract/keep subscribers?
I wonder if the confusion is not sown by the duchess herself, talking carelessly and inaccurately instead of leaving it in the hands of Netflix. I think the duo are impossible to control, but can Netflix just can all their projects and accept the loss of all those advances?
The IG documentary is the one that really baffles me. I would have thought the ideal time to release the documentary was when they were in Germany, just before the Queen died. The duo would have benefitted from the free publicity, as would the IG.
It is all rather bizarre!
Lots of kids--esp first borns--may have trouble adjusting to being in nursery school. Families who can afford a nanny or that have a stay at home parent often pull kids out for a year. And it doesn't portend lifelong issues or the presence of autism.
Some things I do wonder about though if this happened recently. We were led to believe Archie had started "school" by the time Philip died in April 2021. That's a year and a half ago. Surely he's not been exhibiting severe anxiety daily for 18 months & nobody has done anything until now!!!
So if the anxiety just happened after a relatively smooth start, what's different? We do know:
1. H&M are gone more because COVID restrictions have eased. So the crap they want to do is happening more.
2. Lili was born.
3. There could be a new nanny. We don't know for a fact, but we do know they go through staff fast.
4. They were gone a ridiculous amt of time when the Queen died and that wasn't necessary.
Another Tuesday, another podcast. This time, 'Meghan Markle today claimed that 'strong-minded women' are branded 'difficult' because it is codeword for 'b**ch'.' Is she talking about herself again? (rhetorical question).
'The Duchess of Sussex says that the 'B-word' is being used to 'gaslight' women who know what they want in her latest Archetypes podcast for Spotify.
Meghan also describes disliking the word 'pushy' and admits moderating her behaviour to avoid being perceived that way.'
I'm afraid it would need a lot more than 'moderating her behaviour'. I can't be bothered to read the rest.
She also, in another article, mentions growing up in front of the TV - we don't care - and 'This love of facts extended into my love of words and grammar, admiring people with expansive vocabularies.', talking about some game. Her love of words doesn'tshow an expansive vocabulary as she doesn't meven understand the meaning of archetype.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11403147/Meghan-Markle-reveals-love-Jeopardy-Archetypes-podcast.html
Agree that we are speculating without proof, but we make guesses based on what we observed. Archie has never displayed any attachment to either parent in the videos and photos we have seen of him, and is usually shown trying to get away from them! The description of mother and son greeting each other after school in The Cut article was odd, but children change as they grow, and you are right that it is within normal parameters for children to experience a period of attachment anxiety as they grow. But, it is also odd that the toddler Lili also seems to ignore the parents as described in The Cut article.
They indeed were away for a long time because of the Queen's death. She could easily have flown back to America and fetched the children and nanny or simply flown home and not attended the funeral, or gone home and then returned for the funeral.
Was she afraid to leave him alone in the UK? Was she desperate to not miss out on the biggest public event and thus biggest worldwide audience ever? Was she afraid she would be accused of disrespecting the Queen? I am sure it would have earned them a lot of goodwill if she had gone home to fetch the children, they stayed even longer and made sure that his close family got to spend time with the children.
Mellody Hobson sure does seem to like the duchess!
I completely disagree with her ... there is a difference between being rude and being assertive; being unreasonable and being firm; being demanding and asking for what you want; and so on. (And it is expected one is grown up enough to handle not always getting what you want, and self aware enough to know your limitations. She was gaslighting experts in their field.) She is the one gaslighting all those she has bullied and ill treated. That is the supreme irony of all of this ... but most prople, including the very many royal commentators, will be stymied by this ridiculous narrative.
She has given up all pretence to keep her vanity talks in line with the name of the podcast, which she tried to trademark.
If anyone—man, woman or child—hears the same criticism multiple times from different sources, it’s worth considering the criticism may very well have some truth to it. I had this realization a few years ago—I noticed over the years several people from different parts of my life leveled the same critique of me. I couldn’t just dismiss it, because it kept coming up. I realized that I had hurt people, even though that was, of course, not my intention. A lightbulb went off and I really grieved the pain I had caused people. It wasn’t easy but I went to some people I know I had hurt and I apologized to them. I think this is just the dark side of part of my personality, but that’s not an excuse to behave hurtfully towards others. I need to be mindful of it and be humble and behave better.
Obviously, Meggy is difficult. It’s apparent that word keeps coming up in her life. She has really hurt people. I just finished Courtiers and she really, really hurt people on her staff. She was the cause of real trauma. We all laugh at her silly outfits and messy hair, but this bullying behavior has real consequences for people, yet she continues to double down and make her egregious behavior sound like some kind of feminist virtue. It’s not right.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/ypjxdp/archetypes_podcast_discussion_thread_episode_9_to/
whether the kids exist or not the brf won’t pay and it will make them look mean. just mean i tell ya 😉
i’m still in camp no kids
she loves to throw people under the bus when she doesn’t get her way. interesting because we are coming up on christmas pic time. no pic?
or it’s someone just trolling us big time and to that kudos. keeps us young by engaging our minds 😉. i’m feeling like i’m 23 again!
NYP article
A couple of thoughts
The restaurant exists - Ojai which is like 30 miles away from Montecito. So that's a good distance round trip for them to go some place just for dinner. Isn't there a similar place a little closer for the eco-minded?
I've waited tables and most people are ok pleasant and those few who aren't, well you can pretty much tell when you walk up to the table that this one will keep you on your toes. But most are just not that way. So something which jumps out at me is the use of descriptive words to something and everything like glitter.
"...incredible pleasant..." um why? were you expecting something else? why do you need to tell me this? either they are which is a non-story or they aren't which is hot gossip and please tell us more.
"...really polite to staff..." Ditto.
The noodles after the mother daughter spa bonding. They were delicious (the wording as I remember it). Why do we need to know that part of the story - why add it at all or what does it add to the story? Most would say something about how we had shared a meal, traditional meal there, we had noodles (nothing descriptive after all these years) or something would be more like the first time I had Korean food or it taught me to love that type of food. But it doesn't. So why do we need to know this?
"...No one approached them and if people recognized them no one showed it...” Again, what were the expectations of whom and where did those come from? or was it still trying to undo Wimbledon? Ojai, like LA, HW, NYC is still an area where there could be a well known, recognizable person spotted (unlike say the middle of some tiny town in a state in the middle of the country) so people tend to see it and no feel a need to do anything.
From what I heard, and again, this is H'wood gossip, it was severe anxiety and panic attacks that prompted this.
It's possible he could be on the spectrum, I suppose, but on the reading video he was making eye contact and laughing at Harry and said "Dada" at one at which point the alliterate moron said, "He's saying duck!" Like he heard or gave a shit about that age inappropriate duck book.
In all honesty, I think their frequent absence, their distance from the kids even when they are home, and the alleged frequent and projectile fights have him scared of making connections. That is just my opinion. But a severe anxiety disorder in a kid growing up in that kind of environment (if it's true that Harry and Meghan are parenting like that) would occur in even the most neurologically typical person.
Oh, the gossip also is that this "official" working with the family is trying to coach Meghan out of trying to control and discipline even the most trivial behaviors. That checks out with the "manners make the man" bullshit. A three year old should be learning to stay in his seat and say please and thank you and not reaching for things, but asking for them. He should not be focusing on passing the goddamned salt and pepper together. In fact, asking a three year old to pass something is asking for a spill.
When talking about their “kids,” they both quickly switch to their dogs. They provide more information about their dogs. It’s just another reason that I believe the children do not exist. I think the latest diversion with Archie is a way of testing how they will explain that they are not real. They’ve totally dropped Lili, after the picture was torn to shreds on social media. She didn’t even try to defend that picture. I think that speaks volumes.
A brilliant speech by William.
just saw a quick shirt facebook reels. a woman goes through TSA with her hat on. at first doesn’t want to take it off. when she does she’s got the wig/hair attached to the hat underneath just a net cap over her real hair. it’s hilarious but boy that hair in that video looks just like the the wife’s hair and hat
Or could that be used as another version of `Archie running away with the circus'?
re the birthday video - if you recall, we wondered if `Archie's' real dad was present and it was he whom the lad was addressing. H was supposedly behind the camera but IIRC we thought the child's gaze was elsewhere.
The other thing about that episode was that gossip in SA said that he was a hired child and Meghan wanted exclusive rights for a considerable time afterwards, to prevent other modelling sessions giving the game away.
I always thought Friar was behind the camera and was the person Archie was looking towards. I have to admit I don't believe all the child actor theories. With the exception of one video on the beach, I think Archie is sadly the same child in all the videos and is in their custody.
The gossip our Redditor friend is sharing about him is heart-breaking, but not surprising. I pray Archie's issues are the reason Friar is splitting from Liar.
Children are taken into custody in California but, like across the U.S., only in extreme cases of abuse. No help for Archie or Lilibet from that quarter, I'm afraid.